Thursday, September 20, 2012
Parney - Part II
Anonymously contributed:
Parney - Part II...
As I said, 'neither I nor the Lab can respond to every rumor, nor can we predict when things will go viral. Neither can I nor anyone from the Lab lend credibility to these sites.
There is an old political saying: "Those who know ain't talking, and those who are talking don't know." In most cases, the source of a rumor - particularly a blatant falsehood - has an agenda. If you go on these sites - and I won't discourage you if you do (since, as I said, they can sometimes be absurdly funny) - you should see them for what they are. The posts are not reliable sources of information. The posters are in no position to know the facts. The "facts" are almost never factual, whether they are about personnel, management, or whatever.
Of course, this raises the question about whether I should be completely transparent. I fully understand that when information is absent, it creates a vacuum where any story can get traction. I think I have been pretty candid with the Lab on just about any topic, but there are some things that are "close hold" for a number of reasons: pre-decisional (i.e., still under discussion), privacy, legal, strategic, political, etc. That will happen. Not everything is shareable. But my commitment to you is that those circumstances will be rare and necessary.
In many respects, the Lab is a village, and those of us who work here are all part of an extended family. We should feel collective pride in our successes and take collective interest in our challenges. Mud slung at one of us is slung at all of us and, if taken seriously, affects all of us. I can't stop the mud slinging. So don't take it seriously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
Anonymous said...
He is essentially an outsider. 10 years ago his days as director would already been numbered. Maybe Parney offers some glimmer of hope for labbies today. His actions over the next six months will be most revealing about what he really stands for.
September 20, 2012 2:51 AM
Anonymous said...
I take offense to the assertion made here regarding the origins of the allegations as "rumor.". They did come from insiders. I mention it prominently because YES it was odd and even unbelievable for me. It's quite conceivable that THEY were propagating rumors and intentionally leaking false information. It is a waste of time to be blaming the blog. If the leakers are accurate then you need to run a tighter ship. If the leakers are disseminating false info, the we are the ones being duped... by your own employees.
September 20, 2012 3:11 AM
Anonymous said...
Coming back to the environment and culture of the lab, the terms "con artist" "kleptocracy," "abusive HR," "retaliation" have come up many times. Also phrases such as "A-Students attract A-Students, B-Students attract C-Students." These would be simple cases of libel if there were no shred of truth in them. Unfortunately, they are very apt and concise ways for describing the real experiences of many currently or formerly at the lab. Again, Parney inherited this organization. He was not a participant in the creation and reinforcement of the culture. Nor has he had an employee's perspective of the culture from the ground. Not to say that he is unsympathetic to the concerns of his employees. One cannot reasonably expect someone who comes in at the top, to be plugged in to the concerns and attitudes of those at the bottom.
One final note about anonymity. Someone posted in this blog somewhere how anonymity is essential because the threat of retaliation is real particularly for those employed at the lab. If Parney is going to argue why this statement is a "falsehood," I would greatly enjoy hearing how he goes about it.
As any public figure, Parney should expect the same level of scrutiny as others in this blog, but appears that just about every contributor to this blog has reserved judgement or given him quite a bit of leeway. And as any public figure, his every word and action is being scrutinized so that we can get a better handle about what is coming down the pipeline for the lab: status quo? or reforms and improvements? The ball is fully in the court of Parney and his senior managers.
The content of this blog are products of lab management. If Parney wants to give bloggers like us more material, then promote the individuals who just have that awesome ability for attracting controversy, pissing off sponsors employees and every stakeholder imaginable, and just overall being walking nightmares of reputational risk. If Parney wants to squeeze us bloggers out of existence, he just needs to create a better more professional working environment at the lab and promote effective and professional managers. Only then Parney will be in a position of being able to rightfully claim higher moral ground.
As a blog contributor mentioned, their experience of LLNL where parts were akin to a "viper pit of nastiness." Not a single comment that contradicted this. This is not merely slung mud. There is quite a bit of truth here! Again. Parney needs to look inwards!
September 20, 2012 8:57 AM
Anonymous said...
Very appropriate. Sandia (knock on wood) is just not worthy of reporting on in this way. People who are doing their job. Managers who don't invite controversy, scorn or ridicule. A generally healthy working environment. In relative and absolute terms, very professional compared to some at LLNL. Not all at LLNL are bad. But the bad apples do such a good job of drowning out any word regarding the good apples who keep their heads down, do their job, and do their jobs well.
September 20, 2012 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...
