We have all lamented the decline in employee numbers and morale in our industry. It may be that those left - some in a state of disenchantment - are on the verge of meltdown, especially the crowd in the technical and engineering disciplines. At least reading between the lines of a recent report titled "The Boeing Story - Why Engineers Strike" might lead one to believe that. The report, by Dr. Woodruff Imberman, president of management consultants Imberman and DeForest Inc., and published in Indiana University's Business Horizon Journal, examines the causes of the first-ever engineering sector strike, in the aerospace industry.
The report examines the "sudden shift by newly hired senior Boeing executives to emphasize profitability, a move seen by the company's large cadre of scientists and engineers as downgrading their company's traditional emphasis on technical excellence." Acting through their union, the engineers struck to protect their traditional and professional status.
Interestingly the report concluded that, "because Boeing lacked an effective internal communications system, the strike came as a surprise to senior management, who were unaware of the decline in engineering morale caused by the shift in business priorities. Having made no preparations to weather a lengthy walkout, Boeing was forced to acquiesce to steep union demands to end the crippling strike."
The report goes on to discuss management tactics to handle such situations, but while that may be relevant for another discussion on management, the message we all might get is that lightning can strike more than once in the same place - in this case the professional engineering and technical community.
Let us go backward a few years - say 30 or so. I cannot prove this and am much to lazy to do the research, but I would bet (and personal experience tells me this) that the senior executives of almost all major oil companies 30 years ago, and many service and supply companies, had risen from the engineering ranks. You and I know the situation has changed. Boy, has it changed. That is not to say that the change is for the worse. An emphasis on healthy profits is not unwarranted - unless, of course, it is the only emphasis.
If the industry has changed, then what must be done to avoid a Boeing? A key factor is identified in the report: communication between senior management and the engineering, scientific and technical sectors within a company. I visit with a lot of you, and I hear more often than I should that senior management is out of step with the guts of the industry or that engineering is living in the past. Both are wrong. While I have railed long and hard at the obsessive focus of today's management on quarterly profits, a healthy emphasis on sustainable profits is a must. My paycheck, and yours too, is secured by this focus. At the same time, the engineering, scientific and technical community is not living in the dark ages awaiting the next ascendancy of engineering management with an emphasis on engineering above profits. Neither the senior management specimen nor the engineering specimen so configured could collect a paycheck in today's environment. No, it's a question of communication, and one that's not being handled very well anywhere in the industry.
It might be a good idea to establish avenues of dialogue between senior management and the engineering, scientific and technological community before something comes unglued. Boeing wishes it had.

Comments