Young People and the Space Business

Believe it or not, I managed to take in a little of the actual content at the ISDC this year. Not a whole lot, mind you, but enough to cover at least one topic: the next generation of rocket scientists, astronauts, engineers, etc. I got a flavor for this in three environments:

• A panel on future workforce issues ("workforce refresh")
• A panel on hands-on education for aspiring space-minded students
• The NASA/National Space Society Space Settlement Contest

Workforce Refresh Panel
The workforce refresh panel was hosted by my buddy Loretta Whitesides, founder of Yuri's Night, blogger, and follower of inter-generational issues (like me). The participants included:

• Stacy Phillips from the Office of Human Capital at Kennedy Space Center
• Clay Yonce from Organizational Development at KSC
• Cassie Kloberdanz, Communications Associate at SpaceX
• Brooke Owens from the FAA's Office of Space Transportation
• Bob Richards, one of the founders of Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS)

Loretta began by sharing some all-too-familiar statistics and charts showing the "monogenerational organization" that NASA has become. The average age of workers at NASA is 47 (I thought it was 49, go figure), and there are not a lot of folks older or younger than that. Part of that was due to historical staffing decisions: a lot of Apollo-era people were offered buy-outs in the late '80s while the agency itself experienced a hiring freeze in the early '90s--a situation that persists because the agency has been constrained in its civil service staffing for years now. The average age of new hires is 37, and the average age of the workforce is growing by 1.1 years every year. As one person put it, NASA is "aging faster than time."

Stacy Phillips spoke first. She reminded the audience of former administrator Mike Griffin's pledge to move NASA's workforce to 50 percent "fresh outs" (as in "people fresh out of college"). That sounds nice and makes sense, but given the "echo boom" of Generation Y, that's a little deceptive because 50% of the workforce IS fresh-outs anyway. So all Griffin wanted to do was bring the agency more in line with the national averages.

Phillips discussed the fact that NASA has a mentoring program. There was a call from NASA Headquarters for each center to have some sort of mentoring problem...without mandating a particular program. The mentoring process has concerned me for some time, as I watch management struggle to figure out how to mentor and young people entering NASA try to figure out what they want out of a mentor. Mentoring is not easy, and not everyone can do it well. KSC has a "matching tool" to connect mentors and "mentees" in a Match.com sort of web environment, which I believe has met with mixed results. Some folks within the agency, Phillips said, have suggested that NASA adopt a Google type of environment, where 70% of work time is devoted to direct product tasks, 20% goes to indirect support of products, and 10% goes toward innovation. There was no real idea, though, of how to implement such an environment at KSC or elsewhere.

Clay Yonce focused on activities to prevent departures of Gen Y workers. NASA has been trying to give "early career professionals" face time with senior management through a program called "Launching Leaders." Yonce described it as "social networking outside the computer," where under-30s can meet subject matter experts. He also discussed partnering with United Way and other non-profit organizations as a way to expand the program. He explained that there was a serious lack of hands-on experience among new civil servants (more on that a bit later).

Cassie Kloberdanz, who's been a friend since 2007, started off by explaining that workforce retention was not unique to NASA. She had two mentoring experiences at NASA, one at KSC, one at Marshall, with the MSFC experience being much more positive and rewarding than the KSC experience. At MSFC, she got to touch the hardware and was given responsibility. At KSC, new employee orientation was not emphasized and she wasn't given much responsibility or feedback. This caused her to leave the agency and return to school (she was doing a co-op with the National Space Society when we met in '07). She was very passionate about giving new employees responsibility, holding them accountable, and letting them "sink or swim."

Brooke Owens started out wanting to be a pilot, but 9/11 contracted the job market. She turned toward space, attending the International Space University (ISU). She eventually ended up at the X Prize Foundation, where she was tasked with leading a team that had to build half a dozen composite models of Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne. Like Cassie, she emphasized the need for new employees being allowed to take risks, work hard, and do attractive/interesting work. She had the quote of the day for me: "If you think it's the scariest job in your life, that's probably the job you should take." I admired her go-get-'em spirit.

Bob Richards gave a narrative of the formation of SEDS, the ISU, and other groups in the time before the internet and "social networking" sites. He had a good line: "Retention is such a low bar."

I asked Brooke what educational experiences she'd had that gave her the confidence to take on something like the SpaceShipOne project. She emphasized her small-town background, where she wasn't really given a choice about working hard or "ditching class."

Cassie mentioned that the average age at SpaceX was around 35, with the technicians being somewhat older and the engineers and front-office folks being younger. She explained that "You don't get fired at SpaceX for making a mistake; you get fired for making the same mistake twice," a comment she'd made to me before the program.

Phillips mentioned that KSC offers training to mentors, which addressed my earlier concerns. I'd be interested to see what that consists of, but I'm a contractor so it wouldn't affect me anyway.

Someone else mentioned the Phaeton program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is an internally funded project for new hires.

Phillips had to field a question about bureaucracy and the inability of NASA to fire "bad employees." She shook her had and said she understood the concern: "There are good supervisors and there are not-good supervisors...we're going to start holding supervisors accountable."

Hands-On Education
This panel was sharply curtailed because the lunch preceding it ran long (like someone is going to interrupt Buzz Aldrin?), but it was still enlightening.

Tony Gannon, Director of Education, Space Florida
Space Florida has three primary activities: business development, education and workforce development, and space operations (rocket launches) at Cape Canaveral. Gannon was there to talk about the Space Florida Academy, which provides balloon-launched projects for college-level students. They're given a week to develop a payload and launch it: "The balloon goes up at 9 a.m. on Friday, whether the payload is ready or not." Students are also put into an "inquiry-based" learning environment, where questions are met with "Don't ask me, go find out for yourself." The sink-or-swim method. Works for me!

Gannon also shared with the audience that Lockheed Martin "could employ every graduate in engineering right now." That's a little scary.

Ruben Nuñez, Earthrise Space, Inc.
Here's what Earthrise Space's Facebook page has to say about what they do:

Earthrise Space, Inc. is a not for profit organization that was
founded by a group of students and professionals in Central Florida with the
common goal of advancing private and commercial space exploration. Our current
focus, the Omega Envoy project, will help realize these goals through successful
competition in the Google Lunar X PRIZE. We believe that any team with enough
dedication and sufficient engineering expertise can make incremental
technological advancements that will expand the horizons of human space
exploration.

Through outreach to all academic and professional levels, coupled
with synergistic business relationships, we hope to maintain Florida’s position
as the global leader in the space industry. Perhaps more important, however, is
the effect it will have on the public conscience. This contest will drastically
change the way the community sees space, and redefine what is “possible”.
Regardless of whom wins, the victor of the X PRIZE will have proven that you do
not need government administration, exotic technology, or industry backing to
unlock the final frontier—it is open to all people on Earth, all backgrounds,
nationalities, and all ways of life. Thanks to modern advances in digital media
and communications, everyone can take part in “the next giant step.” All that
space requires of those who explore its depths is their courage—and for those
who dare shall be rewarded with unlimited opportunity.

In practical terms, they are providing students with hands-on experience via project-based education, akin to Space Florida's work. I liked his challenge: "If you don't do it, who's going to do it?"

Josh Neuberg, Conrad Foundation
The Conrad Foundation, named for late Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad, provides prize-based, entrepreneurial education. I liked Neuberg's emphasis, which began with a brief zing on traditional book learning and championed instead "entrepreneurial education" to break down barriers between science (engineering) and business.

Michael Mealling, Masten Space Systems
I've known Mike since the 2006 X Prize Cup. He was brought into this discussion because Masten hires two college co-op students per year and because he wrote a blog about what students need to do to get into aerospace. His emphasis when hiring "fresh-outs" has been on the student's extra-curricular activities. He doesn't just ask, "What have you built?" but "What have you built without a teaching telling you to?" Masten does not want workers educated and experienced in "traditional aerospace" because it takes too long to "untrain" them (quoth Yoda: "You must unlearn what you have learned").

