Report Describes Apparent Tensions Between Technical Director, Staff
There appear to be significant tensions between the technical staff at the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and the Board’s Office of the Technical Director, according to a report NS&D Monitor obtained this week. The report provides the full, unredacted version of the findings of an employee committee the Board formed to examine morale issues in the wake of a staff survey that indicated a sharp drop in employee satisfaction. The DNFSB recently released a redacted version of the report’s executive summary, but has to date refused to make the full version public citing the need to protect employee privacy (NS&D Monitor, Vol. 18 No. 7). “What has caused significant concern is the communication from management to the staff: in particular, inconsistent feedback; and the disproportionate amount of the negative feedback the staff receives from management, especially in comparison to the marginal and infrequent positive and/or constructive feedback communicated to the staff. This appears to be a core reason for low morale and employee dissatisfaction,” the full version of the report says.
The employee committee’s work involved the preparation and administration of a questionnaire to Board staff, to which 42 replies were obtained, the vast majority of which came from staff in the Office of the Technical Director (OTD). While the publicly released version of the report’s executive summary noted concerns over the relationship between staff and senior management, the full version of the report goes into much more detail about the apparent tensions within the Board’s Office of the Technical Director. “Comments, coming primarily from the Technical Staff, were often strongly worded and largely repeated the same concerns: a serious lack of respect from the Technical Director and a significant breakdown in communications both within the OTD and throughout the agency,” the report says. “Often-repeated comments include frequent negative feedback, and an attitude of disrespect, from the Technical Director. This sentiment of distrust and disrespect is also felt in other Offices.”
DNFSB Chairman Peter Winokur did not respond to requests for comment on the full report this week. Winokur has said, though, that he is working to develop a set of responses to address the employee committee’s recommendations, and that he plans to hold an all-hands meeting with Board employees by early March.
Technical Director Seen as ‘Micromanager’
The report cites several examples of concerns expressed by DNFSB employees over the management style of the Board’s Technical Director, who is viewed by some as a “micromanager.” Steven Stokes was named as the Board’s technical director last fall in a management change some Board employees described as “unpopular,” according to the report. The report states, “One concern was that the Technical Director’s management style has created a serious breakdown in staff morale. For example, the manner in which the Technical Director engages the Technical Staff has been described as ‘intimidating,’ and several other disturbing descriptions.”
The report also notes, “When asked to explain why they think their skills are not being fully used, the responses were again primarily from the OTD. There was an extensive focus on the management style of the TD [technical director] and how his approach minimizes the staff’s knowledge and their contributions.” Many of the comments submitted expressed “concern that the ‘Open Door’ policy that encouraged staff members to directly talk to Board Members has been effectively eliminated by the TD,” the report says.
Performance Appraisal Concerns
The full version of the employee committee report also provides more insight into the concerns some DNFSB employees have with how their work performance is appraised. “According to half of the survey responses, management does not clearly communicate consistent performance expectations, project directions, or responsibilities to employees. For the Technical Staff in particular, some indicate that performance expectations and/or assignment direction can vary significantly and routinely among different managers, and are sometimes unclear,” the report says.
A majority of survey responses “indicate that there is unclear guidance on how to get a better rating under the new performance management systems,” the report says. “Some staff members mentioned that the ratings appear arbitrary and subjective. A small percentage of the responses support the new performance systems. However, many have mentioned their dislike for a performance system that makes distinctions among high achievers or that appears to favor staff members working on high visibility projects.”
