training engineers to be managers: a transition tension model

296 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 39, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1992

Training Engineers to be Managers: A Transition Tension Model

James L. Hall, J. Michael Munson, and Barry Z. Posner

Abstract-Prior research on transitioning from engineer to manager has focused largely on the “content or mix” of managerial skills required to make the transition. The current research proposes that this transition be viewed a s part of a complex “process” occumng within the context of social exchange theory. A simple conceptual model is proposed which suggests that the transition involves three parties: the engineer-student, the employer-organization, and the university-college offering the formal management degree curriculum. Termed a dynamic tension model,’ the process perspective offers three advantages: it clarifies the costs, benefits and expectations of each of these three parties to the transition process; it identifies many of the tensions and dysfunctions likely to emerge between the parties; and it suggests actions each party should initiate to facilitate a smoother, more effective transition. Survey results from 132 engineers who were working full time while simultaneously pursuing their MBA degrees provide the database. Overall, the findings indicate that the engineer-students perceive their employers could do substantially more to facilitate the former’s transition from engineer to manager, including better and timely career counseling, greater dialogue about how management training will affect current job responsibilities, and increased recognition upon actual completion of their MBA degrees. Impli- cations a re discussed with respect to possible remedial actions the parties might initiate to promote a more effective transition.

I. INTRODUCTION ARLIER research on continuing education for engi- E neers was characterized by its focus on the threat of

professional obsolescence (e.g., [ 11, [5]). A current stream of research, however, is increasingly characterized by its focus on the importance and difficulty of making the transition from engineer to manager (e.g., [3], [9]). Whereas engineers are expected to be experts in a specific area, engineering managers need to possess a broad, cross- functional perspective [9]. Furthermore, engineers must acquire sound skills in a number of areas, including communication, staffing, organizing, planning, directing, and controlling [3], [SI. Senior engineering managers list a formal management education as one of the five most important steps in preparing for the transition from engineer to being a productive engineering manager [31. For- mal education programs include a range of engineering management programs [6], [7], as well as more traditional MBA programs.

Tension is used here in a management, rather than an engineering, sense. As such, it refers to a state of cognitive or emotional conflict.

Manuscript received July 16, 1991; revised December 23, 1991. The authors are with the Leavey School of Business and Administra-

IEEE Log Number 9204076. tion, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053.

Making the transition from engineer to engineering manager is a critical process that affects three parties: the individual engineer, the company/employer, and, in many instances, educational institutions such as a university. That this transition proceeds effectively and efficiently is in the best interests of all three. We contend that this transition can be much better understood and managed if we learn more about each of the participants in the transition, and about how they are related. It is especially important to identify sources of tension and possible remedial actions which each entity might consider to facilitate the transition process from engineer to engineering manager.

Toward this end, we propose the framework shown in Fig. 1. It suggests two key ideas. First, that the relationship among the various entities can be quite dynamic, depending upon the perceived needs and role require- ments of each party at various points in time. Second, that the potential costs of an ineffective transition are numer- ous and vary across these parties. Some of the most common costs and/or dysfunctions experienced by each party would include the following:

Indiuidual Engineer: Dissatisfaction with the employer, poor job performance, increased turnover, stagnation/ boredom in current job function, and unfavorable word of mouth communication about the employer.

Company / Employer: Opportunity costs of lost or squandered managerial potential, cost overruns and project delays due to ineffective project management, and poor and ineffective communication within and across functional areas.

University: Dissatisfied students due to squandered effort and skills, questions from employers/employees regarding appropriateness of curriculum, damage to the university’s (engineering and/or business school’s) image and reputation as a professional school.

This framework is dynamic in the sense that the relationship between the various dyads (e.g., engineers and employers) may change, often rather quickly, over time. A type of exchange theory’ would seem to be operating as each party is motivated to join and continue the relationship so long as their respective benefits exceed their costs (e.g., [21, [41).

