Latest in a Series of Assessments Raising Culture, Morale, Concerns Within Board

Mike Nartker
NS&D Monitor
2/6/2015

A “divisive and dysfunctional relationship” among the members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board appears to be playing a significant role in the poor morale plaguing the DNFSB staff, according to a new independent report released late last week. Last year, the Board asked the Logistics Management Institute to examine its organizational culture in the wake of employee assessments that revealed deep dissatisfaction among Board staff. LMI conducted its study when the Board consisted of then-Chair Peter Winokur, who was preparing to retire from federal service, Vice Chair Jessie Roberson and Member Sean Sullivan.

The Board is now made up of Roberson, Sullivan and new Member Daniel Santos. “Considerable negative sentiment regarding the board dynamic was observed in data collected from DNFSB personnel, managers and directors and board members and in terms used to describe the relationships, such as ‘uncivil,’ ‘lack of collegiality,’ ‘abusive,’ ‘bullying,’ ‘lack of decorum,’ ‘poisonous,’ and ‘unprofessional,’ ” the LMI report says.

The LMI report states, “The board dynamic is influencing office directors, managers, and group leads and was noted by all levels of DNFSB. Office directors, managers, and group leads, who must act as intermediaries between the board members and Agency personnel, are forced into this board-driven, fractured organizational dynamic, resulting in further fractured and dysfunctional relations at other levels and in personnel perceptions such as the existence of conflicting visions of DNFSB’s role, organizational priorities, and purpose. A toxic organizational culture, lack of cohesion, lack of collegiality, and hampered mission effectiveness were noted in both written communications and in data collected through interviews and focus groups. This view is widespread and pervasive.”

DNFSB ‘Committed’ to Making Improvements, Vice Chair Says

In an interview this week with NS&D Monitor, Roberson said the Board is “committed” to addressing the study’s findings and making improvements, but also noted the need to avoid “kneejerk reactions” going forward. “We had a lot of changes that have already been taken and, to be honest, we are in the process as a Board of evaluating what additional actions we need to take. The one we know we need to take is to come together as the Board and the executive leadership team and talk through things like how best we handle these issues. And that’s actually the next step,” Roberson said. “It’s not good to just start reacting. We really want to be thoughtful in how we proceed.”

Praising the work done by LMI, Roberson said, “We asked LMI not to sugarcoat it. We told them we wanted it hard because we’re all professionals, and … we’ve had a whole lot of initiatives. So we really wanted a credible, objective third-party because that’s what we needed. It’s kind of hard sometimes to fix your own things without that independent input. That’s what we do for the Department, so it would make sense that we ought to want and value that ourselves.” In a statement to NS&D Monitor, Sullivan said, “We have three Board members that are working together now and we’re confident we can fix the problems that were brought out in the report.”

Some Staff Concerned Board Has Strayed Away From ‘Science Focus’

One concern raised by Board staff, according to the report, is that the Board has strayed too far from a “science focus” and has become too political. “A perception of clear political divisions among board members is negatively impacting staff confidence in the technical integrity of the board’s mission and effectiveness,” the report says. “Partisan approaches to organizational leadership are creating inefficiencies. Some members of the technical staff noted that they received directions from one board member to complete an activity a particular way, followed by a contradictory set of instructions from another board member, which they perceived as motivated by the board members’ political affiliations.”

The report also notes instances where technical staff have questioned the expertise of Board members. “Some staff members perceive board members are shaping the technical staff’s analysis toward a particular answer without technical substantiation, indicating a probable political bias,” the report says. “Some staff members remarked that in past boards, a majority of scientific areas were within the expertise of the board members but now there is a more limited breadth of area of expertise due to the smaller board and the less scientifically based criteria placed on new board members.” The report also states, “Many members of the technical staff perceive that board ‘letters’ and investigations are driven by board members rather than by safety considerations.”

Roberson said that some of the concerns that Board may have become too politicized may stem from DNFSB Recommendation 2011-1, which called on the Department of Energy to take steps to improve the safety culture at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant after a former contractor executive alleged he was removed from working at the WTP for raising safety concerns. “I do think one of the key reasons that is out there is probably primarily because of Recommendation 11-1,” she said.  “The Board is looking at its actions on this recommendation. But that recommendation was, when you go into the recommendation and read it, it was focused on asking the Department to take leadership and correct a disconnect between engineering and nuclear safety. At its core, we thought it was technical, but it has bloomed.” 

Roberson added, “I think we have each gotten that input and we’re taking it to heart. Just like other intelligent feedback we get, we certainly are introspective and want to think through it, but at the core of this organization, what hasn’t changed is the view that it is our reasonability to advise the Secretary in ensuring that the public and workers are protected. So we certainly have received the criticism that we have strayed, and I think that it might have been some actions that took on more of a life then really was intended.” The Board also issued its first non-unanimous recommendation, on emergency preparedness and response, in 2014. Winokur and Roberson voted in favor of the recommendation. Sullivan did not. 

Can Board Improve Communication, But Avoid ‘Groupthink’?

Another concern “echoed repeatedly” among Board personnel, according to LMI, is what has been described, in often strong terms, as negative organizational communication. “That tone was driving perceptions of board dysfunction; a lack of collegiality, cohesion and, in some cases, civility and a pervasive sense of organizational instability,” the report says. Among the terms used to describe the Board’s organizational communications were “abusive,” “bullying,” “antagonistic,” “unprofessional” and “toxic,” according to the report.

Roberson agreed on the need for improved communications, but also said she wanted to ensure that Board members felt free to express and debate their views. “I think the thing that the LMI report made clear to us is we are a new Board—the previous Board basically had a core for 20 years of people who started the Board—so it’s probably wise for us as Board members to spend more time figuring out how to work with each other without anyone think we’re going to change the way we think,” she said. “Because that’s why we’re on the Board—we bring that experience and expertise. And so we don’t want to get into groupthink because that will negatively impact the conclusions of the Board. We want that experience that each Board member brings, but we probably need to spend a little more time working on how we communicate with each other and how we ensure each Board member brings what they have to the table and that is valued and appreciated.”

Roberson went on to say, “I think professional discourse is absolutely a necessity. I cringe because people use this term ‘collegiate,’ some people say that to mean groupthink and some people say that to mean what I call just professional interactions. I’m on the professional interactions. I think each Board member brings a different background, a different set of experiences, a different expertise, and I’m not naïve to think I know everything and so I want those other Board members to step in to be influential where they feel a gap from me. … Every one of us Board members is committed to a positive environment, but we can’t allow that to shade our contribution to the decision of the Board. This is not Pollyanna land.”

‘The Expectation Can’t be That All Board Members Agree on Everything’

When asked if she was concerned that Board’s morale issues could lead some to discount its work and recommendations, Roberson said, “I think, sure, every Board member is concerned about that. I certainly have that concern, and I think it’s important for us not to get lost in trying to figure out how to get along and really focus our energies on a productive discourse when it comes to our mission. I think that’s the way every Board member views it—we have a job to do.” 

She added, “It’s an interesting thing. No matter who reviews the Board, and there have been plenty, they always say their technical work is of the highest credibility. Unfortunately what bothers me is the tone of this conversation, by its very nature, appears to diminish that and that’s what we want to highlight. So we’re certainly concerned about that. We’re certainly focused on it. But the expectation can’t be that all board Members agree on everything because it’s not reality. That’s why there is a Board.”