Why did NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe address NASA employees to describe the plan to bring about proposed changes to NASA's culture?
NASA had just experienced a major tragedy that was played out in front of the whole world, the breaking up of Columbia on re-entry to earth's atmosphere, spreading debris over several southern states and killing all those on board. To compound their problems, the AIB produced a report that in part blamed the culture and the systems that are in place at NASA for the failures. It even went so far to say that many of the failures were systemic ( Lambright, 2008). It was clear, that in response to this report, NASA was going to have to instigate some change - not only for their own satisfaction and to ensure a continuing mission, but also to repair some of the PR damage that had been done in the wider community and to the perception of NASA as being the world leader of accident free space exploration. The purpose was to provide the new NASA vision, and to obtain the willingness of the employees to adopt the upcoming changes to its culture. There also seemed to be a side-bar that translated the survey results compiled by an outside agency and introduce an implementation plan for a way forward.
Important areas in the discussion included how to create a climate for people to speak up and make these measurable results accountable. Mr. O'Keefe was very diplomatic and he continued to reiterate that NASA is a good organization – however, he explained that respect for each other in a professional capacity for carrying tasks was essential. Cultural mindset was brought up as being important; having a cultural mindset in how we treat each other. Beginning with the mindset of "yes, if, instead of no, because". O'Keefe also attempted a shift in a cultural norm - having leadership make a commitment to get up and walk around to see what everyone is doing; communicate with everyone to make it work as a team.
It was reiterated that NASA is one of the highest rated organization in many perspectives – the best in the federal government. These types of comments were strategically placed by O'Keefe to build the audiences’ confidence in NASA as an organization and to give them hope for a bright future by implementing this plan as a result of the investigation.
Was he believable? Is it important whether he appeared to be believable?
Believability all comes down to the individual. When the audience shots were televised, I perceived that the audience was not fully engaged, and that they had a "I've heard it all before". Most telling from this question and answer session was the way in which Mr. O'Keefe did not answer the questions. The final question revolved around what he thought the culture at NASA was, and to my mind he spent the next 6 minutes dodging the answer - almost as if he didn't know himself. A clear, precise answer was what was needed at that point. I don't doubt Mr. O'Keefe's commitment to the change, but I do doubt his conviction that in such a large and stoic organization, that that change can be affected. I think it was vital that he came across as not only believable, but also as a leader. He needed a strong, "follow me" attitude, he needed a clear and single point theme, backed up by data with a sharp focus on where immediately he wanted people to go. I have seen exactly this kind of speech many many times - and few of them achieve what they set out to do in the minds of those in the audience. I may be naturally a little skeptical, but I'm also easily encouraged towards change and a new perspective - given the right choice of leader to follow. Too many companies miss out on the opportunity for real lasting change because they ignore the charismatic sellers of change for the gravitas and seriousness of upper management, they trade enthusiasm for work experience and they reject fresh young innovation for tried and tested hierarchies. In many companies with a broad spectrum of age, sex and background, many leaders only appeal to one sector of a company while succeeding in turning off another. Although some of these elements were there, I was turned off. He didn't strike me as particularly strong, or as a visionary nor as a leader, but a facilitator. Although not every leader is as charismatic as Steve Jobs or as talented as a Hollywood actor or as engaging as a TED Talks speaker - but every company has at least one of those people that is, that's a guarantee. If all companies did a sociogram every year it may just highlight who those people are, and they could use them.
I expect that after the Columbia disaster, many at NASA were also looking for that unequivocal way forward and someone at the helm who was a rock that they too could use to help them on their way. I'm not convinced that O'Keefe would have been my man.
Why did he talk about NASA values?
O'Keefe talked about NASA values for three reasons. Firstly, one of the great things about NASA was the values of safety and mission accomplishment that it had established over the years. It was something that NASA personnel had that they were proud of, but also something that all members of NASA could rally behind. Secondly, the people in the audience were the people that were at the leading edge of instigating the change. In obtaining their buy-in to a change program through adherence to NASA values, change would be easier to implement company wide. Paradoxically, those same members (leadership and Management) were also the group that were highlighted in the report as being those who needed to change practices the most - and so he had a chance to address all these people together; which would have reduced confusion and started everyone off together.
What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
Several things can be taken from this exercise. The first is one of communication. Not just in what we say, but also in how we say it and the body language that we use when we say that. If you are about to instigate wholesale change to a organization, there is as much to be said for selling this idea as there is for telling. O'Keefe had great data, so was in a strong position - I just didn't feel he sold it well. The whole session bordered on blandness.
A second takeaway would be leadership by example. When the head of an organization is convinced of the changes and makes them in everything that he does, others will surely follow. Real leadership means "do what I do", not "do what I say."
The third thing that I took away from this was that the whole process of data gathering is ongoing and needs to be repeated in the future and measurable in it's content towards the goals set in the first instance. Change is good, but metrics need to be in place to make sure that change is headed where you want it to go.
Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.
- The larger the organization, the harder to change, so the more focus on fewer specifics and selling of change needs to happen. Change leaders need to be charismatic, full of energy and know the answers in a narrow field. Those involved at the other end of change must have two or three things to focus on and guidance as to how to affect, measure, obtain and be rewarded for that change.
- O'Keefe was not a space enthusiast when he took on the role of administrator (Lambright, 2008) but was seen as a "bean counter". Why did NASA feel this was the ideal person to lead change?
- If the problems at NASA were so ancient and systemic, plus the workforce was so old and not developing new commitments and work ethics from younger talent, did O'Keefe realistically expect the change to become institutionalized in NASA?
References:
Lambright, W.H. 2008. Leadership Change at NASA. Sean O'Keefe as Administrator. Public Administration Review. Retrieved from: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/s/shulockn/Executive%20Fellows%20PDF%20readings/PAR%20admin%20profile%20Okeefe.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment