Signs of a Good Boss and a Bad Boss
https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/3734-qualities-good-boss.html#
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
Tax dollars gone to waste for the "chili cookoff" http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/100730.html Rumor has it this project didn't a...
18 comments:
I agree with most of the good boss and bad boss points. Companies should obviously strive to have good bosses, weed out the bad ones, and try to stay in sync with “shifting consumer demands”.
With respect to this blog, LLNL like other national laboratories, are managed by contractors like LLNS, for a period of 15-20 years straight. Here “shifting consumer demands” is irrelevant, because the feedback loop is extremely long, and the only “consumer” is DOE/NNSA that can and is frequently negotiated with to shape said “demand”. Within these 15-20 year time scales, a business philosophy or direction, is free to turn inward, especially with for-profit contractors.
Bad bosses at LLNL exist among the many good ones because they are protected. It is like the brother-in-law that is always getting into trouble. You don’t approve of his behavior, but he is still family, so you defend him or look the other way.
Maybe we should start a “rate my professor” like system for our LLNS managers.
Rating or ranking isn’t appropriate to apply to managers, it’s only appropriate to apply to employees, they would say. Employees, now thought of as commodities, are far less in a position to constructively assess their work environment than compared to the UC days. A return to a non-profit might change this and is certainly better than the alternative.
Isn't it the case that managers also have very little ability to change things, so it isn't really sensible to hold them accountable? I would assume, managers in the private sector are a completely different role, generally in technology they are much higher paid by the way, too. Maybe some of the "bad" ones are either just frustrated, or introverted like many scientists and engineers and cannot look out for the people reporting to them due to labs' erratic funding priorities.
Isn't it the case that managers also have very little ability to change things, so it isn't really sensible to hold them accountable? I would assume, managers in the private sector are a completely different role, generally in technology they are much higher paid by the way, too. Maybe some of the "bad" ones are either just frustrated, or introverted like many scientists and engineers and cannot look out for the people reporting to them due to labs' erratic funding priorities.
6/25/2023 8:53 AM
I wish that were the case. Some managers, not all by far, are fully aware of what they are doing, and march forward at the expense of LLNS employees and to their personal $ benefit.
So as the saying goes, either one can be part of the solution or be part of the problem. An “I don’t have a role as a manager ” is more for their own accountability excuse than anything else. It is kind of you to give them the benefit of the doubt, but usually it does not pan out with these for-profits.
“Isn't it the case that managers also have very little ability to change things, so it isn't really sensible to hold them accountable?”
"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."
-Winston Churchill
Reputable free market “for-profits” with a fluid customer base and market share, should not be lumped in with a federal contractor “for-profit” that has no material competition on a quarterly basis or decade basis for that matter. Just look at how long it took the NNSA to remove LANS from LANL management even with their repeated colossal failures. No quarterly free market pressures with LANS, not even close.
Most "free-market" companies actually operate in regulated or managed markets, or else face commodity pricing and offer poor compensation. Established companies often have stagnant or declining sales, while start-ups often have a "fly-by-night" ethos and usually fail. There are plenty of examples of "for profit" enterprises which fail, in fact our former president Trump had a series of these, along with various successes.
Isn't there some Glassdoor survey claiming that the national labs are actually better places to work than the troubled outside world?
“Isn't there some Glassdoor survey claiming that the national labs are actually better places to work than the troubled outside world?”
A positive LLNS Glassdoor survey? Years back the NNSA initiated a comprehensive LLNS internal employee survey task with ample advance notice to complete it online by a certain date. Even with the frequent Lab reminders to complete the employee survey by the due date, LLNS employee survey participation, was unexplainably low. Were LLNS employees fearful of being identified in an online internal employee survey, and how does that wash with a Glassdoor survey?
That NNSA requested “LLNS employee survey” was years after LLNS began the contract to manage LLNL, and long after the new contractor “honeymoon” phase had faded away.
LANS did a employee survey and it was total disaster for LANS. They never did that again and even tried to hide the results. When they finally made them publish they highlighted only a few points, like "employees feel the mission is important" "what is done in LANL is valuable" They left out all the points that said, management was horrible, management does not care about the mission and management places profit above security and safety. I heard that the company that created the survey and surveys like this where shocked at the responses and had never seen anything like this before. Even the state of NM was blinded by the survey. It was all highlighted on this blog years ago . I believe that this was one of the catalysts for NNSA thinking contract change was on order.
One thing was the LANS survey had very high participation rate, 75% or more. Around 2014 the jig was kind of up for LANS. They said they would save money by improving business practices and yet business practices become worse under LANS both in terms of costs and time. No one could understand what LANS had done to improve anything. The higher level managers just went on and on about the bonuses they would get but never engaged with the workforce about how to actually improve things. All you got was "we are for profit entity, we are in a new reality, perception is all that matters for getting a bonus, the world is different now, we can never go back, the world has changed... and so on" I remember when the contract was lost how they actually had all these crying people in the admin building, they really bought into "it is all perception now". LANS become a weird little island to itself for several years, a isolated echo chamber of self promotion. NNSA figured out very rapidly it was not going to work but it takes some time to before they could get rid of LANS.
Rather rapidly, “good boss/ bad boss” tolerance, is either encouraged or disincentivized by “good employer/ bad employer” core values and communicated work culture objectives in a rapid market share shiftable and profit consequential, environment.
There can be binding contractual clauses in outsider “independent” surveys which clearly state if the employer in question doesn’t like or agree with the employee survey results, the employer can without survey payment until and unless the survey results are rewritten and acceptable by the funding client. This happened at LLNL at least once that I’m aware of with a non-DOE/NNSA driven survey making such a survey rigged from the get go.
The LLNS management, which we called "Bechtel" did a good job indoctrinating LLNL employees making them think Management cares.
Only the very gullible fell for that or the very self-centered who cared about advancing their career.
Example: they tell you they care about work-life balance. The reality is you have to work until you drop to keep up!
It was pure BS.
Bechtel: you have no place in a national lab.
Got to wonder what do some of these LLNS managers actually tell their family about Lab practices and their role in it?
“Bechtel: you have no place in a national lab.”
I saw this too. Some “fair weather” LLNS employees sold out to LLNS management deluxe knowing some of their fellow employees would get crushed. Sad to see, but the best plan forward is to seek out a better and non-profit contractor to manage LLNL. Move forward, consider “lessons learned”, and make LLNL a better place again.
The LANL example might prove helpful.
Post a Comment