- Email: [email protected]
Why engineers transfer
WHY ENGINEERS TRANSFER Survey pinpoints reasons for job changes
ARTHUR GERSTENFELD AND GABRIEL ROSICA
Mr. GerstenfeM is an associate professor of operations management, Boston University; Mr. Rosica is manager of engineering, Quantum Computing Corp. Engineering turnover rates are inordflTately high; the result is an enormous waste in terms o f productive output and social dislocation. Why do engineers change fobs? The authors asked men who had graduated from a leading engineering school in 1962 or 1963 to identify the reasons for their last fob change. The results show that these engineers sought a change o f career direction, more interesting work, and opportunity for advancement. The desire for a higher salary was a peripheral-but highly ranked-issue. The authors suggest that the organization should build these factors into the fobs in the first place, rather than being forced to do so eventually-after having suffered the loss accompanying the turnover.
Substantial losses in productive output occur whenever engineers change employers. The engineer who anticipates an imminent change in employment is usually working far below his normal productive capacity. A further loss of output occurs during the period between jobs if reemployment is not immediate, and, once rehired, it is often six months before he is in a position to perform effectively. The engineer is unique in this respect. The unskilled laborer can change jobs with little loss of output, and, at
APRIL, 1970
the other end of the employment spectrum, the highly skilled scientist can often change organizations and continue his research with little loss of creative output. Nor should the over-all social significance of engineering turnover be overlooked. These job changes often involve long-distance relocations, interrupted schooling of children, failure to become involved/in community affairs, and other equally serious social consequences. Of course, one positive result of these changes is that the engineer serves as a new channel of information. Other more effective channels of information, however, will accompfish the same thing at lower cost. 1 Obviously, there are good reasons for identifying the circumstances that cause engineers to move to other positions. The present state of knowledge concerning this problem, however, is limited. Herzberg examined causes of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among engineers and concluded that the principal sources of satisfaction were achievement, recognition, work content, responsibility, and advancement. z Dissatisfied responses were usually 1. T. J. Allen, P. G. Gerstberger, and Arthur Gerstenfeld, "The Problem of Internal Consulting in Research and Development Organizations," M.I.T. working paper 319-6B, July, 1968. 2. F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and B. B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959).
43
ARTHUR GERSTENFELD AND GABRIEL ROSICA
TABLE 1 Survey Sample Profile (at time o f most recent job change)* (~) Marital status No. of children Home Highest degree Evening courses Job draft deferment Salary Industry type Job type Company size Years in previous job Years since change Relocation distance 44
Single None Rent Bachelor's No
23 45 62 19 69
Married One or two Own Master's Yes
No Less than $10,000 Military Research
75
Yes 25 $10,00015,000 54 Industry 58 Development 22
Less than 500 employees Less than one year Less than one year Less than 30 miles
20 28 33 18
(~)
(%) 77 41 37 61 31
500-2,500 employees 1-3 years
25 46
8 1-3 years
29
30 30-100 miles
13
14
Three or more No answer Ph.D.
19
$15,00020,000 Commercial Engineering
20 12 26
More than 2,500 employees More than three years More than three years 100-500 miles
43
(%)
1
More than $20,000 Other Tech. Mgt. Other
6 2 8 11
No answer
5
No answer
12
More than 500 miles
17
57 41 19 25
*Questionnaires, 462; responses, 204 (145 used in sample, 29 unusable, 30 no job change). Sample is from engineers who received their bachelor's degrees seven to eight years ago. Group distribution as a percent of sample.
related to supervision, administration, and poor salary. Blauner found that the principal sources of job satisfaction are autonomy and independence on the job. s Gerstenfeld has found no relation between an employee's attitude toward the company in general and his absenteeism, but did find a strong relation between the worker's attitude toward his immediate supervisor and his absences, a fmding that may or may not apply to job turnover. 4 March and Simon point out that the reason for absenteeism may be quite different from the reason leading to turnover, s
3. R. Blauner, "Work Satisfaction and Industrial Trends in Modern Society," Labor and Trade Unionism (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960), pp. 340-54. 4. Arthur Gerstenfeld, "Employee Absenteeism: New Insights," Business Horizons (October, 1969). 5. James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966), p. 99.