Fig. 1 shows that each dyad is connected to each other dyad by a series of exchange relationships. Each party

’ Exchange theory is based on the importance of reciprocity, or exchange, to the relationship between two or more parties.

0018-9391/92$03.00 0 1992 IEEE

I

HALL et al.: TRAINING ENGINEERS TO BE MANAGERS 291

the broader context of the university-employer and uni- F I versity-employee dyads also. Career Expectations: Degree Program’s:

Objectives Reputationfimage

g:t ; t ion/ Loyalty k\Agie Convenience

11. METHODOLOGY

A. Focus Groups and Pilot Sample In order to help identify some of the relevent issues

which affect the various dyadic interactions, two focus group3 sessions were conducted, each with ten MBA students. Each session lasted approximately three hours. To insure population representativeness, participants were selected according to several criteria, including gender, length of time in the MBA program, undergraduate degree, and type of organization.

UNIVERSITY

PROGRAM Z MANAGEMENT DEGREE m COMPANY/

EMPLOYER -=

Degree Program’s: Relevance Repufation

Time

i- Cost

Fig. 1. Major factors contributing to the dynamic tension between engineers, employers, and management degree programs.

should understand that when it enters into that relationship with another party (for example, engineers with employers) it is tantamount to entering a “marketing relationship,” the output of which is each respective party’s “human activity” directed at satisfying the needs and wants (of other parties) through human exchange processes [41. The factors shown in Fig. 1 are meant to be suggestive of some potential issues that might arise between dyads.

Viewing the interactions of the three parties from an exchange theory perspective has two important benefits. First, it underscores the importance of identifying the needs and wants of other parties (or consumers) to the exchange. Second, it leads to a more efficient allocation and transfer of resources between the parties. In the exchange process, employees receive monetary and hopefully job-related psychic rewards from their company/employers. In return, employers receive the job skills, exper- tise, and experience of its employees, all of which “add value” to the employer’s output of products and/or services. Likewise, within the university-employee dyad, the former is offering academic programs and courses which are hopefully instrumental to the employee-student’s life style aspirations and career goals (both short and long run), while in exchange the university receives monetary resources, customers for their product, student research assistants, and an enhanced image in both the employer and engineer/student communities.

The critical idea underlying the dynamic tension model is that in order for a successful exchange to transpire, each party must have a clear understanding of the factors that influence the needs and wants of each other party. Specifically, as noted by Houston [41: “ . . . an entity deter- mines its own exchange determined goals most efficiently through a thorough understanding of potential exchange partners and their needs and wants, through a thorough understanding of the costs associated with satisfying those needs and wants, and then designing, producing, and offering products [or services] in light of this understand-

B. Instrument Based on the output from the focus groups, a seven-page

survey questionnaire was designed. The question format was primarily closed-ended questions, with Likert-scaled response categories. Some open-ended questions were included for issues where respondent elaboration was believed desirable and informative. The survey instrument was reviewed separately by senior human resource management professionals from three different corporations. Utilizing feedback from the HRM professionals, the instrument was revised and submitted to six of the original focus group respondents for further comment. Discus- sions with these respondents led to the final version of the survey instrument.

C. Sample The survey instrument was mailed to engineers cur-

rently working full-time in the Silicon Valley and also enrolled in the MBA program at Santa Clara University. Approximately 80% of the students in this program are employed full-time while attending classes in the evening. For inclusion in the sample, respondents had to meet the following criteria:

1) have completed an undergraduate degree in some

2) be currently employed in some engineering capacity; 3) be currently enrolled in the MBA program: the

typical respondent was about two-thirds through his/her program of study.