The introductions took up a good deal of the hour. When the Q&A session opened, the first person to speak was Gillian Evans, a math and physics teacher from Canada. The frustration in her voice was obvious. She appreciated what everyone on the panel was saying, but stated that the American system is based on GPAs and standardized tests. Today's teachers have "no incentive for inquiry-based learning."

Mealling partially agreed, but said that there are "holes" in the curriculum to allow teachers time to teach space-based, hands-on learning. Ms. Evans was adamant: "That only works with teachers who want to do it."

Another high school teacher, this one from the Florida Space Coast, said that it wasn't a teaching issue first, it was a political issue, arguing that private industry needs to lobby for loosening the test-based education model (No Child Left Behind).

Evans chimed in with "We don't need SATs. Get rid of them." There was then a brief discussion about how U.S. universities were supposed to accept students without some basis for comparison.

Gannon added that, "You don't just read science, you've got to go out and do it."

And at that point, I had to go over and make my pitch to the Conference Committee. But you get the idea. For science and engineering, as in most endeavors, students learn better by doing than just studying.

NASA/NSS Space Settlement Contest
I have no notes in my journal from this hour, and because I'm an idiot, I don't have pictures to share. Instead, I must share my impressions and all-too-fallible memories. Bear with me, the point is not to provide specifics here, anyway, but to offer some unvarnished analysis and opinion writing.

I talked to seven teams: three from India, two from Romania, one from Canada, one from the U.S.

Now the official winner was Eric Yam who was from Canada. Like many of the kids, he talked very quickly, but his concept was impressive. One of the constraints of the contest was for the students to use existing/known technologies as much as possible, and to avoid "unobtanium." The fundamental units of young Mr. Yam's massive geosynchronous structure were inflatable habitat modules based on Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable space station. The "ribs" of the structure are long tubes based on existing commercial aircraft airframes.

The two teams from Romania were mostly girls. They spoke more slowly than the boys, possibly because they were less comfortable with their English, but they had answers for all of my English-major-level questions. The benefits of their projects, as near as I can remember, were the use of expandable toroid designs. One design, in its final form, could house 500,000 people!

The one American kid I saw was just arriving as I was sniffing around. He was a pretty quiet, very tall young man from Georgia. He wasn't so much a "team" as an independent genius. His structure reminded me of The Machine from the movie Contact. However, there were a couple of unique features that caught my attention. For example, the outer sections of the ring/torus were seeded with bacteria that is highly radiation-resistant, but also can be used to process wastes. The core of the station was also interesting, in that it had a very unique appearance--almost organic. The student grinned a little and said, "That's because it's grown." And by "grown," he means organically developed from space-based materials at a nanoscopic level. For this student (Jacob, I believe, is his name), the Singularity really is near.

And while I was pleased to talk to the sole American I could find, the Indian teams just blew me away. One station included vertical takeoff or landing (VTOL) aircraft, magnetic-levitation trains, magnetic shoe soles, zero-gravity toilets, electrical generators, and gosh-knows-what-else. And all of the designs were new to me, some beautiful, all ingenious.

Another Indian team had a design that was plain marvelous. They began by explaining that the purpose of this station would be to exploit the resources of Mars. For those unfamiliar with the concept, most of these stations include some sort of spinning to provide artificial gravity via centripital force (for an example of this, fill a bucket partway with water and then start twirling it in a horizontal or vertical circle--the water stays in the bucket, it doesn't fall out). Most of the students' designs used a torus (donut) shape, where occupants' heads are pointing inward toward the center of spin and their feet point downward toward the stars. This group used a "double dumbbell" design, where there are two sets of platforms pointing inward toward each other and spinning around a common center. In this case, the platforms (inner and outer) look like symmetrical, radially-sectioned lily pads complete with organic-looking tubes that connect each radial section to the central core. Beautiful. And even the interiors of these platforms were different from anything I've seen in the West. Rather than housing and farmland laid out in a Cartesian grid, if you flew overhead, the land would almost look like some sort of modern art--a combination of strange symbols and paisley. Farmland, housing, medical facilities, and other land uses have no distinct pattern to them. Like the station, they are nearly organic. I loved it, and I wish these kids from Punjab would've spoken more slowly, as I missed some of what they said. But it was all very, very cool.

So the message I took away from the Space Settlement Design contest was that I had cause for hope in the future. I've expressed more than a few concerns about the state of education in the U.S. and the world at large. What are we teaching our kids? What are they learning? Will the things they learn be useful for helping us build a better future? The teams of Indian kids and the lone American also gave me pause. All of these kids worked with teacher-mentors to ensure they were getting things right; and yet the American kid worked alone. Are they learning these things in class, or are they self-directed learners? (I suspect the latter.) Is interest in space settlement that far gone in this country? Meanwhile, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) wants to send men into orbit by 2015 and to the Moon by 2020--the Constellation timeline, oddly enough--and they just might do it. Regardless, all of these kids were dreaming BIG and thinking positively about the future, and it was refreshing to see that.

As a nation, the United States has many challenges ahead--not just in the next four years, but in the next century. A uniform government education system might work, if that system was dedicated to achievement and learning, not just meeting test scores and keeping union members happy. But if we don't end up with a government-controls-all system (which I fervently hope will be the case), then we owe it to our students to provide them the most freedom--bounded by informed wisdom--to learn what they need to learn to make the future better. As one of my fellow ISDC participants put it, it's a little disconcerting that space settlement design might be the next thing we outsourced. I wish those kids from Punjab well, but I hope for the sake of my own country that that will not be the case.

Potpourri XLVII

Articles here and here on Ares I-X...

Here's a list of things that have to go right to get human beings to and from the Moon safely. All of them must take place at extreme velocities, temperatures, or environments and require our greatest efforts to correctly. How is it that people cannot be inspired by the space program? How is it possible for a nation to make space exploration boring?

From a friend of Hu: a company that ships wine to Alabama legally. Better read the fine print first.

Here's the official White House press release on the nominations of Charles Bolden and Lori Garver.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________________________FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 23, 2009
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals for key administration posts: General Charles Bolden, Administrator of NASA and Lori Garver, Deputy Administrator of NASA.

President Obama said, “These talented individuals will help put NASA on course to boldly push the boundaries of science, aeronautics and exploration in the 21st century and ensure the long-term vibrancy of America’s space program.”

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals today:

Gen. Charles Bolden, Nominee for Administrator of NASA
Charles Bolden retired from the United States Marine Corps in 2003 as the Commanding General of the Third Marine Aircraft Wing after serving more than 34 years, and is currently CEO of JackandPanther LLC, a privately-held military and aerospace consulting firm. Gen. Bolden began his service in U.S. Marine Corps in 1968. He flew more than 100 sorties in Vietnam from 1972-73. In 1980, he was selected as an astronaut by NASA, flying two space shuttle missions as pilot and two missions as commander. Following the Challenger accident in 1986, Gen. Bolden was named the Chief of the Safety Division at the Johnson Space Center with responsibilities for overseeing the safety efforts in the return-to-flight efforts. He was appointed Assistant Deputy Administrator of NASA headquarters in 1992. He was Senior Vice President at TechTrans International, Inc. from 2003 until 2005. Gen. Bolden holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis and a M.S. in Systems Management from the University of Southern California.

