RSS Feed
Twitter
2 Comments
NASA: Cultural Trap Doors, Beth Beck
"I asked a question about managing the complex issue of astronaut appearances, and offered a potential solution -- astronaut career assignments in NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs and Office of Legislative Affairs. ... Lori's response: NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, former astronaut, would call the shots on how the Astronaut Corps operates. She mentioned that Charlie met with the new 2009 Astronaut Class, and encouraged them to act as Space Ambassadors (my paraphrase of her answer) during the many years before they fly a space mission. Appropriate response to the question.
Now let's focus on the reaction among my NASA colleagues following the Town Hall meeting. Here's a sample of what I heard the rest of the week ..."
Oh geesh, where oh where to begin with this one, lalaland thinkers in DC, great.......
Agree with most of her co-worker attendee's opinions - Ms. Beck does seem either extremely naive, arrogant, certainly ineffective, or perhaps a most deviously calculating dirty office politics type.
Most of the folks here in Nasawatchland are probably way much more knowledgeable than I about the ways of defense & aerospace management styles & office politics, but for those who might not be:
It's almost like she's baiting or just daring others in the workforce to speak up in meetings, publicly televised or not, with No Fear of any repercussions or negative consequences without giving any guidance or thought as to standard business etiquette as well as acknowledgement of office politics.
For example, in any company & in any industry, there are several types of management styles but some commonly understood meeting etiquette & subordinate-manager rules of the road. Those who violate are commonly exiled to corporate siberia, strongly counciled informally as to the career limiting behavior of their ways, and informally blacklisted for future career development opportunities.
It's well known in management circles for all-hands type meetings to have questions planted for the big boss (who's heard thru the grapevine & prepped). Managers seeking to brown nose the big boss usually make sure that at least 3 questions that are near & dear to the big boss are asked. Managers can be very very competitive with each other about the brown-nosing type of setup questions.
That's why most everybody watching those things knows they're mostly staged. Author doesn't mention whether her question was one of those planned/planted types or asked it off the cuff.
The best & most competent of senior executives think well on their feet and can handle any tough question asked of them with diplomacy & elegance & tend to enjoy a lively exchange & the challenge of the unexpected questions.
But, many lower level managers that don't handle that stuff well do tend to get extremely irritated if a subordinate puts them on the spot in a meeting, especially if the bosses boss is there, and especially so if the question made the boss look like an ignoramus idiot.
Most folks with an ounce of company office politics saavy usually try to get somebody from outside of the immediate chain to do those kind of dirty work setup questions in meetings (that's if the boss really is an ignoramus idiot that is & deserves it, LoL!) rather than directly themselves.
Whatever her position up in DC is, she might want to try working a real job sometime in the technical workforce at one of the centers and develop an understanding of real world office politics in the trenches rather than namby pamby ivory tower thinkers rather than doers up in DC.
So, bait the workforce to speak up & question without any guidance as to standard business etiquette, and recognition of office politics (dirty & routine) and appropriate guidance is just irresponsible imho.
Does she not read Dilbert? Just seems like a very ineffective & possibly counterproductive approach to accomplishing real positive change.
For example, the guy that stood up at Langley and mentioned to Bolden about concerns for the Quality of some project. What's happened to him & his concerns? Did his bosses rake him over the coals afterwards, or "promote" him to another project? Has he gotten an award for QA bravery in big boss meetings, LoL?)
Lastly, didn't think Garver's answer was all that great or particularly "appropriate" as the author stated. Seemed more like a politician's response rather than a direct answer.
If Garver was really on her game from a corporate management perspective with a notion to reward & encourage the speaking up thing, rather than as a politican, she would've prefaced the response with something like - "on the surface, that certainly sounds like a reasonable idea worth considering, if it hasn't been already. Bolden's handling astronaut office responsibilities himself, etc. etc. but he will be reviewing the meeting tape so we'll see if that's in his to do list already".
So, the author patting herself on the back & marginalizing others for very real & common office politics concerns is seemingly naive, ineffective as a "change agent", and frankly arrogant with no apparent basis for self-agrandizement.
And taxpayers & the WH & Congress really should take issue with this kind of ivory tower "la la land thinker work" in DC rather than paying for real technical workers (maybe a QA/QC @ Langley for instance) needed in the trenches to get NASA's job done with the Safety, Reliability, and Quality that is world class NASA.