Our expert has already told us the ploys for getting ahead in the hierarchy of technology, but you can't get ahead if you've been kicked off the team; here's how to make sure you're not
There are times in any organization when advancements and promotions are not likely. The prudently ambitious technocrat then settles for survival. This requires a substantial adjustment in his methods; for, as described in the law governing advancement and survival in technology,
Advancement demands risk
but survival is achieved through risk reduction.
The primary methods are the same as in any other hierarchy: conformity in dress, conformity in behavior and, above all, conformity with the boss. These methods are learned early in life.
For example, a seven-year-old heads off to school. It's cool and threatening rain, so he has been dressed in his raincoat. A number of the other children are not so dressed and tease him. He becomes unhappy and refuses to wear his raincoat again even when it is actually raining.
For another example, Bill has begun his first job after graduating from high school. He works with a group of other fellows changing tires and balancing wheels for an auto tire store. After two weeks on the job, he has mastered the technique and can change tires faster than any of his co-workers. But the group puts pressure on him to slow down. No one else wants to work that hard. He soon learns to make unnecessary moves and to dawdle. At his slow pace he finds the work dull and uninteresting, but he doesn't dare work harder.
Bill and the seven-year-old have already learned to adjust their lifestyles to be consistent with the First Law of Survival:
To get along, go along.
A local grocery store operator notes that his customers are unable to keep up with the cash register as it rings up purchases. By overcharging for some items or by charging for more items than purchased, his profit is increased. All clerks at the checkout counter soon learn that "errors" in favor of the store are part of the unwritten job description. To keep their jobs they go along.
A group of engineers in a large firm finished writing a contract proposal. The proposed engineering schedule and estimated cost were very tight, but still their management wanted a tighter schedule and lower cost estimate to be sure they got the contract. While the engineers could rewrite the proposal as requested, they knew it would be impossible to do the engineering work on schedule. Reluctantly, they went along.
The rewritten contract proposal was accepted by the government, which soon had one more contract running well over the estimates, thanks to the efforts of the engineers who joined the ranks of those who get along by going along.
The nature of the First Law of Survival and the conformity it engenders is well understood by technical management. Furthermore, management knows that too much conformity in large organizations leads to stagnation. While this might be acceptable in some organizations, it would never do in an organization devoted to innovation. Methods for avoiding stagnation are therefore in great demand.
One of the most popular approaches is to reorganize or to move employees to new locations. This is so popular in high-technology growth industries that many people believe IBM really stands for I've Been Moved.
As a means of avoiding stagnation, moving people around or reorganizing has at least one major failing. By accelerating the rate at which positions are created or changed, the rate is also increased at which the hierarchy moves toward the inevitable competence inversion predicted by Putt's Law. This is beneficial to technocrats who have studied the lessons of the Two Laws of Crises, for they have laid the groundwork for their own promotions with each reorganization. However, if avoiding stagnation is the goal, then other methods must be found.
According to William Shockley, co-winner of the 1956 Nobel Prize in physics, the capability differences among workers in scientific laboratories becomes larger exponentially, as one moves up the scale of productivity. It is thus most important to motivate the best workers as effectively as possible. Peter Drucker, however suggests, "We know nothing about motivation - all we can do is write books about it."
This leaves management with one alternative for improving productivity. They must fire the least productive workers. This management procedure is technically referred to as getting rid of the deadwood.
A variety of approaches are available, but the most common one is simply to fire 5 to 10 per cent of the work force every year - presumably from the bottom. Because it works so well in theory, it is frequently employed in practice. Ambitious technocrats must, therefore, be prepared to protect their own interests if such firing policies are adopted.
An excellent procedure for meeting arbitrarily established firing goals is to hire some people each year with the intent of firing them the next. This avoids the unpleasantness of firing associates of long standing and helps to build a good manager-employee relationship among the "regulars."
A more sophisticated method is available that also addresses one of the greatest concerns of many well-established technocrats. The concern is that they will be replaced or by-passed by their energetic and ambitious subordinates. If management institutes a mandatory firing policy one can avoid being displaced by someone from within the group by following a Law of Survival which commands:
To protect your position fire the fastest rising employees first.
This approach to firing also avoids the common error of firing the lowest ranking employees first. Managers who do this quickly learn who was doing the work. The remaining employees are much too senior to be asked to perform the mundane tasks that kept the project moving in the past. Progress diminishes and the manager comes under pressure to fire more employees.
This is known as the domino firing strategy; for if the manager continues firing from the bottom, the process continues until he is the last remaining member of the group. At this point there is no further progress in the project and management can turn its attention elsewhere.