THESTUDY For purposes of this study of the causes of job turnover, we have used March and Simon's definition: " . . . turnover is defined as leaving the formally defined organization (e.g., the business firm). ''6 Thus, leaving a job in one department to take a job in another department in the same company is not classified as turnover. Questionnaires were mailed to 462 graduates of a leading engineering school (see the last page). The graduates received their bachelor's degrees in engineering in 1962 or 1963, so that they may have had eight years of engineering experience in industry or somewhat less in the event that they continued for graduate degrees on a full-time basis. Of the 462 questionnaires sent out, 204 were returned. Of these, 30 indicated that there
6.
Organizations, p. 93.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
Why Engineers Transfer
had been no job change, and 29 were completed in a manner that made them unusable (for example, some engineers merely checked the reasons for their most recent job change, rather than indicating an order of preference). The sample upon which this article is based consists of 145 responses, or 31 percent of the questionnaires mailed out. The response came from all sections of the country. Table 1 is a breakdown of the survey sample profile. The typical respondent, at the time of his last job change, was married, had no children, and lived in a rented dwelling. He had earned a master's degree and was not involved in evening course work. He did not have a job-oriented draft deferment. He worked in research for an industrial firm with more than 2,500 employees at a salary of $10,000 to $15,000. He was with his previous employer for from one to three years and made his last job change less than a year ago. This change involved a relocation of less than thirty miles, which probably indicates no change of residence.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Table 2 shows that the most important reason cited by most of the engineers for their recent job change was the wish to change the direction of their career. The next two most important reasons were a desire to find more interesting work and an opportunity for advancement. Certain implications are already clear. If a company is interested in reducing engineering turnover, perhaps paths can be opened up within the organization to permit changes in career direction, offer more interesting work, and increase the opportunities for advancement. At present, the engineer is forced to change places of employment if he is to achieve these objectives. It is worth pointing out that only eight of the 145 engineers changed jobs in order to obtain a higher salary. However, our data indicate that the desire for a higher salary was the most frequent second, third, and fourth reason for change of employment. Perhaps we should view salary as "the actor in the wings,"
APRIL, 1970
TABLE 2 Importance of Reasons for Most Recent Change of Employment*
Reason
More responsibility Company relocated Higher salary Joined new venture More interesting Change of career direction Project cancelled Better location Personal reasons Lack of security Fringe benefits Company acquired New management Opportunity for advancement Military deferment Better commuting
Most lmpor. tant 1
2
3
4
Least Imporrant 5
13
17
19
14
7
1 0 25 31
0 18
1 6
8 21
5 24
5 11
1 14
1 8
39 9 5 15 2 0
20 5 7 8 4 1
8 1 9 5 4 3
5 0 6 6 2 0
4 2 4 5 0 3
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
21
12
22
13
6
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
6
0 8
*Numbers represent the number of respondents for each ranking.
