NASA LaRC Poll: Helping People Feel Attractive and Lovable (#21)

At LaRC, we stopped worrying about the business portfolio years ago. I would prefer to work at an institution that has a business- I came to NASA to do NASA's business. I have a real family; I don't need my work to be one for me.

Sounds like the faux (albeit degreed) industrial psychologists that Pat Dunnington knew from her days as the LARC CIO. Pat justified the time she had us waste with them by explaining that with their involvement she could hold our offsite meetings at more lavish venues. They would pass out their questions, divide us into groups, then lead the group in naval gazing psychobabble. No follow up. No interventions to help work the problems they had tooled up. I ran into the three of them once bending their elbows together at a bar in Bowie and thought that we would have all been better off just drinking with them (meowwwww).

Don't feel special. Industry runs surveys that look almost identical to this. I have to fill one out almost every year at my (contractor) employer. It is beyond silly, but not much less silly than the many diversity programs, ethics programs, and the rest of what passes for management style of the month anymore.

I would like to see this survey at all NASA centers. The science/art (you pick) of psychology sometimes leads people to ask silly-sounding questions (like #21), but the answers to those questions can tell a lot about the survey taker's attitude, and attitude is a huge factor in productivity.

Those parts of the survey aside, a lot of the questions (and their answers) should strike people as profound. If I were given this survey, from my view as a contractor, I would answer thusly (I've removed several questions in the interest of not being boring):

1. Provides clear guidelines to employees
[Rarely]

2. Values a can-do spirit
[Rarely]

3. Has the feel of a small family business or a "mom and pop" store
[Almost Never ... is there a "Never"?]

4. Rewards pioneers
[Sometimes]

5. Rewards people who follow the rules
[Rarely ... but sometimes people who follow the rules get punished]

6. Has highly functioning creative teams
[Sometimes ... there are a few good examples of highly functioning creative teams here; none of them are staffed with contractors]

8. Develops flexible structures to respond to changing needs
[Almost Never ... Again I would put "Never" here if it was an option]

9. Fosters continuous learning
[Rarely ... Some contractors do a good job of this. Mostly you're supposed to sit in your box and do what you do]

10. Aspires to create magical moments
[If NASA could do this, it would probably be a lot more successful at getting funding. Almost Never.]

11. Associates itself with images of kindness and concern
[Almost Never, at least as far as employees are concerned]

12. Values loyalty
[Rarely]

13. Encourages people to make a difference
[Sometimes ... this happens but only as isolated incidents, not as an organizational philosophy]

14. Could have the motto "power to the people"
["Almost" Never]

16. Believes in the dignity of the common man or woman
[Sometimes]

18. Achieves breakthroughs by challenging conventional thinking about how things have to be done
["Almost" Never]

19. Has systems in place to monitor quality standards
[Almost Always. The question doesn't ask if the systems are functional or productive ...]

20. Invests in designing things beautifully
[Almost Never. Again, there are isolated pockets of this. "Beautiful" design strikes sub-par engineers as being silly and wasteful, but there's a good body of evidence that shows that an "attractive" design is objectively easier to use; some of this might be psychological, or just a reflection of how much thought went into the design. From another perspective: "beauty" may be viewed from an engineering standpoint as a simple, elegant design rather than an overly complex kludge. Either way, the survey answer is the same]

22. Is good at eliminating projects that are not working
[This is a common topic of discussion here and is highly subjective]

23. Supports employee autonomy
[Rarely]

24. Rewards people who have emotional intelligence
[Almost Never. Relates to #20]

25. Fosters a real sense of caring among employees
[Almost Never]

27. Values creative endeavors
[Rarely. Get back in your box! You're not paid to think!]

28. Prides itself on having the power to keep people safe
[Ugh. "Safety" has become such an annoying buzzword here that it's nearly impossible to do anything. Do NASA employees really need warning signs telling us to not stick our fingers in the electric hole punch? We have paper cutters here built by BLIND people - do we need signs alerting us that the paper cutter has cutting surfaces?]

