27 August 1997
Source: William H. Payne

See related documents: http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm
News report on Sandia Labs: http://jya.com/sandia.htm

[Fax header all pages] SANDIA NATIONAL LABS; 5-1-96; 12:43; ORG 4000/9000 8441218:# 1/8

[Routing stamp]
Pages 8
To Sandra [illegible]
From Shirley [illegible]

Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-0722
Energy Policy and Planning Department

date: January 22, 1996
to: Dan Hartley, 4000
from: Jessica Glicken [Initials], 6217 MS 0722
subject: Sandia's Areas for Improvement

I appreciate your request for input into areas I feel could use improvement at Sandia, and take this charter seriously. I also preface this exposition with the statement that my years at Sandia have been extremely valuable and generally enjoyable. Perhaps most importantly, as a student of the human dynamic, I have learned much during my days as a Sandian.

Please keep in mind that I believe that Sandia National Laboratories is an enterprise that contributes greatly to the national endeavor; the thoughts that follow are intended as constructive comments only.

Sandia, as an organization, is moving into times of greater and greater stress. Its very existence is under challenge, and this challenge is reflected in tighter and tighter resources and requests from those who chart its course to do more with less. Its corporate culture with its attendant attitudes and behaviors also will have to change; this will be a time of great angst and organizational upheaval and disturbance. This is normal in times of such profound change.

Sandia was conceived and came of age in a time of clear national danger. Its purpose was defined in contradistinction to that danger and support of that nation. Its systems and processes were set up to manage the kinds of projects and programs derived from such an overarching, single-minded purpose: multi-billion dollar, multi- year research and development problems addressing issues it would be out of the question to trust to the private sector, issues (the use of force) that have always been the prerogative of the state, both theoretically and actually. To repeat what have almost become platitudes, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the threat against which we had defined ourselves is gone and we thus are left floundering. In fact, there is serious question and much debate in the literature about the longevity of the nation-state itself...

[-1-]

Areas for Improvement

The new non-defense missions we have adopted (specifically, energy and environment, such related areas as advanced manufacturing and computing/information science) have not always been the prerogative of the state. In fact, as infrastructure and development issues, they fall precisely into that area which is the focus of much debate between proponents for different kinds of political (economic) systems, whether those systems be as diverse as communism and capitalism or democracy, or the more subtle differences between American Democrats and Republicans. As such, these mission areas are subject to not only budget challenge but to the more existential challenge of appropriateness. This - I believe - is part of the reason for the increasing micromanagement from Washington and its concomitant small dollar, short-term projects. In many different ways, Sandia is being asked if it should even exist, so the trust fundamental t low oversight and arm's length management is absent.

It is easy to point fingers to symptoms of problems such as those I have suggested above: poor morale, ineffective processes and procedures, and the like. It is more difficult to identify the underlying problems and more difficult still to suggest solutions to those problems. In the spirit of the constructive criticism in which this memo is crafted, I will attempt to address both symptoms and problems in the discursive analysis below: I have summarized this all in Table 1 below. I believe that ideas for solutions are embedded in these discussions - and I would, of course, be happy to talk to you about this further at your convenience.

Although I do not address them directly in this memo, I would point out that there are many areas - particularly in R&D in the physical sciences - in which Sandia excels and for which it is recognized world-wide. In our zeal to 'fix things,' we should not neglect to recognized that which 'is not broke' and ensure that our remedial efforts do not harm those areas.

I emphasize that what follows is my opinion only, developed through five years of intensive participation in the Sandia culture as contractor, staff member, and manager (primarily, although not exclusively, in the energy and environment areas), supplemented by additional years of observation of the laboratories from "outside the fence" in the Albuquerque business community.

Exceptional Service in the National Interest

-2-

Areas for Improvement

Table 1

Symptom: Lack of teamwork

The behavior characteristic that has struck me most forcibly over the years is the profound lack of teamwork, both within Sandia itself and among the various laboratories of the DOE system. I have seen more cooperation among competitors in the private sector than I have among different organizations within Sandia and among the laboratories. We all speak of teamwork, but practices such as our merit review system reward only for individual behavior. We (as both staff and management) tend to be rewarded more for individual accomplishments than we are fore contributions to the corporate endeavor. We are formally charged to compete against our 'teammates' - for, in the end, each of us knows that our pay raise and long-term future here is determined by how we rank against others. Compensation is played as a zero-sum game: if I get some, you (or someone else) must loose [sic] some. Ultimately, I am not judged against any performance standards, but against my peers. I recognize that Sandia has spent a great deal of time and effort investigating compensation processes and other ways to recognize teamwork. I do not know the details of these investigations, but I do know that the message is still received at the staff level is that performance is judged at the individual rather than the group level. Either we have not yet understood the answers or we have not yet communicated them well throughout the organization.