rather than only as a dissatisfier, as Herzberg's theory proposes. It is apparently a highly ranked peripheral issue affecting the job choice decision. (The number of engineers ranking second, third, fourth, and fifth reasons for job change in Table 2 is less than the full sample size because several respondents indicated only a first choice, or only a first and second choice, and so on.) Table 2 also reveals that company acquisition was never a reason contributing to turnover, and that company relocation was cited by only two engineers; military deferment was cited by only one. The fringe benefits also appear low in order of importance and again may be considered as a contributor to satis-
45
ARTHUR GERSTENFELD AND GABRIEL ROSICA
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
Reasons First in Importance (percent)
Reasons Second in Importance (percent) more ! responsibility
rmsp;nsibility ]
more interesting
higher salary
change of career direction personal reasons
46
more
interesting change of career direction
]
opportunity for advancement 0
I
I
10
opportunity for advanceme_nt
[
I
20
I
I
30
faction but, as we might have suspected, not to turnover. Figure 1 indicates the reasons given as first in importance for the total sample. The most important reasons for the most recent job change indicated by most of the engineers surveyed are the change of career direction (27 percent), the opportunity for advancement 14.5 percent), more interesting work (14.5 percent), personal reasons (10.4 percent), and more responsibility (9 percent). Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the importance that the engineers place on higher salary as a second and third reason for job change. The data were also analyzed by using weighted averages. This technique resulted in essentially the same rank order. The personal description (at the time of the last job change) was analyzed to see if a relationship exists between the reasons for change and some personal characteristic. Surprisingly few statistically significant differences were found. For example, no significant differences appeared between the reasons cited by the married and the single respondents. Similarly, we found no correlation between the number of children or the highest academic degree and the reasons for change of employment. However, our data do indicate that engineers who have been in a particular job for more than three years are less likely to change
I
i
10
20
FIGURE 3 Reasons Third in Importance (percent) m
more
responsibility •
[
i
higher salary more interesting
I I
better location opportunity for advancement 0
I
10
]
I
20
I
30
for personal reasons than those employed for a shorter time. 7 We also find that engineers who are involved in development work are more likely to change jobs in order to change their career direction than those in research or technical management. Perhaps this indicates that the engineers who are working in development are 7. The x 2 test shows that there is an 85 percent probability that these results did not occur by chance.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
Why Engineers Transfer
less satisfied with their careers, or that those engineers involved in research or technical management are more committed to their present line of work. Our data show another trend: engineers who have been in a particular job less than one year are more likely to look for more interesting work than those who have been employed for a longer time. Perhaps this indicates that the engineer leaves before he has become involved in more interesting work. Or perhaps the engineer leaves because he is disillusioned and hopes that his new place of employment will be able to stimulate him. To obtain further insight into some o f the reasons contributing to engineers' reasons for changing employers, we included a final openended question. The recipients were asked to make any other comments regarding the major reasons for their most recent job change. A typical reply was: I changed jobs because my department was stagnating. The new management was not giving my department priority. Although salary was not the strong motive for changing, I would not have accepted an offer to change jobs, especially to relocate, without a substantial salary increase. This seems to support our data, which indicated as primary reasons the desires for changes of career direction, more interesting work, and more opportunities for advancement. The quotation further supports higher salary as a strong second or third reason. The authors realize that there are large individual differences among engineers, which of course affect the priority o f reasons for job changes. However, both our data and open-ended responses do indicate strong trends. Several other replies are typical: My new job involved a higher salary than my last job and more opportunities for advancement. More dollars, recognition and opportunity for advancement. No tangible advancement opportunity. Salary had begun to saturate. Many of the engineers cited their dissatisfaction with management as a major reason for their most recent job change: Incompetence of middle management to
APRIL, 1970
grasp new concepts. Middle management did not like to make waves. Disenchantment with management of large corporation. Management not of caliber I wanted to emulate. Management problems in old job created unsuitable working conditions. My previous employment was most unsatisfactory due to terrible management mistakes and bureaucracy. Many of the engineers pointed out that the government contracts were a large contributing reason for their most recent job change: It has been said before, but it bears r e p e a t i n g - a n engineer in defense work is a migrant day laborer. Changed f r o m military-aerospace to commercial-oriented job. Decided to switch from military to industrial research lab to reduce violent swings in available work, as government contracts came and went. Wanted to find more permanent job before age 40. It should be pointed out that a significant number o f engineers changed from their most recent job to enter completely new fields: Went from electrical engineering to teaching physics at junior college level. Better atmosphere. Better opportunity to reach young people. I switched to economics and completed a Ph.D. in that field. My work since 1963 has been in development economics. Changed from industrial research to university teaching. I t o o k a position in a patent law firm as a clerk. After graduation from law school I stayed with the firm as an associate and, later, as a partner. I am now practicing public law on behalf of the overburdened taxpayers of the State of New York. I will receive m y M.D. in June, 1970. My interests will be the application of my engineering background to clinical medical practice and research.
