Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>Ed Hoffman: Hello, and welcome to Masters with Masters.
I am Ed Hoffman, the NASA Chief Knowledge Officer.
This is a special series where we bring together expert practitioners and leaders,
who talk about issues related to programs, projects, engineering,
and the work that we do at NASA.
In this particular case, we are fortunate enough to be at the Marshall Space Flight Center.
We have two wonderful guests, Dr. Dale Thomas and Dr. Helen McConnaughey.
Before we get started, I do want to thank the folks at Marshall for arranging this
and our Marshall Space Flight Center Chief Knowledge Officer, Dale Thomas,
and the Knowledge Integrator, Jennifer Stevens, as well as the Public Affairs Office
and NASA TV and the folks associated with Marshall for making this happen.
These sessions are interactive so after we have some initial discussions,
I will turn it over to some questions from the audience we have here.
And of course, we record these sessions so that we have them available for the training programs
that we do and online for people to access in a variety of ways.
Let me start with a quick introduction of our guests.
Dr. Dale Thomas is currently the Associate Center Director for the Marshall Space Flight Center.
He is also leading the formulation planning for the National Institute for Rocket Propulsion Systems,
a multi-agency focus in terms of reinvigorating the agency's rocket propulsion community.
He also serves as the Marshall Space Flight Center Chief Knowledge Officer.
Of course, everyone here knows he has had a very long career,
in terms of the major engineering missions that we've had,
including recently serving as the NASA Constellation Program Manager.
He has worked at Marshall Space Flight Center since 1983, involved in many of the major issues,
including International Space Station and the Space Launch Initiative.
So welcome, Dale, and thank you for being here.
I also want to welcome Dr. Helen McConnaughey,
who currently serves as the manager of the Spacecraft and Vehicle Systems Department
within the Engineering Directorate at Marshall Space Flight Center.
She also chairs the Marshall Technology Investment Advisory Committee,
serves as the center anti-harassment coordinator,
she previously has a long experience with the Shuttle Spaceflight Program,
specifically as the manager for Shuttle Propulsion Systems Engineering and Integration
for the final eight years of the Space Shuttle,
and she served and began her career in 1985 at the Marshall Space Flight Center
as an aerospace engineer in structures and dynamics laboratory.
And I welcome you as well.
So both of you have had phenomenal careers at NASA and at Marshall.
The starting point I would like to ask is how did you get to this point of time?
How did you get started at NASA and how did your career kind of proceed? Helen?
>>Helen McConnaughey: My first job out of graduate school was at Mississippi State University,
I was an assistant professor for a few years
and I really wanted to work on something real.
Teaching, of course, is real, but I wanted to do something
where I could see products of what I was doing.
So I applied to NASA and came to start working here.
I started working as an aerospace engineer and have been here for 28 years now.
I think what I would really like to do is highlight maybe the early part of my career
because it forms the foundation of everything I have done since then.
So I started out in the aero physics division under a Mr. Werner Dahm
who was very knowledgeable, a German engineer/scientist.
I really had the good fortune of learning from him, his wisdom and his technical knowledge.
I was in a branch called Induced Environments and worked on computational fluid dynamics of complex internal flow fields.
From that, I really learned what complex analysis is all about, how it works,
and how it plays with other discipline analysis,
such as thermal analysis, structures analysis, loads, etc.
That really helps me in my current job today.
The next thing I did, which probably was the most fun job I had, was managing the technology test
bed engine project, where we actually hot fired tested a space shuttle main engine here at Marshall
in the west test area for a number of years.
So I got this great hardware experience, learning about complex systems,
both the engine system and the ground systems, got to work with a variety of people.
It was for the purpose of integrating technology into a system, a real world system.
So I learned about technology integration, I learned about testing, hardware,
and was exposed then to the world of project management and the wonderful world of test.
Between just those two experiences, I got a great background in test and analysis
and it really has formed the foundation for all I have done in engineering and the Space Shuttle Program.
It has just been a wonderful opportunity and experience base for me.
Hoffman: Yeah, you can see how it connects with a lot of the issues that you do,
in terms of the integration, and you talk about the need to collaborate across different systems,
units, and obviously working with folks.
With your university background, I would assume you are interested in how you educate
and teach and work together. It has been a theme there.
Dale, what about you? You came from North Carolina State.
>>Dale Thomas: I did, but to understand my story, you actually have to go back to about 1965.
My dad was an engineering technician with General Electric
and he actually built the launch countdown sequence for Saturn V,
a piece of ground support equipment, that they built here in Huntsville and shipped down to the Cape.
He was working long hours in the Apollo Program and I was very interested.
He would tell me the stories and I knew at a very young age my dream was to work for NASA.
Then I went off to college, University of Alabama Huntsville here local,
and then I went off to North Carolina State for graduate school.
In the spring of '83 NASA came to interview (for positions at) NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
I jumped at the chance to interview and when they actually extended me an offer,
it took me all of about five seconds to pick up the phone and tell them I was interested
and I went to work here in June of '83 as an engineer
in the systems analysis and integration laboratory.
