![](media/image1.pct){width="1.3611111111111112in"
height="1.2430555555555556in"}National Aeronautics and Space
Administration

**A Generational Investigation to Increase Langley's Insight about
Today's and Tomorrow's Young Professionals (AGI^2^LIT^2^Y)**

Melissa Carter

Jennifer P. Keyes

Robin W. Schlecht

Katrina L. Young

www.nasa.gov

**Acknowledgments**

As Langley's 2007 NASA FIRST pilot class, we would like to express
sincere appreciation to the following individuals for their support,
advice, patience, and encouragement as we completed our year long duties
which included training modules, shadowing experiences, a center
project, and related NASA FIRST activities. These individuals include:
Richard Antcliff, Linda Bangert, Brian Baxley, Leslie Beimler, Laura
Brewer, Michael Finneran, Stephanie Hahn, Roger Hathaway, Laurence
Leavitt, Cynthia Lee, Thomas Moul, Laura O'Connor, Donna Speller Turner,
Martin Waszak, and Risé Williams. We also would like to thank the many
NASA Langley employees who offered their personal and professional
experiences and opinions to aid in our effort to understand what is
necessary to attract and retain the next generation of NASA's workforce.
You know who you are...

Table of Contents

Abstract [1](#abstract)

Introduction [2](#introduction)

Center Project [3](#center-project)

Data Collection [3](#data-collection)

Incentives and Motivators [4](#incentives-and-motivators)

De-Motivators [6](#de-motivators)

Employment and Hiring Practices [7](#employment-and-hiring-practices)

Generational Workforce Perceptions
[10](#generational-workforce-perceptions)

Senior Leader Perceptions [12](#senior-leader-perceptions)

Recommendations [13](#recommendations)

Future Work Recommendations [15](#future-work-recommendations)

Center Project Lessons Learned [16](#center-project-lessons-learned)

Conclusions [18](#conclusions)

Appendix A -- NASA FIRST Focus Group Meeting Notes
[20](#appendix-a-nasa-first-focus-group-meeting-notes)

Appendix B -- NASA FIRST Focus Group Question List
[55](#appendix-b-nasa-first-focus-group-question-list)

Appendix C -- Additional Questions Created by NASA FIRST
[56](#appendix-c-additional-questions-created-by-nasa-first)

Appendix D -- NASA FIRST Survey [57](#appendix-d-nasa-first-survey)

Appendix E -- Focus Group Invitation Letters
[59](#appendix-e-focus-group-invitation-letters)

Appendix F -- Presentation Slides to NASA Langley Center Leadership
Council
[61](#appendix-f-presentation-slides-to-nasa-langley-center-leadership-council)

Appendix G -- Center Project Handout for Center Leadership Council
Presentation
[70](#appendix-g-center-project-handout-for-center-leadership-council-presentation)

Appendix H -- Research Reading Summaries and Notes
[72](#appendix-h-research-reading-summaries-and-notes)

Appendix I -- Presentation Slides to NASA Marshall Senior Leadership
[90](#appendix-i-presentation-slides-to-nasa-marshall-senior-leadership)

Appendix J -- About the NASA FIRST Pilot Program
[95](#appendix-j-about-the-nasa-first-pilot-program)

Appendix K -- NASA FIRST Lessons Learned
[97](#appendix-k-nasa-first-lessons-learned)

Appendix L -- Recommendations for Selecting a Mentor
[99](#appendix-l-recommendations-for-selecting-a-mentor)

Appendix M -- Recommendations for Success for NASA FIRST
[101](#appendix-m-recommendations-for-success-for-nasa-first)

Appendix N -- Additional Information about NASA FIRST and
[102](#appendix-n-additional-information-about-nasa-first-and)

# Abstract

*The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Foundations of
Influence, Relationships, Success, and Teamwork (FIRST) program is
designed to provide employees in science, engineering, and professional
administrative positions with the foundational skills necessary for
their future success within the Agency. One of the major assignments for
each NASA FIRST team representing each NASA center is to complete a
center level project. NASA Langley's NASA FIRST Team selected a project
that correlates to the Langley Strategic Planning Framework Increase
Workforce Adaptability Objective. Martin Waszak, Deputy Director with
the Advanced Planning and Partnership Office served as the project's
champion and the team's senior advisor. Between February 2007 and
October 2007, Langley's NASA FIRST team conducted focus groups,
collected and analyzed data, and researched workforce literature to
understand the generational characteristics of Langley employees
currently aged 35 years old and younger (as of June 2007) as well as to
(1) identify what motivates and de-motivates Langley employees 35 years
of age and younger, (2) define Langley employees' career goals
pertaining to stability (retention at NASA) and adaptability (workforce
agility), (3) investigate if there are perceived differences between
permanent and term employees, and (4) investigate perceptions of
Langley's Senior Leaders. As a result of the NASA FIRST team's center
project entitled: A Generational Investigation to Increase Langley's
Insight about Today's and Tomorrow's Young Professionals
(AGI^2^LIT^2^Y), Langley senior leadership was provided with clarity
into what attracts and retains its current and future workforce, its
workforces' needs, in addition to recommendations to remain an agile
Center -- now and into the future.*

# Introduction

The American workplace constitutes an environment of growing change and
the demographics of today's workforce are vastly different from the
workforce of just a few years ago. NASA Langley Research Center's senior
leadership recognizes the value in understanding these changes in order
to ensure that Langley remains a healthy aerospace center - one with a
culture of enhanced creativity and productivity; and one that is capable
and readily able to respond to the needs of the Agency and Country.

One of the major assignments for each Center's NASA FIRST team is to
complete a center level project. The project for Langley's 2007 NASA
FIRST class directly ties to the Langley Strategic Planning Framework
through the Realignment of Incentives Initiative within the Increase
Workforce Adaptability Objective. Martin Waszak, Deputy Director, with
the Advanced Planning and Partnership Office serves as the team's senior
advisor. The main goals of the project are to research the generational
characteristics of Langley employees currently aged 35 years old and
younger (as of June 2007) and provide insight into what attracts and
retains this next generation of NASA's workforce. The project's areas of
focus, developed in conjunction with the team's senior advisor and main
stakeholders, are to (1) identify what motivates and de-motivates
Langley employees 35 years of age and younger, (2) define Langley
employees' career goals pertaining to stability (retention at NASA) and
adaptability (workforce agility), (3) investigate if there are perceived
differences between permanent and term employees, and (4) investigate
perceptions of Langley's Senior Leaders. Therefore, the Langley center
project is titled: A Generational Investigation to Increase Langley's
Insight about Today's and Tomorrow's Young Professionals
(AGI^2^LIT^2^Y).

The methodology, results, and recommendations presented in this report
are the culmination of this work by the Langley NASA FIRST team.

# Center Project

## Data Collection

The focus of this study was to gain insight into what Langley's
employees 35 years of age and younger think when asked to discuss
specific topic areas of interest to Langley senior leadership. We
directed our communications to this subgroup after consulting with
Charles "Pete" Polen from Langley's Office of Chief Counsel. We
requested the contact information for any current employee 35 years of
age and younger as well as any employee who both was 35 years of age and
younger and had resigned between June 2004 and June 2007. As of June
2007, when we requested the data, there were 122 employees, 35 years of
age and younger on Center. The list of employees who resigned from the
Agency was edited to remove co-ops/students whose allotted time had
expired. After removing the names of these individuals, the total number
of employees to contact was 16.

The team decided to have a trained facilitator to conduct several focus
groups in order to allow a discussion of issues rather than to solely
elicit feedback through one line questions and answers from a survey.
Moreover, if necessary, the facilitator would also be capable of
handling any Equal Employment Office issues that might arise. Donna
Speller Turner from the Advanced Planning and Partnerships Office's
Navigation (NAV) Center was selected to facilitate all four focus
groups. Three dates were chosen to conduct three onsite focus groups:
July 9, 13, and 18, 2007. A call-in focus group, which allowed
anonymity, was scheduled for July 10, 2007.

Following the selection of focus group dates and a location, our next
step was to create letters of invitation to be e-mailed to the on-site
employees and post mailed to those who had left. Before being
distributed, they were reviewed by the Office of Equal Employment
Opportunity, the appropriate union(s), and Langley senior management.

While awaiting response from the e-mailed and post mailed invitations,
the team researched workforce and generational diversity issues; and
communicated with the major stakeholders for the project. As a result of
this effort, a list of questions to ask was developed by a subgroup of
the NASA FIRST team and then agreed upon by the entire team. The list of
questions was narrowed into five categories with a maximum of two
questions per category based on the consultation of Langley's NAV Center
personnel. The categories were: (1) Incentives/Motivators; (2)
De-motivators, (3) Employment and Hiring Practices; (4) Generational
Workforce Perceptions, and (5) Senior Leader Perceptions.

Once confirmation of attendees was received, Donna Speller Turner
facilitated three on-center focus groups in the NAV Center. These
sessions were well attended with between five to ten people per group.
The call-in focus group for people who had resigned from NASA Langley
had one participant. Participants were receptive, attentive, and their
responses were sincere. There was a common interest in attending and
staying longer if necessary. The participants expressed real
appreciation for having the opportunity to share and to have their
voices heard. Overall, the participants' energy in the room was good,
and people candidly volunteered information. After the focus groups were
conducted, ten questions representing the categories listed above were
e-mailed to Langley's current employees aged 35 and younger in order to
allow those unable to attend an ability to participate. The feedback
from their e-mails was combined into an additional group listed as
e-mail responses. Donna Speller Turner combined the notes from each
on-site focus group, and Melissa Carter added the e-mail responses to
create a master document. These notes are attached to this report as
Appendix B. It is important to note that the responses compiled by the
NAV Center did not capture how many persons in the group made the same
comment. Therefore, comments made by one person appear right next to
comments agreed by the entire room. However, with the e-mail responses,
each individual response is listed; therefore, it is possible to
determine how common an issue was among that group. After the data was
received, each member of the NASA FIRST group was assigned a specific
section to analyze and on which to report.

An overview of the statistical information of each focus group and the
e-mails about the focus group participants' average age, years of
service, and position type is listed below. This gives an overview of
the composition of the respondents. It should be further noted that the
overall permanent and term employee percentages of those responding is
fairly close to the percentages for all those aged 35 and under on
center (70% permanent and 30% term). Presently, the center as a whole is
comprised of a workforce that is 96% permanent and 4% term.

  ------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- ------------
                **Average     **Average Years   **Percent     **Percent
                Age**         in Service        Perm. Hires** Term Hires**
                              (Federal)**                     

  **Group 1     **30**        **8**             **60**        **40**
  (10)**                                                      

  **Group 2     **32**        **6**             **57**        **43**
  (7)**                                                       

  **Group 3     **28**        **3**             **40**        **60**
  (5)**                                                       

  **Emails      **29**        **5**             **75**        **25**
  (12)**                                                      

  **Overall     **30**        **6**             **62**        **38**
  (34)**                                                      
  ------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- ------------

###### Table 1. Composition of the focus group respondents

## 

## Incentives and Motivators

Research on Generation X (born between 1963 -- 1981) and Generation Y
(born between 1981 -- Present) has shown many options of what incentives
and motivators are effective, and therefore the de-motivators than can
negatively impact these age groups. Bruce Tulgan in "*Managing
Generation X*" claims that "no news does not mean good news" and that
"Members of Generation X and Y need continuous feedback as it relates to
job performance." In addition, USA Today has reported that "work life
balance is not just a buzz word ... younger workers are interested in
having employers accommodate both professional and personal lives." For
clarity, people born between 1963 and 1981 are considered part of
Generation X and people born between 1981 and the present are considered
part of Generation Y.

To identify what motivates and de-motivates these generations of
employees at NASA Langley, the question asked at the NASA FIRST focus
groups was: "What drives you to perform well on the job?" The focus
group sessions offered significant insight into what these generations
think and how they feel when asked this question. To obtain specifics
about employee preferences for desiring to continue to work here, the
follow-on question was asked, "Which benefits are most important to
you?"

The participants asserted that having the responsibility for and the
ability to engage in interesting and more challenging work as clearly
the primary motivator to perform well on the job. This may imply that
trusting employees to deliver and pushing responsibility down the
chain-of-command as low as possible is an appropriate motivator because
it develops ownership and a sense of worth in the accomplishment. For
most, accomplishments are worthy of recognition, which is the next
exceedingly important motivator.

Recognition for a job well done is extremely important and was likened
to interesting and challenging work, which was one of the first
responses in all three focus group sessions. It was expressed that when
recognizing an employee's accomplishment, the employee's superiors
should be informed; this was considered good and appreciated.
Interestingly, the general consensus of the groups was that an e-mail is
a preferred method of conveying formal recognition, especially with
carbon copying (cc's) superiors. This form of recognition is preferred
over verbal recognition. Furthermore, it was clear that although
supervisor recognition doesn't have to be monetary, monetary awards are
still effective motivators for a job well done. In general, it is simply
important to frequently acknowledge employees for their contributions,
skills, and work ethic. In short, a little encouragement goes a long
way.

A follow-on form of recognition is support form supervisors, staff, and
peers. Obvious as it may be, making sure employees have the physical
support (e.g., computer hardware and software) and personal support
(e.g., acknowledgement of an expressed family need(s)) needed in order
to do their jobs can overtime be overlooked or assumed.

In addition, work/life balance was a particularly energized topic. This
includes incentive areas such as flexible work schedules,
vacation/credit hours, and telecommuting. It was voiced that
telecommuting is "extremely valued." Flexibility is a huge incentive in
terms of when and how to fulfill the "forty-hour" work week. Flexibility
was noted as being important for alleviating stress during the "life
happens" scenarios. When considering the "forty-hour" work week it is
important to note that the focus group participants saw working forty
hours as fully meeting the requirements of their jobs. Some meaningful
comments were, "It's forty hours, not JUST forty hours" and that one
participant was incredibly thankful to have the supervisor she did as he
was obviously so dedicated; however, she also readily said that she did
not want her supervisor's life or lack there of. It was repeatedly
mentioned that the participants had lives outside of work and that if a
strong need for extra hours was explained then they would be here,
otherwise they were going home. The groups did not want repercussions,
such as lack of promotions or recognition, due to not working hours
beyond the standard 40-hour week when no clear reason why that was
needed had been brought forth and explained.

Job security and employee benefits were additional passionate topics and
are motivators which will continue to work at NASA Langley. Employee
benefits include salary, health insurance, retirement planning,
educational opportunities, on-site day care center, etc. These
incentives were cited as the ones that "...keep us here!" and as one of
the "...only reasons to become or switch to civil service." It was clear
that many people in the focus groups were willing to accept less pay for
more health benefits. In general, it was evident that people who apply
to work here tend to want to stay employed here.

There were several other motivators that included mission and
environment. As another motivator, the "sense of mission," knowing you
are "making a difference," and knowing how employees "fit in and are
contributing" to Agency goals shows how important it is for Senior
Leadership to continually convey vision, direction, and the sense of
mission our personal impact makes on the Agency and the World. A good
work environment, which includes "the people" and positive attitudes,
was also mentioned in two of the focus groups. This is important because
it inform us that people can play the major role in making up the
environment. Poor understanding of our impact upon each other in the
work environment can easily make a situation quickly unpleasant.