Lori Garver, Nominee for Deputy Administrator of NASA
Lori Garver is the President of Capital Space, LLC, and has served as Senior Advisor for Space at the Avascent Group, a strategy and management consulting firm, based in Washington, D.C. She was the lead civil space policy advisor for Obama for America, and she helped lead the Agency Review Team for NASA during the Transition. She has intimate familiarity with the agency and knows well the challenges it faces. From 1998 to 2001, Ms. Garver served as NASA’s Associate Administrator of the Office of Policy and Plans. Reporting to the NASA Administrator, she oversaw the analysis, development, and integration of NASA policies and long-range plans, the NASA Strategic Management System, and the NASA Advisory Council. Ms. Garver also served as a primary spokesperson for NASA. Prior to this appointment, she served as a Senior Policy Analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans, and Special Assistant to the Administrator. Ms. Garver earned an M.S. in Science, Technology, and Public Policy from the George Washington University and a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Colorado College.

*

A Space Review editorial compares NASA to the automobile industry.

This one from the corporate office: the Baltimore Sun is reporting that you're going to need to pony up with your middle name when it comes time to fly. I actually inquired how much it would cost to legally change my name from Bartholomew to Bart because I sign my checks Bart but my mother and the State of Alabama call me Bartholomew (and the former only when she's angry with me). Why? Because the TSA was getting p!$$y with me about my driver's license not matching my credit cards. Parents beware: I won't be the only one to contemplate this change to save myself the aggravation at the airport. Another lesson in the law of Unintended Consequences from our government: make the law more intrusive and yoiu can even cause people to change their names.

This one from Nickomundo: Anderson Cooper believes the current generation is going to be shafted by the recession. Jeez, spare me. Every generation is screwed by a recession, usually temporarily, as the ability to make more choices and obtain more opportunities is reduced by slowed economic activity. Recession means your mom buys from the discount rack or sews your clothes when you rip them. Recession means you don't go to the Chuck-E-Cheese once a week or don't get high-end snacks with your lunch. Or that you don't buy your lunch. Or vacation gets put off a year. You're sad, you're disappointed. A couple of more fortunate, more shallow peers might laugh at your cheap, off-the-rack clothes. You're hurt. You move on.

Is NASA "over the hill" if the average age there is 49? All depends. People keep telling me that "40 is the new 30." Which means what for Gen Y? It means you'll be waiting another 10 years before you get promoted. (Just a little snark/humor to offer insight into how your elders might be thinking.)

Leonard David, whose brain I'd like to borrow for a week, has a blog on a new approach to searching for Earthlike planets.

The International Space Development Conference officially gets under way tomorrow. The Space Investment Symposium (SIS), which has become attached to ISDC since 2006, happened today. That's an event where they put wannabe space entrepreneurs and venture capitalists into a room and try to educate the space people on the right way to write a business plan to get investment money from the VCs. I first wrote about the SIS in 2007 and have been trying to keep up with it when I can. Lately I haven't been able to afford the leave time--or the ticket price. I don't complain about that--I got in gratis as a journalist in '06 and '07.

I see the SIS as a positive sign in the space advocacy movement because it shows that space businesses are becoming routine, part of the regular investment and business environment, like utilities or drug companies. However, I've heard complaints that this emphasis on business also raises ticket prices for space-related events and eliminates that "grass roots" touch/feel to the activity. I look at it this way, speaking purely for myself and from a strictly appearance-based point of view: more suits means more people taking space seriously. It's the difference between space advocates showing up in t-shirts or Star Trek outfits to lobby Congress and those same advocates showing up with suits, professional attire, and briefcases. Which one would you take more seriously? Apperances matter. And if that means that the space movement loses the "common touch" but gains credibility among the non-space-minded public, then I'm willing to make the sacrifice. If you want to wear t-shirts and Star Trek outfits, there's probably a science fiction convention out there waiting for you. If you want to make a serious effort to get civilization into space, leave the t-shirts at home and get ready to do business.

Potpourri XXXVIII

No word from Dar yet on how my little friend is doing with her leukemia treatments. Out of respect for her family's privacy, I wasn't using her name, but Dar just posted it, so if you'd like to focus your caring, attention, and prayers, her name is Morgan, and her web site can be found here. In my ongoing efforts to "keep things in perspective," I'll try to keep the snark to a minimum this evening.

New from Hu:

• One of my previous customers over at Marshall, Dan Dumbacher, is heading to Washington to be NASA Associate Administrator. Dan has been the manager (director?) of the Engineering Directorate at the center. Smart guy, and a great advocate for space.
• NBC News is reporting that Marine Corps General (Ret.) and astronaut Charles Bolden is going to be meeting with President Obama tomorrow in a prelude to being selected as Obama's choice as the next NASA Administrator.

A link from Scott: Oprah says "It's great to have a private jet." Great. Does that mean it's socially acceptable for CEOs and companies to use them again?

From the Office of Strategic Analysis and Communication's "Communicators' Corner," a link to an article on why marketing strategies fail.

The Futures Channel has a new movie posted on the Ares Projects, based here at Marshall.

A guy I've never heard of got a chance to give a talk on his book at Lucasfilm Ltd. Guess I'll have to write a book myself...that's one way to get to the Skywalker Ranch!

Mary Lynn Dittmar is reporting on how Web 2.0 is opening up public dialogues within NASA.

Tim Bailey, one of my fellow space advocates (though a bit younger) posted this link in Facebook about how law firm partners don't understand what motivates or how to motivate Generation Y. Basically, the up-and-coming generation expects concessions to "balance" in their personal lives and that they aren't as interested in base concerns like money or regular business hours. Well, good luck, if they manage it. I belong to, and was raised by parents who went to, the School of Hard Knocks. This is this school that believes in putting in long hours, occasionally missing your kids, but doing whatever it took to get the job done right and well. That was just the expectation, for the Silent Generation, the Greatest Generation, and I'm willing to bet a lot of American generations before that. It's only with the Baby Boomers and their offspring that ideas like personal fulfillment became vogue in the workplace. This is of a piece with that quarter-life crisis thing I was ranting about the other day. If you expect to do it all and have it all (great career, great personal life, loving family, etc.), you'll either lose focus or get burned out trying to fulfill unrealistic expectations). As it happens, I'm a workaholic, but I also have passions in life--space advocacy, science and technical writing, blogging, helping friends with their resumes and career plans--that fill a great deal of my time, and quite happily so. I also manage to stay in touch with my out-of-state family and my church. Something had to give, so I'm not married. So what? Anyhow, if Gen Y wants to go easier on their work lives to spend more time at home, that's great. I'll be in my office when they get back...the boss's office, that is.

The Hubble repair mission is proceeding nicely. Good!

And just on a personal note, I got some nice comments about the proposal I wrote (with help from my HAL5 partners in crime) to bid on the 2011 ISDC. The reward for work is more hard work. Now I get to give a formal presentation at the 2009 ISDC in Orlando in two weeks. No sweat. Need one dog, one pony, and a couple of Vannas.

Self-Indulgence, Aimlessness, and Putting Things in Perspective

So today one of my Gen Y buddies posted an article on a new phenomenon: the "quarter-life crisis." This new, self-induced crisis is neatly summarized early in the article:

This phenomenon, known as the “Quarterlife Crisis,” is as ubiquitous as it is intangible. Unrelenting indecision, isolation, confusion and anxiety about working, relationships and direction is reported by people in their mid-twenties to early thirties who are usually urban, middle class and well-educated; those who should be able to capitalize on their youth, unparalleled freedom and free-for-all individuation. They can’t make any decisions, because they don’t know what they want, and they don’t know what they want because they don’t know who they are, and they don’t know who they are because they’re allowed to be anyone they want.

The Bartish shorthand for this might be called the "What am I going to be when I grow up?" crisis. Or simply ennui brought on by lack of bounds or direction (see Barry Schwartz's The Paradox of Choice for an extended treatment of this problem). I probably had something like this in my mid-20s, but I very quickly got sick of my own whining with asking, "Why me?" and asked, "Okay, what do I want out of life?" My rather naive answer was, "I want to go into space." Trajectory set. Date: October 31, 2004. Everything else after that was a quest to figure out what I needed to do to get there.

