NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

Palomar · 2003-12-11 12:54:21

*I'm surprised they had the guts to even ask the workers. Now let's see if there will be changes forthcoming or if this will just result in passing the buck and making excuses.

A sample: "NASA does not hold its leadership accountable for failure. . . . The more spectacularly they screw up, the higher up the food chain they go."

That sounds familiar, as the workplace goes.

"It's not what you know, it's who you b--w"

But the fact that they even asked might be a good sign.

I wonder to what percentage "the old ego" factors into us not getting anywhere.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2003-12-11 13:39:49

Sounds familiar, indeed...

Now the spotlight is on NASA, but *every* single big corporation is guilty of the stuff the nasa workforce quotes...

I did several jobs, in several places, it's the same thing e v e r y w h e r e.

I think the main problem is the people that so desperately want to get higher-up... no matter what.

in order to do that, they have to show their bosses, shareholders, presidents... they run things more efficiently, cheaper etc than their rivals, and they will conceal every single problem that arises in their department, too scared it might give them a bad grade...

Most of the time they either cook up the numbers or cut into safety, redundancy, back-up things...
All *seems* to work ok... until something unsuspected happens, then you have a major disaster.
All of a sudden you realize your 'efficient' organisation is just a cardboard box, the smallest 'mishap' (god i hate that word!) causes it to crumble to pieces, and everybody starts pointing at each other... Sad. And too familiar.

Palomar · 2003-12-11 14:00:12

Sounds familiar, indeed...
Now the spotlight is on NASA, but *every* single big corporation is guilty of the stuff the nasa workforce quotes...
I did several jobs, in several places, it's the same thing e v e r y w h e r e.
I think the main problem is the people that so desperately want to get higher-up... no matter what.
in order to do that, they have to show their bosses, shareholders, presidents... they run things more efficiently, cheaper etc than their rivals, and they will conceal every single problem that arises in their department, too scared it might give them a bad grade...
Most of the time they either cook up the numbers or cut into safety, redundancy, back-up things...
All *seems* to work ok... until something unsuspected happens, then you have a major disaster.
All of a sudden you realize your 'efficient' organisation is just a cardboard box, the smallest 'mishap' (god i hate that word!) causes it to crumble to pieces, and everybody starts pointing at each other... Sad. And too familiar.

*That's true...but the big difference here is NASA's funding via tax payer dollars. In that sense it really isn't a corporation (like Microsoft or Hershey's, etc). This makes NASA worse, IMO. They are accountable to the American tax payer, whether they like it or not.

If they truly do not care about space exploration, advancement and achievement, etc., they need to be drummed out. The fact that the government is so intimately involved likely means this will never get resolved; there's obviously a lot of "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" mentality at play between the gov't and NASA. So long as they are all allowed to play games, rake in the big fat salaries, and have all the perks, there is no incentive for anyone to change.

But they are accountable to the US tax payer -- both elected officials and the NASA bigshots. These arrogant taxpayer payroll leeches (jerks) need a reminder.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-12-11 14:18:58

But they are accountable to the US tax payer -- both elected officials and the NASA bigshots. These arrogant taxpayer payroll leeches (jerks) need a reminder.

HAHAHA..... Where in the world did you get the idea that elected officials and NASA (plus just about every other government agency out there) are accountable to the people that pay their salaries??... That's like expecting the sun to start rising in the west instead of the east...hehe.

O.K., maybe I'm pushing things a bit here, but I believe there is an extreme disconnect between the people and the government that is *supposed* to serve them. Take the City of Ft. Lauderdale, for example. Despite the fact that nearly 100% of the residents are against it, the city commission is cutting the police and fire forces. (Yes, it's hard to believe, but that's exactly what they're doing.) The thing that upsets me so, however, is that people are just so apathetic about this. If people would just get it through their heads that they are supposed to *serve* us, then maybe politicians and other government bigwigs will be forced to change their ways.

I think the main problem is the people that so desperately want to get higher-up... no matter what.
in order to do that, they have to show their bosses, shareholders, presidents... they run things more efficiently, cheaper etc than their rivals, and they will conceal every single problem that arises in their department, too scared it might give them a bad grade...
Most of the time they either cook up the numbers or cut into safety, redundancy, back-up things...
All *seems* to work ok... until something unsuspected happens, then you have a major disaster.
All of a sudden you realize your 'efficient' organisation is just a cardboard box, the smallest 'mishap' (god i hate that word!) causes it to crumble to pieces, and everybody starts pointing at each other... Sad. And too familiar.

Very true....I've seen all too much of this myself. This is what I feel is happening to the U.S. as a whole, which makes me wonder how we've managed to hold on as a world superpower this long. If only people would step back and look at the big picture every now and then...

