The aim of the research described in this paper was to ascertain the obstacles engineering managers face in executing organizational objectives, to identify differences between engineering managers and managers in general in the obstacles they face, and to map clusters of obstacles. The author conducted a survey of 26 engineering managers in a Canadian engineering company employing about 250 engineers and compared the results with a database of 322 managers in general. The study examined obstacles corresponding to five drivers of performance: rules, emotions, initiative, immediate action, and integrity. In contrast with managers in general, engineering managers faced a greater need to clarify rules, a greater lack of initiative among their employees, and less difficulty in taking immediate action. For the drivers of emotions and integrity, there were no significant differences between the engineering managers and managers in general. The obstacles the engineering managers faced when executing their management strategy could be clustered in five groups.
The reality of today’s challenging business environment demands that organizations be competent in proactively dealing with change and providing leadership at every level. This paper reports the findings of an opinion survey of engineering managers in a Canadian firm that sought to clarify how comfortable these leaders were in their interdependence on peers and subordinates to deal successfully with the internal and external business environment.
Leadership occupies a central position in management. The cause of business failures has often been attributed to leadership failures. The two common elements in the varied definitions of leadership are:
1.
Influencing people.
2.
Pursuing a common goal.
What distinguishes a leader from the common run of managers is the measure of his or her followers’ willingness to contribute to the objectives of the organization. A leader must reach organizational objectives by influencing employees (followers) to willingly strive toward the common goal. The ultimate aim, therefore, of all leadership theories and models is to build a cause-and-effect relationship that is necessary and sufficient to enable the leadership system to achieve the enterprise’s goals.
Companies need to create a corporate culture in which people value strong leadership and strive to create it. Just as more people are needed to provide leadership in the complex organizations that dominate the world today, more people are also needed to develop the cultures that will create this leadership. Institutionalizing a leadership-centered culture is the ultimate act of leadership.
To institutionalize such a culture, it is necessary to infuse it with values beyond the technical requirements of the task at hand. The achievement of the social machinery beyond its technical role is largely a reflection of the unique way it fulfills personal or group needs. From the standpoint of the committed person, the organization is changed from an expendable tool into a valued source of personal satisfaction. The institutional leader, then, is primarily an expert in the promotion and protection of values. The study described in this paper examined the extent to which obstacles related to five drivers of performance influenced engineering managers’ success in executing organizational strategy and to answer the following questions:
•
What are the main obstacles engineering managers face when executing organizational objectives?
•
How do the obstacles engineering managers face in executing their objectives differ from those faced by managers in general?
•
How can these obstacles be mapped to establish a taxonomy of engineering managers?
Drivers of Performance
The leadership and management of engineers have become a critical topic because of the unprecedented degree of change in the business climate over the past three decades, necessitating drastic changes in management approaches (Ahuja et al. 2006). Thilmany (2004) noted that engineers must broaden their horizons and learn new job skills to continue to reap the increased rewards that go along with management jobs. Finchum (2003), among others, highlighted the effects of leadership on quality for engineering managers.
The literature on management leadership for engineers has identified what can be categorized as five drivers of performance: rules, emotions, initiative, immediate action, and integrity. Strategy execution encompasses the strategic processes managers use to implement their organizational objectives. The five drivers of performance can be used as lenses in examining the execution of managers’ objectives and have been supported in previous empirical research; this perspective on the five drivers of performance was inspired by Kolb’s (1984) discussion of experiential learning and developed in subsequent management research by Kolb and Richard (1995).
Rules and Obstacles to Performance: Lack of Clarification and Alignment with Objectives
The rules driver of performance is consistent with what Kolb (1984) called abstract conceptualization; rules deal with procedures and systems to set and achieve objectives, manage programs, and measure performance. The corresponding obstacle is a lack of formal or informal processes to clarify the existing set of rules and align them with the organization’s objectives. Several authors have examined the role of rules in presenting obstacles when dealing with systems. Dlakwa (1990) found that bureaucracy and bureaucratic rules were key obstacles in the work of engineering managers. For example, bureaucratic obstacles resulted in delays in settling outstanding payments to contractors, which in turn caused delays in construction projects. Cua et al. (2001) proposed an approach to evaluating maintenance performance based on a quality audit and quantifiable performance indicators. Nakajima (1989) suggested that the effectiveness of the maintenance function must be defined through relative economic and technical ratios to permit the maintenance manager to follow the evolution of maintenance performance and to make decisions necessary for improved management.