Now other people might come up with different answers to the question I asked myself or ask themselves different questions entirely. After spending a lot of my teens and twenties as an intellectual, it was somewhat unique for me to think about applying practical considerations to the wild ideas roaming around my head. But I think it's safe to say that from that point on, I started applying what Ayn Rand would call reasoning, my mother would call "common sense," and I ended up calling "wisdom." Once I had a goal in mind, the rest was just details, and I went forth and lived my life.

But I have a lot of friends--not just Gen Yers--who still don't have an answer to "What do I want?" Other people might be more driven by family, or more Earth-based aspirations. Bully for them. If you've got a dream, chase it. If you can't pursue it right now, take a job that supports you while pursuing what you really want in your free time. Of course, as my buddy Martin put it, "Sometimes a job is just a job." Maybe. My time at Disney's Dixie Landing Resort front desk qualifies. Hated the job, did it to pay the bills, spent my free time with my friends, reading, writing, traveling, and drinking. I took what joy from my life as I could, and I lived low-rent. And I had a great time in Orlando. I still have great friends from that time.

Of course even I'm not immune to moments of self-involved boredom. Excellent example today: I could sense myself getting p!$$y with a couple of coworkers about an absolute non-issue in even the work scheme of things, and yet I was prepared to make myself a permanent annoyance to my boss over it. If I tell you it's over an issue of grammar, that will show how shallow and terrifying the concerns of my life are right now.

And then I remembered an 8-year-old kid Darlene the Science Cheerleader knows. This girl is by all accounts a sweet kid, winning smile, the whole nine yards of what you'd like a kid to be. Well, last week Dar informed me that this little girl is going in for serious chemotherapy, radiation, and bone marrow work to cope with leukemia. She's already got a head like a ping pong ball, but her smile lights up the room. They've been treating her like a queen this past weekend--whale watching, tea party, ice cream party, whatever the hell she wants. Today was the day she was supposed to go in for the full-court medical press, and I suddenly remembered that as I caught myself being a self-involved nincompoop.

So when I read/hear about twentysomethings who don't know what they want to do with their empty little heads/lives, I think of the stuff I have left to do with my life, and then I try to think of kids like this little girl and shut up. If I have too much time to worry about my own little problems, I need to take a page from my e-buddy Laura and just do something for someone else.

Or, as the article puts it, "In other words: it might just be time to grow the f@#$ up."

Potpourri XII

Let's see what sort of weirdness is lurking around the Internet today...I'm all a-quiver (or a-Twitter, as it were).


Oh, yeah: today is the anniversary of the wedding of my friends Tim & Gwen: 12 years, imagine that! They decided to get married at 4:04 on 4/4, just to mess with people's heads. I wonder what the numerologists would say about that. Happy anniversary, guys!

Fedora tip to Hu for this one: some ingenious folks in New Jersey set up an elaborate UFO hoax just to mess with people's heads. I'm amused.

Another reminder: the International Space Development Conference (ISDC) is coming May 28-31. The last time the event was in Orlando, they recruited me into the space business after I was convinced that I was stuck in the tourism business forever. How might it change your life? Attend the event and find out for yourself!

Nick Skytland posted this item regarding NASA's aim to hire up to 50% of civil servants as "fresh-outs" (meaning kids fresh out of college. Keith Cowing is doing his usual hatchet job of the idea. If you look at things logically, though, Gen Y is or soon will be 50% of the national workforce anyway, so this just makes sense. However, the average age of employees at NASA is 49 (with me being on the young side of the average, imagine that!).

The question continues to be asked: how does NASA make itself over into a place where the next generation of the best and brightest will want to work? I provided my thoughts here awhile back. There will no doubt need to be changes top to bottom, but the more practical questions about change, IMHO, need to focus on ideas that:

• Keep us exploring space and advancing technology
• Make sense from a cost, budget, and schedule perspective
• Will not compromise U.S. technological secrets
• Are acceptable to older, crankier generations like the Boomers and my cohort of Gen Xers

As proof that the first critic is the next volunteer, I made the mistake about griping about the format of one of the meetings I attend. Now I've got to find a "team building" activity that is high in content, low on foolishness. Ideas welcome.

Consider this quotation from Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451...

"They run us so ragged by the end of the day we can't do anything but go to bed or head for a Fun Park to bully people around, break windowpanes in the Window Smasher Place or wreck cars in the Car Wrecker Place with the big steel ball."

Then check out this place: http://www.smashshack.com/. Ray gets it right again.

Scads of pictures of the Orion crew module test article undergoing water recovery testing at Carderock Test Facility in Maryland.

The following extended quotation from H. G. Wells' Things to Come was included in a recent email I received from Apogee Books:

***

(The writer is speaking about Democracy.)
The people, it was imagined, watched, listened, spoke and wisdom ensued. The Common People became therefore a mystical sympathetic being, essentially a God, whose altar was the hustings and whose oracle the ballot box. A little slow and lumpish was this God of the Age but, though his mills ground slowly, men were assured that they ground with ultimate exactitude. And meanwhile business could be carried on. You could fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, said Abraham Lincoln, but you could not fool all the people all the time. Yet for such crucial purposes as bringing about a war or exploiting an economic situation, this was manifestly a quite disastrous degree of foolability.

And the situation naturally evolved a Press of the very highest fooling capacity. This belatedly inevitable Divinity (the electorate) proved now to be altogether too slow-witted for the urgent political and economic riddles, the massive resistance in every national legislature to any but the most narrow egotism in foreign policy, the inability of the world as a whole to establish any unanimity of action in face of swift economic collapse, revealed the final bankruptcy of Parliamentary Democracy.

The inability of the world's nominal rulers to shake off their lifelong habit of speaking to, or at, a vaguely conceived crowd of prejudiced voters and their invincible repugnance from clear statement, frustrated every effort towards realism. They recoiled from any suggestion of definitive or novel action on the plea that their function was purely representative. Behind them all, the reader feels the sprawling uneasy presence of that poor invertebrate mass deity of theirs, the Voter, easily roused to panic and frantic action against novel, bold or radical measures, very amenable to patriotic claptrap, very easily scared and maddened into war, and just as easily baffled to distrust and impotence by delays, side issues and attacks on the personalities of the decisive people he might otherwise have trusted. An entirely irresponsible Press, mercenary or partisan, played upon his baser emotions, which were so easy to play upon, and made no appeal whatever to his intelligence or his conscience.

The Voter, the Mass, which was neither educated nor led, the Voter without any sincere organisations of leadership anywhere, is the basal explanation of the impotence of those culminating conferences. The World Economic Conference in London was by far the more significant. Armament and disarmament are symptoms and superficial, but economic life is fundamental. This London gathering has been made the subject of a thousand studies by our social psychologists. Many of its contradictions still perplex us profoundly. The men who assembled had just as good brains as anyone today, and, as an exhaustive analysis of the various projects advanced at the Conference proves, they had a substantial understanding of the needs of the world situation, yet collectively, and because of their haunting paralysing sense of the Mass and Press behind them and of their incalculable impulses and resentments, they achieved an effect of fatuity far beyond the pompous blunderings of (The Treaty of) Versailles. Primarily the London Conference was a belated effort to repair the vast omissions of that earlier gathering, to supplement the well-meaning political patchwork of (Woodrow) Wilson by some readjustment of the monetary and economic dislocations he had been too limited to foresee or too weak to avoid. Wraith-like conceptions of some vague monetary League of Nations and some Tariff Council and Assembly, drifted through the mists of the opening meeting. And History, with its disposition to inexact repetition, made one of the principal figures of this second world assembly also a President of the United States, belonging also to the Democratic Party and according to the ritual of that Party invoking the name of Jefferson, as the Communists invoked the name of Marx or the Moslim Mahomet. (F)or some months at least before and after his election as American President and the holding of the London Conference there was again a whispering hope in the world that a real 'Man' had arisen, who would see simply and clearly, who would speak plainly to all mankind and liberate the world from the dire obsessions and inepti¬tudes under which it suffered and to which it seemed magically enslaved. But the one thing he failed to do was to speak plainly.