B

Palomar · 2003-12-11 14:25:57

Me: "But they are accountable to the US tax payer -- both elected officials and the NASA bigshots. These arrogant taxpayer payroll leeches (jerks) need a reminder."

Byron: "HAHAHA..... Where in the world did you get the idea that elected officials and NASA (plus just about every other government agency out there) are accountable to the people that pay their salaries??... That's like expecting the sun to start rising in the west instead of the east...hehe."

*I know, I know. But they should be reminded. Does anyone know THE address to NASA? We should start a letter-writing campaign.

Byron: "If people would just get it through their heads that they are supposed to *serve* us, then maybe politicians and other government bigwigs will be forced to change their ways."

*I'm going to write my gov't reps on this. Sure, it'll probably do no good other than to make me feel better that I at least tried...but still.

Rxke: "I think the main problem is the people that so desperately want to get higher-up... no matter what.

All of a sudden you realize your 'efficient' organisation is just a cardboard box, the smallest 'mishap' (god i hate that word!) causes it to crumble to pieces, and everybody starts pointing at each other... Sad. And too familiar."

Byron: "Very true....If only people would step back and look at the big picture every now and then..."

*Yes, that would be nice and beneficial. But I remember what dad very frequently said: "Most people only care about what they can put in their mouths and wallets TODAY. They don't care about tomorrow, much less years from now." Seems he was right.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-12-11 14:42:15

*I almost hate to suggest the following (for a variety of reasons) but why not elect NASA officials? They're already so close in with the gov't anyway...and if they don't produce results, etc., they get the boot and their briefcase thrown after them (or at the very least...are not re-elected). As private citizens, they are nearly untouchable.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2003-12-11 15:50:50

Very true....I've seen all too much of this myself. This is what I feel is happening to the U.S. as a whole, which makes me wonder how we've managed to hold on as a world superpower this long. If only people would step back and look at the big picture every now and then...

Byron... My observation was from my European standpoint, so it's not an exclusive U.S. 'disease'...

I'm afraid i'll probably start a flamewar here... But i'm serious when i say things got kind out of hand when all of a sudden the people involved in personnel-job recruitment etc. started putting plaques on their doors saying 'human recources management' (in non-english speaking companies, that is...) I always felt like that was humiliating, like we are being seen as just 'another' recource like coal, metal, energy,... use it for your purposes and throw it away when it gets old...

Still wondering where they got that terminology from. Possibly from a book by some guy like Donald Trump or so... Back when the money was good and the sky the limit...

jadeheart · 2003-12-11 19:31:09

They are accountable to the American tax payer, whether they like it or not.

so here's a question: if the american taxpayer somehow magically had control over NASA & US space policy, what would happen? say, if it were somehow put to a nationwide referendum. i often wonder if the average american really cares about space exploration, much less has the motivation to actually think about the different aspects of it and decide where priorities should lie.

a cursory jaunt thru the net turned up this.

no real surprises here... but i got the impression most respondents felt the strongest when the questions centered around the space 'topic du jour'-- ie, Columbia.

i'd be interested to hear what others think about public support for space. you have to admit people like us who will sit on chat boards like NM for long periods of time must be a micro-micro-minority. we will not be able to directly influence US space policy without infecting large numbers of others with our space 'meme.'

extra credit: for a tasty hit of space polling & policy commentary, there's this from Rand Simberg

yeah, Fox news, i know. but this guy tends to be pretty readable for space buffs (even pinko lefty traitors like me.)

Rxke · 2003-12-12 01:27:20

Rand Simberg... Too bad he dismisses Zubrin as a zealot. He really does not like him, i went into a discussion with him about Zubrins Senate commision testimony... boy did that leave a bad taste...

Palomar · 2003-12-12 07:14:53

Rand Simberg... Too bad he dismisses Zubrin as a zealot. He really does not like him, i went into a discussion with him about Zubrins Senate commision testimony... boy did that leave a bad taste...

*Rand Simberg, huh? First time I've heard of him. I see at the end of the link jadeheart provided us with, it says Simberg is (amongst other things) a "recovering aerospace engineer"...what the heck does that mean?

Does this guy have any credibility? What are his credentials, aside from the brief bio information at the end of his article? Is he merely detracting from Zubrin in order to get attention for himself? Is he the sort of person who sneers at people in the public eye (like Zubrin) who have a genuine value and a bit of enthusiasm? Maybe Simberg is seeking a way to grandstand...no matter what?

I don't know, of course, which is why I ask these questions about Simberg. Who is this guy, what might his personal agenda be, etc.? These are legitimate questions.

