Maybe Wayne Hale Should Be NASA Administrator
King for a Day, Wayne Hale
“Many of my old friends and colleagues are asking me a question these days: “If you were NASA Administrator, what would you have the agency do?” I know what they want to hear: Moon, Mars, or Asteroid – what is the next destination for human spaceflight? But that is not the answer I would give. Whatever ‘horizon goal’ is established, without significant organizational and cultural changes at NASA, the chance for success is in doubt. To make NASA into the extraordinarily effective organization it once was and could be again will require significant work to transform it. NASA is filled with extremely smart, highly motivated individuals who are the experts in their fields. They can do amazing things. Measured against any other organization – government or commercial – the NASA civil service and contractor work force is outstanding in terms of inherent capabilities and the desire to make their projects successful. But success in NASA’s endeavors is hobbled by three structural and cultural problems: (1) inter-center rivalry, (2) mind numbing bureaucracy, and (3) a paralyzing cultural requirement for perfection in all things.”
He’ll never do. Wayne thinks too much…intelligently, even wisely. And independently to boot.
Nope. I just don’t see it working out…
Maybe NASA is the best run govt. agency, they get a lot of things done while the other govt. agencies get little or nothing done.
1. Inter-Center rivalry: This is human nature, not going away.
2. Mind numbing bureaucracy: The bureaucracy is built into the system. Not going away.
3. A paralyzing cultural requirement for perfection in all things: Leadership, leadership, leadership.
I like your sarcasm, but I wish it would happen. I love his blog, and I miss watching his old pressers. Such a smart and well spoken guy!
Excellent piece, just as everything I’ve read by Mr. Hale is.
I agree with Odyssey2020 on point (1); most of the organizational and military science studies I’ve seen indicate that people are unable to identify as strongly with organizations larger than a hundred to two hundred people as they are with smaller ones: the company, the platoon, the branch, the section. People you know and know whether you can depend on. I’d propose that we treat that normal, human behavior as an asset, like regimental pride. (One correction, Mr. Hale, but they took the Center name off our badges during the “One NASA” push in the aftermath of the Columbia disaster. Has it changed anything?)
(2), though, is bang on. The bureaucracy is not built in, it has accrued over the last 59 years. The early successes of the Agency came about not only because of the quality of the people and the leadership, but precisely because there were no rules, by comparison with today. Everyone I’ve worked with over the years who was with NASA at the beginning has made the same point to me, vigorously. And after a mere 37 years, I can chronicle the continual deepening of the layer upon layer of non value-added bureaucracy, and the number of civil service positions not involved in anything close to the Agency’s mission. I don’t want to think about how many hours of my week are “spent” (wasted) on bureaucratic nonsense that not only steals my time from what I should be doing, but represents No Value Added to the mission.
(3) is driven in part by people — political leaders and NASA management without engineering management experience — who simply don’t understand risk management, or that it encompasses so much of what is done at the Agency. To me, this is a result of (2): we have people like the Agency CIO (just to take an example) making decisions that affect our mission design, cost, and operations when they have no experience in such matters, nor anyone in the burgeoning organizations who do.
I disagree fairly strongly with (3). NASA is effectively run by Congress, and unlike a CEO such as Musk, they don’t say “hey, give it another shot” when the agency fails. Unless of course it’s a jobs program such as SLS or the Shuttle.
In the 1950’s C. Northcote Parkinson described a process by which bureaucracies expand over time, e.g. the progressive increase in the number of employees at the British Colonial Office even as Great Britain’s overseas empire declined. He explained this growth by two forces:
1. An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals.
2. Officials make work for each other.
Nevertheless Wayne Hale ran a fairly large organization yet maintained technical, management and political perspective. In my opinion he would make a good administrator.
I’m nervous when folks attribute motivation to others. And while it’s true that in my work experience I’ve not run into bureaucracies as large as NASA, I do interact with my local planning office, where I find people trying to do a good job. Expansion comes from either more work but, more likely, from a perception that there are some pieces missing in the work flow, pieces that should be resolved in order to do the best job possible.