Everywhere as the Conference drew near men were enquiring about this possible new leader for them. 'Is this at last the Messiah we seek, or shall we look for another?' Every bookshop in Europe proffered his newly published book of utterances to gauge what manner of mind they had to deal with. It proved rather disconcerting reading for their anxious minds. Plainly the man was firm, honest and amiable, as the frontispiece portrait with its clear frank eyes and large resolute face showed, but the text of the book was a politician's text, saturated indeed with good will, seasoned with much vague modernity, but vague and wanting in intellectual grip. 'He's good,' they said, 'but is this good enough?'

Nevertheless hope fought a stout fight. There was no other personality visible who even promised to exorcise the spell that lay upon the economic life of the race. It was (The President's) Conference or nothing. And in spite of that disappointing book there remained some sound reasons for hope. In particular the President, it was asserted, had a 'Brain Trust'. A number of indisputably able and modern-minded men were his associates, men whose later work played a significant part in that reconstruction of legal and political method which was America's particular contribution to Modern State ideas. This 'last hope of mankind', it was credibly reported, called these intimates by their Christian names... He was said to have the modesty and greatness to defer to their studied and matured opinions. Observers, still hopeful, felt that if he listened to these advisers things might not go so badly after all. He was at any rate one point better than the European politicians and heads of States who listened only to bankers and big- business men.

But was he listening? Did he grasp the threefold nature of the problem in hand? He understood, it seemed, the need for monetary inflation to reduce the burden of debt and over-capitalisation; he was apparently alive to the need for a progressive expansion of public employment; and so far he was sound. Unless, which is not quite clear, he wavered between 'public' and 'publicly assisted', which was quite another matter. But was he sound upon the necessity that these measures should be world-wide or practically world-wide?

He made some unexpected changes of attitude in these respects. Were these changes inconstancies or were they tactical manoeuvres veiling a profoundly consistent and resolute purpose? Was it wise to be tactical when all the world was in need of plain speech and simple directive ideas? His treatment took on a disconcertingly various quality. He listened, it seemed, to his advisers; but was he not also listening to everybody? He was flirting with bi-metallism. No medicine, it seemed, was to be spared.

The Conference opened with a stout determination to be brilliant and eventful; the hotels were full, the streets be-flagged, the programme of entertainments were admirable, and even the English weather seemed to make an effort. The opening addresses by the (British Monarch) and the Prime Minister make very curious reading. They express an acute recognition of the crucial condition of human affairs. They state in so many words that the failure of the Conference will precipitate world disaster. They insist upon the necessity for world co-operation, for monetary simplification and a resumption of employment; and in all that we admit they had the truth of the matter. But they make not the faintest intimation of how these desirable ends are to be obtained. They made gestures that are incomprehensible to us unless they had an inkling of the primary elements of the situation. And then immediately they turned away to other things. That mixture of resolve and failure to attack is what perplexes us most. If they saw the main essentials of the situation they certainly did not see them as a connected whole; they did not see any line of world action before them.

(T)he chief of the United States delegation, was equally large and fine. The grave and splendid words - shot with piety in the best American tradition- that he inscribed upon the roll of history were as follows: 'Selfishness must be banished. If-which God forbid! -any nation should wreck this Conference, with the notion that its local interests might profit, that nation would merit the execration of mankind.'

But after this much of lucidity, the Conference fell away to minor issues. Apparently it could not keep at so high a level of reality. The pressure of the Mass and the Press behind each delegate began to tell upon him. The national representatives began to insist with increasing explicitness that national interests must not be sacrificed to the general good, and in a little time it became doubtful if there could be such a thing as the general good. The World Economic Conference became by imperceptible transitions a World Economic Conflict just as the League of Nations had become a diplomatic bargain mart. All the fine preluding of the first seances withered to fruitlessness, because the mind of the world had still to realise the immense moral and educational effort demanded by those triple conditions that were dawning upon its apprehension, and because it was still unwilling to accept the immense political pooling they indicated. The amount of self - abnegation involved was an insurmountable psychological barrier in the way of the representatives present. It would have meant a sacrifice of the very conditions that had made them. How could men appointed as national representatives accept a pooling of national interests? They were indeed fully prepared to revolutionise the world situation and change gathering misery to hope, plenty and order, but only on the impossible condition that they were not to change themselves and that nothing essential to their importance changed. The leading ideas of the Conference were cloudily true, but the disintegrative forces of personal, party and national egotism were too strong for them.

Taken from "The Shape of Things to Come" by H.G. Wells (1933) Writing about Franklin D. Roosevelt. Nothing in this email should be construed by our loyal readers to mean that I (or anyone else at Apogee Books) endorse or sanction any of the preceding opinions. A very small amount of abridgement has been undertaken.

***

Potpourri III

All sorts of interesting emails and recommendations lately...my apologies if I don't comment on all of them. Long week, and my brain is cabbage at the moment.

A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise. As far as I can tell, this is a preview of the President's new budget. If you have money, or want to have money in the future, this document will be of particular interest to you. Mr. Obama wants to put a salary cap on the American dream. Don't know what that is yet, but I'm sure if I ever hit it, my taxes will soon reflect it. It's not about economic growth, it's about "fairness," as Obama and his team define it. In my book, fairness means everyone plays by the same rules. I'm guessing his definition doesn't match mine.

*

Book recommendation from reader Rolando: Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. It's on the reading list, anyway.

Other links from Rolando...one comparing the U.S. national debt to gross domestic product. However, I prefer more official statistics. Try this one from the Bureau of the Public Debt. Not great, but not nearly the "120%" the other site was claiming. And, when you get right down to it, still not good for the country.

And there's this one on "social business." Here's how Wikipedia puts it:

Social Businesses seek to profit from acts that generate social improvements and serve a broader human development purpose. A key attribute of social businesses is that an increase in revenue corresponds to an incremental social enhancement. The social mission will permeate the culture and structure of the organization and the dual bottom lines - social and economic will be in equal standing with the firm pursuing long term maximization of both.

Here's my problem with this scheme: businesses exist to make a profit. When they exist to do other things, they will eventually cease to make a profit because the "social improvements" will eat into everything. Am I saying these things shouldn't be tried? No, I'm just saying I believe them to be impractical because social goods are moving targets, never satisfied ("the poor will always be with you"), and success is often difficult or impossible to quantify. If you make your business about anything other than providing goods or services to make a profit, it will eventually cease to be a business. What you or your shareholders do with that profit is your business.

For instance, [Paul] Newman's Own has donated 100% of its profits to charitable organizations. That's great. Terrific, in fact. I admired Mr. Newman for putting his money where his mouth is. But he created a for-profit business, not a non-profit institution. He provides quality food & beverage and other products which the public wants and enjoys, and which pays the company's employees and expenses. The profit is at the end of the day, after the taxes are counted and the bills are paid.

Now you think I'm probably splitting hairs on this. What's the big deal? The big deal is that Newman's Own's business is making products and making a profit. Their direct business is not about making the world a better place or addressing "health, education, poverty, environment or climate urgency." They're running a business and then turning their money over to those activities. It really is a matter of mindset and incentives. I'd prefer to do good while doing well rather than just doing good (a guy's got to earn a living, after all). For example, Google and Virgin both have strong corporate initiatives surrounding philanthropy and humanitarian causes, but the funding sources for these initiatives are profits, which are made possible through powerful brands and high-quality products and services that people want.

