NASA: Exploring Internal Space
One of my
close friends is a NASA engineer. He is
one of the smartest men I know and also one of the nicest. We meet regularly as I am coaching him about
marriage and making right decisions.
Throughout our conversations, he speaks frequently of the challenges
inherent in his job and the interactions with his coworkers. He’s never complained about the atmosphere or
the culture though he has mentioned butting heads with very strong-minded
people who can be quite unmoving and inflexible in their views. I found that interesting while watching NASA
Administrator Sean O’Keefe discuss safety culture, employee opinions, and
potential management changes.
Why did NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe
address NASA employees to describe the plan to bring about proposed changes to
NASA's culture?
Administrator
O’Keefe held a news conference to discuss the conclusion of BSTs cultural
investigation into NASA and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The report exposed NASA and said it was a
space agency with a non-existent safety program. It spoke of a culture that
prevents free discussions and promoted employee disrespect. O’Keefe said, “We get it,” and is now facing
the challenge of reinventing a culture that contains over 45-years of
deep-seated bureaucracy.
The BST
report, “Assessment and Plan for Organizational Culture Change at NASA”
surveyed about 40 percent of the space agency’s 19,000-member workforce. The report showed both positive and negative
elements within the NASA culture.
According to Frank Sietzen from Space
Daily, the positive elements reflected what the report called “a long
legacy of technical excellence and a can-do-attitude.” However, there were
other elements that did not fair as well.
For instance, the report found the present-day NASA
working environment "does not yet reflect the agency's espoused core
values of safety, people, excellence, and integrity."
Was O’Keefe believable?
This
video about the changes at NASA was the first time I’ve seen Sean O’Keefe make
a presentation. Obviously, he is highly
intelligent. He cares greatly for his
company and his people. And, he wants what is best for the administration and
the future of our country. However, with
all that said, he does not speak and present his heart in a believable
manner. Yes, I do believe he wants the
agency to improve; but I just didn’t get the sense that he was willing to do
whatever was necessary to make that happen.
Rather, I
heard an air of bureaucracy with an undercurrent of timelines and expectations
surrounding deliverables, i.e., programs, successful products, and better
shuttles. In short, it sounds like his
passion is not for the people and what happened in them that allowed the
tragedies to occur. He said, “This is
about a much broader approach of values.” He stated that safety and integrity
should be evidenced in everything they do; yet, is he willing to hear news
about a launch being delayed because of safety concerns?
Is it important whether he appeared to be
believable?
Yes,
visual believability is extremely important.
It can be the difference between the employees accepting O’Keefe’s
message or writing it off as public relations damage control. What I found even more disconcerting during
the video were the audience members.
Every person listening to O’Keefe seemed distant, disengaged,
uninterested, and certainly not passionate about taking steps to change the
culture! In fact, what I picked up was
apathy and resignation. They seemed not
only unmoved by the director’s comments, they actually projected mannerisms
that said, “It’ll never happen here.”
Normally,
when speeches of this magnitude are given, they are delivered with passion and
hope for a better future. The audience
normally nods in agreement and provides the non-verbal necessary to encourage
the speaker of their belief in the message. That was not the case in this
video.
Why did he talk about NASA values?
Everything
within a company rests on the values established and modeled by leadership. NASA uncovered an insidious problem within
their culture—disrespect and lack of accountability. When employees are afraid to bring up safety
concerns for fear of being marginalized or ignored, it undermines the values of
integrity and transparency. O’Keefe
promises greater accountability. He said
it’s a “We” culture not a “Them” culture and that each and every employee from
this point forward will be encouraged to bring up concerns. While every suggestion will not be followed,
there will be an avenue to be heard.
What can you take away from this exercise to
immediately use in your career?
In Cohn
and Moran’s book, Why Are We Bad At
Picking Good Leaders, they identified integrity as one of the prevailing
characteristics of a good leader. They
said, “People in organizations look to the leader for guidance on how to act. This includes deciding what is right and what
is wrong. When a leader sets the tone for
what is ethically permissible, the tone is contagious.” At NASA, leaders placed schedules, budgets,
and programs over safety and ethics.
After a while, employees realized their suggestions would not be heard
(or worse, they would face retaliation); therefore, they kept silent. The tragedies surrounding the Columbia
disaster and the Challenger before it, are examples of what happens when
leaders ignore integrity and devalue employee insights.
Personally,
I have learned many important lessons in this study. One that stands out is
this: Compromises, no matter how small or how big, have consequences. Even if you never see the immediate effect of
cutting corners, the cumulative value adds up and eventually there is a payment
that will come due. As a leader, be willing to make the hard decisions on the
front end. The blast effect of a missed deadline is a tiny percentage of what
you or someone else may face later.
Steve
No comments:
Post a Comment