Monday, November 12, 2012
Let's give Parney alternatives
There are a lot of people with negative comments on this blog. I think
we need a discussion on what we expect out of our leaders and what/when
did LLNL, LANL, and NNSA have great leaders. Who were they ? There are
high levels position being posted. Let's give Parney alternatives,
instead of same old same old. This is not working.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Not working?!?!
Heads on this blog should roll!
How does the ULM of this blog think it can get away this this?
Start by requiring that managers have both integrity and ability. Move forth with an open, unbiased, and fair application process. Have high expectations and demand accountability. Surprise! There is nobody in the present system that would survive.
This is funny.
NNSA has never had a great leader.
How do you break up that whole "insider" us-versus-them chummy chummy clubby environment when the pool of qualified candidates (by technical criteria alone) pretty much reside at the three big NNSA labs?
The second respondent has it right on, that to paraphrase, there is no way of getting it to work given the same cast of characters in management positions and those coming up through the pipeline. This is the UTI that just won't go away with antibiotics.
One might naively think that bringing in outsiders might help change the culture, or atleast be a driver for change. Think about the experiences of Cherry Murray when she was brought in at number 2. Further, think about Parney brought in at number 1. Changes? None so far. Some institutions are stubbornly resistant to change. I'm kind of thinking Parney will be worn down, only to land a better position in government or academia before not too long.
This is really a moot question because it is not clear what is the vision of the lab. Is it going to keep moving towards being a NIF-centric lab that is permanently attached to the NNSA spigot? or will it become more of a multidisciplinary multicapability lab with a larger WFO portfolio? Or something else completely? What direction you take determines in part what kind of personnel you need to attract to get you there. And I agree that the whole "insider culture" at LLNL is so deeply rooted, it may not be possible to reasonably expect change for the better. Unless NNSA and/or Parney makes some drastic changes and some fairly big decisions, I would expect that we should expect nothing to improve, and that there is no person(s) you could bring in that would make the situation any better.
Sieg Hecker became so fed up with employees complaining about LANL Leadership that he began a process to use "stakeholder" input to select leadership. There were brown bag sessions, candidate statements circulated for input, stakeholder meetings, screening committees, etc. The process cost the Lab (and taxpayers) millions of dollars. In the end, the selected managers were no better than the same old managers. Nothing changed, in fact, some said management declined in behavior and quality. Hecker proved his point.....at several millions of dollars.
Hecker proved his point.....at several millions of dollars.
November 12, 2012 4:14 PM
This process cost so much money that he had to have a involuntary separation a couple years after this "process". Let's face it, while Hecker complains alot about the current Lab being a "prison", his back yard wasn't exactly a "rose garden".
what do we expect of our leaders?
the truth
Think about the experiences of Cherry Murray when she was brought in at number 2.
Cherry was hired as Deputy Director for S&T, that was not the No. 2 position at the Lab and hopefully she had no illusions about that.
As I tell my kid when he complains.
They pay you and give you benefits.
Do your job. Pursue Happiness.
Complaint is the refuge of the impotent.
Anonymous said...
As I tell my kid when he complains.
They pay you and give you benefits.
Do your job. Pursue Happiness.
Complaint is the refuge of the impotent.
November 12, 2012 7:37 PM
Trying to improve the system through civil discord is not complaining.
"Civil discord"?? Do you mean "civil discourse"?? The former is not "civil" but disruptive and counterproductive. Everything changes but the whining of the people who complain that nothing changes. If you think nothing changes, perhaps it is because you refuse to change.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Discord
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Discord\
This is what I mean. Falling into order is for followers, not leaders. People do not even show up for work. I really do not know one single person who is happy at LLNL. I hope it changes because I believe it can, but it will take honest discussion, not just people in denial. Start looking around and post your opinions.
"As I tell my kid when he complains.
They pay you and give you benefits.
Do your job. Pursue Happiness.
Complaint is the refuge of the impotent."
and enslavement is the is refuge is the refuge of the powerless.