From my reading chair, starting a business with the goal of "ending poverty" only works indirectly (e.g., by creating low-cost/high-quality goods or services or jobs that contribute to the betterment of individual lives--or by making profits that can be used toward charitable activities). Otherwise, you might as well start a non-profit organization. The goals of profit-making and directly improving the general or specific public welfare are nearly incompatible; there has to be something in it for the company, or there's no return on investment besides good feelings.

*

Hat tip to Joe for the links below. They will probably appeal more to Gen Y readers, as I started reading and arguing with the writer almost immediately. Her priorities are obviously very different from mine, but then most people's are, so I guess I shouldn't be terribly shocked.

• http://www.brazencareerist.com/
• http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/

Book Review: When Generations Collide

This book is worth reading as an introduction to the problems of generational conflicts within the workplace. Written in 2002, it unfortunately misses some of the more interesting developments of the 2000s, such as the conversations that have been going on within NASA. The full title of this book is When Generations Collide: Who They Are. Why They Clash. How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work. It was written by Lynne C. Lancaster (a Boomer) and David Stillman (a Gen-Xer), who have formed a consulting business called BridgeWorks, which helps businesses cope with multiple generations in the workplace. The book and the company cover the typical Human Resources issues that can come up, including personality clashes, hiring, retention, departures, training, and benefits.

Aside from being informative (but very generalized...we're talking about groups of people, after all, not individuals), When Generations Collide is also entertaining, as it provides real-world examples from Lynne and David's work interactions (they couldn't stand each other when they first met). The book also provides examples from the workplace that really help the reader understand how differences in expectations up and down the generations can create tension or misunderstandings.

It might or might not surprise the reader to learn that the primary differences between the generations (Millennials, Generation X, Baby Boomers, and Traditionalists--a combination of the Silent Generation and Greatest Generation) concern questions of values. And here, I think, is where the book shines, because it demonstrates how those values express themselves across a variety of work situations, from communication style to giving feedback to defining "retirement." The authors also make the point that these clashes directly affect both turnover and the bottom line. With multiple generations likely to fill the workplace for years to come (the Boomers aren't going away silently...heck, my Silent Generation parents are all still working), this problem isn't going away any time soon.

One of my readers, Rolando, has written a couple of thoughtful emails in response to my postings, one of them on the generational issue. I believe When Generations Collide answers one of his questions:

I really would appreciate any advice you have on "what management wants to hear?" OR "How does management like to hear things?"

It is not so much the first question where the book can help as the second question. The point is not to tell you what to think or even how, but more about how you express yourself, whatever generation you are. Again, understanding that these are generalities (for instance, I behave and think a lot more like a Traditionalist or Boomer in some things, very much like the Xer in others), here are the guiding emphases for the four primary working generations:

• Traditionalists (born 1900-1945): "Build a legacy." The emphasis for this group is on long-term loyalty to the organization, doing a good job, and moving up the traditional ladder. Growing up in a mostly male or white-male-dominated military-style culture, they tend to just say, "Yes, sir," and go do the job, whatever it is, with a minimum of complaint, fuss, or talk.
• Baby Boomers (born 1946-1965): "Build a stellar career." With such a large generation competing for work, the Boomers are very competitive, with their elders and peers. Because of their sheer number of peers, emphasis on idealism (they were taught that they could do anything), and their willingness to challenge authority, the Boomers were able to change some aspects of the stoic Traditionalists's organizations. They tend to be very protocol-oriented and status-conscious since they had to "play the game" and compete to get ahead.
• Generation X (born 1966-1980): "Build a portable career." Growing up in a period when many institutions were under assault, changing, or falling apart (example: the divorce rate tripled during this period, with my own family being one of the casualties), Xers do not have a great deal of faith in institutions as a whole. As a result, Xers tend to build up a set of transferrable skills so that they can be "safe," regardless of where they end up. In the workplace, they are often "looking out for number one," but are willing to join teams if said teams offer a minimum of time wasting. They are almost natural-born consultants and are uncomfortable in positions of leadership.
• Generation Y/Millennials (born 1980-2000): "Build parallel careers." For the most part, this generation has grown up in a period of plenty under the tutelage of affluent Baby Boomer parents. This affluence and Boomer influence means that Millennials have been ingrained with the notion of a multi-faceted, "well-rounded" resume. Over-programmed at times, Millennials grew up with not just academics, but also sports, group memberships, dance, and travel experiences. Raised in more democratic households, Millennials often had a voice in family decisions, so they are used to giving feedback to adults, receiving feedback, and being listened to. In the workplace, this translates into a very short or nonexistent period of wanting to give input into the running of businesses ("dues paying" grates on them), but they also tend to be more loyal than Gen-Xers if they are provided with work that offers many different types of tasks and that is meaningful to them.

If you found yourself nodding in agreement to any or all of these, you have some idea of what sorts of challenges are ahead for America's working generations. Again, I recommend this book as an introduction to the generational puzzle and as a starting point for thinking about communication styles. There are interesting times ahead, and education needs to happen at all levels for improvements to be made.

One Gen Xer's View of the Transformation Discussion

I really appreciate being included in the ongoing discussion re: what to do with/about NASA. If I seem to lecture overmuch, I apologize. Part of that is just me, part of it is a habit I picked up from my grandparents, part of it is a sincere desire to see ambitious younger folks not make some of the same mistakes I made at their age. Allow me to ‘splain.

I came to NASA somewhat late in my career. I was 36 when I moved to Huntsville. Before that, I was a proposal writer at a defense contractor in Northern Virginia, and before that I spent 12 years at Walt Disney World, working in a variety of roles, including parks, resorts, IT, HR, and training. Most of the management stuff (e.g. change management) I picked up from reading books from the Disney University library or through writing papers for NASA. Other things, like PowerPoint, I’ve picked up on the job, through my off-duty reading, or in grad school (UCF, M.A. Technical Writing, ’02). I’ve spent my career as an hourly employee or an independent contributor, not as a manager; but I've been supporting managers, from the front line to the executive offices, so I have a pretty good handle on their wants/needs in the field of communication.

I think I learned more about interacting with the public—and management—at Disney than anywhere else. Much of what I learned came about by trying to do things “my way,” which is to say the wrong way, or in a way that usually resulted from arguments with my managers. I was a pain the neck as a 20-something employee and had more than a little impatience and “attitude.” I think it took a second verbal reprimand (guaranteeing that I wouldn’t transfer out of the job I had for at least another year) to realize that my confrontational approach with management was hurting, not helping my career.

If I wanted to stay with the company and improve my circumstances, I had to “play the game,” at least to some extent. That did not mean silencing my beliefs or sucking up to the boss. It did mean not rudely questioning the motives or intelligence of my managers every time decisions didn’t go my way; not demanding changes, but backing up my concerns with facts; and not expecting to advance simply on my own merits. If I wanted to “move up” in the organization, I had to admit (gulp) that my Silent Generation parents and Greatest Generation grandparents were right, and that I needed management coaching and support.

I am not saying Nick and the rest are doing what I did. Quite the contrary: they’ve been a lot more respectful and wise in their approach than I was. I was into my early 30s before I really understood how management thinks. From there, it was easier to know when it was appropriate to speak my mind and try to make changes and when it was better to shut up, wait, or accept things. Again, this was my particular problem, not necessarily others’.

There’s a saying I read recently that sums up my approach to my dispensing of unsolicited advice: “A smart man learns from his mistakes; a wise man learns from others’ mistakes.” So, again, I hope some of this commentary is of benefit, however tactlessly offered. Maybe more folks will learn from me what not to do. In any case, thanks again for reading. As new thoughts or approaches come to me, I’ll be sure to share them.