In other words, people doing jobs they were trained to do but missing a sense of the big picture.
Wayne is spot on a usual. It would be refreshing to see this implemented but sadly I could see the lobbyists/congress barriers to knocking down the fiefdoms. It has been a long time since a President, Congress and NASA were all on the same page for exploration but until the issues Wayne highlights get taken care of I fear no matter the administrator the Churn will continue and rudderless ship will be stuck in the shallow waters of LEO.
I would first suggest he take a look at my paper and start addressing the question of “WHY” we are doing anything in space given what is happening on Earth and what will be happening as we approach 10 billion humans. Just a thought.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/a…
you know who he is right?
Who… he?
We do things in space because we wish to learn about the world and universe around us. Pushing the boundaries has been a part of being human for a very long time. Long-term, humans need to colonize other planets to increase the chances of the survival of our race. Staying a one planet species is a bad idea.
The amount of money spent on NASA equals about 0.5% of the entire federal budget. It’s government pocket change. (Private industry is also getting involved)
And we are not going to quit.
Very true, but pure science alone will NEVER get humanity to colonize off Earth.
I’d like to read your paper…but either Disqus or NASAWatch has changed the way links work, redirecting to viglink. Safari won’t follow them.
But if you are making the argument that we have too many problems here on earth to be fooling around in space, I’d point out, as someone said far more eloquently, that activities like scientific research are what make life worth living, and that space is simply another scientific activity.
Or perhaps we’d restrict any scientific endeavor to those with directly applicable results? I won’t expand that argument; it’s too obvious.
Darn, and I concur. But if our society is to really push forward then highly sustainable and pragmatic reasons must be put forward and adhered to. I make more of an argument that humanity could be overcome by too many problems (e.g., 10 billion people) that it might never colonize space (sadly).
Paper Title: The Mars imperative: Species survival and inspiring a globalized culture; in Acta Astronautica 2015
Behind a paywall, but studied the précis and understand the argument- I wrongly thought you were arguing against space expenditure; your paper if I understand it is that we should, yes, spend money in space, but be sure to focus those efforts on applicability to the 10 billion.
I wonder though about living on Mars. The deep Australian outback produces some very fine opals. Unfortunately the environment is so hostile that people live underground, for the most part; and there being no water, the resource is trucked in. I suppose we are more adaptable than my own world view.
Um. Might I suggest an additional reason, political motivation and direction.
Cheers
Good description of problems, major ones. Good as goals to say let’s solve them. But what would you do if king for a day? Say how, not just what.
Mr. Hale has identified the right problems. The current “leaders”, some in place for more than a decade, probably have also recognized these problems. Some of us saw the problems first hand 2 or 3 decades ago. None are secret. They have caused the situation we find ourselves in today. An Orion that is the wrong kind of design for the wrong time. An ISS which has caused absolutely ridiculous amounts of money and which searches for prospective users and uses. Huge and ineffective organizations. Even his own beloved Shuttle was never improved upon for lack of leadership, more than anything else. The leadership of human space flight have made no effort to fix the problems they have seen and that we all have seen. The problems persist. Most of us in the program for decades have lost hope for correction. How would Wayne make the changes that others seem unable to?
Yes, Wayne Hale talks straight, so he might be a good administrator, if he has the political skills.
Loking back at former administrators is one way to see what would be a good new administrator.
In my 30+ years working in and with NASA, I think the best admistrator was ironically Sean O’Keefe. He didn’t have a space background, but he seemed to know his limitations. And he was a good manager.
Perhaps the worse was arguably Mike Griffin, perhaps because he thought he had all of the answers before he got there, maybe because of all of his space experience before he got to the admistrations office.
Just one former NASA engineer’s opinion.
Another one of the best (if not the best) was James Webb, also primarily a govt administrator like O’Keefe. Imagine that. He also had Hugh Dryden as his Deputy & Robert Seamans as his Associate. They pulled off Apollo.