The survey was mailed to 260 engineers. Completed questionnaires were received from 132 people; a response rate of 53%, with 108 males (82%) and 24 females (18%). The typical respondent was approximately 32 years old and had an average of 4.5 years full-time work experience prior to entering the MBA program. The respondent sample was representative of the total population of engineers in this school’s MBA program.

field of engineering;

ing.” This paper will focus on trying to better understand the

exchange process between employer-employee primarily with some realization that this is best understood within

Focus groups are frequently used in marketing to get a better understanding of the most critical issues of concern to the customer. Open-ended interviews are coordinated by a group facilitator to gather data that can then be used to construct questionnaires for surveying a larger sample of the target population.

1


111. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Objectives in Obtaining MBA Degree

The survey began by asking respondents about their objectives in obtaining an MBA degree. Respondents indicated the relative importance of each objective by distributing 100 points among the list of possible objectives (e.g., 30 points to one objective, 65 points to a second, 5 points to a third, etc.). As the results in Table I show, the major reasons among engineers for obtaining an MBA degree are related to career progress. The primary objective is increasing career mobility (e.g., switching from engineering to marketing-either with the current employer or with another); increasing promotion potential is second. Significantly, and perhaps worrisome for employers concerned about turnover, increasing job opportunities with other organizations is ranked third. Data pre- sented later in this paper suggests that this latter objective may be closely linked to the desire for career progress, and may reflect a need for more proactive organizational tactics. The large standard deviations associated with the means in Table I suggest that there is a fairly wide range of opinion across respondents in the importance attached to each objective.

Although not directly comparable, the results of two earlier surveys may be of interest. Amos and Babcock [l] studied the continuing education of engineers in a rural midwestern area. Unlike the engineers in the current study who were enrolled in an MBA program, respondents in the Amos and Babcock study appeared to be taking additional engineering courses, some for credit and some not-for-credit. Amos and Block identified ten objectives of continuing education. Comparing the first three objectives of continuing education in their study we find no overlap with the current study. The primary objective in the former study was to acquire new technical informa- tion; the second was to perform the present job better, and the third was to prepare for increased responsibility and authority. There was consistency between the two studies, however, at the bottom of the rankings. Satisfying employers’ expectations and others’ expectations were ranked ninth and tenth, respectively, in both studies.

It should also be noted that, although improved job performance is not listed as an objective in Table I, its importance is indicated in Table 111, which shows that 75% of the engineers agreed that an MBA degree will increase their ability in their present job. Similarly, in a 1962 survey reported by Kaufman [5] of 4400 technical professions, the top three (of seven) objectives were: first, avoiding obsolescence; second, preparing for increased responsibility; and third, performing present assignments better. Again, employer’s expectations were ranked at the bottom.

B. Employer Actions to Help Engineers Succeed in MBA Program

Engineers expend great effort in their MBA program while simultaneously working 40 or more hours per week. When asked, during our focus group meetings, what steps

TABLE I RESPONDENTS OBJECTIVES IN OBTAINING AN MBA

Std. Cellb Objectives Meana Dev. Size

Increase Promotion Potential 18.46 16.24 116 Increase Job Opportunities

101 Intellectual Pursuit 13.98 15.46 110 Increase Financial Security 9.46 11.51 83 Increase Job Security 7.21 11.85 62 Increase Personal Stature 4.84 5.98 70 Satisfy Others’ Expectations 1.94 4.20 41 Satisfy Current Employers’

Expectations .83 2.92 40

a Objectives receiving a mean score of less than .80 are not included in the table; hence the column means do not total 100.

Total sample size for all tabled data is 132. Cell size equals the number of respondents out of the total sample who allocated from 0 to 100 points to each objective.

Increase Career Mobility 2.5.83 19.84 121

with Other Organizations 14.58 10.70

employers might take to help them succeed in the MBA program, participants identified several informal employer actions.

As shown in Table 11, however, relatively few engineers in the study sample reported that their employers pro- vided much help. Allowing engineers to leave work early for class without having to make up that time is the most frequently taken action, with 65% of the employers often/usually helping in this way. No other action is taken as frequently, although almost one-half of the employers avoid scheduling meetings or travel (48%, respectively) that conflict with classes.