Transforming NASA

Again, some great comments from my readers: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3124283&postID=2398902107051507476. My responses are below.

Madi:

I particularly liked this:

I personally don't take major issue with our hierarchical structure and believe that it's essential in being an effective organization, especially given our size. I believe the question should actually be: "How do you transform the organization, into one where employees can openly contribute, in all facets of organizational operations?"

And this...

As an organization, we have leaders who have a vast amount of experience combined and are in positions to make decisions based on their knowledge and those very experiences

We do indeed have many, many smart people within NASA--our Gray Eminences who built Apollo and Shuttle; the next generation of managers, who are leading the current projects like Constellation, Ares, Orion, LRO, Kepler, etc.; and the new generation, who is gung-ho to bring in the dot-com ethos and a lot of new toys to the table to make things move more quickly. All of these experience bases need to be integrated in an environment of continued budget wariness, economic uncertainty, and increased activity in the private sector, which is understandably trying to recruit the best-and-brightest, wherever they can find them.

I also liked Tim's idea for a "NASA 101" class. Disney had something similar--a couple somethings, actually:

• "Disney Traditions," which is a basic indoctrination into the Disney culture and is, I believe, required of all cast members at Walt Disney World.
• "Disney University," where managers and salaried employees (independent contributors) learn the basics about budgets, HR compliance, marketing, etc. After 16 classes, I got a certificate of some kind that indicated I'd taken the relevant courses.

I also liked this from Tim:

The other important factor is to have managers trained in effectively evaluating advice from less-experienced employees. Clear expectations and a defined process for evaluating (and enacting!) new ideas are critical to empowering the employees. The whole system of training, evaluation, and feedback must be in place to support systemic changes in the organization.

Not sure what that would look like, but if I'm reading it correctly, it's an opportunity for every new employee to act and think like a consultant and for management to exchange ideas.

I did download and read the "Next 20 Years" article Nick recommended. It is useful reading, and nearly worth the $6.95 I paid for it. There are obviously other forces at work on NASA than just generations being born, making their impact, and retiring.

• We have the current recession, which might cause some folks to hold off on retirement
• An ongoing war overseas, which has increased concerns about the security of our cutting-edge technologies and reduced the number of tech-savvy foreign nationals who come here to stay
• A decline in the number of students studying STEM disciplines, which is constraining the "pipeline" for qualified scientists, engineers, etc.

It is, indeed, an exciting time to be in the space business, but that excitement is both positive and negative. There is great promise but also great uncertainty, and the challenges at hand are many-faceted. I've heard concerns that if NASA starts reviewing its overall mission or function, there is the likelihood that programs could be cut. This overlooks the potential that the discussions might improve the public's reception of the space program and might result in an increase the budget to do all the things currently on the agency's plate and more.

So, in addition to Madi's rephrasing of my previous question...

How do you transform the organization, into one where employees can openly contribute, in all facets of organizational operations?

We might also ask:

Assuming the agency makes this transformation, what should NASA do? This is a question for the agency and its employees, but also the taxpayers and our elected leadership.

Lots to do: where to start?

Gen Y and NASA, Continued.

I've gotten many more good comments in the last couple days, and a huge spike in my hits thanks to NASAWatch. Who'da thunk it? Anyhow, many of the comments were variations on a theme. I wrote some of this in response to a response from my buddy Doc, but I'll repost here and elaborate a bit.

*

Some folks are uncomfortable with the idea of labels, generational or otherwise. However, this discussion has been going on for a long, long time. You can probably find the ancient Greeks bemoaning the degradation of the youths of their day. Others dislike the premise of "paying one's dues." I honestly don't know how long is a reasonable amount of time to "learn a system." However, for the sake of argument, let's say someone should be able to talk as though they belonged there after they've been on the job a year.

Some people manage to graduate and go right into some high-paying job. Some drop out of high school and start their own companies. Some get all the way through a doctorate and still have no idea what they're going to be when they grow up. The points here are that individuals all develop differently, but large organizations are all pretty much the same. If you are interested in establishing a career in a large, bureaucratic organization, then you're going to have to play by that organization's rules. And that sort of organization is going to have more and more gray hairs and seniority the higher up the food chain you go. If you're not interested in working in a large, bureaucratic organization, you go find a job somewhere else or you go start your own business.

The fact is that NASA IS a large, bureaucratic organization when others would like it to be something different. If Nick, Doc, and the rest of Gen Y (or, God help us, some members of Gen X) want to change NASA into something other than it is now, well...that'll require another blog. Keep those thoughts coming. I'd also like to thank Dave for his link to the Gen X Files.

And in the meantime, I'll open it this up for discussion here: how do you transform a traditional, seniority-based organization into one where younger folks with bright ideas to contribute can move up the food chain without having to wait 10-20 years for "their turn" or to "pay their dues?"

/b

Following Up On Gen Y and NASA

Yesterday's posting on the latest "Gen Y presentation" produced some great, thought-provoking comments. Nick's response deserves to be quoted and responded to, so I'll do that below and try to comment where I think appropriate.

Re: “bigger challenges

”If you have any insight into what those “bigger challenges” are, I’d love to hear them. We’re actually going through a process of sorts right now to identify them and I’d really like to get you involved in those discussions.

Another reader comment from "1963" actually anticipated some of my thoughts:

Perhaps I'm just another grumpy old man, but sometimes these Gen-Y inputs sound like folks who demand to be respected before they have paid any dues that can be respected. While it takes smarts to come up with a good idea, it takes wisdom to know how to get it implemented in a large, political bureaucracy. And while we can complain and wish that NASA wasn't a large, political bureaucracy - the reality is what it is, and the odds of it changing are low. But does that mean we give up? Or does that mean we use our smarts to work the politics in our favor?

Here's what work comes down to for me: performance, process, politics, and people.

• Performance boils down to the content: do you know your stuff? Are you conversant enough with the actual work being performed? Depending on the complexity of your job, mastery of it could take anywhere from one hour to one month to one year to a lifetime. I look at this shakedown part of a job as ending when I know enough to understand the tasks and boundaries expected of the content. No one respects "the new guy" until s/he has been around long enough to know the business and make positive contributions. In some jobs, the new-guy perspective is wanted/valued/respected up front (consultants come to mind), while in others a "new guy" might be anyone with less than 10 years of experience. I've heard of such organizations, and the only way to win them over is to get down enough of the language to let the others know you can speak it.
• Processes are the things one must do to function in the organization: do you know where to get office supplies? Do you know how to get information from one group or another? Do you know which forms must be used to accomplish tasks?
• Politics are pretty straightforward as well: what are the organizational and power relationships within a particular work group? Woe to the newbie who starts talking about their politics or telling jokes in the first week without a complete understanding of the local norms. Office politics also define the boundaries of how you advance your own agenda (once you understand the content and the processes).
• People are who you have to work with, day in and day out. Do you understand what drives your coworkers? Do you know who knows what you need to know? Knowledge of individual motivations can be different from political knowledge. You might find someone who plays a very smooth political game, but once you get to know them one on one, you might find that they hate the game but play it out of sheer self-defense. This doesn't mean being best-buddies with everyone in the office, but it does mean having more than a vague realization of the other personalities in the room.

The point of all these basic definitions is that you need a knowledge of all of them to be truly effective in any workplace. And, as I was a pain-in-the-neck twentysomething 15-odd years ago, I can tell you that I learned most of these lessons the hard way by trying to do or fix things MY way first without bothering to learn the way things worked around me. I get the whole youthful enthusiasm thing and the desire to change the world and fix things that are obviously broken right now. However (again, after butting heads with more than a few managers in the hospitality and defense industries), I eventually had to learn to slow down, find out why things operated the way they did, and then figure out the most effective way to use the system as it is to move things in a more positive direction.

