Anonymously contributed:
=======================================================================
I have seen people leave LLNL, some of them talented, some mediocre (not a judgment but the truth!). Recently, the best software developer in our department announced his departure.
No incentives to keep him. He is essentially getting the same treatment as the mediocre
people. Difference between excellence and mediocrity is 0.
Question to upper management: is talent retention achievable? Hint: look in the mirror when you answer!
Comments
for Bechtel. So the short answer is that no retention for talent. Tell me how talent fits into the "for profit" scheme as it is written now?
They've been hiring their Bechtel and BWXT friends and putting them into high paying Associate Director and other top positions and many of these people they hire have little more than Bachelors of Science degrees, frequently in a field that isn't even relevant to the particular Directorate they manage.
I've also heard that a majority of offers that the labs now make to recruit new research staff are being routinely turned down. Seems that the word about the decline of the NNSA labs is getting around. And as before, it seems that the new management crew running the "for-profit" NNSA labs could care less.
Forget the science. Forget integrity. As LANL's Director McMillan is fond of saying to his employees: "Follow the money!" -- he certainly did.
September 19, 2012 8:43 PM
Uh, the same way it does at any other private company? (Or don't you think "talent" exists in the private sector?) Talent attracts funding (i.e, customers) and creates profit. If you keep up with the news you know that there is currently a major gap between job openings in sectors of the economy needing scientific, engineering, and technical talent, and job seekers with the required education and experience. Lots of jobs are currently going unfilled.
September 19, 2012 8:59 PM"
I agree that is how it works in real for profit companies however you have to agree that LLNLs and LANLs are not like these. They get a fixed fee. In the requirements for that fixed fee where does talent come in? Think about this and it will become obvious way so many people with talent are leaving to work at other places.
There was a report on the labs I think in the bulletin of atomic scientists. One of things it said is that there is no reward for accomplishment there is only punishment when something goes wrong. In a situation like this there is little incentive to have any kind of talent. In fact if no one shows up nothing will go wrong and you get your profit. Do you think talented people want to be in this situation? Do you think the American tax-payer wants this?
-------------------
White House estimates $1 billion cut to nuclear security in looming ‘sequester’
Published: 6:36 PM 09/19/2012
According to a report released by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Obama administration has recommended cutting more than $1 billion from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) — an agency designed to protect against the spread of nuclear weapons — in the event the congressional budget stalemate results in so-called “sequestration” of a large portion of federal budget dollars planned for 2013 spending.
The report, unveiled last week, came in response to the Sequestration Transparency Act. In 2011 Congress passed the Budget Control Act, planning additional budget cuts if lawmakers failed to strike a budget deal through the “super committee.”
According to the estimates that the OBM called “preliminary,” the NNSA faces more than $1 billion in cuts, the most of any program in the Department of Energy. The White House estimates a $678 million cut from weapons programs, $216 million from defense nuclear nonproliferation, $102 million from naval reactors and $39 million from administrative costs.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/19/
white-house-estimates-1-billion-cut
-to-nuclear-security-in-looming-sequester/
------------------
This should do wonders in helping LLNL and LANL hire and retain top talent! The latest buzz out of Washington is that the dreaded "fiscal cliff" will, indeed, be coming.
Hmm, some of the performance measures involve serious work that fundamentally requires human talent.
If you want to be able to make the case for at least approaching market salaries, there has to be a regular flow of people out of the labs. Just don't want it to be torrent.
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.
Having worked in both the private sector and at LLNL, I agree with this characterization.
Kinda harshly put...but pretty true. When I look around the lab, what percentage of what we're now doing really requires top technical talent...not much. It's a shame, because challenging work attracts and retains scientists who are up to the challenge.
"Talent does not get bonuses
for Bechtel. So the short answer is that no retention for talent. Tell me how talent fits into the "for profit" scheme as it is written now?"
I agree that we need to change the incentive structure so that it rewards technical strength vs all the management politicing (which we've brought on ourselves, and compliance BS (which is being forced on us, but not being successfully resisted by our management). I'd like to see 360 reviews of our management which would set their salaries / bonuses.
I'd like to see the labs have a set dollar amount of management overhead dollars (much lower than now) and stick to that ratio, similar to size of gov being set to GDP.
Straightening out the management games and bringing in more challenging work would help retention.
Equally Big Issue:
All the real talent that remains at the labs that is just lying low and wiling away the hours until retirement.
How do we engage them?
How do we get relevant again?
It is way past time to put the pain of transition behind and move forward. So, next time you hear someone go off on a riff about Bechtel, be reminded that some people just refuse to move forward and seem to thrive in the bitterness of the past. To continue to do so is stupid.
Maybe it will get better with time. Or maybe not, since 'you can't fix stupid. Stupid is forever.'
I could be wrong, but I don't think Bechtel is helping to improve the situation in any meaningful way. But also I don't think they are making it much worse. Call it negligence if you want to. But root cause lies elsewhere.
(1) They know they can't meet the goal.
(2) It's already been agreed "under the table" with NNSA/LLNS/LANS Management that workers heads will roll regardless of how talented or important they are to National Security.
They (LANS) only cares if the toilets are flushing, snow is removed from in front of the NNSB from Anastasio's/McMillan's parking spot, the light bulbs are replaced, they are protected from litigation, their checks (i.e. bonuses) are deposited, and they get their free annual physical.
Others indicate it's just a job. There's no passion like we used to see, no working unrequested longer hours, nothing extra.