Lastly, there were a number of other comments that although not
unanimously addressing the questions the FIRST team asked, do fall
within the overall category of incentives and motivators. Several of
these comments referred to aspects of working at NASA Langley that make
life less enjoyable: working with people who have a realistic view of
daily work, tools and procedures that don't hinder work (e.g., seemingly
convoluted procurement regulations) and in general less "red tape."
Other comments include preferences, likes, or perks regarding working
with NASA as an agency. Examples include the reputation/prestige of
working with NASA, clearly stated goals, direction, honesty, and the
opportunity to work in or around unique facilities.

## De-Motivators

The NASA FIRST team also looked to identify what were \"de-motivators.\"
De-motivators are considered anything in the work environment that can
reduce the satisfaction working in and desire to perform in the work
place. The goal was to learn what caused employees 35 years old and
younger to be less satisfied with their job and in worst case instances,
cause them to leave. It is important to note that the first part of the
"question" (i.e. "satisfied with their job") had the most responses. Due
to the participants' primary focus on the first part of the question,
the remaining portion of the question (i.e. "cause you to leave") was
practically ignored by the participants in most of the three, on-site
focus groups.

The most common de-motivator identified by the participants was \"red
tape.\" For the purpose of clarity during our focus groups, \"red tape\"
was defined as anything that either prevented an employee from doing
his/her job or took him/her away from doing the job. Focus group
participants asserted examples of red tape as Travel Manager, lengthy
publication reviews, yearly property loan agreements, and the purchase
process. Also, as it relates to technology and work, ODIN and NOMAD were
discussed as examples of what was described as the \"one-size-fits-all\"
mentality. Both of these programs present a lack of flexibility which
forces employees to have to change how they do their work. In general,
employees felt that the amount of their time spent on administrative
work took time away from their ability to produce engineering or other
professional results.

The next most common participant's response was the different
interpretations of Agency and Center policies and practices. A very
common example given was training in terms of being allowed to sign up
for training, and even after signing up for training being allowed to
attend. Employees see others taking classes, or even pursuing college
degrees, and wonder why they are not permitted to do the same. Another
example was telecommuting. It appeared that different management groups
had different requirements for being able to telecommute. Finally,
policies concerning government travel and attending conferences seemed
to vary from organization to organization.

The last common response was the lack of a formal new hire training or
mentoring program. Employees feel that they were just thrown into work
without getting the necessary training about the center, its policies,
and even the job they are expected to do. Along with this concern, is
the fact that most people are over-booked (have been assigned to work on
more projects than for which they have time). This prevents the more
senior members of the Langley workforce from having the time to mentor
or even take a younger employee under their wing.

The answers to why would you consider leaving NASA mainly came from the
e-mail responses received. The most frequent response was lack of
interesting work. Young NASA employees enjoy the work they do here, and
recognize the unique opportunities for research that LaRC offers. If the
work was no longer interesting, they feel they would look elsewhere. The
other common response was family needs. This included the need for a
higher income, if travel requirements became too much, a forced move
away from LaRC, and the fact that Hampton Roads was not the most
desirable location for some to live.

## Employment and Hiring Practices

Many sources of research, such as Bruce Tulgan's *Managing the
Generation Mix*[,]{.underline} state Generations X and Y seek diverse
opportunities. \[They\] will change jobs every five years." This finding
dominates many of the messages about these generations that Langley's
senior leaders have heard, read, and question. Likewise, their interest
in this subject area is also a result of alleged reports of instances
where potential employees did not want or prefer a term civil service
position at NASA Langley. To seek clarity about employment types for
senior leadership, the NASA FIRST team investigated the reasoning for
the possible lack of interest, or lack of preference to accept a term
position in contrast to a permanent position. This may be case as a
result of differential treatment of term employees when compared to
permanent employees. Therefore, the focus group participants and e-mail
respondents were asked the following question: "Do you feel that
permanent and term employees are treated differently? If so, how?"

During the focus group sessions, this question was indirectly answered.
The lack of distinct "no" or "yes, because" comments recorded by the
facilitator may be inferred to mean that the focus group participants
did not feel that there were treatment differences between term and
permanent employees. On the other hand, the e-mail responses did
directly address this question, and there were a variety of answers. By
far, the most common answer was that there is no difference in
treatment. One e-mail response even mentioned that it is difficult to
determine an employee's position type without having reviewed the
position posting and description for which the employee applied. Two
responders also didn't feel that they knew or were in a position to
answer the question concerning whether or not terms were treated any
differently. Another respondent said he/she couldn't speak about term
employees being treated differently by his/her management although
he/she did say he/she had a strong impression that a term employee's
management does treat him/her differently. There was only one person who
felt that term employees are treated differently. This responder said
that he/she felt that term employees are expendable. This person felt
that fewer resources are given to term employees who have to prove their
worth in order to obtain a possible permanent position. Although this
was the only response of this type, there was far greater concern
regarding the potential to be treated differently in the future. One
respondent's reasoning for this position was "terms may start getting
treated differently if the negative feelings and impressions about term
hires are true or even if they are false if they are allowed to
persist."

Other concerns shared were that there are potentially damaging "facts"
about term hires that could affect future term employee treatment,
regardless of the facts' veracity. They suggested that the "intentions
at the highest level of the Center and/or Agency need to be clarified
and distributed so all know the truth." The NASA FIRST team has found
that amongst our own team what we know and have been told about terms
(i.e., definitions, conversion, intentions, etc.) are not consistent;
therefore, we also support (1) the Center using term hiring to maintain
its workforce and (2) the need for both current employees and potential
employees to have term hiring and employment practices explained and
communicated consistently and clearly. From two of the focus groups and
some of the e-mail responses, a picture of what is believed about term
employees and positions emerged. Therefore, it is important to make
Langley senior leaders aware of what our participants feel is true about
terms. It was understood that hiring terms does give the center greater
flexibility with the workforce. However, it was mentioned that this may
be seen as one possible or even the only method of achieving workforce
flexibility due to Office of Personnel Management's regulations that
ineffectively address issues of "poor performance, disability, etc." The
participants also emphasized the importance of job security to them by
responding that the security of a permanent position is best and the
lower job security of having term status was inhibiting. It was added
that the job security of a term position was better than the job
security of a position in the private sector. Some expressed concerned
that the only time a term employee would be different than a permanent
employee would be during a Reduction in Force (RIF); thus, despite this
aforementioned situation, a term's position description is the same as a
permanent's, and funding certainly wouldn't be a problem.

Furthermore, some participants mentioned that there was speculation of
converting all terms working on projects with possible future funding.
Other participant speculations included that if a term employee works
hard, then being a term is just a "technicality." Likewise, another
participant's response was that if someone has been doing good work,
he/she does not want to be "pushed out at the end of his/her term." An
additional concern raised was that giving term employees a deadline as
to when their job was "over" might cause them to seek other employment
opportunities. This uncertainty of continued employment with NASA and
the unfulfilled investments made in a term employee in regards to
training, mentoring, etc. may not provide a return on investment for the
center. It is also important to note that all of the term employees
participating in the focus groups with the NASA FIRST team either
intended, planned, or hoped to be converted to permanent employee
status.

In addition, participants interjected two questions during the data
collection for the Employment and Hiring Practices category. The first
question was "What is a term employee in regards to the requirements?"
To answer this question, the FIRST team would suggest that details of a
term position including definition, a list of position similarities and
differences between term and permanent positions, benefits, etc. be
published and available to all current and potential employees.
Secondly, the participants asserted that they would like to have the
center publicize the conversion rate for terms employees to permanent
positions. Therefore, the FIRST team would suggest that if this data is
not currently available that it should start being collected and
published.

Aside from the differential treatment discussion and types of positions,
the FIRST team also addressed the Center's agility and adaptability as
it related to the employment and hiring. Its findings directly relate to
the Center's Increase Workforce Adaptability Objective which is a part
of the Center's the Realignment of Incentives Initiative. A key
characteristic of an adaptable workforce is the willingness of employees
to move to new work as it comes to the center. To investigate this
willingness in Langley's population of employees aged 35 years and
younger, the NASA FIRST team asked the focus group participants and
e-mail respondents the following question: "Are you willing to change
your research/career focus?" Only one of the focus groups directly
addressed this question. The group's consensus was that willingness to
change job or research focus would depend on answers to several
questions. Examples of these questions include:

-   Do I have to change or loose my job?

-   Change to where? Am I interested in the new work?

-   Does the change provide an opportunity for more responsibility?

Several of the e-mail responses echoed these first two questions - "Is
the change required to keep my job?" and "Am I interested in the new
work?" To add to this point, one responder said that if he/she was
"faced with job elimination or switching to an area that I dislike, then
I would leave." Additional comments emphasized that it is important for
leaders and managers to realize that people are not "plug and play;"
therefore, employees can not be indiscriminately moved around at will.
Several other reasons for changing were mentioned as well:

-   "To stay competitive and a player in the future of NASA;"

-   "To try to find ways to apply past experience to new tasks, where
    appropriate;"

-   "Because we must avoid the idea of becoming \"stove-piped\" and
    narrow minded in regards to our work; Especially now with the
    exploration initiative, we must be willing to work outside of our
    area of expertise and learn new trick;"

-   "It helps to zoom out and see the big picture;"

-   Changing "allows me to be more flexible. This way I can be adaptable
    during the uncertain times of budget constraints, competitive funds,
    and possible RIFs;"

-   "I don't feel I've completely found my niche yet so who is to say it
    doesn't exist somewhere else;"

-   "As long as there was adequate on the job support and training in
    this new role;" and,

-   "As long as I am motivated and inspired by the work."

Two other participants responded that they are not willing to change.
Both asserted that they have no desire to leave their current areas. The
comments included one claiming that he/she had "no desire to pursue a
different area" other than aviation, and the other commenter claimed
that he/she wanted to stay "focused on space" only to continue to
"develop in \[their\] career in astronautical engineering." These
differing opinions are important to note because increased or targeted
incentive plans may not be enough to convince certain employees to
change their jobs. Yet, one responder did suggest that "as engineers we
need to be open to new concepts and ideas (and should not only be
encouraged, but forced to do so in some cases)."

On the other hand, there were a number of other comments that were not
applicable to the questions the FIRST team asked; however, the comments
were be recognized and are applicable within the overall category of
employment and hiring practices. Several of these comments referred to
aspects of Langley's hiring process. The participants, understanding
that the general process is complex, described several key points about
the process such as (1) "the required application paperwork can be
daunting" and (2) the \"firm Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
regulations inhibit" this complexity from changing. Likewise,
participants offered insight about the hiring cycle. As some explained,
Langley's hiring cycle is also not aligned with major events in a
standard college school year such as graduation and the ends of
semesters. Because of these misalignments, Langley could experience
difficulties when hiring undergraduates and graduate students. Another
effect of this misalignment, in some cases, has been that NASA job
offers occurred before a standard job search began; therefore, potential
employee's decisions about whether or not to accept a NASA job had to be
made without knowing what other options were available. Consequently,
the comment was made: "communication during the hiring process needs
improvement." Such improvement may be the dissemination of more
information with increased frequency. This being said the "transition
from the co-op \[program\] to a term \[position\] was easy." A further
suggestion for the hiring process would be to have "potential hires meet
with current staff (preferably some close in age)" to provide more
information about potential work locations and the overall hiring
process. The participants felt that "many choose the federal route
because of passion about the work," and that they were "willing to
accept \[a\] lower salary to get better benefits." The benefits provided
by NASA were identified several times as being exceptional, and
described as one of the factors that "helps to retain the employees."
Benefits specifically mentioned were: health benefits, life benefits,
pay benefits, Thrift Saving Plan, telecommuting, on-site day care,
educational opportunities, clubs & sports, and leave (amount/policy).

In addition to benefits, participants generally agreed that once
employed more mentoring and coaching would be appreciated. The NASA
Contracting Intern Program was used as an example of a program with a
strong mentoring program. Lastly, other employment topics of concern
that were identified included (1) the employment hiring \[3:1\] ratio,
(2) the "one deep" problem, and (3) the concern surrounding these
problems as well as the importance of retaining experienced technicians
and others whose knowledge and skills aide administration, engineering,
safety, and technical areas.

## Generational Workforce Perceptions

The demographic of today's workforce is vastly different from the
workforce of just a few years ago. The American workplace now
constitutes an environment of growing change -- a shift of persons
leaving and entering the workforce. According to *Generations at Work:
Boomers, GenXers, & Nexters:* "Never before in the history of the
American workplace are so many different age groups working together in
such tight quarters. Veterans, Baby Boomers, GenXers and now the Nexters
(also known as Generation Y) are working shoulder to shoulder, cubicle
to cubicle."

As a result of such difference in the workforce, it is advantageous for
industry, academia, and the government to recognize the impact of
generational diversity. By doing so, these entities will be able to
enhance their creativity and productivity because of (1) the formation
of diverse teams who possess different knowledge, skills, experiences,
and approaches related to work and, (2) the team's ability to approach
simple and complex problems and challenges using a variety of vantage
points and a broader breadth of work experience. NASA Langley Research
Center's senior leadership also recognizes the value in understanding
and enhancing the importance of generational blending. Therefore, it
instructed the NASA FIRST team to analyze the Center's generational
workforce issues in order to clarify some common misconceptions and
understand the importance of workforce issues such as job security, job
flexibility, and peer relationships.

Presently, some common misconceptions about members of Generation X and
Generation Y range from individuals who are "slackers wasting their
lives in low-pay, low-status, short-term jobs" to other individuals who
are "technologically savvy" focused individuals who only prefer to work
in fast paced environments with limited human interactions. Based on
NASA FIRST findings, both Generation X and Y Langley employees seek to
work at NASA because of (1) its interesting and challenging work
assignments; (2) their passion about the work; and (3) monetary and
non-monetary incentives such as health care benefits, flexible work
schedules, retirement and thrift savings benefits, etc. This was
reiterated during our focus groups. For example, participants of focus
group session three reported that they would be willing to accept a
lower salary in order to receive better benefits. Moreover, these
generations of workers also seek the opportunity to work on more
important technical projects. Langley's Generation Xers and Nexters
aspire to be self-sufficient through traditional and on-the-job learning
and increased opportunities for growth -- and making a contribution.
Langley's young workforce views its assignment as a learning experience
and a way to gain skills to become more marketable. "If managed
effectively, they can be a wonderful source of creative productivity"
(Tulgan, 1996).