To get an overall perspective of the perceived level of employer support, respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “My organization helps me to get the most out of my MBA program.” Less than one person in five agreed with this statement. This finding is consistent with that of Kaufman [5] who stated that “ . . . many organizations do not provide a climate that would encourage their professionals to make an effort to continue their education.. . ” (p. 135).

C. Employer / Employee Expectations What expectations do engineers have regarding the

impact of the MBA program on their careers? What expectations do these engineers believe their employers hold? The results shown in Table 111 suggests there is a substantial gap between these two sets of expectations.

On the one hand, engineers have high expectations with respect to both their present job and their career. Sev- enty-five percent agree that the MBA degree will increase their abilities in their present job, and 84% agree that it will affect their career expectations. Less than 30%, however, see the MBA degree as a necessaly credential for advancement with their current employer. On the other hand, engineers express considerable uncertainty when asked about their employers’ expectations. Overall, only 35% agree that their company expects better performance from them because of what they are learning in the MBA program. Nor are engineers clear as to exactly when their employers believe they will benefit from the engineers’

I I ,

HALL et al.: TRAINING ENGINEERS TO BE MANAGERS

TABLE I1 FREQUENCY OF INFORMAL EMPLOYER ACTIONS TAKEN TO HELP ENGINEERS/~TUDENTS SUCCEED IN THEIR MBA PROGRAM

Actions Frequency (%) Std.

Mean Dev. Never Seldom Often Usually

Allow extra time off for studying 1.94 1.09 48.0 24.0 14.0 14.0

Avoid scheduling travel that conflicts with classes 2.35 1.03 27.2 24.8 33.6 14.4

Avoid scheduling meetings that conflict with classes 2.43 1.10 26.0 26.0 26.8 21.2

Allow extra time off to prepare papers 1.85 1.03 50.4 26.4 11.6 11.6

Allow me to leave work early for class without having to make up time 2.91 1.18 19.8 15.2 19.8 45.2

Flex-time scheduling allows me to take day classes 2.17 1.17 40.0 24.2 15.0 20.8

The mean scores and standard deviations are calculated using a four point scale (Never = 1, Usually = 4).

TABLE I11 RELATIONSHIP OF EDUCATION /MBA AND JOBS /CAREER

Statements Percentage Std.

Mean Dev. Disagree Neutral Agree

.66 18.9 6.1 75.0

.32 9.1 6.8 84.1

.72 58.3 12.1 29.6

An MBA degree will be an effective way to increase my abilities in my present job.

Getting an MBA degree is likely to affect my career expectations with my current employer. 5.52

The MBA degree is a necessary credential for advancement

4.92

in my company. 3.43 My company expects better

performance from me because of what I am learning in an MBA program. 3.91 1.35 32.0 32.9 35.1

My company believes that it gains the benefits of my educational program incrementally as I proceed through the program. 4.02 1.36 22.4 46.8 30.8

My employer believes that the company gains the major benefits of my educational program upon completion of the momam. 3.88 1.21 32.5 45.0 22.5

299

The mean scores and standard deviations are calculated on a seven-point scale (with “1” being strongly disagree and “7” being strongly agree). The column percentages summarize responses from the disagree (negative) side of the continuum (1,2, and 3), the agree (positive) side of the continuum (5, 6, and 7), and neutral (neither agree nor disagree: 4).

educational program, whether incrementally or after degree completion.

From the results, one might speculate that the discrepancy between their own and their perception of their employer’s expectations would decrease many engineers’ expectations that (based on their MBA education) they will reap rewards from their current employer. Further- more, this discrepancy is likely to increase the tensions between these two parties as the perceived benefits, ver- sus the costs, of the MBA degree become less apparent to the engineer as long as they remain with the current employer.