The agenda at play is that LLNL is fueling our frenzy and we want more. I was honestly concerned that LLNL would be a dull place after Tomas' departure. He was such a spectacularly rich source of material and you took him away from us. But thankfully the lab is still a reasonably decent source of topics and material because of all of its problems and difficulty.
September 20, 2012 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...
Ed has thick skin. He knew going into his role that he is in for hardball. He also invited the controversy because of his past reputation on AVLIS. Reputation is the the easiest thing to lose and the hardest thing to gain back. A negative reputation is considered a liability for corporate executives for this reason... They invite all sorts of controversy that readily go viral and become a distraction. If Ed was a choir boy, none of this could ever have gotten traction.
The first blog from LANL was credited with ousting a Director. Even if not completely factual, it provided an outlet for the most common past time of Los Alamos, namely character assassination. In the subsequent years, several venues have come and gone where the posters attempt to shape public views of any leader that isnt home grown. It is more an observation on the pathetic objective to tear down others than anything else.
Even when fueled by false information, these fora may influence opinion. Some managers have risen and endured in the ranks by openly fanning the rumor flames. Parney should watch this carefully, since it appears that some insiders from LLNL may have discovered the LANL model.
That's right. The lab is a paradise. It regularly is able to pull top candidates from places like Google. There is absolutely no truth to any of this characterization against the lab. Parney inherited a dynamic and healthy organization that requires very little in the way of change. Lab practices are ethical and all well within the law.
It regularly is able to pull top candidates from places like Google.
September 20, 2012 6:39 PM
Really?? You want a Director from Google?? Yeah, lots of scientific credentials, lots of experience with national security, and lots of MATURITY???
Oppenheimer, Bradbury, Agnew, Hecker, and Browne. Try to imagine a worthy successor to them. Google?? Really???
@7:17 PM
Parney has both scientific credentials and lots of experience with national security. LANL could have selected comparable, but went another way.
What's your point? Buyer's remorse??
I don't think Parney is criticizing legit criticism. He is saying that people shouldn't just make things up. The seeming justification that this wouldn't stick unless the people involved are bad actors is absurd, and kind of like saying that because a woman dresses provocatively she's is asking for rape.
September 20, 2012 7:17 PM
"Oppenheimer, Bradbury, Agnew, Hecker, and Browne. Try to imagine a worthy successor to them."
Not so sure that most would include Browne on that list of great ones from the past, but it is an interesting question. Based on outside observation and many conversations with current lab employees one thing is clear. There is a desire by longer term employees to serve again under one of these legendary figures. While employees that have been at the lab for less than ten years often do not care as much, those that have been there for more than twenty years speak with passion on the issue.
Those that established the institution and led it during its golden period are worthy of being held in high regard, but it is history. Just like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, they were the fathers of the current institution. Nothing wrong with seeking a leader that shares their values, but that does not equate to vilying all that did not share their hometown. Think about how it sounds when you claim that only a long term insider can be successful.
Agreed that the jury is still out on Parney, but he looks to be off to a decent start as an experienced outsider. Charlie, the insider, appears to be having a much more difficult time of it, but that may be attributed to inexperience.
It's scary to think that as a National Lab Director McMillan is beginning to look like a better "leader" that Parney. And that's not saying much about Charlie because they are both weak leaders.....
Oh, but for a return to simpler times
To the Halcyon days of generations past.
When UC held the contract
We had one unlimited charge code
Safety and security were but words in Webster's
And all was right with the world.
Parney sure was right about at least one thing, there sure are some whoppers told on this blog.
'It's scary to think that as a National Lab Director McMillan is beginning to look like a better "leader" that Parney.'
Parney: We should feel collective pride in our successes and take collective interest in our challenges.
Charlie: Follow the money.
Strange that Parney addresses rumors amounting to character assassination, but doesn't say a single thing about an issue like this concerning employees. Maybe the newsline article was written a while ago and that it took a long time for it to get "cleared." But it's still ironic that the underlying issues regarding fairness to the employees, seen continuously over many many threads in this blogsite, were not addressed and that it didn't occur to the author of the newsline article, attributed to Parney, that the character assassinations are due in part to the perceived unfairness at the lab.
LLNL is not a "kleptocracy." It is a meritocracy. These assertions that the system is "unfair" is made purely by outside agitators. These assertions that LLNL employees are "under siege" is pure fabrication. These assertions that there is any disconnect between the employees and upper level management is complete fiction.
^^^ This can't be serious. Must be a joke.
It's true. LLNL has the best metric for employee satisfaction and employee welfare even compared to many Fortune 500 companies. These metrics speak for themselves.