29. Maximizes the synergy of coordinated efforts
[Almost Never. There's no coordination here, just warring factions.]

31. Is so respected, people who work there gain status by association
[Some people (contractors) who work here and then leave have a hard time finding other work because they have been "tainted" by working as a NASA contractor]

32. Is good at getting things done
[Almost Never]

33. Has an adventurous spirit
[Almost Never]

34. Believes in finding win/win solutions
[Almost Never]

35. Encourages employees to find enjoyment in their work
[Almost Never. To paraphrase _Ender's Game_: (NASA or contractor, take your pick) does not ask us to be happy. It merely asks us to be brilliant on its behalf. Work first, then happiness as we can manage it.]

38. Provides for peer evaluation of personnel and projects
[Rarely. See #29. There's plenty of peer review, but it's not evaluation so much as petty nitpicking and power plays]

39. Has systems in place to foster consensus building
[Almost Never. Plenty of boards and meetings, but nothing is done to *foster consensus*. More like cage matches; whoever is standing at the end wins. This is invariably the same group of people.]

40. Offers an atmosphere of trust and loyalty
[Rarely]

41. Encourages people to find their own unique paths
[Almost Never]

42. Develops consensus around a compelling vision
[Almost Never. We're not about consensus here.]

43. Ensures that key players sign off on initiatives before they are launched
[Rarely. Many people sign off on initiatives, but those people tend to be the Useless Eaters, not key players.]

44. Provides a warm, nurturing environment
[Almost Never]

45. Emphasizes the importance of being trustworthy
[Rarely. More important is ass-covering, which takes the place of trust. Ref. #40]

47. Believes the truth will set you free
["Almost" Never. There's no truth here, only whim. Subjectivity wins over objectivity every day, which is a baffling position for an engineering organization.]

49. Rewards the creation of imaginative products
[Sometimes. Recognition happens, but generally at a low level. If we expand the question to include diseased imaginings, then I'd say Normally. "Imaginative" doesn't necessarily mean "good" ...]

50. Has clear lines of authority
[Sometimes. I'd say "Normally" but the lines of authority are constantly shifting.]

51. Is sympathetic with employees when they have troubles
[Almost Never. Not surprising since the employer is frequently the cause of troubles.]

52. Wants to help people enjoy their lives
["Almost" Never. See #35, #51]

54. Is willing to take great risks
["Almost" Never. No, on this one I'm just going to say Never. Risk-taking is not allowed.]

56. Encourages self-organizing teams
[Never. I'm just adding this answer.]

57. Excels at brainstorming
[Rarely. Only in isolated cases. A big problem is that people have decided that More People == Better so brainstorming sessions are overrun with dozens of people arguing small points.]

58. Rewards ingenuity
[Rarely. Only at a very low level.]

59. Recognizes the restorative value of recreation
[Sometimes. Just not on company time.]

60. Creates clear goals and outcomes
[Sometimes]

61. Believes worker satisfaction comes from being of service
[Yes, but not in a positive sense.]

62. Rewards employees who are solid and unpretentious
[Never.]

63. Rewards caring employees
[Normally. But "caring" in the meddlesome sense, not the sincere sense. See #62.]

64. Believes in banding together to survive tough times
[Rarely. Only at a very low level.]

65. Makes a practice of encouraging employees to speak their minds
[Almost Never. When they do, it's in a very superficial way and employees who speak up are ignored.]