Furthermore, research states, "Most \[Gen-Xers\] don't expect to stay in
the same job, or even work for the same company, for more than a few
years" (Meredith, et al). However, the majority of our focus group
participants proclaimed that job security and stability is important to
them. For example, although the majority of the focus group participants
agreed that permanent employment is the "best" option, these employees
would be willing to accept a temporary work assignment because it offers
more "security" than the private sector (i.e., industry). Also, the
temporary employment opportunity could lead to future permanent
employment opportunities. And when asked, "Why would you consider
leaving NASA?" the respondents answered that their departure would
mainly be the result of a lack of interesting work, appreciation,
professional development, and/or growth opportunities. Both Generation X
and Y employees are interested in seeking opportunities for professional
advancement. Employers who quickly offer these opportunities should also
note improved retention rates. Lancaster and Stillman claim in *When
Generations Collide*, "If Xers feel they are being coached and trained,
and that they are building a career portfolio, then they are much more
likely to stay. We really do believe this a generation searching for a
place to call home. 'The goal is to show them a place that is willing to
invest in them as a person. In return, they give you their all" (59).

Therefore, it is important to understand what drives members of
Generations X and Y to be both hired at NASA and remain employed with
the Agency. It has been reported in *Generation Y: The Millenials, Ready
or Not, Here They Come* that some common elements important to
Generation Y in the workplace are: good relationships with boss and
co-workers, income, opportunity for growth, opportunity to showcase
skills and receive recognition of a job well done, challenging daily
work; flexible schedule for social and personal time, and a casual dress
environment.

Similar to the NAS Recruitment Commission's findings, the NASA FIRST
Focus Groups one through three found the following incentives as
important to NASA employees, ages 35 years old and younger:

-   Work assignments that are meaningful, exciting, and interesting;

-   Employee recognition for job well done (i.e., verbal and non-verbal;
    monetary and non-monetary awards);

-   Flexible work schedules (i.e. telecommuting, annual leave,
    credit/compensatory hours);

-   Personal satisfaction/Work Ethic;

-   Supportive work environment (people, training, and nature of work
    assignments);

-   Salary plus health care benefits, life insurance, and retirement,
    and

-   Educational opportunities and benefits.

Hence, communications in the form of feedback is critical to the success
and retention of today's younger workforce. They will not assume that
"no news is good news" in the workplace. Regular constructive feedback
from NASA peers, mentors, supervisors, and others will confirm and/or
reaffirm an employee's value and successful performance as well help to
correct, mitigate, and where possible, eliminate costly mistakes. Bruce
Tulgan asserts, "When younger employees see that their work is paying
off and receive continuous feedback on how to achieve even more success,
they become more confident, more productive, and more willing to use
their creative talents"

Melissa Nicefaro, of the Business New Haven, has stated that "to become
the next great generation we need to \[sic\] take them under our wing
and really help them to develop rather than penalizing them for what
they don't know." Therefore, in addition to testing this premise and
clarifying some of the generational workforce misconceptions, the NASA
FIRST focus groups provided further insight into the working
relationship among the various age groups. Overall, the generational
blending of ideas and work is well received by this younger workforce.
The feedback from the three focus groups illustrated that the Gen Xers
and Gen Yers generally have a respectful, jovial relationship with the
older workforce. Some of the comments from the focus groups included the
following assertions:

-   We appreciate/encourage the "mix" of senior and junior staff members
    (NASA FIRST Focus Group 1);

-   We like the mix of senior, post-doctorates, co-ops, etc. (NASA FIRST
    Focus Group 2), and

-   We, generally, have same work ethic as older workforce (NASA FIRST
    Focus Group 3).

Moreover, NASA employees 35 years of age and younger feel accepted by
the older members of the workforce (i.e., the Baby Boomers,
Traditionalists, etc.) if and when they work hard. Also, it is generally
perceived that one's on-the-job treatment is directly tied to his/her
knowledge and not necessarily his/her age. For NASA, this amicable
working relationship is beneficial not only to grow future leaders, but
also to recruit and retain top talent of all ages and backgrounds.

While the world faces extreme shortages of persons entering academia and
industry related to science and engineering, the world's leading
organization for aeronautical and space research, NASA continues to
attract some of the best and brightest scientist and engineers despite
this shrinking pool of professionals. As a result of its focus on
enhancing its own generational blend of workers, recognizing the
diversity of needs among its workforce, and understanding how each
generation of workers can uniquely and cohesively work together, NASA
Langley Research Center will continue to strengthen and increase the
number of persons entering the pipeline of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics.

## 

## Senior Leader Perceptions

According to the three focus groups, it appears that Langley's senior
leadership is taking the correct approaches to ensure that Langley
remains a healthy aerospace center. The data collected supports this
finding because the focus group participants had an opportunity to
discuss openly their response to the following question: "What are your
thoughts about senior leadership?" It is important to clarify that the
majority of the responses focused on Langley's senior management and its
current Center Director, Lesa Roe.

It was very apparent from the consistent responses that Langley's senior
management is open to communicating directly with its employees. This
communication is evident through Lesa Roe's open door policy, town
meetings, etc. In order to continue to have productive, well-received
Open Door sessions, one participant recommended that follow-up actions
be identified as well as posted for current members of the workforce to
review. Overall, Roe was described as being "down-to-Earth" and
effective. Moreover, the members of senior leadership were also
described as more approachable than previous administrations. These
results are important since they match the research which says that
employers of generations X and Y need to allow them access to decision
makers.

Furthermore, to continuously improve Langley's senior leadership's
commitment to open dialogues with its Center workforce, it was suggested
that additional methods of communication be established such as blogging
and a feedback mechanism to (1) ensure that a duplication of efforts is
not occurring and (2) issues are being acted upon. Also, the respondents
would prefer communications that was more consolidated such as an
abstract with links to websites containing more detailed information
versus a 60-slide PowerPoint presentation. This method satisfies both
those that want short concise communications and others who would like
to have the longer more in-depth versions of presentations, e-mails, or
proceedings. In addition to how information is transferred or
communicated from management to the workforce, the respondents also
recommended that the clearer language be used; therefore, it would be
best to use common language rather than acronyms that may not be
universally understood.

Contrary to the positive feedback, a few responders described how senior
staff appears "disconnected" from the technical information. Often
times, it appears that most of the senior staff's communication is
managerial or administrative in nature. Furthermore, there was a general
understanding that the Center's management is motivated to make changes
despite not always being able to do so. The respondents recognized their
participation in the AGI^2^LI^2^TY focus group and the collection of
their thoughts and feedback as an example of positive change from the
senior leaders. Moreover, it is important to note that there was little
to no discussion focusing on the communications and management at the
organizational or directorate level.

# Recommendations

From the results of the focus groups, the call-in session, and
participants' e-mail responses, the NASA FIRST team has analyzed the
data outlined in detail in the preceding sections and would like to
offer several actionable recommendations. The top five recommendations
are summarized below:

-   Frequently acknowledge employees for their contributions through
    recognition;

-   Re-establish a more formal mentoring and/or a new hire program;

-   Post data on term hires (definitions, conversion rates) to help
    offer a more complete and accurate picture of hiring and employment
    at Langley;

-   Continue to disseminate information to employees using multiple
    methods of communication, and

-   Enhance/Extend communications from the Center Director to include a
    blog concerning issues addressed during open door sessions.

![](media/image2.pct)

One of the first responses in all three focus group sessions when asked,
"What drives you to perform well on the job?" was regarding employee
recognition for a job well done. Participants recommended that
management ensure that recognition efforts correlate to the type,
duration, and level of the work effort required. For most, this
recognition was critical. It was found that forwarding praise to
superiors is valued, and the general consensus was that e-mail is a more
preferred method of conveying formal recognition. Sending carbon copies
(i.e. cc's) to superiors is especially preferred over verbal
recognition. Additionally, it was clear that although supervisor
recognition doesn't have to be monetary, monetary awards are still
effective motivators for a job well done. In general, it is simply
important to frequently acknowledge employees for their contributions,
skills, and work ethic

A common de-motivator response was the lack of a formal new hire
training or mentoring program. Employees feel that they were just thrown
into work without getting the necessary training about the Center, its
policies, and even the job that they are expected to do. Along with this
concern is the fact that most people are over-booked (i.e., have been
assigned to work on more projects than for which they have time). This
prevents the more senior members of the workforce from having the time
to formally mentor or even take a younger employee under their wing.

Furthermore, the focus groups and the e-mail responses painted a picture
of what is believed about term and permanent positions, and it is
important to make Langley senior leaders aware of these believed truths.
In general, it was understood that hiring terms does give the center
greater flexibility with the workforce. It was recommended that the
definition of a term position be published and available to all current
and potential employees. Another important message derived from the
focus groups was that all of the term employees participating intended,
planned, or hoped to be converted to permanent employee status.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Center's rate of term employees
being converted into permanent positions be publicized. If such a
statistic does not exist today, then it should start being collected and
released. This information should help inform potential and new term
employees of the actual potential for permanent opportunities.

Likewise, consensus among the focus group shows Langley's senior
management is approachable and open to communicating directly with its
employees. This was a positive finding, and it is recommended that
information continue to be disseminated to employees using the multiple
methods of communication discussed earlier. To enable additional open
dialogue with the Center workforce, it was suggested that a feedback
mechanism, such as a blog, relaying issues addressed during open door
sessions be added to the communication mechanisms currently in place.

# Future Work Recommendations

As the NASA FIRST team concluded its time working on its center project,
recommendations for future work on these topics were generated. These
points should allow for the continued progression of this effort towards
a final result of adjusting the incentives and value systems of the
Langley Research Center to better align with the goals of the Strategic
Planning Framework. The team therefore recommends that Langley Senior
Leaders and any future selected team:

-   Expand this work to include all ages, directorates, job
    classifications (engineer, technician, administrative, business,
    co-ops, students, etc.;

-   Follow up with all groups on a regular interval to track changes in
    opinions and develop trend information;

-   Provide detailed research of LaRC's current rewards/recognition and
    value systems, and

-   Post the Initiative's results of both NASA FIRST work and additional
    follow-ups (i.e., wiki, blog).

The expansion of the work is encouraged to broaden the scope of such
research to the center at large. Changes to the incentives and value
systems need to be prefaced with data from all segments of the NASA
Langley population; hence, the team's recommendation is to collect
similar types of data as was collected during this project from all age
groups, directorates, and job classifications. A distinction about this
last grouping is that the team would suggest every type of employee on
center, including students, be queried. The student population is of
importance as they will become the next group of Langley employees.

As someone's life progresses their needs and wants may change. During
the focus groups, it was mentioned that the importance of job security
increases as family obligations (spouse, children) change and increase.
Therefore, it is important to continue to check in with the Langley
population at regular intervals to see if the motivational,
de-motivational, and perceptions have changed over time. Hence, it is
recommended that trending data be developed to determine when incentives
may need to be changed or altered based on the life changes of the
employees.

It is important to know how a system works before trying to change it.
Therefore, it is recommended that to augment the aforementioned research
into the needs and desires of the employees of Langley, that the
incentives and value systems themselves be researched. The existence of
an award that should directly meet the motivational needs of employees
is not enough if the award nominating process is too difficult and/or
not being used by supervisors. Both the types of awards and recognition
options that exist and how they are or are not being utilized should be
investigated.

Finally, all of the research conducted by both the NASA FIRST team and
other groups in the future should be made available to the employees.
With so many competing priorities for an employee's time, it is
important to show that participation in surveys and focus groups to aid
this cause are valued and opinions are being heard. The NASA FIRST team
has asked who among the population aged 35 and younger at Langley would
like copies of our results and the team's final report and presentation
slides will be sent to all who responded. Feedback helps promote buy-in
for results, and give employees a sense of ownership and of contributing
to the outcome.

# 

# Center Project Lessons Learned

**Lesson I:** *"Learning how to negotiate and influence people when
there are diverse personal & professional opinions and beliefs."*

As with any group, there is going to be a wide variety of opinions and
beliefs. The hard, yet important, part of being a leader and/or team
member is being able to (1) work with all persons despite their unique
points of view and (2) get the job done. In our normal work life, we
work with people who share similar jobs or skills: engineers with
engineers, scientists with scientists, public relations people with
public relations people; therefore, we learned that when you are working
with an interdisciplinary group, you must be mindful of each other\'s
personal and professional background, beliefs, and values.

**Lesson II:** *"There are a lot of hidden tasks to leadership (meeting
agendas, providing stakeholder's status updates, and taking care of your
teammates)."*

As a future leader, we recognize that there are a lot of hidden tasks
and challenges when serving in leadership roles. While these tasks and
challenges that include everyday tasks and team member contributions,
the biggest task and challenge for a leader is the end result of the
project; the success of the project depends in part on the leader in
charge. This knowledge was gained when each NASA FIRST member
participated as the team leader for our center project. Following these
individual time periods of leadership, we identified several hidden
leadership responsibilities and learned several important lessons. For
our group, the hidden responsibilities of leadership (i.e., these
burdens) fall into three categories: maintaining meeting agendas,
providing stakeholder's status updates, and taking care of your
teammates.

One responsibility of a leader is to maintain meeting agendas which
requires planning and preparation for meetings so that time can be used
efficiently and a goal(s) of the meeting is/are reached. This planning
and preparation includes coordinating room locations, meeting times, and
developing an outline of topics that needs to be addressed as task
manager. This helps to avoid the "having a meeting for meeting sake"
scenario. Keeping track of individual schedules, compiling information
and organization of materials is critical as the project evolves.
Lastly, but not conclusively, it is import to maintain critical contacts
and keep stakeholders in the communication loop and up-to-date as
necessary to gain support and to plan milestones and project scope.

Furthermore, when providing stakeholders status updates, the leader acts
as the primary point of contact (POC). This position requires passing
along and disseminating information accurately and timely. The leader
should work to make sure everyone shares the same mental model of what
the current project tasks, status, and vision are as things change. With
out proper communication it is easy to potentially proceed down paths
that are not necessarily consistent with stakeholder vision and needs.

Moreover, taking care of your teammates can be challenging as a result
of individual personalities, needs, and capabilities. Investing in your
teammates requires time and energy, and it is difficult to isolate all
of the ways that energy is used. As leaders, there are several key
lessons to be remembered. Maintaining face and a positive attitude can
be challenging at times. Sharing and discussing problems or issues that
get in the way of work performance is necessary in addition to being
patient, flexible, and adaptable. When appropriate, it is important to
allow teammates to work tasks out according to how they are most
comfortable and best capable. Lastly, but not conclusively, inwardly
motivating and encouraging teammates is critical as things can sometimes
wind down over the duration of the project.

In essence, leadership is so much more than setting vision, making
decisions, and giving direction to your team. Some of the seemingly
small tasks build up and take a considerable amount of time. Everything
from status reports and key activities to meeting agendas and final
integration of products falls to the lead. These are all activities that
make a team successful and efficient both internally and externally. It
is important to realize and recognize that our leaders are legitimately
working and working hard, even if we don't see them doing activities
that we as team members are used to or comfortable calling "work."

**Lesson III:** *"The Navigation Center (NAV) and its employees are
valuable resources."*

Originally, we thought that we would need to do a lot of researching on
how to conduct an effective focus group including how to ask the right
questions. However, the professionals at the NAV Center provide this
information and service. Donna Speller Turner with the NAV Center
communicated and met with us regularly to instruct us on how to properly
conduct focus groups; ensure that our questions were valid and reliable;
inform us of registered participants; and facilitate the sessions as
well as transcribe our collected data. She truly involved herself in the
endeavor and provided us the needed guidance and feedback.