It’s funny, I remember talking to one guy who wrote a book about spaceflight and he said O’Keefe didn’t’ know what he was doing, a bean counter in way over his head. He cited the cancelling of the last Hubble repair mission as one example. Then Griffin came on board and immediately reinstated the Hubble repair mission, which to many was the right thing to do.
Goldin seemed to say the right things and make it look like he knew what he was doing. O’Keefe seemed nice but overwhelmed. Griffin was unlikable but was well qualified and outspoken. Bolden was caring and empathetic but his BS about NASA sending humans to Mars in the 2030’s was an insult to those that know the real truth.
Second what you said (I was about to write the same so commenting here)
>Wayne Hale talks straight
Yes, I’d like an administrator to say what needs to be heard, not what we want to hear.
>best admistrator was ironically Sean O’Keefe.
>He didn’t have a space background
I believe top requirements for NASA administrator are know-how-to-work-the-system i.e. James Webb. Be able to get the money and keep it flowing.
>worse was arguably Mike Griffin
He has lots of technical background but these skills not useful in getting money from the WH and congress.
I occasionally see what Wayne has in his blog, will go there now.
Mr Hale has made it plain before that he doesn’t want the Administrator job. I think that he’d been in NASA long enough to know how hard the established bureaucratic empires at the centre and broader levels would fight against organisational changes. Unfortunately, the real problem is the managers fighting to maintain their personal empires at all cost and who will sabotage any changes to protect these.
Sometimes I think the problem isn’t managers fighting for their personal empires. It’s very well-intentioned managers (and others) who grew up with the current system and honestly think it is the right way to do things. That think, for example, that what Hale calls a “paralyzing cultural requirement for perfection in all things” is obviously the right approach; it would be unthinkable and unprofessional to ever take a risk which further work could mitigate. There are lots of people like that within NASA, and they do think they are doing the right thing. Greedy managers fighting for personal empires are easy to criticize. It’s harder to criticize people who can say, “I’m just trying to make sure we don’t blow up a billion dollar spacecraft explode by accident.”
I worked on a proposal that got eliminated in part because we would have done the work with fewer people. Fewer people == less powerful manager.
And it’s not just center vs. center, but directorate vs. directorate and division vs. division.
Shortly after I started working for a certain institution, I ran into a friend who asked me what it was like to work there. I said all the institution’s divisions were run in different ways, so I could only tell him what my division was like. My friend was Russian, and liked to improve his English by intentionally misusing words (and provoking corrections.) He asked if, since the institution was split up into divisions, were the divisions split up into regiments and the regiments into battalions? I told him no. The division was split up into feuds and the feuds were split up into grudges.
“It’s very well-intentioned managers (and others) who grew up with the current system and honestly think it is the right way to do things”
That’s certainly part of the problem, but I don’t think the management issues at NASA are a simple “one size fits all” problem and trying to treat them as such simply wont work. There are, as you say the well intentioned We are NASA and this is the way it’s always been done types, but there are also the empire builder types who run their own little part of NASA on the basis of if it’s good for me and my department its good for NASA., there are the I’m the manager and I know better than anyone beneath me types, there are the all too quick pass the buck types, there are the sycophantic types who will simply say what those above them want to hear and never think to question the powers that be and that is just a few examples. What is needed is a paradigm shift in the way NASA management works but it’s far easier said than done.
Hale would be the wrong person for the job. The administrator needs to be someone who can (or have people around who can) among other things formulate and negotiate budgets and build consensus to get budgets approved. Just being smart doesn’t mean you’ll be a successful administrator.
and Bolden was?
