Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it. Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
Comments
Heads on this blog should roll!
How does the ULM of this blog think it can get away this this?
NNSA has never had a great leader.
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.
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".
the truth
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.
They pay you and give you benefits.
Do your job. Pursue Happiness.
Complaint is the refuge of the impotent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
But isn't it a bit late for this?
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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
•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