**Lesson IV:** *"Proper use of delegation and trusting in ability and
capability of team members."*

As a team of future leaders, it was essential that as individuals we
learn not to try to do everything ourselves but share the
responsibilities and trust our team members. We are all highly
independent, hard working individuals so being able to trust that the
job would get done and to the exacting standards we would impose
ourselves was a challenge we all faced.

**Lesson V:** *"Accept the fact that your original project plan, however
well thought out, may require multiple revisions. Remember, change is
inevitable."*

During our training experience and the on-the-job training, we learned
the various components to project planning and how to create a project
plan. While it was stressed that a project plan is dynamic and subject
to change, it was extremely valuable to learn this first hand. What we,
as a team ,learned was the importance of being flexible and willing to
accept change because there will be times and situations which are out
of one's control despite the level of preparation, one's skills, the
number of individuals working, etc.

**Lesson VI:** *"There are many steps between an idea and data when you
are planning to get information and opinions from employees."*

The process of preparing to collect information such as for our project
requires consultation with and/or providing information to: General
Council, Office of Human Capital Management, Office of Equal
Opportunity, and the appropriate union(s).

**Lesson VII:** *"Planning takes time."*

Four iterations of our project plan were required before the team was
able to find a schedule and series of activities that would get us to
our desired final goal and fine-tuning is always occurring.

**Lesson VIII:** *"Reviews of materials take time and much iteration."*

Gathering suggestions, edits, and comments on our proposed invitation
letters and focus group questions took much longer and required more
iterations than expected. It is important to remember that as the number
of reviewers and the rigidity of their schedules increases, more time
needs to be allotted for comments and approvals. One to two weeks is not
adequate.

# Conclusions

NASA Langley Research Center's senior leadership recognizes the value in
understanding the environment of growing change and the demographics of
today's workforce. The NASA FIRST project for Langley Research Center
served to offer insight into what attracts and retains the next
generation of NASA's workforce in order to help ensure that Langley
remains a healthy aerospace center. From our discussion with a subset of
Langley's workforce, it is promising that the Center will continue to
foster and promote a culture of enhanced creativity and productivity as
well as be a Center capable and readily able to respond to the needs of
the Agency and the World.

The project's areas of focus, served to (1) identify what motivates and
de-motivates Langley employees 35 years of age and younger, (2) define
Langley employees' career goals pertaining to stability (retention at
NASA) and adaptability (workforce agility), (3) investigate if there are
perceived differences between permanent and term employees, and (4)
investigate perceptions of Langley's Senior Leaders.

Overall, feedback and appropriate recognition drive Langley employees to
perform well on the job. Additionally, it is useful to be aware that "no
news does not necessarily mean good news" for Generation X and
Generation Y employees. "This is useful when conveying vision,
direction, and sense of mission. Sense of mission meaning, knowing how
and where one fits in, and what impact is being made was shown to be an
important inward motivator. In closing, the importance of frequently
acknowledging employees for their contributions through recognition
bubbled to the surface.

Overall, there are several key topics that can cause employees 35 years
old and younger to be less satisfied with their job. Examples included
the amount of administrative tasks, \"red tape,\" and anything that
prevented an employee from doing his/her job. Other areas included
different interpretations of Agency and Center policies and practices
and the lack of a formal new hire training or mentoring program.
Employees feel that they were just thrown into work without getting the
necessary training about the center, its policies, and even the job they
are expected to do. In closing, a need to re-establish a formal
mentoring and/or a new hire program has been identified.

Overall, physical benefits that help attract and retain Langley
employees 35 and under include job flexibility and job security.
According to the focus group participants the desire for job security
and its importance increases as personal / family responsibility
increases. Other benefits of significant interest identified by Langley
employees include the work environment, the physical job benefits, and
the work life balance.

Overall, employees agree that the open door policy is one example that
illustrates management's emphasis on approachability; and that often
times senior management exhibits motivation for change despite not
always being empowered to make changes. One area includes coming to a
common understanding regarding the differences and intentions between
term and permanent employees. In closing, employees desire this data on
term hires (e.g., definitions, conversion rates, etc.) to be made
available in order to help offer a more complete and accurate picture of
hiring and employment here at Langley. In general, it has been shown
that continued communication by dissemination of information to
employees using multiple methods of communication to enhance/extend
communications is critical to this generation.

# Appendix A -- NASA FIRST Focus Group Meeting Notes

**NASA FIRST Focus Group Meeting Notes for**

**July 09, 2007**

**July 13, 2007**

**July 18, 2007**

**E-mail Responses**

Facilitator: Donna Speller Turner

LaRC Navigation Center

757-864-9209 (donna.s.turner@nasa.gov)

Documentation prepared by: Sandra J. Harrell

LaRC Navigation Center

757-864-9586 (sandra.j.harrell@nasa.gov)

Documentation edited by: Melissa B. Carter

LaRC\'s NASA FIRST TEAM

757-864-8606 (Melissa.B.Carter@nasa.gov)

**PLEASE NOTE: FOR THE FOCUS GROUPS, SIMILAR ITEMS WERE LISTED ONCE (AND
COMBINED). THE E-MAIL RESPONSES ARE THE RAW DATA (NO COMBINATION)**

**[Incentives/Motivators]{.underline}**

> **[What drives you to perform well on the job?]{.underline} [And Which
> benefits are most important?]{.underline} [Least
> important?]{.underline}**

**July 9, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Recognition for job well done

    Observer 2: Nodding heads

-   Interesting and more challenging work

> \- verbal accolades from boss (e-mails with cc's are a plus)

\- knowledge that work is useful

\- matched to output

Observer 1: email w/cc \> Verbal \> \$

Observer 2: Want people to be aware of the long time and effort behind
final product that may appear simple.

Verbal recognition is important

Want to know how work is useful and that its not just someone\'s errand
(lots of agreement)

Try to match the type of recognition to the type, duration, and effort
of the work

Passing praise to higher ups (superiors) is good (agreement here)

General consensus that email is a more preferred method of conveying
recognition, especially with cc\'s to superiors is preferred to verbal
recognition to just employee

-   Support from staff

> Observer 1: Good work environment (branch & branch leadership)
>
> Observer 2: Help with administrative duties such as travel
> arrangements
>
> People, the safety office for example, that truly are doing things to
> make life better, not to just improve something on paper

-   Working w/people who have a realistic view of daily work

-   Flexible work schedule + vacation/credit hours + telecommuting

> Observer 1: Work hour flexibility/telecommuting
>
> Observer 2: Flexibility is huge (big response)
>
> Being able to leave for a few hours and get time in later important
>
> Time off: annual leave and credit hours systems (agree)

-   Educational benefits

> Observer 2: Educational programs
>
> Pipeline mentioned positively

-   Salary, job security and health benefits

> Observer 1: Health care & retirement
>
> Observer 2: Telecommuting!
>
> Salary, Job Security, and Health Insurance are all things that
> employees have in good amounts
>
> Least important benefit is life insurance since it can be bought
> cheaper elsewhere (some agreement)

-   On-site childcare

> Observer 2: Child care center onsite is very important (verbal
> agreement)

-   More work on important technical projects

> Observer 1: Interesting work - knowing that work mattered
>
> Observer 2: Upward mobility is important to some (one that didn\'t
> work in engineering area)

**July 13, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Supervisor recognition for job well done (written or verbal) \--
    \$\$ rewards are okay also.

> Observer 4: Money is not necessary, but it is okay too
>
> Written or verbal recognition
>
> Sometimes work output does not appear hard, but still want it
>
> What is recognition? Boss saying \"good job;\" knowing that work is
> meaningful. Recognition depends on the output. Ex cc supervisor about
> a good job via email.

-   Personal satisfaction- interesting work/passion

> \- what I do matters
>
> Observer 2: Enjoy what you do
>
> The job is interesting
>
> Get up in the morning and want to come to work
>
> Passion
>
> Sense of accomplishment (what I do matters)
>
> Observer 4: Interesting work, enjoying what you do, feeling what I do
> contributes to the agency mission.
>
> Trying new things- having an opportunity to try interesting, more
> challenging work. Good work = New Challenging Work = Promotion

-   Supervisor "support"- personal & professional

> \- for training
>
> \- informing
>
> \- "plum" assignments
>
> Observer 2: [This means:]{.underline}
>
> Be an advocate, go to bat for you
>
> Look out for you with training and other opportunities
>
> Encourage / allow you to try new things
>
> [Advocacy takes the form of:]{.underline}
>
> Informing when see opportunities
>
> Giving plum assignments

Observer 4: Supervisors support personal growth and advocates what we do

Look out for areas of interest and training

-   Tools + procedures that don't hinder work (i.e., convoluted
    procurement regulations) -- generally, less red tape

> Observer 2: Having tools and processes that don't hinder
>
> Get stuff when you need it
>
> Less red tape on procurement (agreement)
>
> Not just on procurements \-- OHCM
>
> Resources management
>
> Financial management
>
> Some of this is just not knowing what do or who to go to as a new
> person

Observer 4: Simplification of rules

> Having tools and procedures that do not hinder job (i.e.: software
> needed but there is a lot of red tape; less red tape with procurement,
> human resources; varies depending on the job)

-   Travel opportunity (the "right" amount as in not too much travel,
    not too little travel)

> Observer 2: Some travel can be nice \-- change of venue

-   Clearly stated goals + direction (honesty)

> Observer 2: \"I don\'t know\" is okay if it\'s honest

-   Good work environment (the people)

> Observer 2: Great retirement, benefits, health insurance
>
> These keep us here
>
> There are mothers of 2 or 3 kids that are out here because of these
> benefits being so good they can't pass them up to stay home with their
> kids
>
> Managers are supportive of life balance
>
> **July 18, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Health/life insurance + retirement + TSP

> Observer 2: Benefits make up for lack in pay
>
> Health insurance, benefits paid by government, retirement, TSP, health
> insurance after retirement

-   Work is exciting, meaningful, "cool"

-   Environment, support from peers

-   Individual positive attitudes + personal motto

> Observer 2: Attitude -- yours and that of the organization
>
> Your attitude makes a big difference
>
> This is from your background
>
> Peers being excited about what they do -- it's infectious
>
> Have a personally motivational saying. It picks you up at hard times
>
> Ex.: It's a good day to work at NASA
>
> This could be described as a personal credo or motto or affirmation

-   (If I do a) Good job, convert me to permanent

> Observer 2: If you don't do a good job you won't be converted

-   External people are excited & impressed (that I work at NASA)

> Observer 2: Talking to others about what we do and they get excited
> and impressed. It's a nice reminder

-   Salary increase

> Observer 2: Good salary and pay increases (some and not all agreed
> here)

-   Flexible schedules (to enhance my quality of life)

-   Telecommuting

-   Unique facilities

> Observer 2: we have more toys that others, wind tunnels are an example

-   Training/education opportunities

> Observer 2: Training is good to help get ready for new work
>
> Opportunity for further education and to get grad school paid for

**E-mail Responses**

-   Challenging work, opportunity to make a difference, being entrusted
    with responsibility, being able to represent NASA externally

-   Being able to compete with others in government and industry and
    know that I have unique skills, resources and experience to do a job
    right and ensure mission success.  Maintaining that distinction
    drives me to perform well.

-   We are a busy branch with a lot of work coming in. Our teams are
    stretched thin and I know that doing my part will aid my fellow
    workers. I don\'t want to let them down.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   I have a strong desire to become a great researcher that is well
    known and respected in the industry. This obviously takes decades of
    strong work to accomplish.

-   I have a strong desire to understand our work and do it better. The
    field of Aeroelasticity is incredibly complicated and diverse. There
    are so many topics to delve into that I haven\'t brushed the
    surfaces of yet. I want to understand at least most of it.

-   Producing results that are acted upon.

-   Basically if you can make a difference - you essentially have to.
    It\'s actually a nice state to be in. You are always floored ;).

-   The knowledge that well performed work aids in having a successful
    performance review

-   Personal satisfaction in solving difficult problems

-   Knowledge that our research may make a difference in peoples lives

-   Peer recognition, respect

-   Monetary compensation

-   I think I am most motivated when I can see the impact, or anticipate
    the potential impact, that my work has had.  Nothing is more
    frustrating than working on a project for an extended period of time
    only to feel in the end that it was for nothing.  It is gratifying
    to see when work I have performed has had an impact on the successes
    and future plans of the Agency.

-   Knowing that I am appreciated. This comes in several forms. Being
    verbally thanked is very important. The trick with this is that the
    person saying thanks needs to really seem like they mean it. Written
    appreciation is even better. It can be revisited reread, saved. It
    is especially nice the few times that someone has pointed out to my
    project leads or supervisors that I did a good job. I like those
    e-mails and do print and save every one of them.

-   Monetary awards are nice. The downfall of them is that it seems like
    everyone gets one so getting even \$500 for some project doesn't
    mean as much as a personal thank you for the word that I DID since
    all of the 30 people that worked on it are going to get some
    monetary award. I want to know that I did good, not just get some
    random "yeah the team did something."

    -   I was recently told that not everyone gets something, this would
        have been nice to know since it would have given me some of the
        individual praise that I know I thrive on.

-   Getting to go do public outreach events and still be able to
    represent NASA is a driver. There is almost nothing more inspiring
    than standing in front of a room of elementary school kids and just
    have them be completely silent while you talk and then have hand
    shoot up with questions!

-   There is a certain feel in my gut when I see the meatball or a piece
    of NASA history that just makes me smile and feel good. I always
    want to feel that!

-   I do feel that I will always have a job. I have been fortunate
    enough to work and have been given opportunities in a wide variety
    of areas with a great number of people and I feel that even if I was
    to need to leave where I am now I would be able to find a spot
    somewhere else on the field or at worst case in the agency.

-   Job satisfaction -- knowing that I did my best to contribute to
    something worthwhile -- as well as personal satisfaction.

-   Recognition from peers and supervisors -- money is welcomed, but
    verbal and written is truly welcomed as well as certificates and
    time off.

-   The opportunity to be selected or given something more challenging
    to do based on previous performance.

-   Recognition

-   Getting support and resources that I need in order to do my job

-   Monetary awards

-   Exciting work

**Most important:**

-   Training courses

-   Accessibility to learning materials

-   Fitness center

-   Flexible work schedule

-   Health benefits

-   Getting to work on REALLY cool projects (robotic and human missions
    to other planets and moons) that are not done anywhere else.

-   The opportunity to work on exciting programs and increase my overall
    knowledge and skills is probably the most important work-benefit to
    me.

-   I also enjoy the time off and flexibility with the military (I'm
    also an Army Reservist) that comes with a government job.

-   Education benefits

-   Flexible Schedules

-   Liberty to make decisions at the time I believe they must be made.
    We can get hardware (computer, test equipment) as needed. The Branch
    is great about this. Basically we can do what\'s needed. If the
    question is about compensatory benefits - I tend to think that as a
    government employee, I have what I need to be comfortable and focus
    on the work at hand.