"...these are not the droids you're looking for..."
I don't think Parney is criticizing legit criticism. He is saying that people shouldn't just make things up. The seeming justification that this wouldn't stick unless the people involved are bad actors is absurd, and kind of like saying that because a woman dresses provocatively she's is asking for rape.
That analogy is taking the argument far out of context. Executive management is expected to conduct themselves in a certain way, for many reasons. To prevent such viral distractions is one of them. Those of us who are experienced in risk management (specifically dealing with reputational risk) know this very well. The same goes for political candidates. In the public spotlight, your reputation will always come back to haunt you. Why do you think political and corporate executive candidates are heavily vetted beforehand?
Then why the HECK did Ed get the NIF job in the first place?
Ed is a mean dude. He deserves every bit of this. Call it karmic payback.
"In many respects, the Lab is a village, and those of us who work here are all part of an extended family."
---
You could fool me. The new "for-profit" LLCs certainty don't treat their loyal staff like they are all members of a friendly "village".
How about the way they rudely escorted people off from the LLNL campus using the security force during the layoffs like they were petty criminals?
How about the cuts to benefits and the stagnating salaires? Meanwhile, management salaries have gone up, up, up!
How about the "Shoot first, ask questions latter" manner in which upper management attacks staff for the most minor of transgressions of lab policy?
How about the fact that these same managers pig out on annual 20% bonuses and won't share of dime of it with their hard working staff?
How about the fact that both LLNS and LANS have refused to give up any of their big, fat annual fees to help support the workers pensions. Even companies like Lockheed give up some of their recent profits to held support the recent declines in their pension assets.
Actions speak louder than empty words. Don't be a fool and listen to drivel like this that comes out of the mouth of liars like Parney or McMillan. At least McMillan was a little more forthright when he simply told his employees: "Follow the money!".
I don't think Parney is criticizing legit criticism. He is saying that people shouldn't just make things up.
If that's the case, either he is naive and REALLY doesn't know his organization yet (which would be fine and understandable since he is still fairly new) or that he (representing his organization) is the pot calling the kettle black.
Shouldn't just make things up? The games and dishonesty didn't stop with Campbell. It has kept going on and continues today by his senior managers in meetings with sponsors and others.
I'll assume these words aren't Parney's. But I'm guessing that he is keenly aware that overly criticizing this blog too harshly would actually opens up real wounds for the Lab and exposes all if it problems to the outside.
LLNL has never done a good job of admitting mistakes and failures, putting it all out, asking for forgiveness, then getting a fresh start, and working things out so that the same mistake is not made twice. Instead, employees still have no idea about Tomas, what he did, why he was let go, whether he was the cause of all the current travel issues, or what is being done to prevent something like this from happening again. Employees don't even know if he is still on salary, and whether or not he may be back in upper level management. And that is just one example.
Much of this "quiet" regarding blog discussions of Parney... is partly due to all eyes and ears waiting... Waiting for some indication of what to expect out of Parney. The article was a good start. But we really want to see how he is going to go about addressing the welfare of his employees.
Look folks its really simple. Parney came to the rescue of this PADS like a mamma bear comes to rescue her cubs when being attacked by the big male. It's my hopes this blog stays alive and any one post anything they hear or get wind about even if it false. It's still a lot more information that you get from management.
Ed is more than just an innocent vulnerable cub.
'Executive management is expected to conduct themselves in a certain way, for many reasons. To prevent such viral distractions is one of them. Those of us who are experienced in risk management (specifically dealing with reputational risk) know this very well.'
Perhaps from someone close to leadership???
Nobody can tell upper level management at LLNL what to do. Didn't you know? They are above the law... or actually, they ARE the law... atleast when they drive into that one square mile... or so their behavior seems to indicate in terms of their actions.
Legal didn't manage risk around Tomas. They didn't look for red flags around him and take measures to mitigate risk and embarrassment. You all know Tomas. He told Legal what to do. He's a physicist. So it's natural that he knows about leadership and law better than anyone else. Why, after all, would he have risen to the position that he had. He don't need no stinking lawyers to tell him what he doesn't want to hear. He has an important agenda. LIFE and NIF are important above all else. Get in the way of progress and you're going to get run over.
In fact, I don't have to think hard about the whole cast of characters in upper level management, particularly the ones considered "insiders," to see what's coming down the blog pipeline. There is alot more material to come from a number of these people.