Then, I worked some very interesting jobs early on, they put me on some good work,
working some mission planning for space lab missions at the time,
looking at different payload compliments
and what you could actually fly that would fit within the constraints of the orbiter,
in terms of power and thermal and so forth.
Then, Space Station came along in the late '80s
and I got to work on the International Space Station,
actually back then it was called the Freedom Station.
Then ultimately they pulled me into the Chief Engineer Office
and that was where I got to work for Dave Mobley,
who you will get to talk to in another one of these sessions.
He was just a fantastic mentor.
Helen talked about Werner Dahm.
I got to work with him as well.
That is one of the neat things, just like Helen,
I talk about the early assignments because you meet some truly amazing people out here,
and Helen could also probably tell you about Harold Scofield, Bob Ryan.
When you are young and you meet these guys
and they are the real deal and you just soak everything in
and it really does set you on a really good path.
Later on, I took an assignment at Johnson Space Center,
and fortunately I did get to come back home.
I just repeated that a few years ago,
but now I am back here and I am awfully glad to be here at Marshall for the twilight of my career.
Hoffman: Who knows, you may have another 30 years.
Thomas: I don't think I have another 30 in me.
I am not trying to chase Werner Dahm’s record.
Hoffman: Both of you talk about the importance of the early year’s experience
and it sounds like one of the things you hear a lot of NASA is you need to know your system.
So, is that where you first developed your abilities, your discipline, expertise where you really understand?
You have worked on Apollo, you worked on Shuttle,
you worked on landmark human programs,
can you say a little bit about how you go about developing that level of expertise
so you know the system, you know the engineering,
and you develop that kind of confidence that then becomes a spring board? Any thoughts on that?
Thomas: I will jump on that and Helen will probably want to pile on,
but the thing you have to have is just a curiosity about the system, not just doing what your job is,
but actually wanting to know more and understand what is behind it.
The classic case that illustrates that is Apollo 9,
if I remember my sequences right. It was one of the Apollo missions, I will put it that way.
They took a hard lightning strike during ascent and everything is going crazy in the capsule,
the Apollo capsule, and this little young guy working the console, his name is John Aaron,
says no, don't panic, here is what you need to do.
The reason he knew that was because during one of the simulations,
he had stayed there and they took a lightning strike on the pad
and he had seen exactly what happened and they had worked through it.
That was not required, I mean he was off the clock,
he was just wanting to understand more about the system than just working his little part of the mission control.
And it saved one of the missions
because they would have likely aborted if he not been able to just way in and say,
this is what you need to do.
McConnaughey: I would just say that it is important to really go deep enough
to where you understand how things work and how it affects the system,
whether it is analysis or hardware and what not, and understand how they interplay.
Then from that, your knowledge can grow and go to other parts of the system and understand how things work,
but I found that in my case doing some serious analysis
that related to multiple parts of the engine, let’s say, and different environments and so forth.
Then, going into a test world and dealing with hardware and actually seeing the hardware
that I have been modeling, it just makes it gel and come together.
Then from that, you can extrapolate to other configurations, other hardware,
other environments, and it just grows from there.
Hoffman: It partly seems, and it seems because of both of you,
because when you talk about the work, the missions, you smile and there is energy.
I think the great thing about NASA is you talk about how you work the extra hours
where you do things that go beyond so you understand the limits of what you are working,
but partly it seems it is kinds of a hobby, maybe. There is a joy, there is a fun, you want to
understand and you kind of want to play with it and you go towards a certain direction.
Thomas: Ed, I think you hit the magic term.
Excuse me, Helen, but, play with it.
If you have that natural curiosity that you are wanting to understand more
and literally getting to the point where you are wanting to play with the system,
that is really what I was trying to get at, just follow your curiosity.
Most people here at NASA are drawn here for more than just a paycheck,
they are here for a passion. If you will indulge that curiosity, it will serve you well.
McConnaughey: And really, we work on really cool stuff.
That does a lot in and of itself.
And as Dale said, I really believe people come to NASA to be part of something of bigger
than themselves, to work on something that matters, that is really important,
and it can change the world in positive ways.
It is more than just doing your task, it’s part of something much bigger and important.
Hoffman: Yeah, that comes through.
I guess the connection I will make to doing something bigger
and being part of a larger team is the issue of collaboration because obviously at a baseline,
you have to have the ability, the discipline,
the expertise, that kind of curiosity,
but then it comes down to everything we do as a team and across centers usually and industry and international, often.
So how important is the collaboration,
in terms of being able to work with others when you have your ideas, and smart people?
And how do you collaborate and how do you go about developing the effective,
collaborative relationships with other people across the center and other disciplines at other centers.
Particularly, when it is some of the issues that you are going to be in disagreements
with what the right way is, probably one of the reasons you obviously have been selected
to increasing leadership positions is the ability to work with others.
How do you go about doing that?
McConnaughey: I think there are a couple really important factors.
One is to recognize that by working with other people, you can do much more.