The United States was created by complainers and whiners. Only those who first complain will be the ones that first take action. The results of this can be seen at the labs just look at all the great staff members who said enough, "I do not need you pay or your benefits" and left. The labs are no longer the places they where 10-15 years ago due to all the good people that left. Increasingly those that remain are the ones that will not complain. In the end the labs suffer and the United States suffers. The American revolution was led by people with words who where complaining as you say. History has been very harsh to those that do not complain and sit by hoping to keep what they have. You have given you kid very bad advice. Think about it, no one gives people at the lab f*cking anything, the best earn it and the best can earn it elsewhere. If you think it is "given" to you than you sure as f*cking well dont deserve it.
Perhaps this is true. I just believed that if you worked hard, things would fall into place. I was wrong, I just see the people who either do not come to work or spend their time playing politics get ahead. "The labs are no longer the places they where 10-15 years ago due to all the good people that left. Increasingly those that remain are the ones that will not complain. In the end the labs suffer and the United States suffers."
so, what do you think is the fate of the labs?
Parney IS LLNL's alternative. He was selected to be "the solution". So "get it done" Parney!
"so, what do you think is the fate of the labs?"
I would say that you need to be independent of the long term fate of the labs and do the best job that you can and keep your standards high. It will make you feel good personally and will keep you competitive for other jobs.
Parney has lots of alternatives:
1) tell the truth even when it hurts, and don't tolerate those who don't
2) stop blaming the many problems and mistakes generated by the lab on external sources, such as Congress, NNSA, the DNFSB, etc., so that when those entities do cause problems, people might listen to the valid complaints
3) set a good example for others at the lab by being less arrogant and pompous than our prior director; try to limit the insults and complaining about those who fund/sponsor us, and don't make them scapegoats for internal lab mismanagement; and, in those cases when the government actually does something positive, thank them. When the government does something negative, seek to educate them first, before resorting to backstabbing.
4) stop wasting taxpayer money - that is why our LLNL overhead is so high; and, when asking for input on how to be more cost-effective, stop tasking those who are wasting the money to make those assessments.
5) change the lab's priorities to do what is best for the country first, instead of what is best for the institution or an individual (self) first.
As a relative newcomer from the outside, Parney has a good opportunity.
I never knew a scientist with a constructive set of ideas on management. They seem to live in a fantasy world where there should be no management. I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
Anonymous said...
Parney IS LLNL's alternative. He was selected to be "the solution". So "get it done" Parney!
November 13, 2012 4:00 AM
This blog was intended to give Parney information on what is happening and give alternatives to positions that are posted, such as Tomas old position. It was not intended to give alternatives to Parney. Sorry for the confusion.
Anonymous said...
I never knew a scientist with a constructive set of ideas on management. They seem to live in a fantasy world where there should be no management. I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
November 13, 2012 7:19 AM
I think having Scientist in a managers role is part of the problem.
How about Mark Herrmann. A former LLNL guy with outside experience. Lou Terminello has a fairly good reputation at DoE also an would be an asset and a good candidate. Also has outside experience (management in organizations outside of LLNL). Can come up with a few more. Both have good program management and science credentials.
Is there any change regarding Tomas' old role with respect to responsibilities and authority? I.e., will ADs report directly to that postion (as they had in the early part of Tomas' tenure?) If so, is the candidate expected to have equivalent AD experience. Also is the ideal candidate expected to bring in the bacon with new programs and new sources (e.g., a Rainmaker).
Our managers need to take some notes from SNL's playbook. The turquoise chicken thrives at gaining work scope on LEPs and WFO. I am not saying it is better there, but their managers are certainly better at getting funding. We need to embrace engineering more, and wean ourselves from NIF. NIF has always over promised and under delivered, and it is only a matter of when Congress kills it.
I was naively hoping that Parney's arrival at LLNL would signal a change in emphasis towards a more diversified portfolio, with growth in areas of national/homeland security policy, strategy and analysis considering Parney's time in DHS and in Washington. Though it would have meant bringing in staff with different training and skillset that is more in line with systems engineering, risk management, and policy. Not the kind of easy career switch from, say, a metallurgist or plasma physicist. Other important areas include cybersecurity and intelligence support. But these are all competitive fields unlike the weapons world. You have IDA, Mitre, NIST, Sandia, INL, many places vying for business from DHS and other WFO customers. It really takes an outward facing customer-centric approach to be successful. Maybe one strategy Parney could take is to poach some of the effective managers and successful rainmakers out of those organizations listed above.