This is far from over. Parney and others are going to have their hands full having to address and comment on "rumors" from the media and "people in the supermarket"
How about the fact that both LLNS and LANS have refused to give up any of their big, fat annual fees to help support the workers pensions. Even companies like Lockheed give up some of their recent profits to held support the recent declines in their pension assets.
September 21, 2012 1:05 PM
Only fools stuck in the last century believe that pension funds will survive much longer. No major corporations provide defined benefit retirement plans anymore. That boat has sailed. Get over it. To suggest that corporate brass will surrender their salaries to fund pensions is simply laughable. You sound like a public sector employee. In case you hadn't noticed, you are NOT that anymore.
Tomas is still on the payroll, no? His salary fully loaded is a drain on the taxpayers considering he does nothing.
Does anyone have information on the details of the "deal" involving Tomas?
I REALLY have a hard time seeing Parney last. Not only for the fact that he is an outsider, others driving the NIF agenda are really doing everything to burn all around them to make sure they are the only show in town left standing, and to make sure that their day in the sun (ignition) is to be made reality by forcing NNSA and taxpayers to go along with it for however long it takes.
LDRD at LLNL? God that situation is horrible. A true embarrassment. What? Your important contribution to science isn't worth LDRD or any funding for that matter, because it doesn't involve lasers and it doesn't support NIF? Are you joking Ed? And NNSA is letting this guy destroy the careers of all those scientists who don't even have anything to do with NIF? That whole Tomas roadmap to basically codify this NIF and LIFE joke?
Parney doesn't have the guts to fire Ed or anyone of the other embarrassments for that matter. He's outnumbered by them. They let Parney fire Tomas because Tomas was the ogre. But Parney getting rid of the other vermin? Highly doubtful. I suspect he'll become one of them. An insider. Do as he's told, and no one (Parney) will get harmed.
Well, we have to wait and see. If they go after the LIFE agenda (or whatever they rename it to in order to make it look like a completely new initiative), then you can be certain, that LLNL is doubling down on NIF, and that ANYONE not associated with NIF (hint: even all of you in WCI: should start looking for a new job) will essentially be deemed useless to LLNL (and even to the human race) by Ed Moses' standards.
September 21, 2012 5:22 PM
If anyone on this blog believes there's any type of open communication or transparency between group leaders and above when it comes to information about funding, day to day operations, the big picture or information that will make a difference in your life, you’re on drugs or brain-dead. If you believe anyone in management above your supervisor is your friend, buddy, etc. and you can share information or talk to like a normal human being without suffering consequences for your honesty, you’re a moron. Supervisors are told if they disclose what they’ve been told their careers will come to an end. People who work for them are fired long before the supervisors or lead engineers are made aware. It appears Parney's brown shits are doing a fine job and it’s why this blog and others will stay alive even if he finds it amusing. Hate to tell the old boy this but that’s why this blog and others are vital to the employees. It's an open forum where information is disclosed without consequences and it’s a forum the employees can believe in long before they’ll believe anyone in management. As far as protecting the labs reputation, well, I don’t think that’s the concern of anyone out here. These people want the public to know what‘s going on especially congressman, senators and newspapers since what they read here isn’t the typical snow jobs given from VIP visits to DC.
How will the failed ignition milestone affect Livermore's award fee? At some point the board of directors will have to cut their losses by designating a fall guy.
"How will the failed ignition milestone affect Livermore's award fee? At some point the board of directors will have to cut their losses by designating a fall guy."
First off this really should not be part of the management fee. NIF was really built under UC, so why should LLNLs be responsible for it.
LLNLs also has to work with the workforce it inherited, not the work workforce it wants.
In any case with large jobs like this there can be delays and unknown unknowns that pop up as should be expected with any large scale construction job. There are few who can run LLNL. UC could not do it, DOE could not do it... thats how big a job this is. LLNL can still be vital to the US under the right control but remember this is not an easy job. How many other groups would want to manage this and this price? Think about it. This is a corporate burden not a for profit operation as some would like to say.
This blog has quite a few non-LLNL/LANL outsiders commenting (including myself and many of my colleagues) who are informed about the labs, NNSA and the defense enterprise. These issues addressed here impact many of us and so (with the ability to read between the lines and filtering the obvious trolling) we have found this blog to be very informative and helpful in framing these complex issues surrounding relating to the NNSA labs and the projects that they manage.
6:54pm remember the difference between employees and management, particularly those who are the architects of the NIF "vision" and those who contributed to propagating it. Even NNSA deserves some blame since in the end they have to justify why they supported regardless of the push and pull back-room tug of wars. Employees are the ones who pay for all the sins.