Davis and Willmott (1999) highlighted how the lack of structured tools and techniques impeded managers’ ability to achieve highly effective plants and production equipment and to measure effectiveness. Likewise, Cowper and Smith (2002) took a systems view of projects, applying systems engineering principles to project management and showing how a lack of clear objectives regarding user requirements, system requirements, system design, component development, integration, installation and testing, and operational capability represented obstacles in executing managers’ objectives.
Emotions and Obstacles to Performance: Lack of Commitment to Objectives
A second set of obstacles can be examined through the lens of emotions. The performance driver of emotions deals with motivation, teamwork, and commitment to the manager’s objectives, similar to what Kolb (1984) called reflexive observation. Emotions are influenced by social climate; a lack of trust and negative emotion impede employees’ commitment to the manager’s objectives (Hansson et al. 2003). Unless employees are motivated, the alignment of organizational and individual goals will not be optimized, jeopardizing the organization’s overall performance (Sahay et al. 2000; Hansson et al. 2003).
Ahuja and Khamba (2008) found that the implementation of engineering programs suffered from a lack of employee support of, commitment to, and involvement with the objectives of top management and recommended that top management establish mechanisms for multilevel communication with all employees to explain the importance and benefits of the whole program. Similarly, Sahay et al. (2006) argued that encouraging the role of followers is an important part of leadership development and that a lack of commitment by followers is an obstacle for engineering managers.
Initiative and Obstacles to Performance: Lack of Translation of Objectives into Concrete Projects
The performance driver of initiative involves responsibility, delegation, and decentralization in translating managers’ objectives effectively into concrete projects, or what Kolb (1984) called active experimentation. Fredendall et al. (1997) identified lack of initiative as a barrier to proactive total productive maintenance and suggested ways to improve initiative in organizations. Finchum (2003) conducted a brief survey of the setbacks experienced by engineering firms undergoing leadership changes and developed initiatives to overcome a lack of sense of responsibility among employees.
Immediate Action and Obstacles to Performance: Lack of Ability to Address Urgent Matters
The driver of immediate action deals with engineering managers’ capacity to effectively address administrative crises, emergencies, and deadlines, what Kolb (1984) called concrete action. Bhadury and Mandal (1998) studied the prioritization process and noted that too many conflicting priorities in terms of customer needs and organizational capabilities, risk, directives, initiatives, issues, and activities are an obstacle to taking immediate action to address urgent matters. In the presence of priority conflicts, engineering managers are hostage to recurrent short-term emergencies, impeding their long-term efforts to achieve organizational objectives (Cooke 2000; Crawford et al. 1988). George (2002), for example, found that more than half of CEOs’ activities lasted fewer than 9 minutes.
Integrity and Obstacles to Performance: Lack of Clarification of Organizational Values and Principles
The performance driver of integrity deals with the execution of objectives consistent with the values and principles of the organization. In engineering management (Batley 1998), issues of integrity involve values, culture, and ethics; for example, corruption is an important challenge in management. Several authors have identified lack of consistent values and principles as an obstacle in the strategy execution of engineering managers (Batley 1998; Becker 1993; Bamber et al. 1999). For example, Davis and Willmott (1999) found that a lack of clear value placed on the empowerment and encouragement of factory floor personnel from all areas impeded engineering managers’ strategy execution. Noon et al. (2000) found that Turkish construction companies that lacked clear organizational values in strategic management had serious shortcomings.
Organizational culture has repeatedly been implicated in the rise and fall of organizations (see Davis 1997). For instance, George (2002) studied the role of values and culture in mergers of organizations in which engineers were predominant. He found six primary culture indicators—artifacts (symbols) of culture, common language and conceptual categories, group boundaries, power and status, rewards and punishment, and values of individuals—and argued that lack of consistency in organizational cultures and values may impede the integration of merging offices. Currie and Seddon (1992) argued that lack of capacity in putting culture to work in organizations results when an engineering manager is not fully responsible for both meeting the organizational mission and improving how the mission is met.