~
Most engineers leave their jobs in search of a change of career direction, more interesting work, and opportunity for advancement. The second most important reason for a change in employment is to obtain a higher salary; this factor is also the leading third and fourth reasons. The implications are clear. Within the
47
ARTHUR GERSTENFELD AND GABRIEL ROSICA
organization, paths should be open to the engineers so that career directions can change over time. In addition, the organization should put increased emphasis on providing projects of high interest with ample opportunities for advancement. The opportunity for high salary must be available; this factor cannot be replaced by interesting work. Unfortunately, the engineer today usually
has to change organizations to fulfill these desires. The organization then finds that, in order to replace this engineer, it must create a job with more interest, present paths for advancement, and pay higher salaries. How much more reasonable it would be to incorporate these factors in the first place, thereby reducing the enormous waste resulting from the inordinately high engineering turnover rates.
Questionnaire Please complete the following concerning your last job change. Personal description (at the time of last job change) a. Maritalstatus (M or S) b. Number of children c. Home (own or rent) d. Highest degree e. Enrolled in evening courses f. Draft status g. Approximate annual base salary at previous job just prior to change Up to 10K 10K-15K 15K-20K
48
Over 20K II.
Employment background just prior to last job change a. Industry type (military, industrial, commercial) b. Job type (research, development, engineering, sales, technical management, general management, other) c. Company size (approximate number of employees) d. Dates of employment (years only) (Please give the approximate relocation distance between your previous job and your present job)
III. Reason for change of employment (please number in order of importance all that apply: 1 = most important, 2 = second in importance, and so on) 1. More responsibility 2. Company relocated 3. Higher salary 4. Joined new venture 5. More interesting 6. Change of career direction 7. Project cancelled 8. Better location 9. Personal reasons 10. Lack of security 11. Fringe benefits 12. Company acquired 13. New management 14. Opportunity for advancement 15. Military deferments 16. Better commuting Please make any other comments you wish regarding the major reasons for your most recent job change.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
ARTHUR GERSTENFELD AND GABRIEL ROSICA
Mr. GerstenfeM is an associate professor of operations management, Boston University; Mr. Rosica is manager of engineering, Quantum Computing Corp. Engineering turnover rates are inordflTately high; the result is an enormous waste in terms o f productive output and social dislocation. Why do engineers change fobs? The authors asked men who had graduated from a leading engineering school in 1962 or 1963 to identify the reasons for their last fob change. The results show that these engineers sought a change o f career direction, more interesting work, and opportunity for advancement. The desire for a higher salary was a peripheral-but highly ranked-issue. The authors suggest that the organization should build these factors into the fobs in the first place, rather than being forced to do so eventually-after having suffered the loss accompanying the turnover.
Substantial losses in productive output occur whenever engineers change employers. The engineer who anticipates an imminent change in employment is usually working far below his normal productive capacity. A further loss of output occurs during the period between jobs if reemployment is not immediate, and, once rehired, it is often six months before he is in a position to perform effectively. The engineer is unique in this respect. The unskilled laborer can change jobs with little loss of output, and, at
APRIL, 1970
the other end of the employment spectrum, the highly skilled scientist can often change organizations and continue his research with little loss of creative output. Nor should the over-all social significance of engineering turnover be overlooked. These job changes often involve long-distance relocations, interrupted schooling of children, failure to become involved/in community affairs, and other equally serious social consequences. Of course, one positive result of these changes is that the engineer serves as a new channel of information. Other more effective channels of information, however, will accompfish the same thing at lower cost. 1 Obviously, there are good reasons for identifying the circumstances that cause engineers to move to other positions. The present state of knowledge concerning this problem, however, is limited. Herzberg examined causes of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among engineers and concluded that the principal sources of satisfaction were achievement, recognition, work content, responsibility, and advancement. z Dissatisfied responses were usually 1. T. J. Allen, P. G. Gerstberger, and Arthur Gerstenfeld, "The Problem of Internal Consulting in Research and Development Organizations," M.I.T. working paper 319-6B, July, 1968. 2. F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and B. B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959).