Organizationally, it is the same story. I find that the (implicit) charge to me as a manger (and I deliberately say implicit, for it is in many unspoken messages and feedback about value from many sources) is not to enhance (e.g.) 6000, but to keep my organization intact and grow it. If I grow it at the expense of another Sandia department - so be it. My task is to grow my organization.

Exceptional Service in the National Interest

-3-

Areas for Improvement

The same attitudes seem to be prevalent across the laboratories. The DOE pot is seen as a zero-sum game and gains by one laboratory in budget may only be made at the expense of another. I commend the laboratories for the EC2 effort; although it has floundered in the execution, I believe that its goals are valid. I also commend Sandia for its investment in the National Strategy Initiative (a.k.a. the National Performance Initiative) which, I believe has a similar goal, and is structured on the assumption that a rising tide (i.e. and increased budget for things DOE does) lifts all boats. (N.B.: For reasons I will not detail here, I believe the National Strategy Initiative has a greater chance of success than the EC2.)

Problems: Absence of a clear and compelling mission; lack of corporate performance measures; an 'all star cast'; perceived absence of leadership; outdated systems and process.

Clearly, I believe the root causes for these problems are may. I shall discuss each in turn.

Absence of clear and compelling mission: It is unclear why we are here and what it is we are supposed to do. To say that we provide 'exceptional service in the national interest' does not differentiate us from any other government or public service organization. It says we can and will do anything, and gives no discriminatory guidance. Most importantly, we should recognize that high performing teams form around compelling goals. As human beings, we invest ourselves much better if we know in what it is we invest. Yes, a more focused mission or vision will preclude us from taking advantage of some opportunities - but it also will give us the moral fiber to get the most out of those opportunities we do pursue.

Lack of corporate performance measures: This is clearly related to the previous problem. Private sector organizations have a clear corporate performance measure: profit. Any activity, individual or organization that contributes to profitability is rewarded. All individuals and organizations are (or should be) regularly evaluated for their contribution and discontinued or terminated if that contribution is no longer there. Furthermore, all parts of the business must contribute for the overall enterprise to succeed. It doesn't matter how well manufacturing performs if the marketing organization is not good. If the HR organization cannot get the right individuals to the line when the line needs them - the line will fail and so, therefore, will no longer need HR. For public sector organizations, especially those like Sandia, it is much more difficult to evaluate the contributions of different organizations. If the energy and environment programs do not 'succeed,' how will that effect defense programs? advanced computing? If my department went away, would that cause much perturbation to the system? There is no incentive to team because there is no perceived benefit, because the only way to measure benefit is whether or not I am funded - not through my contribution to the corporate endeavor.

Exceptional Service in the National Interest

-4-

Areas for Improvement

An 'all star cast': Sandia, we are told over and over, hires only the best and the brightest. Hence we, as rocket scientists, can do anything and everything and need little help or support from others. We have an awful lot of chiefs, but not many Indians. I don't think I need say much here because we have all heard much about 'lab arrogance.' I suggest that it is real and it is self- destructive. Not only do we alienate potential collaborators by intimating that we can do their work, but we just don't have the time or think it important enough, but we also run the risk of looking foolish when we attempt projects or analyses for which we are not educated or trained. (N.B. this is a particular problem in my area, i.e. the social sciences and/or the social dimensions and impact of technology. Sandians seem reluctant to search out and/or use experts in these fields, believing that they can do it themselves.)

Perceived absence of leadership: Sandians need a champion. They need to see someone out there on a white horse, sticking his (or her) neck out to carve us a future, an individual with whom they can identify and say, yes, that is Sandia, that is my organization! Probably the nearest we have to that now is Pete Domenici. I personally know Sandia management has been working very hard back in Washington to protect our interests. However, most Sandians don't know that because they don't hear about it. They hear about the House Science Committee's suggestions to abolish DOE, to cut research budgets ... that is a clear, crisp loud message. The rebuttals have been much more diffuse and much quieter. There is no flag around which Sandians can rally. As a result we are fragmented and focusing on self-interest.

Old systems and processes: Processes are the focus of reengineering efforts, so I need not say much here. However, I will note that the processes in place now are so cumbersome and often redundant and slow that much effort is spent subverting them, to getting business done in spite of them. This does not foster any sort of team spirit but sets organizations and functions against each other.