Methodology
The author administered a questionnaire survey to examine the views of 26 engineering managers on obstacles in strategy execution. The engineering managers were among 250 employees of an engineering firm based in Canada and active in industrial, electrical, mechanical, and instrumentation engineering. The questionnaire contained 25 items consisting of objective statements (e.g., for rules, “The actual results I am expected to achieve with my boss and my organization are not clear;” for initiative, “We represent a group of individuals rather than work as a team with clear common goals”). Response choices were totally agree, partially agree, neither agree or disagree, partially disagree, and totally disagree. Questionnaire items were developed by the author and designed to be simple and specific; several academics and practicing consultants or professionals reviewed the items, and their suggestions and improvements were incorporated. To enable better insight regarding the implications of the questionnaire results, the author conducted personal interviews with the respondents. The data were then compared with data from a database of 322 managers without engineering training selected randomly from three companies operating in the same geographic area as the engineering firm.
Findings
Of the 25 engineering managers who provided demographic data, nearly half (48%) were less than 40 years old, 44% were 40 to 49 years old, and 8% were older than 50 years old. With respect to gender, almost 98% of the respondents were male. Nearly one-third (32%) had less than 2 years of experience in engineering management, 30% had 2 to 5 years, 14% had 5 to 10 years, and 24% had 10 to 20 years. In terms of experience as engineers, over half had less than 2 years of experience (58%); 28% had 2 to 5 years, and 14% had 10 to 20 years. The relative youth and inexperience of these engineering managers can be explained by the strong growth this engineering firm had recently experienced. Twenty-eight percent of respondents were supervising five persons or fewer, 58% were supervising 5 to 10 persons, and 14% were supervising 10 to 49 persons.
The author reviewed the questionnaire data (percentage of respondents in each response category for each item) and interview data from the 26 engineering managers and compared these findings with data from the database of 322 managers in general. The comparison revealed three critical differences in the obstacles faced by the engineering managers and managers in general in strategy execution:
1.
Engineering managers reported lack of initiative as the most important obstacle to a greater extent than managers in general. Most of the engineering managers perceived their greatest challenge to involve translating their objectives into concrete projects with their employees, increasing employees’ sense of responsibility in achieving objectives, and implementing decentralization.
2.
Engineering managers identified the performance driver of rules as a significant obstacle to a greater extent than managers in general. This finding implies that the need to clarify rules (e.g., performance indicators, objectives, structured tools and techniques) was more significant for engineering managers than for managers in general.
3.
In contrast, immediate action represented less of an obstacle for engineering managers than for managers in general. The engineering managers apparently perceived the capacity to take immediate action to respond to emergencies and urgent matters as less of a barrier to strategy execution than managers in general.
For the performance drivers of emotions and integrity, there were no significant differences between the engineering managers and managers in general.
As shown in Table 1, the engineering managers’ responses on the questionnaire revealed five clusters (Quick Cluster, SPSS, Chicago; see also Figure 1):
•
Cluster 1 includes managers who considered three of the five drivers to present important obstacles: rules, immediate action, and integrity. A fourth driver, initiative, also represented an area of concern.
•
Cluster 2 includes managers who considered only one obstacle to be very important: initiative. To a lesser extent these managers identified three other drivers as presenting obstacles: rules, immediate action, and integrity.
•
Cluster 3 includes managers who considered that all the drivers of performance represented obstacles to the execution of their strategy: rules, emotions, initiative, immediate action, and integrity.
•
Cluster 4 includes managers who considered none of the drivers to present significant obstacles. These managers may have been among the more experienced as managers and within their organization.
•
Cluster 5 is similar to Cluster 4, with the following difference: These managers considered the drivers of initiative and integrity to present obstacles, but at a low level of concern.
Fig. 1. Relative positioning of the five clusters
Table 1. Clustering of Obstacles
Cluster
Description
Average score
Rules
Emotions
Initiative
Immediate action
Integrity
1
5
Three of the five drivers present very important obstacles, and a fourth is worrying or problematic.