It is important to embrace other people’s capabilities
and to recognize that many other people have a lot to offer.
So you want to try and mine that. It is also really important to have an attitude,
I think, of assuming the best in people and viewing them as possible collaborators
and partners, rather than competitors or rivals,
because I believe that sense of rivalry can really inhibit progress.
So looking to people and assuming the best of them and expecting them to bring to the table
their good intentions, their great skills, and to work together as partners. It is very powerful.
Hoffman: So the value of that and the enjoyment you get out of that.
McConnaughey: Well, because of the people factor,
but when you have a lot of smart, motivated people working together on something,
you can just accomplish so much more than doing it as an individual.
Hoffman: And partly when you are doing engineering of complex things,
arguments are part of the equation
and you are also proposing different missions.
So the people that in some cases you may be competing with,
I don’t know if that is the right word, are also people you are going to collaborate with.
How have you approached that, in terms of career, the ability to disagree, maybe even fight?
At the same point, you need to have this team, this collaborative effort
that Helen was talking about.
Thomas: Yeah, and I will go back to my early days again.
There was a natural tension between us Marshall guys and those JSC guys on the International Space Station.
When you are young and you don’t have the network, it was easy to call the JSC engineers,
"Those JSC engineers", but working the systems,
I had to go work with some of them.
When you start working with some of them, you start to realize those are passionate engineers.
They shared the same values that I did.
Then all of a sudden, they became team members instead of competitors.
So that is the whole thing, like Helen said, you have to assume best intent.
Just go work with the people you have an opportunity to work with
and you are going to find out that they are going to become very good friends
and they are professional colleagues as well. It will address a lot of that.
There are times when you have two passionate people about something,
if you never erupt in any disagreements, then one of you is not passionate enough. Okay?
That is one of the things I have learned over the years is I have seen,
and been a part of, some meetings, very heated debates, to use a civil term on that,
but when it is over, then it is over.
It is settled and we are back to normal after the meeting is over.
There is no disrespect on either side and people who have seen some of these debates,
who aren't use to that mode of operation,
they wonder how you can resume civil discourse with someone after such a heated argument,
but after you get to know someone and you have been through it,
that is second nature to you because they are teammates.
So you work with them through the good times and the bad.
Hoffman: Partly, also that the nature of the work we have and you've been a part of
is just superior type missions that you have to be able to come together.
Also, there is a lot of research that says teams that are kind of emotionally flat
where there is not arguments are the ones you have to worry about
because it is just not, think about just being in a relationship as a couple,
there is going to be disagreements and when you multiply that by a lot of a different players,
if there is passion there, there is going to be a lot of different things going on.
Thomas: Yeah, and you mentioned the complex systems,
and Helen will tell you as well, there are always different ways to address a problem.
Depending on exactly where you are coming from, one way will look better than another.
Sometimes at the end of the day, somebody has got to just pick one and that means somebody,
even though they thought they had the best answer,
is going to go away dissatisfied. And that is the way it works. I have been on that end too.
McConnaughey: I think another thing that is important with collaboration
is having this common, sort of unifying purpose.
So when you all can rally around this common purpose, it can really make a difference.
I think the most striking example of that in my career was when I was working Shuttle
because everyone, and it was a huge team that spanned at least three centers plus a lot of contractors,
but everyone was just committed to launching the shuttle safely and successfully executing the missions.
Everybody felt a part of that, no matter what your role was.
So in that, it was powerful and there I saw this teamwork and partnership
between Marshall and Johnson and Kennedy that I have not seen since.
There wasn’t bickering or this rival, this inter-center rivalry stuff.
We certainly had disagreements on how to approach things,
but we were still all part of this team, we were all unified by this grand purpose.
So I think that was really important.
Hoffman: So let me follow up with you, in terms of the notion of the team and again,
partly why you have had these opportunities is people see you as very good at building teams.
So what advice would you give to a young engineer or to a project leader,
who is getting to a point where they have to build the team,
whether it is a team at their center or a team that is cutting across different organizational units.
How do you go about that?
McConnaughey: Yeah, I would say, kind of following on what I just said,
there needs to be sort of a common purpose that everyone can feel a part of
and that the leader would rally around that purpose to kind of pull people together.
And if so, everyone needs to know what that is. It may seem obvious,
but I think that is kind of the core unifying theme.
Then, I think it is really important for the leader to care about the team
and for the team to know that the leader cares about them.
So that implies some openness, some transparency with people.
It involves including people, listening to them,
asking for their opinion so that people feel like, yes I matter.
That breeds that sense of loyalty and commitment and connection.
Then, I think it is also really important for the leader to respect everybody
and to really have this implicit trust so that you can assume, again,
people are bringing to the table their best intentions and their good skills and so forth.
I think that also needs to flow just beyond the team,
but even to the partners and people you interact with so that people on the team can see,
yes this leader is respectful, this leader is trusting, because it sets the tone for them follow.
I think it just helps to build a really strong team.
One other factor I think is expressing appreciation because everybody wants to be appreciated.