-   *health benefits* Most:

-   Flexible work schedules

-   Ample time off (note this is meaningless if we are not able to use
    it because of over tasking)

-   Salary

-   Retirement benefit

-   By far, the most important benefit to me is the flexibility I am
    granted in getting my job done.  I know what is expected of me and
    my coworkers know they can depend on me to perform.  As long as I
    stay on top of my work and maintain close contact with the people
    I\'m directly working with, what difference does it make if I come
    into the office at 7am or 9am or leave at 3pm or 6pm?  Also, being
    able to use sick leave to take care of family members is a very nice
    benefit.  Actually, even having additional sick leave in the first
    place is a very nice benefit.  But, when my mother was diagnosed
    with cancer several years ago I was very grateful that I could use
    sick leave to attend to the matter.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Flexible hours are probably most important. With a new puppy it has
    been really nice to be able to get in at 8:15 or 8 or 8:30 or what I
    need based on what has gone on that morning.

-   Along with the flexible hours, credit hours and comp time are two
    other benefits that I really value. Credit hours have allowed me to
    take time off on multiple occasions. Comp time is nice since maxing
    out the 24-hour limit on credit hours is easy when you're on any
    project within two weeks of a major meeting. That you can send off
    the e-mail requesting comp time right from WebTADs is really nice. I
    do also recognize that I am fortunate to have a branch head that
    allows us to accrue comp time.

-   My salary! I make a really good salary! I had more than doubled my
    starting salary in the first 3.5 years as a full time employee. I
    couldn't possibly ask for more than to have had increases that fast.
    I started higher than the teachers in my family, some of which had
    been working for more than 30 years! I was extremely happy to start
    at \$36K as a GS 7-1 and now to be at \$75 as a GS 13-1! Between my
    salary and my husband's we can quite comfortably pay for our house
    mortgage, car payment, and expenses as well as save both in our
    TSP/401K funds and in savings. I can't ask for more than that!

-   I appreciate the health insurance and since my Dad is a government
    employee I was able to get coverage equivalent to what I've had my
    whole life.

-   I like TSP since it does give me some control over where my
    retirement money goes. And it is also set up so that there are funds
    that will do the gradual changes from more risky to more safe
    automatically so that if I don't want to directly deal with it, my
    investments are being taken care of.

-   I appreciate the onsite day care since I see it as a great benefit
    for several of my co-workers even if I don't use it.

-   Interesting and enjoyable experiences. Like to have freedom to
    choose how I complete the project as long as objective and results
    are valid and replicable.

-   New challenging work that allows me to think outside of the box or
    try new things.

-   Flexible work schedule -- ability to use leave and sick leave as
    need is important as a parent; - as well as comp and credit hours.

-   Bi-weekly payment

-   Investment Options

-   Working with and meeting interesting people, NASA and non-NASA.

-   Telecommuting

-   Access information from off-site Work/life balance is most important
    to me.

**Least Important**

-   Would say my least important would be the educational benefits.
    (this will go to de-motivators too.) The fact that NASA will pay for
    me to get an advanced degree has only caused me to get pressure from
    my peers and supervisors to get an advanced degree that will not get
    me one penny more money nor one bit more responsibility or more plum
    assignments. Yet it would cause me to further ignore my family,
    beyond what the hours of my job seem to be requiring, and to put me
    in another situation like undergrad when I was verbally abused by
    professors. I don't care if NASA pays for it or not, I will not let
    anyone force me to go to school and I certainly not ready to give
    anyone, professor or otherwise, the power to mess up my self
    confidence and self worth so badly that it takes me years to recover
    again. NO silly masters degree would worth the years of effort,
    work, and depression I've gone through to get past what happened in
    my undergrad years.

-   Life insurance

-   To me, at this point child care is pretty redundant, but who knows,
    things change ;)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *The least important to me retirement.  Not because it is not
    important, but rather the fed government retirement package for
    younger works is not as competitive as some private sector
    retirement packages.*

-   yearly branch level awards that are given out (everyone gets them)

-   Annual Leave. I feel that annual leave is my least important
    benefit, because the annual leave provided pales in comparison to
    the comp / credit time I earn.  As I can\'t take enough leave to use
    up all of my comp / credit time, the annual leave gets ignored &
    never used.

**[De-Motivators]{.underline}**

> **[What Center and/or organizational behaviors (policies, practices,
> etc.) cause you to be less satisfied with your job?]{.underline}**

**July 9, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   No recognition

> Observer 2: No Thank you

-   Lack of path/opportunity for upward mobility

-   Increase in "RED TAPE" / "ADMINISTRIVIA" (full cost charging, etc)

> Observer 2: Three instant yeses, in general agreement
>
> More and more administrative work being passed to engineers
>
> Illogical practices

-   Required systems (travel manager, others) \-- take more time away
    from work

> Observer 2: PRs or Travel manger
>
> Systems to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse that cost and waste more
> than the fraud, waste and abuse would have

-   Different "INTERPRETATIONS" of policies + practices (training,
    telecommuting, travel, and other)

> Observer 2: Classes, telecommuting, travel
>
> Telecommuting being strict
>
> Full Cost accounting \-- charging administrative tasks, training, etc
> to project. Just doesn't seem right

-   Ability to actually attend training

> Observer 2: When you sign up for classes because they want you to take
> it and then when the time comes to leave they won't let you go (big
> agree here)

-   Being over-subscribed/over-committed

> Observer 2: Being booked over 100% of time and expect to agree to take
> on all projects and work hard on all of them (lots of agreement and
> laughter on this one)
>
> One person deep in a lot of areas both technical and business sides
>
> All need to be wary of looking more efficient at agency level due to
> costing less even though now it take longer here so costs more in
> other areas. Is it really cheaper?
>
> Example of removing capability to calibrate measuring equipment from
> center. Yes now it appears cheaper since don't have calibration people
> "just sitting around". However, now when want to do test or realize
> that need to add something to test have to have all engineers and test
> personnel sit and wait for equipment to be shipped out and back for
> calibration. Which is more expensive to have calibrators waiting or
> engineers?
>
> Analogy: Fire Departments. Wouldn't it at least appear more efficient
> if the number of fire stations was reduced so that the fire fighters
> were always fighting a fire? This may also appear cheaper at a high
> level as there would be less fire fighters and fire stations.
>
> The resenting look of folks that seems to say "Why weren't you here
> when we were here?" is a de-motivator (copied from the generational
> perceptions section)
>
> **[Why would you consider leaving NASA?]{.underline}**

-   Lack of appreciation

-   Lack of opportunity for growth/movement

-   Pay

**July 13, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   "Red tape" and not knowing/not enough people to train newbies

> Observer 4: Having to navigate through required systems like Travel
> Manager, etc
>
> Different interpretations of policies, courses, travel, telecommuting
>
> Full Cost accounting- having to charge time to project for something
> like training

-   NO clear "newbie" orientation/not enough

> Observer 4: No clear assimilation into organization
>
> Nor orientation about the chain of command, policies, and procedures

-   Lack of advance planning = extra/uncoordinated work, i.e., knee-jerk
    reaction

> Observer 2: Management planning
>
> A large amount of stuff doesn't get done due to running around doing
> last minute "oh I have to have this" stuff \-- knee jerk reactions
>
> Everything is urgent these days
>
> Observer 4: too much time spent on last minute work; not well
> coordinated work creates extra work; lack of clear planning.

-   Multiple task assignments creates uncomfortable feeling of being a
    team player

> Observer 2: Don\'t like multitasking
>
> Observer 4: Major misconceptions: multitasking too many projects (one
> person deep experience); not enough people qualified to do task

-   Lots of "ONE DEEP" work assignments

> Observer 2: Mentioned multiple times
>
> Observer 4: inability to take course work when there are others who
> are back-ups
>
> Oversubscribed using of WBS

-   Limited career/educational development

> Observer 2: Academics, salary, career and educational development

-   Too much/not enough travel

> Observer 2: There needs to be balance
>
> Observer 4: Could interfere with personal life (work/life balance)

-   Good ol'boy system can be an inhibitor

> Observer 2: Some agreement-mostly from the order folks
>
> Still is and always will be here
>
> All about who you know
>
> This is the culture
>
> Observer 3: stereotypes arise \"the old boy network\" center culture
>
> Observer 4: Varies based on who you know and who knows you, really
> inhibits growth

-   Negative people

> Observer 2: Haters, negative people
>
> **[Why would you consider leaving NASA?]{.underline}**

-   None

> **July 18, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Difficulties + complexities w/publishing and attending conferences

> \- (legal, web, travel \$\$, management site, \# of attendees allowed
> to attend, foreign conference.)
>
> Observer 2: Red tape around publishing papers and going to
> conferences. Especially irritating to new PhDs here on the center
> since the biggest most important thing for them to do is to get
> published and known in their field. NASA is making this very hard to
> do since can't just go to conferences so how going to get known when
> all the members of your field go to this conference and you're told
> you can't go.

-   Starting salaries lag behind private + mid-level

-   Poor attitudes among co-workers + less motivated co-workers

> Observer 2: May see this as younger employees more from others
>
> People being asleep in their offices given as an example

-   Uncertain/cancelled projects- wasted time/energy

> Observer 2: Work on projects for a long time and nothing ever gets
> built or flown and the project gets canceled and feel like time was
> wasted (big one -- agreement)

-   Metal desks, lack of ergonomic furnishings

-   Offices are not cleaned enough (dusty, etc)

> Observer 2: Work environment
>
> Hard to be motivated when you have a metal desk with two drawers that
> have been broken and a metal chair and you can't get a new one because
> you don't have a back problem / injury and yet these chairs will cause
> back problems
>
> Would like furniture that works
>
> Offices are dusty -- maybe cleaned once a year, it should be more
> frequent
>
> When walk into one of the buildings it feels like you stepped back in
> time 50 years and yet we're supposed to be the leading edge of the
> industry. Hard to make a good impression on visitors with these
> conditions

-   IT equipment/ODIN catalog not state-of-the-art

> Observer 2: Home computers can smoke the ones here
>
> ODIN can help with getting some new equipment
>
> ODIN locking down boxes makes development impossible
>
> IT blocking of some websites is annoying since when did Google image
> search for space shuttle pictures several of the sites were blocked
>
> Websites are locked that have screen savers and no one pointed the
> person to the proper / NASA sponsored site that was a way to get
> pictures
>
> ODIN requirements are restrictive since can't put things on your
> computer that are needed to do your job
>
> **[Why would you consider leaving NASA?]{.underline}**

-   Feel "locked in the cubicle" -- Technicians get to do more fun stuff

**E-mail Responses**

> **[What Center and/or organizational behaviors (policies, practices,
> etc.) cause you to be less satisfied with your job?]{.underline}**

-   Paper reviews are too drawn out (responsibility for reviewing papers
    falls on a few individuals who are busy) - would recommend more
    emphasis on peer review

-   Travel office is reticent to consider less common options that would
    save money (i.e. buying non-reimbursable tickets for non code-share
    flights in order to save \$1000\'s, full reimbursement for general
    aviation flights when the total cost (considering all passengers) is
    less than commercial airfare)

-   Overly protective property policies cost time (i.e. getting
    signatures every year to take a laptop home) - do the necessary
    investigation to make sure people are trustworthy and then trust
    them

-   The one-size-fits-all mentality (i.e. new ODIN and NOMAD
    requirements) Not everyone does all their work using e-mail, power
    point and excel.  When mandates come down from the upper management
    of NASA that everyone shall do/use the same thing, it appears that
    little attempt was made to find out how work really gets
    accomplished. The lack of flexibility which forces us to constantly
    work around mandates is a big de-motivator.  Time spent setting up a
    system or process today knowing that it will have to be reworked in
    the future is a big de-motivator.  And a help desk supported by
    people who do not use the systems is not helpful.

-   Threats of RIF that never happen...it just scares away the really
    good people who were highly employable and looking for an excuse to
    do something different.  It hurts moral.

-   The safety culture is one that annoys me and I feel is less safe
    than it can be. It seems that the safety culture is one where the
    safety personnel are out to see what is going wrong to therefore
    shut down operations. The culture should instead be one where the
    safety personnel are out to assist and make things safer by working
    with people and then gradually implement a solution. This can be
    accomplished by NOT shutting down operations every time a concern is
    raised, and offer perhaps a moderate response to a concern. Because
    what happens now is that many people are afraid to point anything
    out because the safety \"sheriff\" will stop your project in its
    tracks for unlimited time to enact a series of over-restrictive
    rules that sometimes do not even address the real problem. The
    safety office needs to be understanding, workable, and helpful; and
    be less of an enforcer. The idea of safe or not safe does NOT exist.
    Nothing can ever be truly safe (i.e. the absence of all risk). We
    need to mitigate our risks rather than pretend we eliminated all
    risk only when the sheriff deems it to be safe. By instilling a
    mentality that everyone needs to mitigate these risks and accept
    that some things are risky will be way safer than stamping
    everything as either safe or unsafe. This is one area where Army
    Aviation is more advanced than NASA (and probably the only area).

-   Outsourcing at all cost has got to go. The good news is that it
    appears that this train has just about stopped. We should learn from
    our past here and realize that the idea of outsourcing our core
    capabilities does not open the government up to competition as
    originally desired. Once we spend a decade training the folks to run
    a one-of-a-kind facility, there will never be anyone else able to
    replace this work force at a moments notice. So by outsourcing these
    positions we have gained No flexibility, but rather another series
    of management levels to deal with on a daily basis that often have
    competing agendas.

-   Poor personnel management.  I think that the center could better
    manage its time requirements on its personnel to perform
    administration tasks.  Having worked as a contractor out of the same
    office, I can say that the magnitude of time spent filling out
    administrative paperwork has increased by an order of magnitude
    since I became a civil service (to do roughly the same job).  It
    would be nice if the center would create a administrative portal
    that we could login into using our NASA LaRC accounts that would
    allow us to fill in paperwork for network connections, security
    paperwork, travel, time-keeping, loan agreements, VPN requests, LARA
    accounts, financial disclosure forms, personal development plans,
    and training plans (just to name a few), where the software would
    pre-fill out all applicable fields (since the information is already
    in the center\'s IT system).  If the site was structured
    appropriately, it should allow people to more easily find the forms
    they need (and know that they are the latest form) and dramatically
    reduce the time required to fill the information in.   In addition,
    by having it in a web form, the system would also be able to pull of
    previous form submissions, so users wouldn\'t have to fill out every
    form from scratch.  I find this \"organizational behavior\"
    particularly irritating because I feel that the government pays me
    to produce engineering analysis, and these distractions (necessary,
    but not at the current time requirements) impact my ability to
    produce in that capacity.

-   I don\'t get dissatisfied. I do get frustrated. I can get frustrated
    with things like NOMAD, when a working system is replaced with a
    lesser performing system. I find this to be counter-intuitive, but
    perhaps I don\'t see something.

-   There seems to be ageism.  There seems to be an inherent distrust of
    younger, fresh out employees.  Also, there is not enough mentorship
    opportunities to train new employees, thus it\'s a vicious cycle of
    more experienced people not trusting younger less experienced people
    due to their lack of knowledge.