43
ARTHUR GERSTENFELD AND GABRIEL ROSICA
TABLE 1 Survey Sample Profile (at time o f most recent job change)* (~) Marital status No. of children Home Highest degree Evening courses Job draft deferment Salary Industry type Job type Company size Years in previous job Years since change Relocation distance 44
Single None Rent Bachelor's No
23 45 62 19 69
Married One or two Own Master's Yes
No Less than $10,000 Military Research
75
Yes 25 $10,00015,000 54 Industry 58 Development 22
Less than 500 employees Less than one year Less than one year Less than 30 miles
20 28 33 18
(~)
(%) 77 41 37 61 31
500-2,500 employees 1-3 years
25 46
8 1-3 years
29
30 30-100 miles
13
14
Three or more No answer Ph.D.
19
$15,00020,000 Commercial Engineering
20 12 26
More than 2,500 employees More than three years More than three years 100-500 miles
43
(%)
1
More than $20,000 Other Tech. Mgt. Other
6 2 8 11
No answer
5
No answer
12
More than 500 miles
17
57 41 19 25
*Questionnaires, 462; responses, 204 (145 used in sample, 29 unusable, 30 no job change). Sample is from engineers who received their bachelor's degrees seven to eight years ago. Group distribution as a percent of sample.
related to supervision, administration, and poor salary. Blauner found that the principal sources of job satisfaction are autonomy and independence on the job. s Gerstenfeld has found no relation between an employee's attitude toward the company in general and his absenteeism, but did find a strong relation between the worker's attitude toward his immediate supervisor and his absences, a fmding that may or may not apply to job turnover. 4 March and Simon point out that the reason for absenteeism may be quite different from the reason leading to turnover, s
3. R. Blauner, "Work Satisfaction and Industrial Trends in Modern Society," Labor and Trade Unionism (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960), pp. 340-54. 4. Arthur Gerstenfeld, "Employee Absenteeism: New Insights," Business Horizons (October, 1969). 5. James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966), p. 99.
THESTUDY For purposes of this study of the causes of job turnover, we have used March and Simon's definition: " . . . turnover is defined as leaving the formally defined organization (e.g., the business firm). ''6 Thus, leaving a job in one department to take a job in another department in the same company is not classified as turnover. Questionnaires were mailed to 462 graduates of a leading engineering school (see the last page). The graduates received their bachelor's degrees in engineering in 1962 or 1963, so that they may have had eight years of engineering experience in industry or somewhat less in the event that they continued for graduate degrees on a full-time basis. Of the 462 questionnaires sent out, 204 were returned. Of these, 30 indicated that there
6.
Organizations, p. 93.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
Why Engineers Transfer
had been no job change, and 29 were completed in a manner that made them unusable (for example, some engineers merely checked the reasons for their most recent job change, rather than indicating an order of preference). The sample upon which this article is based consists of 145 responses, or 31 percent of the questionnaires mailed out. The response came from all sections of the country. Table 1 is a breakdown of the survey sample profile. The typical respondent, at the time of his last job change, was married, had no children, and lived in a rented dwelling. He had earned a master's degree and was not involved in evening course work. He did not have a job-oriented draft deferment. He worked in research for an industrial firm with more than 2,500 employees at a salary of $10,000 to $15,000. He was with his previous employer for from one to three years and made his last job change less than a year ago. This change involved a relocation of less than thirty miles, which probably indicates no change of residence.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Table 2 shows that the most important reason cited by most of the engineers for their recent job change was the wish to change the direction of their career. The next two most important reasons were a desire to find more interesting work and an opportunity for advancement. Certain implications are already clear. If a company is interested in reducing engineering turnover, perhaps paths can be opened up within the organization to permit changes in career direction, offer more interesting work, and increase the opportunities for advancement. At present, the engineer is forced to change places of employment if he is to achieve these objectives. It is worth pointing out that only eight of the 145 engineers changed jobs in order to obtain a higher salary. However, our data indicate that the desire for a higher salary was the most frequent second, third, and fourth reason for change of employment. Perhaps we should view salary as "the actor in the wings,"
APRIL, 1970
TABLE 2 Importance of Reasons for Most Recent Change of Employment*
Reason
More responsibility Company relocated Higher salary Joined new venture More interesting Change of career direction Project cancelled Better location Personal reasons Lack of security Fringe benefits Company acquired New management Opportunity for advancement Military deferment Better commuting
Most lmpor. tant 1
2
3
4
Least Imporrant 5
13
17
19
14
7
1 0 25 31
0 18
1 6
8 21
5 24
5 11
1 14
1 8
39 9 5 15 2 0
20 5 7 8 4 1
8 1 9 5 4 3
5 0 6 6 2 0
4 2 4 5 0 3
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
21
12
22
13
6
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
6
0 8
*Numbers represent the number of respondents for each ranking.