Wow. Basically 6:54 is saying that because the current workforce doesn't align with a NIF/LIFE centric lab, that somehow lab management is not to blame, and there is very thinly veiled blame pointing to much of the broader LLNL scientific and engineering community. "It's not our fault that these people arent useful at all (to us at NIF). Maybe we need the authorization to just get rid of most of this useless trash... They are just parasites draining resources that could otherwise go to support NIF."
It is laughable that anyone will try to defend LLNL management and LLNS (yes I make a distinction between the two.. LLNS has insiders and Bechtel outsiders but I think of LLNL management as the "core legacy insider managers + Parney" ). Look at Sandia. They are not perfect but they have done a much much better job over the past decade yet LLNL has become worse. That whole NIF PR campaign was an oversold embarrassment too and Dunne is useless and a parasite on the taxpayers.
This is very consistent with the observation that NIF and Ed are systematically destroying all other programs at the lab so that NIF is the only program left standing amidst the rubble. Make sure there is no other program that NNSA funds could go to at the lab.
And the lab and Ed keep pushing this all or none double down strategy even with the alpha heating milestone failure, the piss-poor neutron yields, the fact that everything that NIF tried to fix these problems has only made things worse, and NIF scientists are only now coming up with proposed experiments and tests and patting themselves on their own shoulders for how smart they are, when we are coming to the end of the NIC. What utterly irresponsible morons.
This message to the bulk of employees at LLNL: you are completely useless to the lab unless you are really good at finding your place in the NIF money treadmill. And it is your fault that we had these problems in NIF. You useless non-NIF scientists and engineers are to blame and that the only honorable thing for you to do is leave voluntarily from the lab before we fire you anyways.
What are you talking about? Of course most of those employees are expendable. They DON'T support NIF which is THE program at the lab. Of COURSE they are going to be the first to go when the fiscal realities set in. Of COURSE employees supporting NIF and LIFE will be the last to go. That is the reality. Look at all of the posts, and behind the complaints and arguments, you see the truth.. that there is a new reality for the lab that has been set in motion several years ago.
What are you talking about? Of course most of those employees are expendable.
September 24, 2012 9:55 AM
If you are a manager in any organization, in any field of business, you are trained to believe that ALL employees are expendable. Any employee with appropriate credentials can be taught this on his way to becoming a manager. No manager will tolerate an employee who is "bullet proof." There are no employee skills that cannot be duplicated with the right recruiting search, and the right salary offer. Sorry all you prima donnas, but you better watch your asses. Your replacement's resume is already on your manager's desk. Count on it. If you think you have any specialized skills that that cannot be duplicated, your manager thinks you are wrong, and that's what counts as far as you keeping your job. Get used to corporate employment, because that's where you are. When sequestration comes, you'd better be able to convince the managers why you should be the one to stay.
Yes. Your job will be outsourced to India. Oh wait I forgot this is a nuclear weapons facility. Q-Clearances. Oh yeah. Real corporate.
Now I understand how to solve the NIF problem. The lab just needs to hire some better capsule designers.
When is Parney going to figure out he is the "fall guy" for this mess. Think of all the heros now on some island drinking margaritas while "Parney goes to Washington" to feed Congress a line of BS.....Anastasio, Miller, Tarter, Moses, .....
Your job will be outsourced to India.
September 24, 2012 11:18 PM
You still don't get it. There won't BE any jobs to be outsourced. No jobs - no clearances necessary. Maybe your Q clearance will get you to the head of the unemployment line.
Exactly!!! These old bomb-heads and newish laser-heads don't get that the party is over. The cuts are coming. Get out of dreamland.
"This message to the bulk of employees at LLNL: you are completely useless to the lab unless you are really good at finding your place in the NIF money treadmill. And it is your fault that we had these problems in NIF. You useless non-NIF scientists and engineers are to blame and that the only honorable thing for you to do is leave voluntarily from the lab before we fire you anyways. " ( 12:21 AM )
----
Well stated. This poster obviously "gets it".
This blog would be pathetic if it weren't so comical and easy to whip up. All it takes is "How does ULM think it can get away with this?" and the crowd immediately believes and goes wild. Even when there are stated facts that can easily be verified as untrue. [come on guys..an FBI raid at a National Lab, and no news covereage?]
Parney: sorry it got so far out of hand. It's just too easy
"..and that the only honorable thing for you to do is leave voluntarily.."
Should have said "is commit hari kari."
Would have been funnier.
Post a Comment