-   Resistance to change

-   Averse to high-risk (bleeding edge) research

-   Lack of support for research facilities

-   Obsolete buildings and facilities

-   Not being able to tell what is appreciation and what is rude
    behavior (this ties into my responses to question 1 too)

    -   I can get used to people showing appreciation in ways I wouldn't
        normally think of. Being made fun of or being the focus of
        demeaning jokes in group situations is really hard to take as
        appreciation even if the folks making fun wouldn't have bothered
        to even acknowledge my presence if they didn't respect me. I
        would have preferred not have their respect and to just have
        been ignored. I really am not motivated by rude remarks about my
        clothes or what I'm eating for lunch.

    -   Getting some new assignment as a reward for doing well on other
        assignments is great and when it's mentioned to others in my
        presence as "oh we'll stick Joe with it" (and especially when
        this is accompanied by laughter - which it normally is), it just
        demeans what was meant as a reward. It really makes me not only
        NOT want the new work it makes me want to leave my branch.

-   Talking about people behind their backs. The rude and uncalled for
    comments said during telecons while the mute is on is de-motivating.
    These are not going to help the work get finished or help in
    building better relations with our teammates at our center or
    others. It is hard to sit there, mention that you don't feel that
    was called for, get a rude remark directed to me in response and
    know that outside the room this behavior may be attributed to me
    purely through being in the same branch or on the same project is
    not motivating to want to work in that organization or project.

-   It is demotivating that behaviors such as these situations is
    rewarded through rewarding the people that do them through verbal
    praise, written acknowledgement, monetary rewards, and awards (yes
    even honor medals). Someone may be technically brilliant and put out
    good work, I just really am dismayed and de-motivated to see the
    people with these behaviors constantly rewarded and when the
    behaviors are brought up to leaders the comments I have gotten are
    "well they bring in work" or "oh that's just how they are, you
    should get used to it."

-   Don't say thank you and have a tone of voice or body language that
    gives off the feeling that you're only saying it because you have
    to. That's de-motivating not motivating like it was intended to be.

-   The pressure that I get to go to grad school is yet another thing
    that makes me what to leave the organization I am in. (See question
    2 for more details on this one)

-   Another huge de-motivator is what seems to be valued and perceived
    as you're working hard and contributing. I do not feel I should have
    to sit in a conference room all day long, especially when I'm only
    needed to say "yes that's correct" once in all the hours that I'm
    there. Nor do I feel that hours of 7 or 8 in the morning until 6 or
    8 at night should be required. If a TRUE need is there I would be
    there. I cannot do this on a regular basis and stay healthy,
    un-stressed, and not burnt out. This is the norm (as well as working
    on weekends) for several of the members of the branch and I feel the
    impression is that they are the most contributing members of the
    branch. Well just because I have be working on a separate project
    that doesn't require that lifestyle doesn't mean that I am not
    working, not putting in my time, producing great products, and
    making my customers happy. I feel there is a reason a week of work
    for the government has been defined as 40 hours and anything beyond
    that requires approval once you hit a pretty small limit of 24 hours
    cumulatively over the 40. This to me means that someone, likely a
    smart person with knowledge of what stress and hours in front of a
    computer screen can do to a person, set 40 hours as a limit for a
    reason! Why is it considered that I'm only working or contributing
    if I put in at least 45-50 hours and really need to hit 55-60? This
    is certainly demotivating. Further so since at kick-off meetings for
    projects the project lead will say "and I want to keep the pace
    reasonable and don't want anyone working late nights, holidays, and
    weekends", and to immediately have a local team lead laughingly say
    "oh well already broke that rule" and have other local leadership
    laugh and agree. I have not seen a project since 2005 where the pace
    was reasonable and excessive extra hours were not deemed required
    all the time. I have even had disparaging remarks made to others in
    my branch about me when I was on leave around Christmas for a couple
    of weeks using use-or-lose leave! (A couple of folks told me parts
    of what was said when I returned) This is ridiculous to me and
    extremely demotivating!

-   Don't insist that I sign up for training when there isn't anything
    that will actually benefit what I do in our branch and for my
    projects and then further when it comes up find some reason why I
    can't go. Don't expect me to sign up for 3 day or week long training
    classes when I'm on a project that requires travel one of over 3
    weeks! Timing on training is as important as timing on other
    projects.

-   Lack of information shared about how to move upward through the
    management system.

-   Bad attitudes, lack of personality types, and lack of diversity

-   Old, un-inspiring work environment, not high-tech or creative
    encouraging environment at all

-   The time it takes, red tape, etc. for paperwork to go through

-   The purchase process, etc.

-   Bad attitudes, resistance to change

-   Budgetary shifts.

-   Lack of information and discussion about policies, rules, and
    employee rights and responsibilities.

> **[Why would you consider leaving NASA?]{.underline}**

-   Only if the work were no longer challenging or meaningful I\'m
    really happy with my job.

-   Growing family and other responsibilities that make it impossible to
    maintain the level of quality required to do a task right or
    maintain my own personal standards. Or if travel becomes to frequent
    that I do not get to spend what I consider is enough time with my
    family.

-   The only thing that I can see now that would make me consider
    leaving NASA would be my wife and/or future family wanting to move
    to a different location for professional or personal reasons.

-   I consider leaving if the agency shut down or became stagnated for
    an extended period of time.

-   \...If I ever found that I can no longer contribute to meaningful
    work, which I strongly doubt will happen at NASA. In such an event I
    would question my usefulness. Before leaving I\'d make every attempt
    to refocus/repair things.

-   Other agencies have a better new hire orientation, mentorship
    program than does NASA.  Lack of opportunities for advancement or
    gaining new skills.  Also, pay is an issue.  In some cases, private
    sector jobs have more competitive pay than does NASA and the fed
    government as a whole.  There is not much focus upon career
    development for younger employees.  Additionally, the threat of a
    RIF (reduction in force) has been hanging over LaRC\'s head for the
    past 3 years.  It\'s not very comforting to know that it is a last
    in, first out mechanism that would help drive that process.  It
    makes one\'s outlook shaky to say the least.

-   Poor pay. Compensation is considerable higher in the private sector,
    especially for entry-level engineers.

-   Lack of support for aeronautics research.

-   Location. Hampton Roads is not a desirable locale for me.

-   I would potentially leave for a job in a different field, if I
    decided that I was no longer interested in engineering and research.
     But, for engineering and research (especially aerospace) I believe
    NASA is the pinnacle and I don\'t see any reason to leave if I am
    going to stay in those fields.  To elaborate on why I might choose
    to leave\... sometimes I don\'t feel that the average American cares
    about what NASA does.  I don\'t think NASA does a good enough job of
    \"selling itself\" to the American people.  Consequently, I think we
    are more of a political football then we might otherwise be if Joe
    Public knew more about how NASA could benefit him (commercially
    through technology, personally through education, and emotionally
    through exploration).  I think if the public had more of a vested
    interest in what NASA does then I think the Agency would be more
    politically stable and better able to handle projects that last for
    several Presidential Administrations.

-   If I had to. (fired, RIF, NASA as a agency shut down, etc)

-   I would also leave if I was forced to compromise my personal values
    and ethics. So far this hasn't happened. I have become much more
    aware of what my values and personal limits are in the past year so
    I hope this new awareness doesn't make me realize that where I am is
    worse than I thought it was. I value my family and know that for me
    to be healthy I have to leave work and have time at home to relax
    and spend time with my family and doing the other things that are
    meaningful to me (the hobbies that reduce my stress and keep me
    refreshed). If this became an issue I would be inclined to switch
    projects or branches or directorates before leaving NASA since I do
    love the agency and I'm guessing that it would not be an agency
    position / policy that would push me too far.

-   A forced move or detail would be a distinct item that might push me
    over the edge as I see no good reason to be separated from my family
    and am not going to uproot them either.

-   Reduction in Force due to budget or lack of promotion, stagnant
    career potential -- no growth opportunities or ability to try
    something new.

-   One reason, the cultural demographics and logistics of the
    Peninsula. I feel like I have a dream job, yet I don't like living
    here.

-   Poor pay. Compensation is considerable higher in the private sector,
    especially for entry-level engineers.

-   Lack of support for aeronautics research.

-   Location. Hampton Roads is not a desirable locale for me.

-   **[Senior Leader Perceptions]{.underline}**

**[Your thoughts about LaRC senior leaders?]{.underline}**

**July 9, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Appreciate Lesa Roe

> \- branch-level discussion
>
> \- meetings w/newbies
>
> \- she is down to earth
>
> \- open-door approach
>
> Observer 2: Haven't been here long so not as much knowledge of senior
> leaders
>
> All impressed with small town meetings and said they were very helpful
>
> I was surprised by comments about the administration prior to Lesa
>
> Like that Lesa's trying to meet with new people / hires
>
> Lesa's down to earth so that helps with perceptions of her
>
> Like the open door sessions
>
> Makes her more approachable
>
> Lessens the divide between her and the employees

-   Mike Griffin -- is a plus that he manages as a scientist and seems
    more focused on relevant science issues

> Observer 1: He (Mike) is not trying to run a business.
>
> Previous admin (O\'Keefe) had disconnect between HQ & Centers
>
> Felt Bridges handled RIF scare wrong
>
> Observer 2: Feel that Mike appreciates technical work and makes it
> feel more like a technical place and less like running a business
>
> Examples given were Mike's choices to re-look at the Hubble servicing
> mission and that he acknowledges that we have a talented workforce
>
> Feels like Mike is at least using logical processes to make decisions
> even if all the decisions haven\'t been good for Langley

**July 13, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Seem to be motivated for change, but not always able (for events,
    this forum)

> Observer 2: Perception is that they want to do good and their hands
> are tied
>
> The fact we have this forum is an indication they want to change and
> example of their hands being tied is that they want more flexibility
> with hiring and have to just deal with the option being term hires

Observer 4: Example they are holding this focus group (exp of wanting
change)

-   Clearly [trying]{.underline} to communicate (Lesa Roe open door,
    branch forums, advocacy, etc)

> Observer 2: Open doors, mini town meetings, branch level openness
>
> They take our inputs / ideas

Observer 4: Appreciate Lesa\'s brand

Trying to meet with new employees

Down to earth

More approachable and open door policy

-   Lately, more approachable (different senior leaders)

> Observer 2: We aren't scared to go higher up with ideas
>
> What has changed to make this so is that we've switched people
>
> (lots of negative emotions and words about Bridges)

Observer 4: Not scared to listen because some people have left

> Doing a better job than director before

Surprised by \"everyone for self\" mentality with prior administration\"

-   Seem to be more committed to "Center" good

> Observer 2: More concern for center and having a job well done
>
> See leaders wearing a "center" hat more than just "org" hat
>
> Administration changed which led to environment changing which led to
> attitude changing

Observer 3: OVERALL, people were intimidated by the senior leader
question

Observer 4: More concerned about center; wearing an integrated center
hat

Change in administration; change in culture

> Mike Griffin: (1) understand the technical and importance of research,
> looking back to Hubble; (2) makes choices that makes work more
> meaningful and relevant

Switch to NASA to work on technical expertise and that it maters.

**July 18, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Would prefer a more consolidated approach to meeting outcomes
    (abstract + link vs. 60-chart PPT package)

-   Use common language (fewer acronyms)

-   Others prefer long/complete e-mails/power point charts

> Observer 2: Get tons of emails about all senior leader activities,
> they need to be consolidated
>
> We don't have the context, being younger and new, to understand what
> the topics are and why they are important
>
> One email every (1, 2, 4) weeks with just a few bullets saying only
> the high points would be preferred
>
> Essentially an abstract
>
> Someone else says he does like the verbose emails since allows you to
> see and learn about people and to know exactly what's gong on and to
> get ideas of what's important to specific individuals in case you ever
> work with them.
>
> Discussion about emails resulted in some agreement for a
> bulleted/abstract-like email with links to the full documents so that
> if you want the summary you got it and if you want to do more reading
> you can do that too

-   Appreciate Lesa Roe open door, not sure there's any follow-up to
    issues raised during the meetings

> Observer 2: Open doors are neat
>
> Most hadn't gone since hadn't had a need
>
> One person had gone to one with a problem, an administrative/policy
> issue. Lesa was nice and seemed receptive and then nothing happened.
> No follow up ever happened and nothing got fixed.
>
> Didn't get any indication of "okay we'll fix" or "no it stands because
> ..."
>
> Wanted this regardless of answer

Observer 3: want feed back loop

-   Appear to be disconnected from technical "stuff" (because most
    communication is managerial or administrative in nature)

> Observer 2: Get the feeling that the leaders are all administrative
> and management and that they are not involved in the technical work at
> all. The impression is that they've lost touch with the technical
> work. They are just doing human resources and administrative and
> management stuff
>
> Get this impression because:
>
> All communications deal with administrative and management things
> (General agreement in room on this, no question that communication
> topics were reason)
>
> One person scans the key activities, the rest don't even look at them

**E-mail Responses**

-   I highly respect LaRC\'s senior leaders. Lesa Roe does an excellent
    job communicating the senior leadership\'s activities to the
    employees. She\'s articulate and visionary. Her leadership qualities
    provide a solid example to other aspiring leaders.

-   I have very little contact with senior leaders, but from what I have
    seen of Lesa Roe, she certainly seems more capable and open minded
    than others who have been in her position.

-   As for the branch management, I am very happy with their performance
    and support. They always seem willing to stick their neck out for us
    and push for what we need/want.

-   I am not all that familiar with center leadership, mainly because I
    haven\'t seen the leadership positively impact my ability to produce
    analysis.  I appreciate the leadership resolving the funding issues
    that allowed the hiring freeze to be lifted (allowing me to get
    hired), and hope to see more actions coming out of center leadership
    that positively impact my ability to get my work done, which I think
    is the principal function of center leadership within NASA\'s
    management structure.

-   The ones I\'ve met I hold in high regard.

-   I think that they could do more to make the work environment more
    inviting and engaging for younger workers.  It is very easy to feel
    like an outsider when you are 10 -20 years younger than your
    co-workers.  Senior leadership I think should take a more active
    role in retaining the young talent that they have.

-   Honestly?  I know they are there, but I don\'t know much else about
    them.  Although, I admit I could do more to stay in tune with
    what\'s going on at the Center level.  Working primarily on
    Exploration, I have a tendency (as I\'m sure many of the people in
    my branch do) to be focused mostly on the space side of things at
    the Agency level.

-   They intend for Langley to be here and prosperous in the future.
    They really are trying to do what is best to have the center meet
    the needs of the agency while keeping as many of us employed and
    working on good, important stuff. Lesa, Steve, Cindy, and Laura all
    seem to genuinely care about the center and the employees. They want
    to do what's best for us and although this means accepting that
    change has to occur they do seem to want to hear feedback and to
    change for the better and to keep all of us who are willing to
    adapt.

-   The problem I see is that I don't feel the center at large knows how
    good the senior leadership is and how hard they are trying on such a
    large number of fronts. Course their efforts make them so busy that
    they don't have time to tell the employees at large how much they
    are involved in and working on. I have had the chance to spend time
    with several members of the senior leadership team and have no doubt
    that I trust them completely! Not everyone will have the chance to
    have a similar level of close contact and yet I want them to have
    the same level of trust I do.