So if a leader sees me, knows me, knows what I do, and appreciates me,
boy I will really put out a lot of effort to contribute.
Hoffman: So you get into key themes of a leader who has respect,
which kind of plays out to being able to listen to people and pull them in and inclusion.
You didn’t use that word, but particularly when you are working with folks from different locations
and different backgrounds, they expect probably disagreements,
but they want to feel like they are being heard and the gratitude, the appreciation you pointed to.
Dale, again you've had a long career and have heard a lot of different issues,
what are some of the roadblocks, what are some of the problems that you face,
that you have to deal with when you are in that role of working with a team?
Thomas: Well, first off I want to start by saying I thought Helen did a great job of capturing
the key ingredients in building a good team
and I was hoping you weren’t going to ask me to add to that because I didn’t really have a whole lot to add to that,
Hoffman: That’s why I didn’t ask you.
Thomas: And I appreciate that, Ed.
But she is absolutely right, and I am going somewhere with this, it all starts off with the purpose.
You have to go back to the why.
You can have a tough problem to solve,
but if the tough problem you are trying to solve is not relevant, there is not a big why to it, it is academic.
That is important at a university, but not necessarily at NASA.
If you have got that right, a lot of things fall into place.
So getting to the roadblocks, what I have always encountered myself
with teams is sometimes when the environment will change
or you don’t have or I didn’t have a real clear understanding of that why myself.
Yes, I knew the problem we were trying to solve, but why did it matter?
The teams will start to drift and lose a little a bit of lock on that. It is one thing,
like Helen was talking about,
when you have a high performing team and everybody understands why you are here,
the purpose matters, and that will unify and keep everyone rolling in one direction,
but when you lose a little bit of lock on that
or you have just gone through some policy change
or something and all of a sudden the team can lose its vector,
its purpose and getting it re-locked, if you will, is the biggest challenge I've had on leading teams.
A lot of people will talk about the different personality styles and those kinds of things
and those are all important, but to me, having a noble cause, if you will,
is the number one ingredient.
If you lose that, then a lot of these other things,
you can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Hoffman: That made me think of a follow-on, in terms of the team.
When you take over a team or a mission, what are the starting points that you want to establish?
One of things I am hearing from you Dale is the purpose
of what we are doing has to be clear why we are here- -
Thomas: Why does it matter?
Hoffman: And the ability to keep a focusing point from all the distractions.
Are there any other things you look to do when you first start a program,
when you first come together as a team?
McConnaughey: I think it is important, also, to communicate to your team something about you.
These are my values or these are the things I think are important,
and when you are communicating to your team, kind of think out loud
so they knew what you are thinking, they know why you do what you do,
because it really helps them to sort of gel with you.
Thomas: One of the things, I talked about working for Dave Mobley earlier,
that he taught me was that over time, the team will take on the personality of the leader.
So it goes back again to that purpose.
If it is a problem that I think is important
and I can bring passion to the job and energy and
I am curious about it and I am exploring and I am digging, that will affect the entire team.
So that is why it is so important, to just add onto Helen.
Hoffman: So you become like a virus.
Thomas: A good virus.
McConnaughey: That is why you want to be good.
So one of the traps to avoid is developing a mindset or a sentiment among the team of where you’ve got rivals.
I kind of alluded to this where before it was us-versus-them
or some kind of conspiracy theory or “got to watch out for those guys because they are out to get us”.
You really want to avoid those sort of traps and instead,
rally around the positive and the goodness.
So the leader, by showing the respect and the trust and assuming positive intent
on the part of your counterparts at JSC, or whatever,
I think that can really set a positive tone
and help the team to be much stronger and more productive and just generally happier.
Hoffman: It sounds like also you would need to be able,
just the definition of team at a place like NASA is fascinating
because when most organizations think of team, they are thinking of the people that are right there with them.
And at NASA, not only do you have across the centers different disciplines,
but you have the other centers, but you also have Headquarters,
you have different partners so it is easy probably to interpret things
that don’t go the way, at a certain point of time, you want it,
in terms of us-versus-them and you have to avoid that is sort of what you are saying.
Thomas: That is why it is so important when you have opportunities to work with people
from other centers, to take advantage of it,
because us-versus-them is a lot harder to fall into that mindset when you actually know them.
Hoffman: Right, so when you come together and do rotations or the training programs where you are off together.
Thomas: Us-versus-them is usually when that other person
is just a name on an email or something.
Hoffman: If you see someone as them,
the communications are going to close down.
Thomas: It feeds on itself.
Hoffman: All of NASA is going through major change at this point of time,
in terms of a new cycle, in terms of closing down Shuttle and going in new directions.
One of the issues that I hear a lot about from the workforce is the how do you find the balance
between the issues of we've learned historically the importance of having a disciplined approach
to engineering, a method to the process or programs we do to try and minimize failure.
At the same time, we’re also encouraged to do things cheaper
and can’t you innovate and that sometimes leads to why do we need all that process?