D. Dialogues Regarding Growth Opportunities in Company One reason for the uncertainty regarding their employ-

ers’ expectations is seen in the lack of dialogue between the two parties regarding growth opportunities. Respon- dents were asked whether employers had discussed either

current or future growth opportunities in light of their MBA program of studies. As Table IV shows, surprisingly little discussion between employers and engineers occurs regarding potential links between educational experience and growth opportunities in the organization. For 60-70% of the respondents, no discussion had taken place. Specif- ically, 71% of the respondents reported there had been no discussions regarding current growth opportunities within their company while they were enrolled in the MBA program. Sixty-three percent reported that no discussions had taken place regarding future growth opportunities (after completion of the MBA degree) within their company. This lack of dialogue is apt to further exacerbate tensions between the engineers and the employer.

E. Employer Recognition of Degree Completion During our focus group meetings, employees indicated

that, when they received their MBA degree, some form of


TABLE IV EXTENT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT POTENTIAL LINKS BETWEEN MBA DEGREE AND GROWTH OPPOR~UNITIES IN COMPANY

Extent of Discussions (%)

Growth Std. Fair Great Opportunities Mean Dev. None Some Amount Deal

Currently (while working

Future (upon completion on degree) 1.37 .66 71.2 22.0 5.3 1.5

of degree) 1.45 .66 63.1 29.2 6.9 0.8

The mean scores and standard deviations are calculated using a four point scale (None = 1, Great Deal = 4).

recognition by their employer would be important and appreciated. Recommended actions ranged from acknowledgment in a company newsletter, to receiving a letter from the boss, to a graduation event. The need for recognition expressed by the focus group was corroborated by the survey results which found that almost 70% of the respondents indicated they would definitely like their employer to recognize, in some way, the successful completion of their MBA program.

As shown in Table V, however, most respondents stated that their employers took little, if any, action to recognize the employees’ academic accomplishment. The most frequent form of recognition was an acknowledgment in the company newsletter, with 38% of the respondents reporting that their employers took this action. Other forms of possible company recognition were considerably more rare: a letter from the boss (11%) or a phone call (2%). These results indicate that employer-initiated actions to recognize engineers who have completed their MBA degree are severely lacking. Respondents were asked “What specific actions would you like your company to take, that it does not already take, to recognize the successful completion of the MBA program? The suggestions given most frequently were consideration at salary-review time (32%) and increased job responsibility (25%).

F. Tumouer Implications Given that engineers indicated that they were enrolled

in the MBA program to facilitate their career progress (Table I), and given that engineers perceive little expres- sion of interest by their employers (Tables 11-V), we would expect that engineers’ sense of loyalty to their employer would be low. Somewhat surprisingly, the data is mixed (Table VI).

Only 17% of the respondents agree that obtaining an MBA degree has contributed to turnover in their companies. Furthermore, only 30% state that a major reason for getting an MBA degree is to get a job in another company.

In contrast, less than 25% of the respondents expect to be with their current employer 3 years after obtaining the MBA degree. Indeed, when asked how long they would be willing to wait after receiving the MBA degree for their companies to provide new job-related (career) opportunities, more than three-quarters reported they would wait no longer than 18 months.

One explanation of this apparently conflicting data is

TABLE V

OF MBA PROGRAM POSSIBLE COMPANY ACTIONS TO RECOGNIZE COMPLETION

Percentage of Respondents Indicating Action is Takena Employer Actions

Acknowledge in Company

Sent a Letter (from Boss, Newsletter 38

Upper Management, HRM) 11 Visited Employee 8 Held Party for Graduate 3 Phoned Employee 2

a Categories do not add to 100% because they are not mutually exclusive.

that turnover in some kinds of engineering work, in some industries, tends to be cyclical, reflecting product development cycle^.^ The end of such cycles can bring about layoffs and/or job relocations for both engineers and nonengineers. Anticipating such cycles, engineers may see an MBA degree as a means of preparing themselves for such cycles. This explanation could also be consistent with the data shown in Table I, reporting opportunities in other firms as the third most important reason for obtaining an MBA.