-   I wonder if the Office of the Director needs to add a position, or
    add the job duties to someone who isn't already overwhelmed, to get
    out the word better. To go out around the field and find out how the
    employees need to receive information (type of communication format,
    volume of information, frequency of communication), and what they
    really want to know about and make sure they know what's really
    going on. I know some things can't be discussed others I imagine can
    (such as workforce pipeline).

-   I have favorable opinions and hopes for the current senior leaders.
    They appear to be more open to new ideas and ways to disseminate
    information and the type of information. Appreciate the e-mails, the
    CD-COMMs, open door policy, future open house, etc. They are morale
    boosting.

-   I think that as a whole, they are trying to ensure that the right
    people have the right job experiences and being used to further the
    center and the agency along.

-   It also appears that Lesa and others are trying to incorporate new
    strategies for the future to keep the center alive and healthy.

-   Personally I feel they are finally on the right track to repairing a
    big problem. I hope they have the stamina and vigilance to see the
    problem through.

-   Senior leadership needs to continually convey the sense of mission
    and our personal impact on serving America.

**[Employment & Hiring Practices]{.underline}**

**[Do you feel that permanent and term employees are treated
differently? If so, how?]{.underline}**

**July 9, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Term offers more security than private sectors

> Observer 2: 6 years of job security is better than private sector
>
> Sure could terminate, still better than private sector. At least there
> is weeks of paperwork even to terminate a term

-   But, perm is best

> Observer 2: Job security of a permanent position is best (lots of
> nodding heads)

-   Term does offer w/f adjustments opportunity

> Observer 1: Sees term/perm as a stepping stone
>
> Wants Perm for stability
>
> Observer 2: The understanding is that as long as there is funding
> terms will have jobs.
>
> Funding going away is an issue for all employees not just terms.
>
> Terms are a good practice and makes sense. Gives more flexibility to
> change the workforce as the work changes.
>
> If you are hard working than being a term is just a technicality

-   Transition co-op (term was easy)

> Observer 2: The co-op application process was awful, and the
> conversion process from co-op was easy.
>
> When getting NASA job the salary was even upped to match an offer from
> the Navy

-   Required application paperwork can be daunting (pushed some to other
    companies) and "FIRM" OPM regulations inhibit

> Observer 2: Do know some LARSS Students that don't come here to work
> due to the paperwork of the application and they can get a job that
> pays just as well and gives a good experience without all the
> paperwork
>
> Do realize that paperwork is a government thing not necessarily a
> Langley thing
>
> Do need to pay attention to when the co-op
> post-graduation-can-be-hired time is up since there were two examples
> given of people that got hired and ended up not being brought on due
> to being days past their limit.
>
> Understand that the limit is an OPM firm regulation, just wish it was
> paid closer attention to
>
> **[Changes?]{.underline}**

-   It depends - DO OR NO JOB?

    -   TO WHERE? AM I INTERESTED?

    -   OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE RESPONSIBILITY?

    -   PEOPLE ARE [NOT]{.underline} PLUG-AND-PLAY

> Observer 1: Change focus only if interesting or required to keep job
>
> Would try to continue some work that had interest to you (compromise)

Observer 2: If will let me keep my job I'll do it

> Depends on what is it being changed to. Am I interested in the other
> area?
>
> Will following interesting problems and challenges
>
> Guess this is why they hire terms! (Laughter)
>
> Try to find opportunities to keep skills from previous job or training
> and/or getting to work on things of interest while working on some new
> topic or focus
>
> Promotions are seemed to be based on responsibility not on having one
> focus and being world renowned now so it's okay to change research
> focuses now since can still get promoted even if switch

Observer 3: People seemed to want to do what protects their jobs.

-   Should be more/high value placed on experienced staff

    -   prefer more personal approach (names on functions)

    -   Important to retain experienced technicians, others (vis-à-vis
        safety administration knowledge, and technical expertise

> Observer 2: Do need to acknowledge that people are plug and play
>
> Don't just fire one group and hire a new group due to new work
>
> This would lead to permanent brain drain
>
> People that have been around have valuable knowledge
>
> There is definite concern over the technician workforce leaving
>
> Assuming people being plug and play seen as an issue with the
> technicians
>
> Veteran techs being let go in favor of contractors that don't KNOW
> facilities
>
> Causes safety issues
>
> The stand downs, caused by safety issues and unknowledgeable
> technicians brought in to just do this one test, may be more expensive
> than keeping veteran technicians that are knowledgeable about one
> specific facility
>
> Common skills between jobs need to be highlighted

**July 13, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   **"**Term" status inhibits (less job security) is important to me

> -would help to publicize conversion rate
>
> Observer 2: Didn't understand what the question meant
>
> Wanted job security so terms are scary (agreement)
>
> Would like to see stats on terms \-- \# that stayed on as terms, left,
> were let go, converted to perms, etc
>
> Someone mentioned that senior leaders might not have released these
> since worried about misconceptions about terms due to data on these
> things being old
>
> Comment made that could start putting these together based on this
> round of term hiring
>
> "conventional wisdom" (that Gen X and Yers don't want to stay in a job
> more than 4-5 years) may apply to more private sector since job
> hopping is the way to get salary increases
>
> Yeah, could have done the job hopping things and instead choose to
> work for the government
>
> If reason for term hiring is to let people go who don't fit or aren't
> working, than tell folks that so that that's why hiring terms rather
> than perms so don't think it's because want to fire everyone at end of
> the term
>
> And so hard to fire a perm due to OPM regulations and paper work so
> not surprising that hiring went to terms
>
> Even promotions are terms in the project world and that's scaring
> people
>
> "What do I do when the money goes away?"
>
> An issue with hiring terms is hiring younger people and then training
> them and then giving them a deadline like the end of their term. This
> arbitrary deadline may make them more likely to leave even if NASA has
> full intentions of keeping them. Since they don't know for certain
> they're likely to look for a new job which is something we never would
> have thought of doing as a perm. So even if we don't kick them out the
> gate they may go since we provided the seed to start them thinking of
> going elsewhere even without a RIF scare or something.
>
> Observer 3: Term position- no understanding of job security.
> Passionate topic! Group worked through this topic.
>
> Observer 4: Sounded as if would not last forever; as if someone who
> wants job security, it\'s a scary thing; show stats of how term hires
> are hired to permanent CS positions; are terms the same as five years
> ago?
>
> At least you have 6 years, in the public sector, you have no security
>
> Job security- permanent is best
>
> Understanding that as long as funding is okay, then you are \"okay to
> work\" as work changes, you can adapt workforce

-   Many [choose]{.underline} the federal route because of passion about
    the work

> Observer 4: [Private versus public:]{.underline}
>
> Job hopping in government is not like in the private sector where job
> hop is about money
>
> Chose government because we want to be here
>
> Flexibility is for government to rid self of employees
>
> If you are term, you will perform to get the job
>
> If you do not do the job, fire them
>
> Government problem (OPM) does not address poor performance
>
> Term appointment is NASA's response to hiring and firing
>
> Term promotion -- people are really scared as it relates to project
> world

-   If I want/need to leave, I will consider it

> -but, if I do good work, I don't want to be pushed out at end of my
> term
>
> Observer 4: Job security is important

-   OPM doesn't [effectively]{.underline} address poor performance or
    disability or other issues

-   Benefits are great (helps to retain the employees)

> -Health -On-Site day care
>
> -Life -Education Opportunity
>
> -Pay -Clubs, Sports
>
> -TSP -Leave (amt/policy)
>
> -Telecommuting

-   Hiring cycle not strategic, not aligned w/various school year events
    (such as graduation, etc.)

> Observer 2: Except when it happens to work on occasion, and even then
> there is poor communication with what was going on
>
> We don't recruit at colleges
>
> Used to, and now we're still under a "freeze"
>
> Observer 4: Transition from co-op to term was \"smooth, really good\"
> LARSS program (i.e. student) - a lot of paperwork

-   Communication during hiring process need improvement (need more,
    frequent)

> Observer 2: Would be nice to sit down and understand what options are
> for placement
>
> Had several branches that wanted to hire a coop and got hired and
> didn't know where would be working
>
> Observer 4: Should be open door to speak with management
>
> Brief new staff from different branches
>
> More formal coaching and mentoring for new hires -- should be clearer

-   "Potential hires" should meet w/current staff (preferably some close
    in age). Would appreciate more mentoring and coaching

> Observer 2: Mentoring would be nice (agreement)
>
> Now there is training for mentors. It's just starting now, and is
> still lacking, and besides finding one (a mentor) is the catch

Observer 4: training of mentors versus catch a mentor

-   NASA contracting Intern Programs (has strong + formal mentoring
    program)

> Observer 2: Group hiring like the "Contracting Intern Program" was a
> good experience with getting to move to several centers and then pick
> your top one to get to stay at.

-   Term employees = investment in training and mentoring (may not
    provide ROI to the Center)

**July 18, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Willing to accept lower salary to get better benefits.

> Observer 2: Health insurance mentioned twice

-   Hiring process is complex \-- but do-able.

> Observer 2: Agree that there is paperwork and convoluted hiring
> process; it's just not enough so to be off putting
>
> The group was willing to spend a day filling out forms

-   In some cases, job offers came before job searching began

> Observer 2: Offers came really early before graduation and have only
> 2-3 weeks to respond so it was impossible to look elsewhere for a job
>
> Understand why, just felt odd at the time
>
> As part of hiring -- the moving process: Didn't get paperwork in time
> (same day as leaving to move here) so paid for own transfer / move and
> then had to fight to get back the money after was already here and
> found out that NASA would have paid for the move.

**E-mail Responses**

**[Do you feel that permanent and term employees are treated
differently? If so, how?]{.underline}**

-   no basis for judgment

-   I do not think that term employees are treated differently by other
    employees. We all have to work together as a team and we put our
    titles and CS or non-CS etc. behind us. However, I cannot answer as
    to whether or not management treats them differently, because I get
    the strong impression that their management does.

-   No, but I think there is potential for it in the long run.

-   I don\'t know. I am not a permanent employee, so I can\'t really
    compare.

-   Yes, I feel that term employees are expendable.  Fewer resources are
    given to term employees to prove their worth in order to obtain a
    possible permanent position.

-   Not that I\'m aware of.

-   In my experience, I don\'t think they are treated differently.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   No absolutely not. The only time they would be is under a RIF and
    even them I'm not so sure. The term employees that I know have
    Position Descriptions that are essentially no different than mine
    and are all written so broadly that if one pot of funding went away
    they would just go work on something else, the same as would happen
    with me. There is already talk of converting all of the terms in the
    future since the work doesn't appear to be going away and in fact
    seems to be growing. So I'd have to say a resounding no for them
    being treated differently. If I hadn't been around to see the
    postings they applied to I wouldn't even know they were terms!

-   Terms may start getting treated differently if the negative feelings
    and impressions about term hires are true or even if they are false
    if they are allowed to persist. If "facts" about term hires (whether
    they are true or especially if they are false) like "they can be
    fired at any time regardless of if their term duration is up," and
    "even if they do great work the center doesn't intend to renew any
    terms so they'll all be let go," or "terms will never be converted
    to perms even if there is work for them in the future and they have
    done a spectacular job during their term," then terms may get
    treated differently in the future. Why bother to give a plum
    assignment or special treatment or bonuses or training when they are
    going to be gone in 4-6 years. Why give them more than the minimal
    office space since they are just slightly glorified students. They
    certainly couldn't have duties with a high level of responsibility
    since they won't be around for the next study, etc. So I feel
    intentions at the highest level of the center and / or agency need
    to be clarified and distributed so all know the truth!

-   I do not think that they are treated differently. The main focus I
    believe is on the work and getting it done correctly, on time, and
    within budget. However, I would be honest, and say that I do not
    know a great deal about what a term employee is in regards to the
    requirements and who are term employees. This is probably due to the
    "hush nature" about job positions, GS-levels, etc.

-   I don't think they are treated differently. However, it is my
    experience that the employees do feel differently and that there is
    not enough awareness of the difference between the two.

-   I am very concerned about the "one deep" problem and technology
    transfer.

**[Changes?]{.underline}**

-   No - Aviation has been a passion since \~8th grade and I have no
    desire to pursue a different area.

-   If I had to change my research focus to stay competitive and a
    player in the future of NASA then yes. I would certainly try to find
    ways to apply past experience to new tasks where appropriate but if
    that is where the center and the agency wanted to go I would
    adapt...to a point.

-   Absolutely. We positively must be flexible and willing to do the
    work/research that is needed. We must avoid the idea of becoming
    \"stove-piped\" and narrow minded in regards to our work. Especially
    now with the exploration initiative, we must be willing to work
    outside of our area of expertise and learn new tricks. That being
    said, however, I have watched over a century of experience walk out
    of the door of our branch over the last couple of years. We are no
    longer as capable as we used to be. There is a real need to retain
    this ability and provide this particular support to the industry. I
    certainly do not measure up to those who have left, but somebody
    will have to carry this responsibility in the future. There is a
    real danger to the aeronautical world if we loose this capability.

-   Yes, I would be willing to change my research focus as long as it
    was still focused on space (I would not be willing to work for
    aeronautics).  I think that as engineers we need to be open to new
    concepts and ideas (and should not only be encouraged, but forced to
    do so in some cases), and therefore I would be willing to shift to
    learn new things.  As to not being willing to work for aeronautics,
    my interest lies in space, and don\'t feel that working for
    aeronautics would allow me to continue develop in my career in
    astronautical engineering.

-   Yes. It helps to zoom out and see the big picture.

-   Yes, by being willing to change my focus that allows me to be more
    flexible.  This way I can be adaptable during the uncertain times of
    budget constraints, competitive funds and possible RIFs.

-   Yes, if the new area is of interest to me. If I was faced with job
    elimination or switching to an area I dislike, I would leave.

-   I think I might, if something came along that I was interested in
    more than what I am currently working. 

-   Sure, why not. I want to keep my job (which would be one reason to
    move), and there are lots of other areas and projects on the center
    that sound interesting so why not switch. I don't feel I've
    completely found my niche yet so who is to say it doesn't exist
    somewhere else.

-   Of course when asking about a detail and if it was something I
    should look into I was told it would be a really bad idea especially
    this early in my career so that was discouraging to hear that from
    someone I trusted. If there was a good opportunity or a job that I
    could do and was needed to do I would hope that folks in my current
    organization would be supportive.

-   Yes, I would be willing to change my focus if there was a need as
    long as there was adequate on the job support and training in this
    new role.

-   Yes, as long as I am motivated and inspired by the work. I like
    trying new things.