So how do you approach, and I am sure this is nothing new when you started
in terms of Shuttle or return to flight or station,
you probably get into that balancing act of how do you find that sweet spot,
if there is one, between
‘we need to be disciplined’
and ‘we need to focused’
and ‘we need to follow the process’ between
‘we need to adapt and we need to innovate,
we need to do this faster’.
How do you approach that?
How do you even think about it?
Thomas: Well, I will jump on it.
To me, it is the difference between taking an informed risk versus taking a reckless risk.
An example of that I think is a good illustrative example is the recent Marshall test on the Composite Cryotank.
That was a game changing technology project here at Marshall.
The way they worked through that I thought was excellent, the team had gotten the article in,
and all of their analytical models showed them that the margin was inadequate in one of the areas on the tank.
So they weren’t sure exactly what to do about tests.
So they stood down, examined the models, thought through the consequence of failure,
really rationalized the way through it,
and at the end of the day they went ahead and proceeded with the tests and it was a success,
but even had it failed, the test was taken because it was the right thing to do or the test was conducted.
The point is, and the reason I want to get in front of Helen is,
they had to deal with this every launch and I knew she was going to lay out a great example.
So I had to get in front of her,
but uncertainty is part of our business.
In every launch, there is some rationale for why you can take a little bit of risk, you know,
something is not exactly where it should be
and you have to talk to it and understand it
and decide whether it makes sense to go ahead and take that risk or to stand down
and go take an action and delay.
That is what you really have to do.
The whole difference in risk is taking informed risks that you've talked about,
you've communicated with other people versus just a reckless risk
that something didn’t show up where it was,
but you’re in a hurry so you’re going to go ahead and press anyways and just hope that you get lucky.
Hope is not an efficient risk management strategy.
Hoffman: So you follow your process and you also have to make informed decisions
that obviously rely on the team in terms of your perceived.
Thomas: Exactly, but you will never get the risk to zero.
McConnaughey: Right, that is important.
You will never get the risk to zero. It really depends on the situation.
So going back to, let’s say, Return To Flight and early on
we really wanted to make sure everything was going to be safe.
So we kind of went back and combed through all the processes, analysis,
and all that after Columbia and before we flew again, but ultimately we needed to fly again.
You can’t get to a point where you are a hundred percent sure that nothing will go wrong.
So you use your processes that you know
and your analytical tools that you know and you get to where you feel comfortable.
But ultimately there are times when you have to consider
‘where is the gap in my knowledge, in my certainty?’ ‘What are the potential implications?’
And you basically have to map out what the potential risk is
and what is the consequence and likelihood and so forth.
As long as everybody knows what it is and the risk is accepted, then you proceed forward.
So again, it is not just a careless, or “PBA” we used to call it- probably be alright (laughter).
We don’t do that. You understand what the risk is
and then you make this informed decision. And it is important when that happens -
if you are an engineer or you’re an analyst, somewhere along the line of many people on the team -
but at that point where the risk is accepted though,
it is very important to just let it go because it is the Program Manager or it is the Administrator
-at some point, it is their responsibility to make that decision and to accept that risk.
I did see after Return To Flight there were many people who felt so burdened
and so troubled because of what happened with Columbia, and they felt personally responsible.
And you can’t do that because you do the best you can,
you communicate what you know,
and then you just have to let the process work
and trust the process and trust the people who are ultimately the final decision makers, and let it go.
Otherwise, you will just eat yourself alive.
So I think that is an important facet too.
Now, in a different phase of a program, so early on in a program, there is more wiggle room.
So you don’t have something on the launch pad ready to go
and there is not a crew of astronauts in the shuttle waiting to go.
So it relieves a good bit of the pressure.
Then you really need to consider what is at stake here, where are we in the process.
If this analysis I am doing, let’s say, doesn’t have the level of rigor
that I would want to feel a hundred percent confident,
but then you can say “what is the implication of not having that level right now?
what could happen?”.
Normally, if this was early in a design analysis cycle, well there’s going to be subsequent cycles,
there is going to be testing eventually, there will be things that will prove out how accurate I am and am not.
Again, down the road if it can get caught then you again can say, no one is going to die,
I am not going to destroy some major hardware right now because you just have that wiggle room.
So it is important to assess what is at stake,
where you are and what context you are in at that time and adapt yourself accordingly.
Hoffman: So the earlier it is, the more wiggle room you have,
the more ability you have to experiment with what is going on, and how you want to respond to it.
Thomas: But even in that case, and Helen said this, but I just want to hit it hard.
It is very important to communicate.
If someone sees that themselves, okay,
and sees it like their margin is negative or whatever and they say well, that is okay,
we still have another cycle to go and everything will be alright,
you still need to communicate that
because sometimes the consequences of such a thing are not linear
or they are not totally fallen within one particular sphere
or one particular discipline and to be able to put that in the context is very important.
So even when you do have opportunities to revisit it, it still needs to be communicated and aired.
McConnaughey: Yeah, absolutely. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
Thomas: No, you didn’t. I just wanted to hit that point hard.