Many of these WFO projects are often short-term and quick turn-around, unlike in the old ways of block funding where the lab decides what to do. By having a management that encourages flexibility, and a strong emphasis on the customer/sponsor would help if indeed the lab is going in that direction.
By the way what happened to the two-tiered overhead tax system? I heard that it was changed to something that by any other name, still appeared to amount to a system that benefitted NIF at the expense of all non-NIF funding including WFO. Any signals that the overhead rate overall is going to be reduced?
My understanding (though my memory is hazy) is that Tomas in the role of S&T Deputy Director, had the ADs reporting to him, or atleast for some time. Is this correct? Also Cherry Murray in that same role previously (and as part of the previous contract) did NOT have ADs report to her directly? So the AD direct reporting under Tomas was a temporary thing that was eliminated and is not expected to occur again? Maybe someone can job my memory what situation warranted having the ADs report to the Tomas and not to Miller.
lou terminello is too good for this place
so true.
Why doesn't Parney lure McMillan and Knapp back to LLNL? While I agree that while McMillan is "cast in stone" at LANL, Knapp is "ripe for the picking". He was groomed at LLNL, almost has a PhD, knows the weapon game, is well liked by all his subordinates (loved really), already lives in California (no moving expenses), has a nice car (turbo charged Porsche Cayenne) furnished by LANS/LLNS, is well-versed in reorganizations and displacing employees, and has grande huevos. He has all the qualities that Parney is looking for. Please take him back.
lulz. I know.. you all at LANL would just hate to let him go... but you suggest it because it's the "right thing for the nation..." i know. i know. lulz.
If (and this is a big hypothetical If) Parney is taking the lab towards a diversified portfolio, then not only would they need to bring in the rainmakers but the entire management structure (whether replaced or retrained) must be working together to support them. Basically to put an end to the infighting, fiefdom and empire building, cronyism, backstabbing, politicking, etc. The rewards must reflect values determined by how a manager's activities enabled others to do their jobs more effectively, and helped and benefitted the larger organization and their customers, rather than how smart or crafty they may think they are.
But isn't it a bit late for this?
People "managing upwards" should not be rewarded.
I like the idea others have suggested of bringing back Lou Terminello.
Bringing back Lou Terminello would increase the credibility factor at our lab.
Would he actually want to return? I thought the current S&T role was neutered during Tomas' tenure.
He's a smart guy who will ask the right questions... i.e., is he or anyone getting the position beholden to the previous S&T roadmap. Will be expected to reshape the S&T long-term strategy? Does he have authority beyond LDRD? Will he be used for his skills and talent to partner with other labs to bring in new business?
The transformation and changes that November 14, 2012 2:40 PM is suggesting can be a very painful exercise that takes some amount of time and inflict alot of pain and discomfort for people. Examples of successful transformations provide good lessons to learn. But if Parney was to initiate such a transformation, now or soon may be the ideal time, when painful cuts are expected. It would be convenient to take the bitter medicine all at once, rather than spreading it out over time. Though I have to also be concerned that too much stress will just kill or disfigure the ole horse. DoE, NNSA and the parent companies of the LLC would have to do alot of supportive handholding and even direct incentives. And as suggested, this may not even work if it's just too late and the budgetary environment is just too harsh for a weakend organization to recover and grow in. And also we don't even know what direction the lab is going, pending many other events that still need to play out.
One question that always comes up is what do you do with people who spent their entire career managing upwards into a high position. People who land in group lead positions for some technical or experimental program but have no tangible publication record expected of leaders in such roles. This brings up some issues regarding fairness.
Management can evaluate each management role or class of management roles, and describe requirements, expectations, and desired qualities and attributes for those roles. Those that do not qualify under new and clarified standards could be bumped to an 'acting' status, subject to a time limit before they are demoted or let go if they do not meet requirements or expectations by expiration (say in, 6 months time for example), or if they do not transition into another role where they do qualify.