There is simply no incentive. Little sense of national importance, repeated kicks in the teeth to employees from Washington, cynical letters of "Thank You" from management for meeting PBIs and earning management a big multi-million dollar bonus.
Sure, these people I've spoken with find its a good job, interesting sometimes when not tied up in red tape, but making it nearly impossible to attend scientific and technical conferences through new conference regulations, year-on-year constant-dollar pay cuts, take-home-pay cut repeatedly by growing expenses, time consuming and expensive red tape to get through for nearly any activity, just to name a few.
Management lives in a dense reality distortion field which blocks them getting or believing much real information from the level of the worker. At least some of the new generation of Lab workers seem to feel like hired help and there's little to show them that a lifetime career of satisfaction and achievement is in the offing. But in a poor economy, it's good enough for now.
However, talent reduction is and it's being achieved at a remarkable rate.
Heckavajob, NNSA!
" These outside agitators need to know that they can be liable for making such libelous remarks..... we are morally obligated to mitigate any of the undue harmful secondary effects caused by these agitators on employees and their families.'
225 years and the 1st amendment still eludes the lightweights.
How much does he meet with the employees without the presence of minders? Are they fixing LDRD? (it's never been a great process, but it's just been more blatantly worse to support NIF). Are they putting muzzles on the embarrassments who inevitably have ended up in mid and upper-level management?
That is so very true. There is no way they could go after a libel case for many reasons, but especially for the fact that many claims are actually true, and also they have far too many dead bodies buried just inches below the surface. Wouldn't be this way if they ran a clean, well-run and professional organization. You will find no more impotent a division than legal at LLNL. You almost have to feel bad for those poor bastards.
LLNL attracts and invites this kind of scrutiny from the new media. Parney, welcome to the world of new media.
September 22, 2012 10:15 PM
I think you need to examine your sentence structure. Too many negatives I think. Unless you meant to say that you think they haven't thought about it. A little more thought before posting would help you make your point.
Let everyone express themselves to the best of their abilities.
Your grammar posts only serve to show the worst side of your personality, they do not expand the conversation or encourage the free flow of ideas.
Your method of commenting has ego and self-aggrandizement at it's core, not an interest in the exchange of ideas.
Your interaction style reminds me a lot of many of the upper lab managers.
What can we do? Is there a way out of this mess?
It kind of makes sense. Why would Parney (a non-outsider) have such a tight hold on information, if there wasn't something else coming down the pipeline. Not taking concrete and effective steps to reassure the lab community of its value to the lab, and discussions about the future, where the Lab is going, how everyone fits in, etc.
Managers in hyper-paranoid mode. However poor the communications was between management and employees, that went to zero during the course of this year. Then having managers posting on this blog all sorts of propaganda to divert attention away from the lab. Ed NOT leaving on October 1 as the rumors suggested, tells you something... that the lab must be making some decision about the future direction of the lab which involves Ed. Things look ominous.
"WFO is complete after the funds are transferred to LLNL accounts up front."
"Customers and Sponsors (NNSA) don't tell us what to do. We tell THEM what to do."
September 24, 2012 10:27 AM
It's called sequestration. Only a lame-duck session of congress to avoid it - not gonna happen. All management planning at all NNSA facilities is currently focused on how to deal with 10-15% cuts across the board (halfway through the fiscal year = 20% - 30% in effect). Since all agencies face the same problem, WFO will also be in the tank. Fasten your seatbelts, but don't expect them to keep you from being "ejected."
You don't fire your best hatchet man when you see a slaughter coming!!
Certainly not true in my neck of the woods.
So true. That's something that has always mystified me about the lab, how upper mgmt seems hell-bent on driving out everyone who brings in projects (legitimate, normal projects), even when those people clearly want to stay, the lab just treats them like crap until they just give up and leave -- and resume their exact same rainmaking independently or at another lab/company.
Am I missing something here?
Does upper mgmt see these rainmakers as competition (i.e. they make upper mgmt's lack of rainmaking painfully obvious in comparison?) Or are these people just kinda savvy and smart and see through all the upper mgmt BS, and emboldened by their self-sufficiency, call things like they seem them and are therefore a threat? Is it just a pure control thing -- and people who can bring in projects can't be controlled, bullied, told what to do, etc? Or ??????
Whatever's driving it, we need to fix it immediately or we will have no new projects coming in. We have so few of those people with that type of talent left...
"Rainmakers are gone, though for good reason since they were suppressed anyways."
So true. That's something that has always mystified me about the lab, how upper mgmt seems hell-bent on driving out everyone who brings in projects (legitimate, normal projects), even when those people clearly want to stay, the lab just treats them like crap until they just give up and leave -- and resume their exact same rainmaking independently or at another lab/company.
Am I missing something here?
Does upper mgmt see these rainmakers as competition (i.e. they make upper mgmt's lack of rainmaking painfully obvious in comparison?) Or are these people just kinda savvy and smart and see through all the upper mgmt BS, and emboldened by their self-sufficiency, call things like they seem them and are therefore a threat? Is it just a pure control thing -- and people who can bring in projects can't be controlled, bullied, told what to do, etc? Or ??????
Whatever's driving it, we need to fix it immediately or we will have no new projects coming in. We have so few of those people with that type of talent left...
October 1, 2012 1:12 PM
Well let me say Parney's choice of people acting in S&T is the same old same old.....Please bring in new blood....we need it.