rather than only as a dissatisfier, as Herzberg's theory proposes. It is apparently a highly ranked peripheral issue affecting the job choice decision. (The number of engineers ranking second, third, fourth, and fifth reasons for job change in Table 2 is less than the full sample size because several respondents indicated only a first choice, or only a first and second choice, and so on.) Table 2 also reveals that company acquisition was never a reason contributing to turnover, and that company relocation was cited by only two engineers; military deferment was cited by only one. The fringe benefits also appear low in order of importance and again may be considered as a contributor to satis-
45
ARTHUR GERSTENFELD AND GABRIEL ROSICA
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
Reasons First in Importance (percent)
Reasons Second in Importance (percent) more ! responsibility
rmsp;nsibility ]
more interesting
higher salary
change of career direction personal reasons
46
more
interesting change of career direction
]
opportunity for advancement 0
I
I
10
opportunity for advanceme_nt
[
I
20
I
I
30
faction but, as we might have suspected, not to turnover. Figure 1 indicates the reasons given as first in importance for the total sample. The most important reasons for the most recent job change indicated by most of the engineers surveyed are the change of career direction (27 percent), the opportunity for advancement 14.5 percent), more interesting work (14.5 percent), personal reasons (10.4 percent), and more responsibility (9 percent). Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the importance that the engineers place on higher salary as a second and third reason for job change. The data were also analyzed by using weighted averages. This technique resulted in essentially the same rank order. The personal description (at the time of the last job change) was analyzed to see if a relationship exists between the reasons for change and some personal characteristic. Surprisingly few statistically significant differences were found. For example, no significant differences appeared between the reasons cited by the married and the single respondents. Similarly, we found no correlation between the number of children or the highest academic degree and the reasons for change of employment. However, our data do indicate that engineers who have been in a particular job for more than three years are less likely to change
I
i
10
20
FIGURE 3 Reasons Third in Importance (percent) m
more
responsibility •
[
i
higher salary more interesting
I I
better location opportunity for advancement 0
I
10
]
I
20
I
30
for personal reasons than those employed for a shorter time. 7 We also find that engineers who are involved in development work are more likely to change jobs in order to change their career direction than those in research or technical management. Perhaps this indicates that the engineers who are working in development are 7. The x 2 test shows that there is an 85 percent probability that these results did not occur by chance.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
Why Engineers Transfer
less satisfied with their careers, or that those engineers involved in research or technical management are more committed to their present line of work. Our data show another trend: engineers who have been in a particular job less than one year are more likely to look for more interesting work than those who have been employed for a longer time. Perhaps this indicates that the engineer leaves before he has become involved in more interesting work. Or perhaps the engineer leaves because he is disillusioned and hopes that his new place of employment will be able to stimulate him. To obtain further insight into some o f the reasons contributing to engineers' reasons for changing employers, we included a final openended question. The recipients were asked to make any other comments regarding the major reasons for their most recent job change. A typical reply was: I changed jobs because my department was stagnating. The new management was not giving my department priority. Although salary was not the strong motive for changing, I would not have accepted an offer to change jobs, especially to relocate, without a substantial salary increase. This seems to support our data, which indicated as primary reasons the desires for changes of career direction, more interesting work, and more opportunities for advancement. The quotation further supports higher salary as a strong second or third reason. The authors realize that there are large individual differences among engineers, which of course affect the priority o f reasons for job changes. However, both our data and open-ended responses do indicate strong trends. Several other replies are typical: My new job involved a higher salary than my last job and more opportunities for advancement. More dollars, recognition and opportunity for advancement. No tangible advancement opportunity. Salary had begun to saturate. Many of the engineers cited their dissatisfaction with management as a major reason for their most recent job change: Incompetence of middle management to