Another possible explanation lies in respondents’ an- swers to the question: “Why did you choose your current employer?” The most frequent response was “challeng- ing/interesting work.” Perhaps as assignments which are subject to a product development cycle approach their end, engineers search for new, interesting assignments, internally as well as externally.

A third explanation, not inconsistent with the first two, is suggested by the data in Tables I-V which indicates that obtaining an MBA degree, per se, does not foretell immediate turnover. However, unless engineers sense that their academic efforts to improve their abilities will be recognized or appreciated by their employers (for example, helping engineers succeed in MBA program, holding career-counseling discussions, recognizing attainment of MBA degree by giving engineers more responsibility, etc.), the probability of turnover may be likely to increase.

G. Role of the Third Party: Academic Institutions Here we briefly examine the role of the third party, the

university or college, in the Transition Tension Model.

This explanation was suggested by James A. Mertz, former President of Monitoring and Automated Controls, Inc.

I I ,

HALL et al.: TRAINING ENGINEERS TO BE MANAGERS 301

TABLE VI ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF ENGINEERS/STUDENTS REGARDING IMPACI OF MBA DEGREE ON TURNOVER

Std. Percentage Statements Mean Dev. Disagree Neutral Agree

I believe obtaining an MBA degree has contributed to turnover in my company. 3.36 1.43 43.8 38.4 17.8

A major reason for getting an MBA is to get a job in another company. 3.56 1.78 50.0 19.7 30.3

I fully expect to be with my current employer 3 years after obtaining my MBA. 3.38 1.66 50.0 25.8 24.2

The mean scores and standard deviations are calculated on a seven-point scale (with “1” being strongly disagree and ‘‘7’’ being strongly agree). The column percentages summarize responses from the disagree (negative) side of the continuum (1, 2, and 3), the agree (positive) side of the continuum (5, 6, and 7), and neutral (neither agree nor disagree: 4).

The party can include any academic institution offering a formal degree program related to management, including the over 600 institutions granting the traditional MBA degree as well as the more than 100 newly emerging engineering management programs [6]. The tensions de- scribed earlier between engineers and employers have the potential for creating tensions (and opportunities) in the relationships between the university and engineers, and between the university and employers. To the extent that engineers become frustrated with the lack of employer support as revealed by this study’s findings (for example, the insufficient discussions regarding career opportunities during or after completion of the MBA degree, and the lack of company recognition upon degree completion), they may begin to question the value of the MBA or engineering management degree. Employers may question the role of the university in shaping the expectations of the engineers. For example, employers may begin to believe that universities are causing engineers/students to have unrealistic expectations regarding their careers.

Schools can take some steps to decrease the tensions between engineers and employers and, consequently, lessen the tensions between these parties and themselves. For example, they can provide more, and better career counseling early on in the employee’s MBA program; they can encourage engineers to initiate dialogue with employers and Dice versa; and they can help employers become better informed about gaps between engineers’ and employers, expectations.

Finally, engineers/students also can take some steps to decrease tension. They should meet with university career counselors to discuss career paths and ask for feedback regarding the career paths taken by university alumni. They should request dialogue with their organization’s human resource personnel, and with their supervisor, regarding the role that continuing education might play in their career path. They might inquire about the point in their career at which an MBA degree is likely to make a difference.

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Whereas most prior research on the difficulty of transi-

tioning from engineer to engineering manager has taken a

rather broad perspective (e.g., [3] , [8], [9]), this research has identified a number of specific factors which affect the transition process. Our findings show that engineers enroll in MBA programs in the belief that the program will enhance their value to their firm and will facilitate their career progress, either internally or externally. Employers, however, are not necessarily perceived as supportive in this effort. Less than half of the employers take steps desired by engineers to help them succeed in their MBA program. Few employers provide career counseling with respect to the MBA program and its relationship to current or future job performance or to career opportunities. Employers do not even recognize the successful completion of the MBA program by their employees. Al- though engineers do not necessarily expect immediate recognition (e.g., in the form of more responsibility), it seems clear that decreased motivation and increased turnover are likely consequences of the gap between employee expectations and employer inaction.

