Re: LaSalle - Need of nuclear mgt.?

[Bob Flood <bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

> CHICAGO, Jan. 2 -- A group of consultants hired by Commonwealth
> The Nuclear Regulatory Commission summary says the independent 
>analysis found ``a weak safety culture,'' ineffective supervision,
>inadequate training, lack of teamwork and poor work quality. 

What Sandy says has, unfortunately, too much merit. During my years
(decades, actually) at a nuclear utility, the revolving door for plant
managers and Vice Presidents became a popular joke. "Year and a day men",
they were called - all male, each staying just long enough to be eligible
to leave without being forced to pay back moving costs, hiring bonuses,
etc. These former high-level managers are now scattered throughout the
country in similar positions with other utilities. We described the process
as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

While this small population of nuclear managers are doing well financially
for themselves, and appear to be accomplishing little for the utilities
that need real help, I believe the fault is not entirely theirs. If you
give a carpenter a socket wrench and a pipe cutter, and tell him to make
cabinets, he'll do poorly. Firing him and hiring a higher paid carpenter,
and giving him the same tools won't fix things.

A new plant manager hired into an environment described as ``a weak safety
culture" and "ineffective supervision" won't make startling changes in a
year's time - s/he may not be able to affect worthwhile improvements in any
reasonable timeframe if the middle managers really reflect that decade of
"weak safety culture" and "ineffective supervision."

There's more to fixing an ineffective staff than replacing the top manager,
and it will take longer than a year. The expectation that it can be done
immediately  if you pay the new manager enough money is itself another
management problem.


Bob Flood
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(415) 926-3793     bflood@slac.stanford.edu
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.