No he wasn’t, Bolden was a lousy choice and the program is not in great shape as a result. Bolden had no “IN” with the Administration;Bolden had no political credentials, hardly any real credentials for managing technological programs. It is easy to look like you are doing OK
if things tick along with no issues and nothing changes. The program has been in that situation since the end of Shuttle. But a true leader has to be ready and willing to step in an make some serious changes if something needs to change-and it does. NASA’s human space flight program is on a “Mission to Nowhere”; they’d like you to believe they are going to Mars, but NASA won’t be making that mission in the next 40 years. Elon Musk might have better luck because he is moving and shaking and getting things done. Cometence is not something that NASA has been showing in the human space side in many years.
Amen, especially on the political chops; the General is overshadowed by the Senators from Alabama, Florida, and until recently Maryland.
I’m not sure this is improper. It’s disagreeable depending on who has the gored ox. In my case had the aforementioned Senators been, say, focusing on deep space capabilities, learning how to mine minerals and manufacture in space, recognizing that we cannot settle Mars, probably not in this century, why, I’d have thought they were gifts from the gods.
It’s political life in America. The very worst way to run a government, except, as it has been said by a noted foreigner, all of the others.
Mr. Hale would be a tremendous choice.
Again…(sigh)…Take SLS off the table and the Luna, asteroid, and Mars can become parallel, cross-connecting development paths.
As usual Wayne is right on. I wouldn’t blame people at NASA either unless you are truly willing to walk in their shoes. It is easy to throw rocks. In fact it is clear there is desire from some in leadership to make change, but making it stick isn’t easy, almost impossible it seems. This isn’t stating they are completely blameless of course, just sympathy. As Wayne said, if he were king for a day. ..Most the people know all of these issues, but it is like Kobayashi Maru, “no win”. Some things not touched on however…. You need to cut infrastructure for NASA to survive long term. That doesn’t play well with Congress. You need to honestly close some centers. That really doesn’t play well. It is hard for people to say those things other than behind closed doors. You are a part of an agency that has an incredible mission, incredible support from the public in the abstract sense of NASA. NASA is discovering new goldilocks worlds and groundbreaking science. The model for Human Spaceflight is the kicker. Trying to fit 3 lbs into a 1 lb box. ISS, SLS/Orion, Commercial Crew, and basically 10 centers with a 17,000 person workforce. 17,000 person workforce doesn’t align well with other government agencies when you align it with the technology, acquisition and operations. Lets just say it isn’t streamlined or low overhead. Other agencies with similar missions would justify about 5,000 civil servants with half the locations (ok, shocking statement). Because of science, etc. you could probably justify 8,000. The negative impact of 17,000 civil servants creates what Wayne stated which is the watchers watching the watchers watching the doers (paraphrased). When you have too many people, that is what happens. The difference between starting an agency from scratch vs trying to change one in place for a very long time, most of which depend on a major program to keep the infrastructure going. The people running these places didn’t come up with this model, they inherited it. Many of them want to fix it. They want a vibrant, forward leaning NASA in 2030. Admittedly not all. So 2 cents here. Either not much will be done and the sandchart will eventually be a slow dying process due to flat budgets for the agency until it crosses a tipping point (minus science, it seems some semblance of science will survive). ….Or radical change will occur…. Doesn’t seem like that will happen but of late, there have been signs this administration is willing to go down that path. Some long time NASA people will wax poetic about how sad it is to see NASA lose its technical arm, or the way it used to be. I imagine Sears and Kodak and other said the same thing. Its time to help the people in this Agency make changes so that NASA can thrive in the long haul. Are they willing to make someone King for a decade to do so….. Are they willing to create some independent BRAC like panel with teeth? Are they willing to choose an executable path rather than all paths, sacrificing one or two things for the one thing that is executable. How long would an Admin last if they proposed any of that? Which battle will they take on. You can only take one or two major things on, which would it be? Who wants to be the person labeled with that? Ironically in 2030s they might be a hero but could they find a job in 2020’s due to major unpopularity.
I agree with Mr. Hale. The biggest challenges for my group are not technical (or the laws of physics), but bureaucratic malaise and hyper regulation. Even paying publication fees is getting to be a complication…
G.