It is important to emphasize, however, that such consequences are not inevitable, and perhaps can be avoided. Employers need to be more proactive and manage these engineers pursuing MBA degrees as valuable, and grow- ing, assets. Universities may need to act as a catalyst to facilitate greater dialogue and reduce the expectation gaps between employers and engineers. Engineers/students need to initiate career counseling dialogues with both the university and the employer.

REFERENCES [1] J. Amos and D. Babcock, “Continuing education of engineers in a

rural midwestern area,” 1980 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, IEEE, Houston, 1990, pp. 435-443.

[2] G. C. Homans, Social Beharior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1974.

[3] D. D. Hood, “Transition: engineer to manager: specialist to gener- alist,” Proceedings of the IEEE lntemational Engineering Manage- ment Conference, Santa Clara, CA, pp. 22-28, Oct. 21-24, 1990.

[4] F. Houston, “The marketing concept, what it is and what it is not,” Joumal of Marketing, pp. 81-87, April 1986.

[5] H. G. Kaufman, Obsolescence and Professional Career Deuelopment. N.Y., AMA Conference, 1974.

[6] D. F. Kocaoglu, “Editorial: Recent developments in engineering management research,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Management, vol. 36, pp.

[7] D. F. Kocaoglu, “Editorial: Research and educational characteris- tics of the engineering management discipline,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Management, vol. 37, pp. 112-176, Aug. 1990.

249-250, NOV. 1989.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 39, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1992 302

[81

[91

M. E. Richerson, “Advice to the recent engineering graduate aspiring to management,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, Santa Clara, CA, pp. 1-4, Oct. 21-24, 1990. H. J. Thamhain, “Managing engineers effectively,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Management, vol. EM-30, pp. 231-237, Nov. 1983.

scholarly journals, including the Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, Journal of Social Psychology, and Journal of Technology Transfer. He has been a frequent paper presenter at various professional associations including the Association for Consumer Research, American Marketers Educators’ Conference, and IEEE. His current research interests include technology transfer processes in high technology environments, the implications of technology transfer for strategic marketing decision making, and the role of personal values and involvement in consumer decision making. He has served as consultant to a wide variety of

James L. Hall was born in Connecticut. He received the degrees of BA, MBA, and Ph.D. from Bates College, Rutgers University, and the Univebity of Washington, respectively.

He has worked for Arthur Anderson & Co., C.P.A.’s, and the Connecticut Community Col- lege System. He has served as a consultant to

service sector. At present, he is an Associate Professor of Management at Santa Clara Uni- versity. His current research interests are in

motivation, the performance appraisal process, and workforce diversity. He has published in a variety of journals including The California Management Review, The Training and Development Journal, and Group & Omanization Studies.

industries, including solar energy, medical imaging, and restaurant, and is a former Director of Graduate Education, Leavey School of Business, Santa Clara University.

organizations in banking, electronics, and the -

J. Michael Munson was born in Ogden, Utah. He received the B.S. and M.B.A. degrees from the University of Utah, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Illinois at Champaign- Urbana.

At present, he is an associate professor of marketing, at Santa Clara University, and has taught on the business school faculties of the UCLA Graduate School of Management, Los Angeles, CA, and York University, Toronto, Canada. He has published in a wide variety of

Barry Z. Posner received the B.A. degree in political science from the University of Califor- nia, Santa Barbara, the M.A. degree in public administration from the Ohio State University, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Massachusetts.

He has published more than 65 research and practitioner-oriented articles, and is the coau- thor of The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Done in Organization. His latest book, The New Management Challenge:

Projects Teams and Task Forces was published in July 1991. Posner servts on the board of directors of two companies and is a frequent conference speaker. He is a Professor of Management at Santa Clara University.

i

training engineers to be managers: a transition tension model

Documents