Symptoms: Absence of accountability

Sandia tried a few years ago to 'empower' its employees. Unfortunately, only half the message of empowerment was heard. Employees heard and embraced additional authority; they did not accept additional responsibility. There is a (sort of) joke around the laboratories that the only way to get fired is commit a felony. Hence, job performance becomes irrelevant. I have seen employees anger customers, deliver poor quality products -- and move on to other jobs with little or no negative repercussions. I have had managers from other departments charge my cases "because they didn't have anything else to charge" because they had overspent their own accounts. I ha no real recourse, nor were they punished or disciplined in any way. I have heard significant murmurs regarding the poor performance of some who appear to have promoted for AA reasons over better qualified applicants for non-identified groups, but there is no action taken or investigation into that performance. I have heard the implicit message that putting an employee on

Exceptional Service in the National Interest

-5-

Area for Improvement

an [sic] performance action plan is a serious and significant step and should only be taken when all other avenues have been exhausted. True - but the way that sentiment is actualized leaves managers with no 'sticks' and leaves employees with little fear of reprimand and so no accountability to their managers. Ultimately the price is low employee turnover and so extremely restricted opportunities to get new blood, new ideas and new approaches into the Sandia intellectual life. We fossilize.

Problem: 'All star cast'; no corporate performance metrics; entitlement mentality; perceived absence of leadership; old systems and processes.

Much of what was said above applies here. I will speak briefly to each.

The 'best and brightest' attitude of our all star cast fosters a related feeling that we are 'above the law:' rules apply to others, but not to us. Because we have no corporate performance metrics to clearly define valued behavior and no recognized leadership to generate loyalty to something above and beyond ourselves and perhaps our immediate organizations, personal survival becomes the goal and anything we can do to further that is acceptable. Furthermore, once hired we know it is nigh impossible to be fired, so we develop an entitlement mentality: we deserve or (worse yet) have the right to certain amenities in the workplace and for our jobs, and become quite outraged when we are told (for example) that we must justify the number of personal computers listed as belonging to us, or justify travel in terms of our client's charter to us.

Symptom: Depersonalization of employees

Sandia is a service-based business. We sell our employees' time. One of the tenants [sic] of developing, marketing, and delivering product in a service-based business is that the best of them are relationship-based, not transaction-based. Relationships exist between individuals. Services are provided by individuals, hence each instance of service provision is unique and depends for its nature and definition upon he individual providing it. That individual is a product of his/her skills, training, education, and experience. Yet, when our clients as for CV's or background on the researchers who will be working on their projects, we may not provide it, but must say that the client "contracts with the laboratories, not the individuals." When new areas of endeavor open up (such as policy or advanced manufacturing), Sandia once again ignores the value of education, training and/or experience, and seems to assume that any Sandian can do any job that Sandia does. Reorganizations and realignments seem to be carried out through exercises with organizational charts; the individuals who must report to new bosses or re-design their own jobs are not consulted, involved, or asked to participate in the decisions. The personal dynamics that could lead t the development of highly productive working relationships (or, contrarily, to highly destructive relationships) are afterthoughts, if considered at all. Sandia is no

Exceptional Service in the National Interest

-6-

Areas for Improvement

more than its people; this depersonalization could cause significant disinvestment on the part of staff.

Problems: 'All star cast' (in the wrong areas)

I suggest that the primary problem here lies in an all star cast of individuals who have self-selected themselves out of disciplines that deal with, study, or manage interpersonal relationships. Sandia has institutionalized the 'second class' nature of these kinds of skills through their relegation to administrative and support functions (not the 'real' business of the laboratories) and the assignment of MLS status to practicing professionals. The emerging credibility of our department is a sign that this may be changing - but there are many institutional hurdles to overcome.

Symptom: Poor morale

For too many people at Sandia, it is no longer fun to come to work. A great deal of hallway conversation is dedicated to complaining. There is not the aura of excitement and challenge I remember so well from growing, thriving companies. Challenges here are seen to be procedural (how can I get this to happen with the fewest number of signatures?), political (Washington is just getting in the way of us doing good science!), and organizational (why are we here [no mission] and who is going to get us out of this mess?).

Problems; Lack of clear and compelling mission; perceived absence of leadership; old systems and processes.

To start at the end of the list: in this world of fast turnaround, changing requirements, and small budgets, we have (I think) more or less the same budget management overhead structure that was in place in the days of multi-million dollar, multi-year programs. Because we have no clear and compelling mission, it is difficult to argue change and make the tradeoffs we need to make (how do you argue ES&H considerations against cost savings? without profitability as a mission, how do we measure the relative value of two activities?) and there is a perceived absence of a champion to back radical changes and suggestions.

Exceptional Service in the National Interest

-7-

[Page 8 not provided]

[End]