3.6
2.1
2.9
3.6
3.4
2
7
One of the five drivers presents very important obstacles, and three others are worrying or problematic.
2.8
2.3
3.7
3.1
2.8
3
2
All five drivers present very important obstacles.
4.3
3.9
4.6
4.1
4.0
4
2
None of the drivers present important obstacles.
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.7
1.0
5
9
None of the drivers present very important obstacles, but initiative and integrity are worrying or problematic.
2.2
1.8
2.5
2.1
2.3
Note: Items were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, in which 1 = totally disagree that the driver presents important obstacles and 5 = totally agree that the driver presents important obstacles.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Unlike technologies, which are neutral to any segment of practitioners, management practices change depending on the way they are used. This paper has shown that the topic of obstacles faced by engineering managers in the execution of their duties can be examined through the lens of five drivers that influence performance.
Leaders need a set of behavioral skills to act proactively to bring about suitable changes and enhance the performance of the organization and its employees. These skills include self-assessment, communication, ability to manage differences, skill in influencing people, and goal setting and action planning skills. If these skills do not come naturally, they can be learned and practiced. Leaders also need sufficient energy to energize others to face business challenges in proactive and creative ways. The following steps are recommended to help organizations make the best use of their engineering managers:
1.
Provide management education: Engineering managers must be proficient in management and human relations fundamentals.
2.
Provide training and retraining: Regular training is necessary to update the knowledge and sharpen the management skills of engineering managers.
3.
Make good use of experience: Engineering managers require real-life experience in handling people and solving problems.
4.
Improve system design: Better organizational system design facilitates the motivation and commitment of personnel.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Raymond Laliberté and Jyothiraj Brahmanandan for their support. He received financial support from the Institute for Strategy Execution, a nonprofit research and transfer organization.
References
Ahuja, I. P. S., and Khamba, J. S. (2008). “Strategies and success factors for overcoming challenges in TPM implementation in Indian manufacturing industry.” J. Qual. Mainten. Eng., 14(2), 123–147.
Ahuja, I. P. S., Khamba, J. S., and Choudhary, R. (2006). “Improved organizational behavior through strategic total productive maintenance implementation.” Proc., Int. Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, ASME, New York, 91–98.
Bamber, C. J., Sharp, J. M., and Hides, M. (1999). “Factors affecting successful implementation of total productive maintenance: A UK manufacturing case study perspective.” J. Qual. Mainten. Eng., 5(3), 162–181.
Crawford, K. M., Blackstone, J. H. Jr., and Cox, J. F. (1988). “A study of JIT implementation and operating problems.” Int. J. Prod. Res.IJPRB8, 26(9), 1561–1568.
Cua, K. O., McKone, K. E., and Schroeder, R. G. (2001). “Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance.” J. Oper. Manage.JOTMES, 19(6), 675–694.
Dlakwa, M. M. (1990). “Bureaucracy: Key obstacle to project success.” Transactions of the American Association of Cost Engineers, Morgantown, WV, F.4.1–F.4.5.
Fredendall, L. D., Patterson, J. W., Kennedy, W. J., and Griffin, T. (1997). “Maintenance: Modeling its strategic impact.” J. Manage. IssuesJMAIE9, 9(4), 440–453.
Hansson, J., Backlund, F., and Lycke, L. (2003). “Managing commitment: Increasing the odds for successful implementation of TQM, TPM or RCM.” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage., 20(9), 993–1008.
Noon, M., Jenkins, S., and Lucio, M. M. (2000). “FADS, techniques and control: The competing agendas of TPM and Tecax at the Royal Mail (UK).” J. Manage. Stud., 37(4), 499–519.
Sahay, B. S., Gupta, J. N. D., and Mohan, R. (2006). “Managing supply chains for competitiveness: The Indian scenario.” Supply Chain Manage. Int. J., 11(1), 15–24.
Vincent Sabourin is professor and director of GRÈS (Strategy Execution Research Group) of the School of Management at the University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada. He can be contacted at [email protected].
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
LM.1943-5630.0000165/asset/58980a88-a232-4965-8071-d97360bb481b/assets/images/large/figure1.jpg)
