The demise of the NNSA labs mirrors the demise of Bell labs.
http://usphoenix.net/science,%20technology/what_really_happened_to_lucent_t.htm
Some parts look very similar.
Raises and promotions were based on an annual merit review. There was one primary value: technical
competenc
As time went by and AT&T management became more enlightened, this strict meritocratic ranking system
was eliminated. Lab-wide rankings fell by the wayside, and Department Heads administered salaries and
promotions according to corporate guidelines. More of the salary administration became dictated by these
guidelines. What was once a Lab-wide enforced meritocracy became Department Head arbitrariness.
Originally, every Member of Technical Staff, MTS, was expected to have at least a Master's Degree. Those
that were hired in with a Bachelor's Degree were sent to graduate school at company expense to complete
their studies. There were a few lesser staff positions, but the vast bulk of Bell Labs employees were MTS.
As Bell Labs grew, and the work shifted significantly from longer-term research towards development,
particularly for software, it became difficult and expensive to fully staff to those educational requirements.
Consequently, the variety of employee categories expanded, and the graduate requirements disappeared.
Bachelor's Degree graduates were fully capable of performing the software programming duties being asked
of them.
While this enabled Bell Labs to revise their staffing costs downward and adequately staff the huge project
undertakings, it did not preserve the caliber of the previous employees. Or their motivation toward technical
competence
10 comments:
Agreed some parts are similar. The bottom line at LANL is that is doesn't matter how
much you know or the type of work you do, but who do you know and how likeable are you
to mgmt. How can someone explain a high school student taking the position of a bachelor graduate, other than the high school student was recommended by a family member to the hiring manager. It doesn't matter how many policies are in place to keep that from happening, it will continue. While there are brilliant people at LANL the laboratory can't continue operating on the shoulders of the few.
I agree. Even for internal opportunities, it is who you know. From my experience at LLNL, managers know in advance who they are going to hire from within, yet interview many candidates for the internal position. Some explained that this is a policy requirement. I say "BS". How can you waste peoples time like that?
Another phenomenon: Some departments, especially within COMP, try to maintain their "purity" by hiring any likeable person as long as that person is from the same directorate.
Finally, an informal black list is maintained which contains anyone who has ever criticized the system.
This is a national lab?
A few chronic gripers here, probably lost an opportunity by showing the chips on their shoulders during the interview. Best to hide it until hired, then fight management through HR.
You can't promote lab employees that have "criticized the system" because there is a risk they may find certain business practices unacceptable, unsafe, or unlawful. One can't advance a bad decision or maintain a status quo "lab culture" unless other people around the table and in the know are compliant, hence the informal "black list". The informal "black list" perpetuators can be within the hiring group itself, or those with a vested interest in the hiring decision. This may include firm guidance from Staff Relations, especially for management position openings.
5:29 perhaps you should comment about organizations you actually have experience with.
6:15 offers a very insightful evaluation of the system as it actually exists. It is incredible (and illegal) the lengths that TRIAD management will go to to black list otherwise fully qualified candidates for faux job openings. HR is completely complicit and does nothing to uphold the law. It is a sham from top to bottom.
5:29 perhaps you should comment about organizations you actually have experience with.
10/07/2021 6:28 AM
Oh, I did. 30 years of experience, including as a hiring manager.
"HR is completely complicit and does nothing to uphold the law. It is a sham from top to bottom."
At LLNL, former AD for SHRM Art Wong, was a complicit and in the pocket of LLNS manager enabling and codifying improper employment practices deluxe. He was the king of obedience to the LLNS LLC to use mild terms.
Ask any of the of 2008 LLNS layoff victims if they would consider the word "weasel" a proper identification for Art?
"I agree. Even for internal opportunities, it is who you know. From my experience at LLNL, managers know in advance who they are going to hire from within, yet interview many candidates for the internal position. Some explained that this is a policy requirement. I say "BS". How can you waste peoples time like that? Another phenomenon: Some departments, especially within COMP, try to maintain their "purity" by hiring any likeable person as long as that person is from the same directorate..."
Yep, you nailed the selection process, which is truly wasteful and happens at the highest levels in the directorates!
Post a Comment