APRIL, 1970
grasp new concepts. Middle management did not like to make waves. Disenchantment with management of large corporation. Management not of caliber I wanted to emulate. Management problems in old job created unsuitable working conditions. My previous employment was most unsatisfactory due to terrible management mistakes and bureaucracy. Many of the engineers pointed out that the government contracts were a large contributing reason for their most recent job change: It has been said before, but it bears r e p e a t i n g - a n engineer in defense work is a migrant day laborer. Changed f r o m military-aerospace to commercial-oriented job. Decided to switch from military to industrial research lab to reduce violent swings in available work, as government contracts came and went. Wanted to find more permanent job before age 40. It should be pointed out that a significant number o f engineers changed from their most recent job to enter completely new fields: Went from electrical engineering to teaching physics at junior college level. Better atmosphere. Better opportunity to reach young people. I switched to economics and completed a Ph.D. in that field. My work since 1963 has been in development economics. Changed from industrial research to university teaching. I t o o k a position in a patent law firm as a clerk. After graduation from law school I stayed with the firm as an associate and, later, as a partner. I am now practicing public law on behalf of the overburdened taxpayers of the State of New York. I will receive m y M.D. in June, 1970. My interests will be the application of my engineering background to clinical medical practice and research.
~
Most engineers leave their jobs in search of a change of career direction, more interesting work, and opportunity for advancement. The second most important reason for a change in employment is to obtain a higher salary; this factor is also the leading third and fourth reasons. The implications are clear. Within the
47
ARTHUR GERSTENFELD AND GABRIEL ROSICA
organization, paths should be open to the engineers so that career directions can change over time. In addition, the organization should put increased emphasis on providing projects of high interest with ample opportunities for advancement. The opportunity for high salary must be available; this factor cannot be replaced by interesting work. Unfortunately, the engineer today usually
has to change organizations to fulfill these desires. The organization then finds that, in order to replace this engineer, it must create a job with more interest, present paths for advancement, and pay higher salaries. How much more reasonable it would be to incorporate these factors in the first place, thereby reducing the enormous waste resulting from the inordinately high engineering turnover rates.
Questionnaire Please complete the following concerning your last job change. Personal description (at the time of last job change) a. Maritalstatus (M or S) b. Number of children c. Home (own or rent) d. Highest degree e. Enrolled in evening courses f. Draft status g. Approximate annual base salary at previous job just prior to change Up to 10K 10K-15K 15K-20K
48
Over 20K II.
Employment background just prior to last job change a. Industry type (military, industrial, commercial) b. Job type (research, development, engineering, sales, technical management, general management, other) c. Company size (approximate number of employees) d. Dates of employment (years only) (Please give the approximate relocation distance between your previous job and your present job)
III. Reason for change of employment (please number in order of importance all that apply: 1 = most important, 2 = second in importance, and so on) 1. More responsibility 2. Company relocated 3. Higher salary 4. Joined new venture 5. More interesting 6. Change of career direction 7. Project cancelled 8. Better location 9. Personal reasons 10. Lack of security 11. Fringe benefits 12. Company acquired 13. New management 14. Opportunity for advancement 15. Military deferments 16. Better commuting Please make any other comments you wish regarding the major reasons for your most recent job change.
BUSINESS HORIZONS