Another philosophy is to consider that a transition as a fresh start, and that management performance is based on behaviors and actions moving forward. If they do not live up to the new values, then the process that should be in place, should be driving their removal from the organization. It is not unheard of for badly behaving people to completely change tunes with new values and associated incentives put in place. Whether or not they make the change knowing that their jobs may be on the line, is less important than having assurances that behavioral changes for the better will stick and that they are not going to regress back to behaving badly(for example, those behaviors and actions that are driven by personal and petty insecurities such as jealousy and envy)
We should remember that most badly behaving managers are not inherently bad or evil (yes I too can name a few instances where I think they truly are evil), that many are simply acting in accordance with a system of perverse incentives. Furthermore, we should not make the mistake that even in what are considered unhealthy organizational environments, not all managers are "bad" or that the only recourse is to get rid of them. It's up to the top level management to clearly define and articulate those values of the organization, to lead by example, and to back up their words with clear actions when behaviors do not line up with those values.
There is another concept that some call "up or out." It is somewhat related to the fairness issue. If there is someone who has a salary considered high for their role - for example, they held a more senior position with a higher salary but for whatever reason, is parked into a different role with a lower expected salary range. Trying to adjust salaries downward on a case-by-case basis is simply not an accepted or feasible practice in most countries. One example of concern is when there is someone who has little prospect of moving into a role that is aligned with their higher salary. Furthermore, they may be occupying a position that essentially blocks the career development of other managers.
One way that some organizations deal with this is to have in place, up-or-out policies, in which those in certain roles (or situations) are subject to a time limit in which they must advance. Otherwise they will be terminated. However this works under certain circumstances.
An important point about the national labs is that many of the management roles cannot be easily filled, since they require a somewhat specialized background, experience, and training. This creates a challenge for executive management that is trying to employ more effective incentive and disincentive structures.
But it's not impossible for such a change at a national lab. I'm not too familiar with the details of this case, but Sandia, to my coarse level of understanding, underwent a kind of transformation under Lockheed Martin. Some of the internal organizations at the directorate level at LLNL (Computations), to my understanding, have undergone a transformation at the directorate level. I would naively tend to think that some of the answers and solutions may be right under their noses.
Basically, Parney could use a team of experts and consultants in organizational change. And not the crackpot authors that write those best seller business books. And just bringing in a McKinsey or a Booz Allen may not do squat for you (or even make things worse) if they don't know the culture and all the nuances at the national labs (e.g., consultants who didn't spend part of their careers there).
Come home, Lou!!
Lou probably would not approach the lab about returning - the lab needs to take the first step by initiating contact and recruiting him back by offering him an attractive role and giving him the authority to make changes. Otherwise we should leave him alone and not ruin his life.
This brings up a good point. A puppet LDRD czar position acting as a rubber stamp and pass through for Ed Moses would require a different kind of candidate. Candidates that are independent, effective and talented, need not bother applying. But it is easy to bring someone up the ranks who will do and say anything for their career advancement. These people are a dime a dozen and the lab will have no problem finding such people.
Don't hold your breath if you're waiting for meaningful organizational change
I would only recommend people who I hate and wish to go to hell into such a position at the lab in its current form. Some may say the same for many positions at other NNSA labs and even in NNSA and DoE as well.
Has Parney noticed the low morale at LLNL? If you are an honest, smart, hard-working employee, you are a resource to be used and not rewarded. If you are an incompetent loudmouth, raises and promotions will rain down upon you. So here is the alternative for Parney - Parney tells his senior management to reward the honest, smart, hard-working employees. Parney can then watch those senior managers get upset with the concept and nothing will change.
Don't expect Parney to perform miracles. Also, remember that many managers there think the employees are the sole source of the lab's problem.
I agree that LLNL needs Knapp back. He was born to lead the NIF chariots across the parted waters following Moses through the dead sea of ignition. Meanwhile, let my people go.
This was taken from another post on a threat related to talent retention, but I thought it was capturing the essence of some of the problems that Parney has to deal with.
Has there been any actions or changes since these September posts, that indicate a change in some direction, for better or for worse?
Are they instituting any reforms to the LDRD process?
Are managers still using funding and EBA as a way of silencing and driving out people who, despite being very productive and beneficial to the lab and its NNSA customer, are retaliated against.
Is Parney doing anything to prevent such gross management abuses from taking place?
Anonymous said...
When I saw this post I had to laugh. Alot of lab people who are promoted into management or given leadership responsibilities, think of themselves as talent, since "why else would they have been promoted." So this question probably doesn't make sense to alot of people at the lab.
If the lab really needed top notch talent to deal with specific projects, it could just hire expensive experienced people from the private sector. So I thought that maybe the issue was more related to attracting and developing talent in the pool of early-career employees.