Rxke, you seem to indicate you have communicated with Simberg personally? If so, and this isn't a misunderstanding on my part, want to tell us about it?

--Cindy

jadeheart · 2003-12-12 12:58:45

Does this guy have any credibility? What are his credentials, aside from the brief bio information at the end of his article? Is he merely detracting from Zubrin in order to get attention for himself? Is he the sort of person who sneers at people in the public eye (like Zubrin) who have a genuine value and a bit of enthusiasm? Maybe Simberg is seeking a way to grandstand...no matter what?

I think Mr. Simberg may indeed be somewhat ego-driven. If you check out his website you'll see he rants and raves on any number of different topics & he seems pretty disparaging toward any idea that is the least bit liberal (how else do you think he got the gig w/ Fox's website?). And I do remember now seeing his reaction to (Mars Maverick!) Bob Zubrin's senate testimony awhile back, how he was harping on how he thought Dr. Z was overly self-referential in the summary written for the Mars Society website. Whatever. I still agree w/ some of Simberg's views (not on Zubrin & the Mars Society!) and find it useful to see what Fox is feeding Joe Sixpack about space policy.

Rxke · 2003-12-12 13:08:24

I think he's basically ok, but the 'recovering' part means, IMO he's a 'bit' bitter about the Status Quo.

And no i didn't get face to face, but i read something about Dr. Zubrin's testimony, where Rand reacted on... a bit harsh, so i posted a reply... it GOT DELETED!, when i complained about that, it came back... etc... He didn't really answer my questions, but i didn't want to start another yes/no/yes/no thing... So he got the last word, essentially.
Here's the thing: Zubrin and Simberg

ps, i did watch the whole hearing not part of it as simberg did (he says that in so many words) and i stand by my original observation: Zubrin impressed them big time, they might've thought initially 'who's that nervous guy' but heiir closing comments were 100% in favor of Zubrins 'Bold initative'

This is also mentioned on the board, here, in fact it was my first post on NewMars...it starts on nov 3

Storm in a glass of water, maybe, but it made me feel really bad at the time.

Palomar · 2004-04-13 09:38:12

[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … _culture_1]Thou Shalt Not Offend the Overweaning Egos

*The big wheels can't be wrong, and don't you dare -not- stroke their egos. Tell them what they want to hear! (Yeah, I know this happens in workplaces other than NASA).

But as this relates to future astronaut and etc. safety - !

"Safety is something to which NASA personnel are strongly committed in concept, but NASA has not yet created a culture that is fully supportive of safety," the report says. "Open communication is not yet the norm, and --->people do not feel fully comfortable raising safety concerns to management."<---

That's great. Screw "better safe than sorry," huh? :angry:

--Cindy

Palomar · 2004-04-14 05:23:03

[http://www.space.com/news/nasa_culture_040413.html]Organized Culture Change @ NASA

*O'Keefe says he's willing to step up to the plate to effect these changes (leading by example...I hope so!). They consulted with Behavioral Science Technology. I like this comment in particular: "You really can't settle for than being anything other than the best," said Scott Stricoff, president of BST. "We're not making washing machines here, this is complicated stuff."

O'Keefe: ""As an organization, we don't support our people as well as we could"..."We need to create a climate in which open communication is not only permissible, it is openly encouraged."

The breakdown in communication because of fears of retaliation for attempting to communicate is the biggest concern, apparently. I recall working in one office where attempting to communicate the malfunction of a piece of equipment or some such matter beyond anyone's control was frowned upon and reacted to in a -personal- manner by those in charge. I've seen/experienced this sort of stupidity. It's beyond shameful that this occurs at --NASA--, of all places. (Hmmmm...scary thought...I wonder if this sort of culture exists in companies which make surgical and medical monitoring equipment and devices...). It's also a shame that it took the loss of Columbia to finally put into motion apparently long overdue culture changes at NASA.

Easier said than done, but they need to start "just doing it" -- action following words, not mere lip service.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-11 12:54:21

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#2 2003-12-11 13:39:49

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#3 2003-12-11 14:00:12

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#4 2003-12-11 14:18:58

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#5 2003-12-11 14:25:57

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#6 2003-12-11 14:42:15

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#7 2003-12-11 15:50:50

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#8 2003-12-11 19:31:09

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#9 2003-12-12 01:27:20

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#10 2003-12-12 07:14:53

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#11 2003-12-12 12:58:45

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#12 2003-12-12 13:08:24

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#13 2004-04-13 09:38:12

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

#14 2004-04-14 05:23:03

Re: NASA Leadership Rated POOR in Worker Survey

Board footer