“Agency officials talked with
NASA employees about plans to bring about proposed changes at the space agency
that were called for by the Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation
Board. Topics included NASA’s “safety culture,” a survey that assessed NASA
employees' opinions about their jobs, and needed managerial changes. After
their presentations they answered questions from the audience of employees and,
by remote connection, from employees at other NASA facilities” (NASA Cultural
Changes, 2004, n.d.).
With organizations there is an
underlying understanding that there are factors that are constantly bombarding
it as a system that could possibly overwhelm, as change is inevitable. This
could be due to internal or external factors. Brown (2011) makes clear that, “to
be successful in the twenty-first century, organizations must have flexibility
and the ability for rapid transformation. However, many organizations move
along a well-worn path, and problems are often concealed or hidden” (Brown,
2011, p. 116). Brown further details that it is paramount that an organization
is able to recognize symptoms and causes of organizational ineffectiveness.
(2011)
In 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia
disintegrated over Texas and Louisiana as it reentered Earth’s atmosphere,
killing all seven crew members. This tragedy played out on a global stage
leaving no choice for NASA to take a step back and thoroughly examine where
they went wrong, how it got to this point and why. Behavioral Science
Technology, Inc. (BST) worked alongside NASA to diagnosis these issues and this
report is referenced throughout the almost hour-long video. I have been told
that it is not really a question of if you make mistakes, but when you do it is
how you handle them that are ultimately important. Thinking on that piece of
advice, I carefully considered the actions that NASA incorporated into their
plan to heal and move forward to repair its capacity to assess and change its
culture. It was determined through the diagnosis process that NASA as an
organization felt that there were two areas that required improvement, the
respect for each other and the ability for upward communication and the
practice of an exemplar safety culture.
Sean O’Keefe, a NASA administrator
and part of the top echelon of leadership, addressed employees to describe the
plan to bring about proposed changes to their culture. This is a fundamental step for change, in my
opinion. Once you figure out what happened and the diagnosis is complete, a
plan is carefully selected. The first step forward is essentially to
communicate it to the life force of the organization, the employees. O’Keefe
said it best by disclosing in his address; this is a signal, get ready; it’s
coming. Getting the word out allows for individuals to anticipate and prepare
for change. I believe this untimely event likely had an emotional impact on
those that worked toward the Columbia mission and may have even known the crew.
I would venture there is a population that demand and expects action from
leadership and are ready to get to work. According to O’Keefe, there is a lot
of work to do and it begins with “we as colleagues, it begins will all of us.”
Anyone remaining in the organization that would be subversive to the challenges
ahead is essentially on notice. Announcing this to the entire organization and
the public is a clear message that NASA’s core values will be the driving force
from that point forward and there is an expectation and revalidation to uphold
those values.
Noticeably infused throughout the
presentation were the core values: safety, people, excellence, and integrity. The
culture failed and the values seemingly loosened enough that major problems
slipped through the cracks and NASA’s mission failed. How does anyone come back
from that, how do you pick yourself up after a loss? Looking at those values
and strengthening them is a way back to a better time for NASA. O’Keefe
impressed upon his audience the need for best values, principles and practices.
Through the analysis conducted by BST it became clear that management interference
was unintentionally prevalent, there was a need to change and to improve upon
the ability to communicate. All concerns needed to be heard so that a
determination could be made if concerns needed to be resolved, an issue that
caused NASA to fall down on the job. The opinions of the employees, represented
through the surveys and interviews showed how they felt on these issues. When
an organization does not live by the values that you purportedly have, the
values begin to have no meaning. If you are not able to be true to your word,
people lose respect for those words, it becomes noise and people withdraw. It
is important to talk about values so that they can be learned and upheld.
Perhaps as eager as I am to be enthusiastic
and positively promote the things that delight me with my cheerleading nature,
I have an equally skeptical and suspicious side to me. I have embraced light
into my life so I am not weighed down by the darkness, but chalk it up to a
mixture of life experience and intuition, I am constantly silently observing
things that I come into contact with and once I zero in on a even the slightest
possible ripple or flaw I have to keep digging and picking at it. As polished
and rehearsed as Sean O’Keefe seemed during his presentation I kept wondering
about his believability. I also wondered if it matters. In good faith I will
consider it plausible that during public speaking people are plagued with
nerves. After all, it is one of the top fears that people can have. I feel like
the opening of the presentation went well but was this because it was
controlled and easier to be steady and practiced when you are still fresh in
the early first minutes? I remember sitting in my Marriage and Family class my
sophomore year of college that my professor said that in any relationship the
longer you are involved, the more likely you will see the other person’s true
self. I found it interesting that toward the end of the presentation is where
my “spidey senses” started pinging.
There were many moments that I
felt that there was true understanding that leadership has a responsibility to
guide the way toward an improved organization, this begins from the top down. I
even detected moments that seemed genuinely emotionally charged. However,
during the question and answer session I felt there was a loss of congruence
between the message and his actions. There were several quips and outbursts
that got a little weird for me, I became a bit uncomfortable.
An employee was asking about the
survey and trying to understand if contracted employees were represented in the
data versus an employee at one of the centers. The point blank remark was “Get
over it.” I think what he meant was that the lines should be blurred, there
shouldn’t be a distinction, but this could have been softened and explained
better. Another major issue I have is that O’Keefe said there is an invitation
for questions and open communication. I infer this means from this point
forward and then not long after, in a rather abrupt manner, he tells an
employee that his question was already covered in the previous question. I
suppose that it is not my opinion that matters regarding this believability,
but the audience members.
If pictures are worth a thousand
words, then when the camera pans to the crowd… that is priceless. O’Keefe was
trying to keep up the momentum and bubbling about going forth with infectious
attitudes. The audience ranged from smirking from the guy in the first row in
the very first audience shot minutes into the presentation to a mixture of pursed
lips and lifeless faces for the remainder of the video. I wonder how many people
also perceived this and why the camera kept panning the audience. I found it enlightening
to forming my opinion; it gave me some validation that I was not alone in my
watchful monitoring.
I think there is some invaluable
merit and insight to what I observed. What you say and how you say it are of
equal importance. You can have the best intentions but your body language,
actions, speech and tone all have to match. It may seem like a persnickety
detail, but a precise and careful approach is often required. I have worked
with people in various capacities and you can say all the right things at the
right time, but if the person you are speaking with has their skeptic hat on
that day, too; then you may defeat yourself before you can actually do any
helping or improving. Sometimes the only
thing someone has to go on is what you show them. I think this is why people
speak on values, why communication can be a barrier or a bridge, and why a specifically
crafted speech outlining a plan is only as good as the follow up. You have to
mean it, tell it the best way possible, and put it in place as quickly as you
can. Grand ideas mean nothing if they merely exist in your head or on paper. As
Sean O’Keefe said of NASA leadership, you have to get out there, out of your
office and walk the talk. Walking the talk, that is living your values.
References:
Behavioral Science Technology,
Inc. (2004). Assessment and plan for organizational culture change at NASA.
Ojai, CA: BST Inc.; Washington, D.C.: NASA.
Brown, D. R. (2011). An
experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Boston: Prentice
Hall.
NASA Cultural Changes - C-SPAN Video
Library. (2004, April 13). C-SPAN Video Library. Retrieved September 12,
2014, from http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SACu
No comments:
Post a Comment