One of the lines I have seen in this blog, is very applicable to the lab for this issue... A-students attract A-students... B-Students attract C-students. The lab is a kleptocratic top heavy organization brimming with B- and C-student who control LDRD and performance appraisals and such. And the lab kleptocracy manifests itself in the form of "golden boys/girls," people who are mediocre but are "chosen" and who are pre-determined to be successful (projects, funding, promotions). The practice of promoting mediocre golden boys and con artists is very much an integral part of the institution and its culture. It is inconceivable that any A-student would willingly stick around in that kind of environment if given the option to go elsewhere where their rewards move in the same direction as their contributions.
It's actually good for me to hear that talent is leaving the lab. They are making the right decisions in their own personal interest, and it spurs other good people to leave too. I always tell people to only look out for themselves and their own interests. When I give advice to very promising and talented younger early-career scientists and engineers who are trying to decide which job offers to accept, I tell them, when they bring up LLNL, that they should consider employment there if only as last resort or to take advantage of the higher salaries so that they will be in a good position salary-wise (salary-matching or salary-bump) for their next career move. Those who have had the opportunity to work at both LLNL and even a semi-sane private-sector corporation, would attest to the insanity of the lab.
September 19, 2012 11:02 PM
The best is when they give a "Lawrence Fellow" an award for a project that they clearly had no substantive involvement in.
But hey, who am I to judge. That's "talent retention" right there! Give them awards and "gifts" to keep them from leaving (which would look bad for the lab).
While I think that we should give Parney some time and lee-way, I think that we need to also keep a close eye on indicators of progress.
The problems he has to deal with are too huge for any one person to deal with. And the fixes (if you indeed advocate a fix as opposed to a dismantlement solution) are going to be long term. And please keep in mind that some things, while perhaps unpopular and painful in the short-term, may be much needed for the long-term.
Firing Tomas (really sidelining him, if he's STILL on the payroll) was a positive indicator, though arguably one could say that Parney had no choice in the matter.
We will have alot more to judge from after the NIF congressional reporting, and also after the new calendar year.
https://www.llnl.gov/about/ourvalues.html
Lets take a look at LLNL's organizational values. One has to laugh at this, not because of it's content, but rather because management behavior runs counter to them. In fact, it is almost as if they read these values, then do the exact opposite.
Certainly management performance is not based on how a manager's actions and decisions were aligned with these values. Absolutely not.
Managemenet behavior is SO far off from these values, that publishing them is simply an open invitation for further ridicule. Parney is better off getting rid of this "values" web page rather than putting it up for all to see and mock.
https://www.llnl.gov/about/ourvalues.html
Our Values. Laboratory employees share a set of values that guides the way we accomplish our work and the way we interact with each other, our colleagues, sponsors and stakeholders, and the public:
•Passion for mission
•Integrity and responsible stewardship of the public trust
•Personal and collective responsibility for safety and security
•Simultaneous excellence in science and technology, operations, and business practices
•Balancing innovation with disciplined execution
•Teamwork while preserving individual initiative
•Intense competition of ideas with respect for individuals
•Treating each other with dignity
•A high-quality, motivated workforce with diverse ideas, skills, and backgrounds
•Rewarding and recognizing performance
•Commitment to the collective success of the Laboratory
No no, you have to remember that there is a system of weighting, as well as text that is written in invisible ink (revealed here with the help of lemon juice)
•Passion for mission (of NIF ignition and LIFE) (45%)
•Integrity and responsible stewardship of the public trust (wink and a nod) (1%)
•Personal and collective responsibility for safety and security (of nuclear materials, which we don't have anymore anyways) (35%)
•Simultaneous excellence in science and technology, operations, and business practices (5%)
•Balancing innovation with disciplined execution (5%)
•Teamwork while preserving individual initiative (1%)
•Intense competition of ideas with respect for individuals (given that management can do no wrong) (5%)
•Treating each other with dignity (0%)
•A high-quality, motivated workforce with diverse ideas, skills, and backgrounds (0%)
•Rewarding and recognizing performance (as we define it) (5%)
•Commitment to the collective success of the Laboratory (0%)
and rounding errors get shoveled into overheadl
Post a Comment