Admittedly, this is my personal approach, and might not work with everyone. However, I sometimes sense that youthful impatience in the presentations OpenNASA produces, and I've talked to enough people (like 1963) to know that Gen Y's desire to come in and fix/change things without "learning the system" or "paying their dues" can grate. Obviously, the world is changing and Gen X and the Boomers aren't getting any younger. But the Xers and the Boomers have been with the organization a bit longer, and so have a better handle on what's going on, how to get things done, and what to expect of this or that decision/idea. And there's also seniority to consider. Some people are not eager to be shown the door to make room for someone half their age, especially in the middle of a recession. I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but that's how some people perceive the presentations.

One thing I've noted especially among the young is a distinct impatience with "war stories," those long rambles that can come out of the mouth of older folks (you know--anyone over 30) about some event way back in the Dark Ages (like, the 1990s). Eyes roll, sighs blow forth, and the youth crosses their arms, hoping the lecture or story will end soon. But those stories are a great deal of how human beings and institutions carry on institutional knowledge. I've heard folks talk until they're blue in the face about "knowledge management systems" and "collecting lessons learned," but the fact remains that if someone's got a question about a particular type of problem, they're more likely to march down the hall, collar an old-timer ("graybeard" being the un-PC term) and ask, "Hey, how did you solve X on Shuttle/Apollo?"

I don't think the impatience problem is a particularly Gen Y problem. Like I said, I had it myself. It's just something to think about. It's not all about the new toys/technologies. Sometimes it's about the stories and the relationships you build. One thing I'd like to see NASA try is a pairing-up of graybeard mentors with rookie engineers/scientists as a living means of knowledge transfer.

Re: “brain heavy”

That’s an interesting point. I made this presentation in particular with the Digital Astronaut (DA) project in mind – which, is brain heavy. Academics, scientists, doctors, and all that stuff. I’ll give some more thought to your observation but one thought I have on this subject is even the folks “bending metal, installing wiring, turning wrenches, and welding structures” have ideas they’d love to share. In fact, those ideas are some of the most valuable ones you can get because they are the ones who are “doing it.”

Good point. My "four P's" above would apply to this group as well.

I think there’s a pretty big misconception behind the “Gen Y” label and how it’s been spun that’s its all about the technology and fancy web 2.0 gadgets. That’s not how I see it for sure, and as a project manager, my goal with DA is going to be able to figure out how to utilize the functionality of collaborative technology without creating barriers for people to contribute. It’s a starting point, not an ending point, and something I know will take quite a bit of continuous iteration to get right. That will probably mean not using all the bells and whistles on whatever website we put up. It will also mean augmenting whatever we do with other ways of interaction. I definitely get that and it’s a big part of our plan. I’ll try to do a better job of spelling that out next time – heck, maybe that’s a whole other presentation in itself. Hmm….

Okay, that makes sense. But, again, some people might not be comfortable with your new digital environment. I experienced one of my first neo-Luddite moments this week when I learned that I've got to transition from Office 2003 to 2007, which has a completely different interface for Microsoft Word. Okay, go ahead and laugh, but I've been using the same interface professionally, with moderate changes over the years, since 1996. That's 13 years of using the same program, but by golly, I know the system I've got, and can play it like a Stradivarius. Now I've got to readjust all of my usual keyboard and mouse rhythms. My productivity will drop for a few weeks (or months) as I spend time deciphering the new menus, taking classes to learn a whole new set of shortcuts, and in general grousing about the evils of Bill Gates and his merry band of outlaw programmers. All I'd ask is that you consider the user habits of other (older) audiences.

Re: Contributions

You talked about how these tools will enable people to make fundamentally better contributions than they might make f2f. That’s something that I flush out more verbally in the talk itself, and hopefully I’ll find some time to write those notes up into a post on opennasa.com sometime soon, but essentially… yes. Again, I’ll go back to the DA project. Even the team I work with is spread out across the country. I wish we werent’ because we all much prefer F2F meetings. Part of what we are building will be built out of necessity for us to collaborate on our own project! I think that’s great and will really
help drive out the requirements, which will help us clearly articulate exactly what contributions we are looking for. We hope to have this flushed out when we launch a few months from now. But one of the major goals of the DA is to gather input from scientists, coders, doctors, students, academics, and people from all over the place. The contributions themselves can be in a few different buckets, including improving the actual code structure of the model, adding to the knowledge base behind the model, and building on the “hypothesis” of the model to run experiments and simulations and ultimately help us develop countermeasures and buy down the risk of sending humans on long duration space flights. Our eventual website will have the audiences clearly defined as well as what contributions we’re looking for. It will no doubt be a big challenge, but also one that would be immensely valuable if we can accomplish it because it won’t be just NASA funded scientists and engineers looking at the problem any more, but others as well. I’m convinced that broadening our scope of input will
help provide better solutions in the end.

Re: Global Marketplace

I think DA is a good example of what this can look like for NASA. Not everything can be out their for external collaboration for the reasons you highlighted. But there is a portion of what we do that can. If we open up the items in our work portfolio that can be collaborated on publicly, it would help us leverage our already overworked internal resources. The DA is about human physiology and science. There’s a huge reliance on knowledge from the medical profession, which is an opportune thing to open up to an outside community of collaborators.

Re: moving forward

If you’ve been following the discussion as Bart and I have, you hear a lot of feedback given that we need concrete examples of what this looks like at NASA (versus just talking about it). Although I do think there is a lot of education and awareness that also needs to be done (hence the presentations), I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, its not as easy as just being able to implement some of this stuff for the average joe at NASA for a host of reasons. Luckily, I’m in a place now that I really have an opportunity (and authority) to share a knowledge asset (the computational model that is DA) with the world and work with others on further developing the body of knowledge and digital
analogue for all to use. My hope is that not only will NASA benefit, but that people around the world will benefit by using DA as an “innovation incubator” of sorts. I see the government’s role as one of an integrator of knowledge and a facilitator of collaboration – ultimately providing the right ingredients to enable innovation and keep pushing science and exploration forward. The idea of a lone genius, sitting in his office cubicle, coming up with “the great idea” is mysterious and romantic, but maybe a bit unrealistic. True innovation happens when you have knowledge brokers taking even old tried ideas, and applying them in new ways. I’m hoping the DA helps make that happen.

When it comes to making better contributions, the primary arguments I've read--on NASAWatch and elsewhere--focus on "Showing me the money." We need high-power, high-efficiency, high-capability, low-weight spacecraft and launch vehicles. How will DA or other collaborative enviroments bring about those results? Back up those answers with data, and your agenda will move forward swiftly.

I look forward to viewing DA in more detail. Again, I would like to throw in a recommendation or two from a technical writer's point of view.

• Who is your audience? I'm guessing web-minded people, yes? Well, that will probably mean a younger audience, meaning you might lose an older audience. You need to consider alternate delivery methods for those of us addicted to hard copies. Booklets, handouts, white papers, and other more traditional media, while passé in some quarters, are still traditional and acceptable media for conveying messages within NASA.
• Also, what do you want your audience to do or how do you want them to react after using the information on DA? This means designing your application, interface, and outputs with particular needs in mind.
• How much data does your audience need to accomplish what they will want from the product?

Anyway, this was a really long response, but as you can probably tell, one that I’m passionate about. I’d love to talk to anyone who has any thoughts, in particular about how to create an online, open-source, computational model of human physiology (digital astronaut).

My response was pretty long, too. If you made it this far, congratulations. Thanks for continuing to prompt and provoke debate, Nick. There are things to be done on all sides of the debate, including mine.