One of the biggest mistakes an engineering manager can make when hiring technical help is to assume that a guy who calls himself a "control engineer" is qualified to design a motion (control) system. It's the classic case of the blind employing the blind; more than likely, both will fall together.

Just because someone can tune a PID loop controlling temperature, liquid level, or flow doesn't mean he can design the workings of a high-speed, wafer-handling robot with adaptive dynamics and anticipatory response. We're talking about entirely different physics, that of the robot being orders of magnitude more complex. It's as ridiculous as assuming that a guy who can paddle a canoe can also fly a jet.

What's most troublesome about this misconception – and some of it comes from within our very industry — is that it devalues the true motion engineer. When those in charge can't tell the difference between superficial and deep, broad knowledge, how can engineers who've worked their tails off to gain this knowledge expect due recognition (and fair compensation) from the industries they serve?

It's apparent, by the lack of response, that everyone agrees with me... as they should.

I'll respond, to break the silence.

"What's most troublesome about this misconception – and some of it comes from within our very industry — is that it devalues the true motion engineer. When those in charge can't tell the difference between superficial and deep, broad knowledge, how can engineers who've worked their tails off to gain this knowledge expect due recognition (and fair compensation) from the industries they serve?"

You hit the nail on the head with your identification of the problem. But it is only a small corner of a larger problem. You see, the larger any organization is, the less rational it becomes. If we are generous, and assume that 1% of the population are both intelligent and rational, we can extrapolate that only a very few managers or owners of businesses would be of this class. Of those, fewer still will have the temperament and opportunity to meet with enough success in business to grow very large. With the greater size of an organization comes an inability to control many small but important details. The owner or manager of a small but growing business, if intelligent and rational himself, faces great difficulty in finding managers to hire who share these traits. These people are rare, and they mostly own their own enterprises or are very deeply entrenched in another organization.

So, even if a company was founded by an innovator, as the company grows and the founder ages, things slip. Second - handers get hired and keep their jobs by being barely able to cope with routine tasks. Eventually they are kept because they have seniority and familiarity with the routine details. Complacency and inertia take over. The larger a company grows, the more of these people must inevitably be on the payroll, and the higher in rank they become.

Soon, the entire culture of the place is dominated by these people. They strive to arrange things to make themselves indispensable, which usually means hiding important details from others, creating byzantine paperwork rituals, laying trails for responsibility avoidance, and opposing meaningful change. And, they tend to hire people who they can get along with -- team players, people who do what they are told and don't threaten them with unfamiliar knowledge, people they can get along with.

Before too long, a place gets transformed into a company of risk - averse conformists, who specialise in blame avoidance, ass - kissing of superiors, and power plays over subordinates. Even the owner of such a place can't transform the atmosphere wholesale -- where and how can he replace these people after they have built their kingdoms into which they entrench themselves at his expense?

So, to sum up the problem on a global scale; the majority of people are more comfortable following established routines, doing what they are told, and never being challenged to think about anything at all. The larger enterprises cynically take advantage of this tendency to the maximum degree possible. So the larger an enterprise is, the more inevitable it is that it will be dominated by these people, and the result will be palpably illogical and counter - productive behavior of the organization on just about any plane of endeavor you care to examine.

In consequence, these proudly and arrogantly stupid people I describe get their most profound pleasure in the workplace when they can thwart, defeat, or dominate any threatening new addition to their workforce who comes in with intentions of blazing new trails, designing the best equipment, removing barriers to productivity, and trying to share an enthusiasm for newly found knowledge. Their cynicism towards people who don't fit into their club is revealed in their smirks whenever another one leaves in disillusionment and disgust. Neither understands the other -- the one seeing logic clearly in his mind, the logic dictating the proper course of action so clearly that he cannot understand any impulse to do otherwise, the other seeing everything in terms of power relationships between people, knowing that the power of pull and purse string can frustrate even the most intelligent person who does not know and play by their rules.

Now, in answer to the question posed above, it seems to me to be unreasonable to expect anyone, anywhere to recognize your depth of knowledge. Most likely, they do not know how to recognize it. Anything beyond their own knowledge is murk -- they cannot see far into the murk, and have no way to measure it. (The more you know, the more you recognize the depth of your own ignorance.)