Hoffman: Well, it is consistent with what you said before,
which is the team is so important in terms of the communications, the respect,
hearing what people have to say, and the collaborative relationships.
What is funny if I think of when I ask project managers
or system engineers what is the most important thing,
probably 90 percent of the time they go to communications,
because the things that you are saying, that are so many different disciplines
and you can run into a danger where you have well-meaning people,
who are focused on their own thing, particularly under pressure,
I think that would be the norm, let me see what I can contribute
as opposed to being able to experiment and to see and to understand at that larger level
and to keep the communications going.
Thomas: We saw several years ago, it was back in the '90s,
remember there was a classic case of an orbiter that was headed to Mars
and it was the metric/English issue,
and there was an engineer in the system who knew exactly what the problem was
and he'd even tried to communicate it a time or two and he couldn’t get anybody to listen.
So he finally quit, and the point is he shouldn’t have quit.
Hoffman: Yeah, you have to keep fighting that communication and the individual accountability.
I know that during the Return To Flight after Columbia,
one of the things that changed was the governance
and partly there was a lot of discussion of making sure any individual who was here,
if they saw something wrong, they had a path,
whether it was Engineering or Program or Safety, to raise it,
and that importance of communicating that were all part of that and to deal with that.
We have an audience here at Marshall
and so I was going to see what questions you might have for Helen and Dale.
And is there anyone who has a question?
>>Audience Member: You just talked about, particularly when you are in the design phase,
the need to communicate those irregularities you have.
One of the things that came up in the Constellation Program,
that probably comes up in every program,
is the difficulty of communicating those irregularities across the very disparate team,
and particularly across the lines of contractors and government.
Can you talk about some of the barriers
that come up to those communications and how you deal with those?
Thomas: Well, you hit a very good problem
and unfortunately there is not a patch solution to the one about where you have an issue
that crops up say within the contractor that the contractor is aware of
and they may be disincentived by their contract to actually share that with the government.
So what you have to do in all those cases,
in any contract work as quickly as possible to set up good communication channels.
What I have always found over time is, it is just like the us versus them problem we were talking about earlier,
that the sooner you can get to know some of your peers inside the contractors organization,
it starts becoming us and another us, as opposed to a us versus them.
The contract is a necessary vehicle and we have to respect it,
but often times that is used somewhat as an artificial barrier
to communications as opposed to the real thing.
Once you can get those relationships with your peers and establish some trust,
the communications will flow a little more freely
and that is probably the best advice I can offer on that.
I found that fortunately that early in the contracts,
the problems tend to be less severe than later when you are getting the hardware ready to be delivered.
So you just put a conscious effort to building those relationships over time.
And one of the things we at NASA are prone to do,
and this is part of the us versus them on the contractor side,
is they are afraid if they tell us a problem,
we’re going to descend on them with a hoard of engineers to help them solve their problem.
Sometimes we need to hold back and let them have a chance to solve their problem.
That is another thing we need to do is be aware of our behavior sometimes.
And when they tell us about a problem that we don’t give them negative consequences,
in terms of giving them too much help.
So those would be the two things I would offer in response to that.
I know it is not a totally good answer, but I don’t know how to give you a totally good answer.
McConnaughey: The only thing I would add to that, whether it is on the contractor or the civil servant side,
that when irregularities come up, when problems or issues come up,
it is really important not to villainize whoever is responsible for that particular piece of hardware.
And we need to realize when people are doing design and doing analysis,
they are doing what they believe is right.
So we don’t have people out there trying to screw up the system,
yet sometimes the way that we can become critical of others, it is almost implicit that we think that.
So I think it is important how we speak and how we respect our co-workers,
that we don’t make it personal, and that it is the 'We' where 'We' want to embrace the problem
and go figure out how to make it right as opposed to throwing rocks.
That really will help the communications I think tremendously, whether it is a design problem,
or I would like to hit a little bit on the systems engineering if we can
because my experience in Shuttle was where we had different elements.
We had an engine, an external tank;we had the boosters;we had the orbiter;you had ground systems -
you had all these different parts that had to work together for the system to operate properly.
You can have something change in one element that can have a ripple effect and affect the system,
and maybe that change is optimal for the element,
but it can have a non-optimal effect on the system.
So it is really important, as doing the systems engineering
and the system integration,
to embrace the system as a whole
so that the different elements feel a part of that and feel comfortable
so if something goes wrong,
they won’t feel like they are going to be criticized or going to be attacked because their element caused an issue.
Because if that happens, then it has a couple of effects.
Number one, they are going to be less inclined to share things.
They are going to want to make sure they get it fixed and take care of everything first before they let it out of the bag.
Then, it also causes the system organization
to be viewed as a police force or some kind of group
that you are going to be suspicious of because they are out to make you look bad.
So it is just to really important to avoid that kind of thought process.
Hoffman: That is a great example.
I read in an article, where they were talking about an aviation mechanic for airlines,
and he realized he lost one of his tools and didn’t know where it was.