66. Invests in building community within the organization
[Sometimes, but not in a productive way.]

67. Provides an outlet for people's wilder sides
[Never. See #54]

69. Allows employees the freedom to be imaginative
[Never. See #54]

70. Values independence
[Almost Never]

71. Rewards people who have radically new ideas
[Almost Never. See #54]

72. Makes work fun
[Never, or Normally, depending on what you do. I've been in both places]

73. Values knowledge
[Rarely. Stronger value is placed on bullheadedness]

74. Values experimentation
[Rarely. See #54]

75. Sees itself as setting the tone for how things should be done
[Oh I hope not]

77. Rewards people who are consistently productive
[Sometimes. More consistently rewards people who are loud.]

78. Utilizes strategic planning to focus efforts
[Sometimes]

79. Values power and prestige
[Almost Always]

80. Values consensual decision making
[Never.]

85. Prides itself on being revolutionary
[Rarely. Sort of. Publicly, yes. Internally, no.]

86. Rewards expertise
[Rarely. See #77]

87. Prides itself on making miracles happen
[It's a miracle that anything gets done at all.]

88. Operates like a winning team
[Hah! Almost Never]

89. Creates outstanding new products
[Rarely]

90. Encourages self-expression
[Almost Never]

93. Rewards employees who try
[Sometimes. More consistently rewards employees who create large obstacles for others to overcome.]

95. Believes in nurturing and supporting people
[Rarely]

96. Has clear policies and procedures
[Almost Never]

To me this is a dismal score and is mainly representative of the failings of NASA's contractors (and NASA's management of them). Rather than disparaging the survey, maybe a topic of discussion here should be the *results* of it.

The comments here are almost as illuminating as the original questionnaire. I'm one of those rare people today with a background in both a hard science (physics) and a social science (psychology).

NASA and other tech organizations have a huge problem in both their functioning and their ability to attract people, especially young people, into their fields.

First, NASA has a set of problems in organizational culture. Different viewpoints are suppressed all too often. Think that isn't important? Check out the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report. People lower in the hierarchy were not able to get through to people higher up. Wayne Hale in his blog piece Stifling Dissent says not much has changed since the Columbia accident.

Young people claim they avoid tech fields because of a poor work life balance. Want to spend significant time with your family? That's discouraged in too many organizations. People have seen that even at lower levels at NASA.

Cultural change is hard. That's why so many people avoid the topic.

I'm glad that Langley is at least taking a look at the issue.

Chris's comment, though, that not much was done besides handing out the surveys and a bit of group discussion done is troubling. You don't change a culture with events that are separated from the rest of the work culture and dismissed by the people doing the work.

eep,

Very Interesting.

Your comments are similar to what I found as a contractor at Goddard in one group. I will say that not all groups were the same -- not by a long shot. There were, however, enough that were close enough to cause real problems for NASA as a whole.

My experience on these sorts of things, from a JSC perspective, is that they are perfunctory. Its someone's job. They put together questionaires, training, transition plans......they have nothing to do with the bureaucracy, the old boys network, the real way in which jobs are done.

The most I've ever seen done is that management will use the results to say how happy everyone is, how well adjusted everything is, how communicative everyone is, and then you have a Columbia occur, and then the individuals responsible are promoted into other positions.

I wrote my note on the measurement stupidty without yanking on my own qualifications. I am an almost Yale PhD in experimental inical psychology and specialized in measure - from millisecond eye secads, projectvies, surveys, questionairre a,d the like. I also supported DSM $ members in their research. Such tools can be deeply and broadly illuminating.

But they are usualyl totally misused, treated like an algorhytmnic group astrology chart. Readdy promoted me into the government after Columbia in part becsue he had hoped my psychometric skills and directness could help guide reform.

Unfortunately, the low level of professionalism through the corporate behavior market, in conjnction with adminstrators choosing measures and processes that would give them protection from political heat, while changing nothing. I brought Ed Tufte into HQ for his graphical comunication and his anti-powerpoint lectures. I bet the next major contingency gets traced abck to bad charts in the context of bad decision making processes.

Chuck -

My next question would be: how can a contractor with this sort of problem get consistently high award fee scores? Contractors doing a bad job is one thing, but when bad behavior is reinforced it only gets worse.