The term 'Due Recognition' supposes that with knowledge and ability should come some status. This will not happen out there in the world, the 'club' players have had strategies to counteract this for centuries and beyond. Usually, those who get 'due recognition' turn out to be charlatans of a like nature to those who support them, only of a more brazen nature. That lasts until they get leveled off, brought down to size, taught a lesson, and humiliated in another episode of their favorite sport -- showing that nobody is superior to anyone else, which they find very comforting, even necessary.

Expecting fair compensation on the basis of ability is an extension of the above fallacious expectation. Look around, and see if you can find a place where compensation is based on ability and performance, outside the waitress industry. (If you can find such a place, that's where you want to be working!)

What are the options for the one-percenters?

You can start your own business, and strive to find customers that will buy the best product for the best price. But beware that many if not most industrial purchases of equipment are made on factors other than quality and price; beware bribe - takers and mushy brained unqualified people burdened with the decision who will give the order to the one who gives them the best touchy - feely emotional response. And beware the cynics at the largest companies who know that the guy with the biggest swinging tool is the one with the largest budget who attends the most meetings, not the guy who gets the job done for the least expense and minimum fuss; a more expensive piece of equipment that can be the subject of a heroic salvation might be what he needs more that some black box that just does the job.

You can try to find an organization to work for that rewards competence and performance. This is not easy, for these organizations are in the one - percent range themselves. All potential employers claim to reward all the buzzwords, few do. Judging from initial impressions is difficult. A few key indicators to avoid might be if they are actively bankrupting their north american suppliers and selling off their most profitable sectors so that they can take all available cash and invest it in China preparatory to declaring bankruptcy so as to avoid future retirement obligations, or if they periodically 'restructure', or if they use ANY buzzwords. You can look to see whether they try to get tax breaks from government, or if they pay lobbyists. In either case the entire thing is likely to be run by dishonest or at least untrustworthy individuals.

It is difficult to discern on an interview, but a tour of the place will reveal past practices. Also, you can ask who previous designers and engineers were, whether they still work there, etc. If you can judge their work, you can see for yourself whether competence and ability are rewarded. A strict, rigid atmosphere with information held close reveals insecurity about status and knowledge. Competent people are not threatened by other competent people, they seek them out.

In short, to get recognition and respect for your ability, your designs have to speak for themselves, and the recognition and respect might then only come from your fiercest competitors, sometimes only to be revealed by the insults and untruths that get told about you and your designs.

And to get paid for your efforts, you have to find someone who is willing to buy your services or products, in an atmosphere where the cards are almost overwhelmingly stacked against you.

If you are a man of ability, you are like a man with a target painted on his back, dragging a sled uphill upon which a bevy of archers ride, taking the occasional potshot at you. If they allow you to drag them on their journey, they will try to arrange the situation so that it looks like they are giving you the opportunity of a lifetime, as a favor. They will demand teamwork, camaraderie, and loyalty, so long as it benefits them. But only for as long as the team benefits from your efforts, the camaraderie salves their deficent egos, and the loyalty consists of you perpetually paying their way until the day when their superiors who operate on some unattainable mystical knowledge dictate a white collar reduction, in which case the most able are the first to go.

The short answer is, you have to earn it, and take it, and don't expect it to be handed to you. And don't work for those who can't recognize it unless you are willing to accept the trade-offs.

Mr. Berardinis, I have read your articles on Tesla, and so I know you already knew all of this. (I came here looking for more on Tesla, as promised in your artice).
See what happens when you get me started?

--John Danforth--
(A NON-DEGREED, self-educated engineer)

Now that's breaking the silence... bam... the written equivalent of one of those "daisy cutters" or MOAB bombs we've read about.

This sums up alot of what's ailing businesses today, and it should be required reading for mid to high-level corporate managers. Very insightful and well put.

I owe you (and others) some Tesla, and I promise to have some tidbits up there in a new thread before the day is out.

John,
I couldn't have said it better myself... bravo!!!

Ed
Another non-degreed, self educated engineer)