Obviously, in terms of flying, what can that lead to
and you get to the point of does he say that to people,
which means I created problem for that or do you keep quiet.
Well, he raised it.
Of course, then they investigated everything and they found the tool.
Then the question is, how does management deal with that?
What they did was give him an award for coming forward.
Obviously, that communicates what you are talking about.
Again, I think it is so important because the nature of our work
is so complex and at the end of the day, it is humans doing all these things.
Things aren’t going to go optimal and mistakes are going to be made
and how do we deal with that, in terms of approaching it.
Other questions from the audience over here?
Audience Member: I have enjoyed your thoughts on leadership, from both of you.
I have a two part question.
As a seasoned leader, I am sure that there are days that are really great
and then there are those bad awful days that you are just wondering, you know, why I am here?.
As a leader, how do you reenergize yourself
and kind of pick yourself up to continue to lead your team
and put a good face on maybe a bad situation?
Then my second question for both of you is
maybe if you could share some of your thoughts on those aspiring leaders that we have here at Marshall.
And for Helen specifically, for women in leadership,
how we might encourage them to continue to develop themselves if that
is what they inspire to be that we can continue this great leadership at Marshall?
Thomas: Sure, I will start. You hit the nail on the head.
You have good days and you have a few bad days and you just work through the bad times.
I really don’t have to work, personally, to get myself back up because I love working at NASA.
I can always find something to get myself up.
Now, when I am grinding through spreadsheets, dealing with budget reductions and stuff,
those are not fun parts of the job,
but you work through those and then if I am really lucky,
I will have some time on the schedule to get out to one of the labs and see some hardware.
For example, we have the James Webb Space Telescope Backplane here at Marshall,
it is about to go into the XRCF for testing.
I am sure going to go down and see that before they roll it in the chamber.
I will be on a high for about a week after that.
That is the time for me to schedule some of that grunge work that I don’t really look forward to doing.
The neat thing is there is so much good work here going on that you can always find ways to get up.
The other thing is we work, we’re blessed to work here.
There are simply some amazing people.
And for example, occasionally I get to be in meetings with Helen and she is just an up person.
It is hard to be around her without catching some of that and we have a lot of people like that.
The other way is, if I can’t get out and see some hardware,
invariably I am going to run into somebody who is going to pick me up.
So those are the two ways I deal with it and fortunately those down times don’t occur.
McConnaughey: I would say when I find myself feeling frustrated or cynical or what not,
I am usually pretty self-aware and I catch myself.
Then I just try to back up and think what is the big picture, why am I here and at my core, what matters.
Normally, the things that are irritating me are petty or I am making assumptions
about other people's motives that can’t be right.
Then I try to unwrap myself from around the axel, so to speak,
and step back and really look at the big picture and re-center.
That is what I do.
In terms of young engineers who aspire to be leaders and so forth,
in particular you talked about women, but I think what I am going to say will apply to either.
I think one very important factor that can help you is to find a mentor or find somebody
that you trust that you can sort of bounce ideas off of.
There are formal mentoring programs and all that, that exist,
but I would suggest that you find somebody out there that you know or you have heard of
that you think would be compatible with you, whether it is your background,
your personality, your goals, whatever.
And just go ask that person,
"Hey, would you be a mentor for me or could I spend some time talking to you and bouncing ideas off you?"
I think, without exception, the person will be flattered
and would be happy to share some of their time and experience with you.
I would urge people to take that initiative and be bold, have courage, and go ask.
If you don’t know someone, you can ask your supervisor or some of your coworkers,
“hey, who do you think would be a good person for me to connect with?”
because just having someone with whom you can vent or share frustrations
or share some of the difficult experiences you are having
and get that kind of feedback,
it can really help you and encourage you because you can kind of hunker in some times and feel discouraged.
Having someone one to talk to, who can kind of give you hope
and shine a light on the future can really help, I think. That is one thing I would suggest.
Hoffman: I will follow that up because the mentoring thing, I think, is so critical
because there is so much, in terms of not only just the work and the technical,
but the social and political and the different dynamics and hard work. Who are your mentors?
And how did you go about getting them?
Did you say hey, I wanted to work with you?
Each of you, I am sure folks have impacted you.
How did you go about that and who helped you?
McConnaughey: I had an awesome mentor, Luke Schutzenhofer, probably many of you know him.
I met him at the very beginning when I first came here.
Initially, he was peripherally involved with our branch and eventually became my branch chief.
It was through that it actually happened.
So I didn’t go ask, it just naturally happened.
But Luke is open, just a very open and accessible person,
and through the course of our interaction, I learned so much from it.
But he would tell stories that there was so much to learn from.
He would actually give us technical direction,
get up at the board some time and write equations.
He also told us, I am saying “us” because it wasn’t just me - there were other people in the branch -,
some of the unspoken or unwritten rules of engagement, how to get things done.
You kind of learned about things that mattered and things that don’t matter.
I remember once, him saying,
‘there are rules you need to follow and maybe there are some rules where you don’t have to
and you don’t worry about it so much’.
