Ducks In A Row: Culture And The Dual Career Ladder
by Miki SaxonThe list of basic cultural IBBs prompted a phone call from a reader asking for more information on the dual career ladder. When we were done, he suggested that I put that information on the blog this week. Who am I to argue with a reader?
I’m not an historian, but I think that the need for the ladder was seen first in the technical world at least 40 years ago and although they may not have been the first, IBM and the original Bell Labs were two of the highest profile early adopters.
People work to improve their situation, but companies need only so many managers and only so many people want to manage. This is especially true in tech companies where many people are ill-suited to management roles, yet that was the only road to a raise.
So the two driving facts behind the dual ladder were
- a limited number of management positions—the number is still shrinking as corporate structures keep flattening; and
- recognition that not everyone is suited to management.
Enter the Dual Career Ladder; it’s simple, logical and most easily explained with this graphic
IBM Called their highest level Sr. Fellow, Bell Labs used Principal Engineer. Both positions were more than just an honor for which people strove, since they carried with them the same compensation and status as a director or vice president.
My caller asked why the model wasn’t in wider use if it was so effective.
That’s easy, ego and culture.
Accepting, for example, that a software architect is of equal value to the company as a vice president and should be compensated accordingly is hard to swallow. Few executives are comfortable with the idea that people who do hands-on work are as valuable to the organization as they are. This plays out at every level of management from team leader up.
And it’s not just in tech that this happens. I still remember when the top salesman in a certain industry had his commissioned cut because he had sold so much product that his earnings were more than the company president’s salary. That was deemed “unseemly” and so the decision to cut his commission. His reaction was what you would expect and he gave his notice less than a week later.
Because of that ego, the ladder needs to be deeply embedded in the company’s culture so it can be implemented fairly and evenly throughout the organization.
It’s the egos that prevent that from happening.
Your comments—priceless
Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL
Image credit: flickr; graphic courtesy of RampUp Solutions
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
While I totally LOVE the idea of a duel career ladder, I think you meant “dual”…
;^)
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Hi Dona, now that I’ve slunk out of under my rock of shame I will slink over to the editor and fix it. You can not know how embarrassed I am.
Thanks for visiting and for catching that. Actually, there are places where it IS a duel career ladder…
February 5th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Which do you think is less bruising to executive egos?
February 5th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Hi Hayli, I’m not sure what you are asking, but managers and executives who react that way are just shooting themselves in the foot. the sales guy who left took with him many millions of dollars worth of revenue. I doubt that improved the CEOs status with his Board or investors.
So I guess the answer really is that their egos are way too fragile and their thinking too short-term.
If this doesn’t answer your question, please let me know.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
[…] Dual Ladder Career Path: a series of hands-on positions that equate straight across the board with management positions. […]