In Times of Crisis Do Not Mistake the Loud Leaders for the Best Ones

Reading the news over the last few days I cannot help but reflect on the huge differences in leadership that we are seeing during this international crisis. Specifically, the difference I see when I contrast the leadership of certain CEOs and politicians against the leadership I see at NASA. You see, despite the usual discussion of one being business and the other being government, the reality is that in both cases bottom lines are suffering because the people that generate results are not able to do critical parts of their jobs, whether those results are profits for shareholders or technology in the interest of humanity. Both businesses and NASA have to create value to justify their existence. The difference I am seeing, however, is that in the case of NASA and its programs, we have real leadership, although it is quiet, whereas, many supposed titans of industry and grand statesmen have simply become petulant and childish, throwing tantrums in public instead of presenting credible, carefully considered, and reviewed plans. The most recent, and glaring example of this difference is in the behavior of two Bay Area institutions: NASA Ames Research Center and Tesla Motors.

A Contrast Across the Bay

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been in a Twitter war over the last few days with Alameda County officials over opening his manufacturing plant in Fremont. He went so far as to call out Dr. Erica Pan, a highly accomplished medical doctor, as an un-elected and ignorant interim health official. While Dr. Pan is indeed un-elected and interim, she is anything but ignorant, having an extensive background in public health emergency response and disease prevention. It makes me wonder if Mr. Musk thinks that military generals should be elected or those generals with specific expertise should never be given a temporary command in a crisis situation? His unnecessary ad hominem attack on Dr. Pan and the silly lawsuit against Alameda county over being asked to wait merely 10 more days shows unfortunate impatience and impetuousness, traits that have no place in a leader.

To be clear, I have read through the posted "getting back to work plan," and find it lacking. It would not pass muster at NASA, and with good reason. It is mostly sleek styling and common sense, with no practical discussion about how people are going to do their jobs. Furthermore, it is not clear if medical professionals reviewed that document, or only liability lawyers. From the view of this manager of safety, quality and product assurance it reads more as CYA than a real plan on protecting people. I would not approve it, nor would I feel comfortable working under it. Instead of worrying about protecting his people and giving them the confidence to come back to work, Mr. Musk is choosing to make people choose between their health and their livelihoods. This fits a long pattern of behavior by Mr. Musk, whose manufacturing operation currently boasts the worst safety record of any car manufacturer in America. He is playing the victim of government over reach to threaten moving his operations. An action that would primarily benefit him personally. After all, the company itself would have extremely limited production for the better part of a year should it attempt to move. Hardly an action that would lead to better delivery rates.

The leadership at NASA has taken a rather different tack. Instead of complaining, when yes, programs stand on the brink due to the stay-at-home orders, there have been no accusations or tantrums. Instead there has been steady, calm leadership, from Administrator Bridenstine down through project leadership. The message has been clear: our people come first. Most people do not know this, but NASA Ames,in Mountain View, just across the way from the Tesla factory, was the first large institution in the SF Bay Area to go to mandatory work-from-home. In the week before that order, Ames had a work-from-home, if possible day, to test the load on IT infrastructure. Then, that same weekend, when an Ames team member was confirmed to have Covid-19, Director Eugene Tu ordered immediate and mandatory work-from-home for all non-essential staff and an investigation into all onsite movements of that employee. He did not wait for "cover" from the County or the Governor's Office.

That is leadership: decisive action, securing of safety, and immediate information gathering.

Now, as we prepare to return to work, the approach is in stark contrast to Tesla the process. At Ames the plan is careful, based on the best science information we have and includes feedback from all teams. The motto has been, "While others are rushing to open we are rushing to plan." Guided by instructions from the federal level each NASA center is tailoring its return to work plan for Center and project specific needs and operations. There will be a careful, staged approach, one that allows for measurement and adaption as we continue with the mission.

Fundamentally, the difference has been that NASA leadership has empowered and let their experts lead and set policy. They acted to make the team safe, even at the cost of mission success, and have since put their people first. During this whole time, the Administrator and the Center Director at Ames have stayed in the back ground. This process has been led by the Safety and Mission Assurance organizations at every level. This is a different type of leadership than that used by Mr. Musk. Whereas his behavior has been narcissistic, at NASA, the leadership has been selfless. The former is leadership by volume, the latter is leadership through service.

Who would you rather follow?

The NASA leadership approach is instructive of how to lead in a crisis:

1) Make your people safe and make them feel safe, both literally and to speak up. Different team members will have different situations and therefore will need options. They must feel safe enough to express their needs and trust you will work with them to find a way forward.

2) Listen to the feedback from your team and include that feedback in how you develop plans moving forward. When your team is like ours, that is a lot of brain power at your disposal.

3) Use a staged approach that is adaptable. As the maxim goes: plans often end up being useless, but planning is indispensable. This includes have the right resources available, in this case, masks, gloves, cleaning supplies, and other critical items.

4) Invite outside scrutiny of your plans to ensure that you are covering your blind spots. Make sure medical experts, emergency response authorities, and others, help.

5) Work with all stakeholders. Every organization has many stakeholders and the need and rights of each must be represented. It is critical to create a stakeholder map and make sure nothing is overlooked.

6) Be honest about and communicate the risk. As we restart work, we know that we cannot drive the risk to 0. It is important to be clear about what the risks are, where they are, and what the response will be. We have plans for when the plan fails.

7) Failure is not an option, the famous creed of NASA Mission Control continues to guide the agency today, and it will in the future. That means in this case that we will find a way to carry out the mission safely.