It is really true. You have to prioritize and you have to screen things.
So Luke taught me so much and he gave me good feedback.
I think one of the most powerful things he did was, metaphorically,
he sort of pushed me into the deep end of the pool.
We were talking about certain kinds of projects and the approach we were going to do,
we were going to setup up these consortiums
and he told me he wanted me to lead one, and he just said, "Go do it."
I was a little bit taken aback
because it involved communicating with serious people in different companies
and different centers and I was thinking, ‘who am I to do this?’
And he just threw me out there, and it was amazing. He was great.
He had such confidence in me.
He was just amazing and I still to this day grin very largely whenever I see him.
He means so much to me.
Hoffman: Dale?
Thomas: Yeah, I am sort of like Helen.
My first mentor, and to this day, we stay in touch,
but I don’t think I have ever asked him if we would be my mentor.
He just sort of assumed that role. I talked about him earlier, it was Dave Mobley.
I came to work for him in the late '80s
and we only worked in a pure supervisor,
subordinate relationship for probably four or five years,
but we’ve stayed in touch since and I still call on him from time to time.
I have picked up some others as well.
Bob Ryan is someone who I go to frequently to just talk things through.
And one thing I learned from Dave, and I am sure Bob would echo this as well,
is usually when I go talk to them, I know the answer before I walked in the door, I just need to talk it through.
So, invariably, they just sit there and listen and nod and give me a little bit of affirmation,
if you will, although occasionally I will get a little bit of yank from one of the two of them,
but those are the two I count on most.
Hoffman: People who are looking over and guiding and maybe stretching, it sounds like maybe.
Thomas: Definitely, and that is one thing I would also encourage,
especially people younger in their careers, is failure is not fatal.
Reckless failure can be very damaging,
but if you have an idea on how to do something better
or an idea on how to do something that could be of value, talk about it with your leads,
your supervisors, your peers.
It goes back to that communication thing and assuming you get some affirmation,
don’t be afraid to run with that idea.
Like I said, stay in communication.
I have pulled some major face plants over my career,
but you know what, you always learn from those and then you pick up and you can build on it.
It is just a cruel fact of life that you learn more from our failures than our successes.
So I have learned more from those face plants than I learned I from the things that were right.
That will serve you well.
The key is it is just like risk, don’t go cowboy.
Talk it through and talk it through with people
who have a stake in your success on this particular idea.
Take that chance and when things work out,
as they inevitably will, it is very fulfilling
and it will help you grow a whole lot as a professional
and your leadership skills as well.
Hoffman: One of the things that you have talked about throughout in our time together
is the collaboration early, having a sense of understanding the system,
in terms of early career.
What advice would you have for the young professionals
who are joining NASA or probably any organization,
in terms of those who are interested in the engineering side
or systems or projects or basically having the kind of successful careers that you have?
What would you indicate, in addition to the importance of mentoring?
McConnaughey: I would say be competent, know your stuff, learn more, and continue to learn and grow.
Wherever you are, really plow yourself into it
and try to become stronger and even more competent.
I think that is really important because with that comes additional respect
and with that will come additional responsibility, and so forth.
Then, to have courage and to work and play well with others. I think all of that is really important.
Hoffman: Okay, so the competence, the ability,
understanding the nature of your work,
the attitude of working well with others,
the collaborative kind of skills, gaining the experience from others.
McConnaughey: And avoid communicating a sense of a desire for self-aggrandizement,
because it is not about you, it is about the team and it is about the mission.
Those people who are all about trying to get ahead and if it becomes clear,
that tends to be damaging because that is not what we’re about here.
Hoffman: Eventually, it will because everything is an interface. So you can see.
Thomas: What I found and what I always suggest to people
who are contemplating career changes or something,
I just tell them to follow their passion because that will lead to all the things Helen was talking about.
Where you are passionate about something, you are going to put forth the extra energy,
follow your curiosity, try to understand it, as Helen was saying, about competence.
There is no substitute for know what you are talking about, okay,
and where you don’t know what you are talking about,
have the curiosity to dig so that you can understand it.
Then you can know what you are talking about, but passion is the energy that drives all that.
So I always encourage people to go something that it is hard to go bed at night
and you look forward to getting up the next morning
because it something that you want to work on. It is a problem you want to solve.
Yeah, and play well with others, be a sociable person,
but if you are really passionate about the cause, it is about the mission.
Never try and make it about yourself. All that will take care of itself.
Hoffman: Very good.
This hour has gone by really fast.
To me, it seemed like half the time.
In some, the passion comes through and obviously the competence,
in terms of the careers has comes through.
I think that has been conveyed. I would like to thank, Dale. I would like to thank, Helen.
It was really enjoyable.
I also want to thank Marshall Space Flight Center for setting this up, Public Affairs,
the knowledge folks, the training organization,
and certainly NASA TV for making this hour really enjoyable
and I hope the folks who are watching it see some benefit from it
and continue to learn and to stay passionate.
So thank you.
McConnaughey: Thank you.