**[Generational Workforce Perceptions]{.underline}**

**[How important is "job security" to you?]{.underline} [Job
Flexibility?"]{.underline} [Do you feel accepted by older members of the
workforce? Why?]{.underline}**

**July 9, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Job security + flexibility ( very to extremely for most)

> Observer 1: Job security is extremely important
>
> Work/Life Balance is EXTREMLEY important
>
> Observer 2: Both security and flexibility very to extremely important
> (consensus of group)
>
> One alternate to this was interesting work
>
> Security
>
> This means that you can't be handed a box on Tuesday due to the
> paperwork required to let someone go so you will have at least some
> advanced notice and multiple weeks to find something new
>
> Flexibility pertains to hours, leave, telecommuting (extremely agree
> with telecommuting)

Observer 3: Work/Life balance was an energized topic.

-   Internet-based work feels more natural

    -   but IT security inhibits/requires workarounds

> Observer 2: Used to internet, IMing so telecommuting is quite natural
> (all agree)
>
> Have an expectation to be able to get to everything online. So limits
> on emails and such due to security is frustrating
>
> Understand need for security. Just seems like really should be able to
> transfer data around for example to both within center and to other
> centers and groups being worked with
>
> (No one at focus groups had heard of "Nike-net")

-   Compared to Army, NASA seniors are more flexible

> Observer 2: Army experience with older generation worse than here at
> NASA. NASA older workers are more flexible and willing to try new
> things, comparatively

-   Ideas are heard, doors are open

-   Feel respected, treated like a peer

-   Treatment tied to knowledge, not age

> Observer 3: Experience is very valuable

-   Appreciate/encourage the "mix" of senior and junior staff members

> Observer 2: Older workers seem enthusiastically to welcome and listen
> to students when they are here
>
> Older researchers take you under their wing, offices are always open
> (agreement)
>
> Get respect and given real responsibility, treated like a peer even as
> a student
>
> People come to us for advice even though younger so how long in the
> job important more than age
>
> Treatment is tied to knowledge
>
> Respect goes with working hard. People will respect you if you're
> working hard
>
> Hope the center will keep putting efforts in all levels of students
> (undergrads, grads, post docs, etc) since the mix is felt to be
> important.
>
> Need to be conscious to not cut out a group just due to a funding
> rationale only
>
> We are not married to the job! Balance is important
>
> We are going home. Many have young kids
>
> Do have work life balance, we have a life
>
> Feeling, seen, and heard people, older people, say that they have no
> life.
>
> We do have life
>
> Several folks get into work early in the morning so can leave early
>
> If there isn't REALLY a need than not going in over the weekend
>
> Emails sent to the whole group thanking those that came in over
> weekend when it was voluntary since there didn't seem to be any urgent
> need so didn't go in yourself feels like a stab in the back
>
> There is half of myself that's not here
>
> If there is a need we'll be here, this can't be the expectation and
> can't be needed to get promotion potential or recognition
>
> No ill will toward working 40 hours a week
>
> It's "40 hours" not "just 40 hours"
>
> Seems there are pockets of the balance working
>
> Don't call us on vacation! When on vacation I'm away from the office
>
> The resenting look of folks that seems to say "Why weren't you here
> when we were here?" is a de-motivator (copied into de-motivator
> section too)
>
> It's not a goal to work ourselves to death
>
> We also don't let the resentment from others bother us as much
>
> Job doesn't define us. Older workers have appearance that work is
> their life.
>
> Or they don't need as much sleep (laughter)

**July 13, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Feel encouraged (validated)

> Observer 2: Senior members of workforce really very positive towards
> younger ones.
>
> "They have more confidence in my than I do"
>
> There are a few folks that react negatively to younger ones, and don't
> feel this is unusual
>
> Observer 4: Embraced, respected, well treated, open to new ideas
>
> Taken under the wing = great learning experience
>
> Like the open door and treated like a peer
>
> Come to even younger person for some advice
>
> In private sector, not respected
>
> Treatment is tied to knowledge, not age
>
> If you work hard, you are respected

-   A few have Civil Servant vs. Contractors mindset

-   Think senior workforce likes our energy

> Observer 4: breadth of age group - \"freshness\" is refreshing

-   Like the mix of senior, post-docs, co-ops, etc.

> Observer 2: "Center has a huge problem" with an average age of 48.
> Need to be careful since the large number of students can make the
> place feel younger than it really is and it's NOT
>
> Observer 4: Average age of NASA employee is 48 - there is a serious
> problem
>
> The perception is that there is a young workforce due to high school,
> college and graduate programs

-   Think that management appreciates our willingness to change, adapt,
    and embrace technology

> Observer 2: Younger folks are:
>
> More likely to change
>
> Haven't seen so many things so aren't as jaded

Observer 4: We are more open-minded because we haven\'t been jaded by
time

-   Might be some resistance to knowledge transfer from younger to older
    (like child to parent)

-   Mindset is sometimes old-fashioned or too conservative (i.e., for
    example, NASA Watch link is not on \@LaRC page)

> Observer 4: Embrace technology - \"second life being blocked\"
>
> No fun @ NASA - work, work vs. come to work-to-work attitude & belief
>
> Management aspects that we will abide by rules and regulations
>
> If important to them, the person would seek out what makes them happy
>
> Instant messaging -- Has IT moved out with this?
>
> Older generation may embrace it but does not want to understand it
> (analogy -- parent to child)
>
> "NASA Watch" -- do not want to condone certain websites, will not put
> it on \@LARC as a link -- should change

-   Private companies also have (IT) access limits

> Observer 2: Technological change welcome too
>
> We make use of all technology
>
> This goes to being likely to change again
>
> In terms of restrictions on use of technology ...
>
> Some say that the regulations are fine and everyone needs to abide by
> them and just deal with it.
>
> Discussion of IM and regulations and if someone should just accept
> regulations
>
> Some say that should have known they'd exist when signed up for a
> government job. You agreed to be here so you signed up to agree with
> the regulations.
>
> Have run into some resistance with "reverse mentoring" when it comes
> to technology
>
> Can go to a lot of websites and the center is moving out on IM and
> such (agree)
>
> Observer 4: Our generation is used to instant messaging, more
> comfortable with internet-based applications
>
> Being able to get on-line easier, but limit by file capacity due to
> security over the net is an issue
>
> Being able to work remotely using data is a plus

**July 18, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

-   Feel accepted when/if I work hard

> Observer 2: Do feel accepted by older members of workforce. The catch
> is that you have to be working hard and have enthusiasm since if
> you're not they will question you before questioning someone who has
> been here longer
>
> In industry they will fire anyone that\'s not working hard

-   For [some]{.underline}, job security is not as important

> Observer 2: Not true for all
>
> Security nice though
>
> Once have kids will want it more

-   Generally, have same work ethic as older workers

> Observer 2: Don't know if this is different in industry

-   Life choices/desires are the same (family, home, etc) so job
    stability is important

> Observer 2: Two reasons that became a civil servant:
>
> Health benefits
>
> Job security, which is very important
>
> Job security means:
>
> That when funds dry up, you don't need to find a whole new job that
> could potentially not even be in your field just to have something
> (since have family so have to have something to support them)
>
> Steady income, You know it'll be there in 2 weeks

-   Occasionally feel age-isolated (i.e., when working on a team)

> Observer 2: Do notice that people we work with are all \~50
>
> So don't have the same relationship with team members since these
> people are all in a different stage of life. So younger folks have to
> take the lead in helping make these contacts and creating those
> relationships

-   Center should update Cafeteria menu, sports gym, team & club
    organizations, etc., to appeal to younger employees

> Observer 2: Only 3 reasons to switch to civil servant
>
> Health insurance
>
> Job security
>
> Educational benefits

**E-mail Responses**

**[How important is "job security" to you?]{.underline} [Job
Flexibility?"]{.underline}**

-   I think job security in the federal government is as good as it can
    be anywhere. It\'s important to a degree, but I\'m always confident
    of finding another good job if the need were to arise.

-   Job security is very important.  As I mentioned above, when there
    was rumors that there was going to be a RIF, productivity dropped,
    good people left, workloads got heavier and moral was at an all time
    low...at least in our branch...because we were the youngest and
    supposedly the first to go...regardless of experience.

-   Job flexibility is also VERY important and here I think NASA does an
    excellent job.  My personal situation goes like this.  I had been
    working at NASA Langley for 5 years when my husband got transferred
    to Missouri.  Knowing that there were not a lot of aerospace jobs in
    MO, I approached my branch head about the possibility of
    teleworking. The branch had a lot of work to do and I was already
    trained to do it.  He agreed.   This is not the best solution for
    everyone especially very new people where the interaction with
    senior engineers is essential to ones development.  And it also does
    not always work with different personalities.  It does require
    discipline, structure, a willingness to learn new software and
    hardware to make a different location appear seamless.  One has to
    be willing to travel.  It is clearly not for everyone but for those
    who have limited options but still want to work on inspiring
    projects like those done at NASA it is a wonderful option and has
    worked great for me.

-   Job flexibility is certainly more important to me than job security.
    Over-secure jobs are damaging to the agency. The government should
    have the capability to remove or re-assign someone when needed and
    warranted. We should not be that different from our commercial
    counterparts with regard to this. I believe that if we made civil
    servant positions a little more \"flexible\" then there would be
    less need to sub-contract positions out and we would function better
    as an organization.

-   Job security: Important, I would like to work for NASA for the
    remainder of my career, but I am not concerned about finding a job
    elsewhere.

-   Job flexibility: Very Important, makes it easier to get the work
    done

-   Job Security: It allows persons to not worry as much about funding.
    Seems like a good thing. You tend to see things on a different plane
    of priorities and responsibility. Its great to ask \"what\'s
    important?\" and not \"what\'s important for me?\"

-   Job Security: It is very important.  Leaving college and facing the
    challenges associated with making the change requires a certain
    amount of stability that comes from knowing that your job is
    secure*.*

-   Job security: Not that important at this point. I feel I have the
    ability to find another job in short order if necessary.

-   Job flexibility is very important, I don\'t want to do the same
    thing over and over for my whole career.

-   Job security is very important to me, it is one of the main reasons
    I chose to become a civil servant.  As for job flexibility, see my
    response to Q2.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Job security and flexibility are both vital to me.

-   I don't want to look for another job. This is the only "real" (not
    coaching sports at a summer camp or scooping ice cream) job I've
    ever had and I'm quite happy with that. To some extent I've been
    with NASA long enough now that I wouldn't know what else I could do
    or where else even to go look.

-   In terms of flexibility I do enjoy the flexible workday as I
    mentioned in question 2. I do not know much about job flexibility. I
    have done several different jobs on lots of different projects. I
    have not switched organizations so I don't know how well that works.

-   Too much flexibility in projects and assignments (although always
    keeping you employed) can lead to burn out (due to not getting down
    time when projects stack up one next to another), and not finding a
    niche or what you're really good at (since you never get to do
    anything more than once, and are always so busy that you don't get
    to try something that you may really want to try due to not having
    any free time).

-   Job security is very important and highly valued; this is one reason
    why I chose to work for the government. Job security and stability
    go hand in hand. I want a job where I know that as long as I do a
    good job and my performance is acceptable that I am employed and I
    will have growth potential.

-   Flexibility is important as it relates to the type of job that I am
    doing. I would like the flexibility move around the Center or the
    Agency to tackle new roles and responsibilities so that I am
    contributing to the Vision and Mission as well as learning and
    continuing to grow in the process.

-   Job security is important to me. Doing the exciting work is more
    important to me.

**[Do you feel accepted by older members of the workforce?
Why?]{.underline}**

-   Yes

-   Yes, but you have to earn their respect. It does not come cheep. And
    it has been my experience that most senior members realize that we
    are the next generation and are very willing to help us become the
    very best at what we do.  They let us learn from our own mistakes.
     We have to remember that we are the same to the new engineers enter
    the workforce as well.

-   Yes, I am becoming more and more useful within my branch and the
    others are always willing to help and instruct me when needed. Also,
    my opinions and thoughts are well received and respected when I have
    an idea.

-   Yes, I feel accepted by older members of the workforce.  They are
    willing to listen to my ideas and respect my inputs.

-   Yes. those I know and have worked with.

-   No.  It is difficult to find co-workers who are willing to give
    younger people the opportunity to prove themselves and their
    knowledge.  It is a lack of trust, yet rarely are there
    opportunities for mentorship and other things that would build the
    trust the older members would have in younger workers.  They don\'t
    trust younger workers to handle portions of work they could maybe
    use help upon.  This serves no one, because in this instance the
    work still needs to get done, yet the younger person is not gaining
    any experience, and another trust building opportunity is missed.

-   Yes. I have always felt welcomed and that my opinion is valuable.

-   Most of the time, yes.  Earlier in my career (I\'ve been here at
    NASA LaRC for 5 years now), especially during my initial mentorship
    time for the first year or two, I did kind of feel like I was on my
    own.  At the time, I was one of only two \"fresh out\" of college
    people that had been hired by the branch in a very long time.  I
    think the next youngest person in the branch was still 15 years
    older than us.  Consequently, I don\'t think they really knew what
    to do with us at first, the older branch members didn\'t have a lot
    of experience serving as mentors.  Now, in my branch, I see young
    people come in and they seem to have better mentor relationships
    than I did, which is good.  In the past 5 years my branch has
    brought on quite a few more young folks, so I think the older folks
    are getting more used to having less experienced people around, and
    mentoring them along the way.  However, with NASA being so lopsided
    towards the more experienced age spectrum I think this probably
    still happens where young folks are kind of left to fumble around on
    their own for a while.

-   Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I have felt that my want to be involved
    in everything so early in my career is looked down on since older
    members of the workforce had to wait longer to get some of the same
    opportunities I've had early in mine. I don't care for the
    resentment.

-   Other times I must say that the older members of the workforce that
    I work with have more confidence in what I can do than I do and know
    I have gotten some great opportunities! So I guess it's person to
    person dependent.

-   The older workforce (i.e.), the baby boomers, have been really great
    in terms of my NASA career. For the most part, they have provided
    guidance to complete the job or tasks at hand as well as shown a
    genuine, caring attitude towards me.

-   Older workforce has been gracious to give me opportunities to grow
    and change directions when the need arose.

-   Yes I do, however, I would prefer to work with more balanced
    workforce. I find a lot of resistance to change.

**[Other Issues]{.underline}**

**July 9, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

**Wants?**

-   Sabbatical + detail opportunities (at other gov\'t agencies outside
    of NASA or w/private sector)

-   Opportunity to teach at local public schools (adjunct teachers???)

-   Should be able to earn 8 hours of AL [now]{.underline} vs. after 15
    years of service

-   Part-time work options

-   Students loan repayment option (could be part of the new-hire
    compensation package)

> Observer 2: Chances to go other places and work such as other centers
> or overseas
>
> Teaching opportunities (group attentive and not tons of interest,
> mentoring students was mentioned to speaker)
>
> For websites or tutorials to say "contact Joe Smith" not say "Contact
> the facility lighting coordinator" since how are you supposed to know
> who that person is
>
> Do recognize that this would require considerable upkeep
>
> [Other:]{.underline}
>
> When participants were thanked for coming and providing their
> opinions, one reaction was "It's really nice to be asked!"

**July 13, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

**Wants?**

-   Re-strengthening of the co-op program

-   Increase educational programs (SHARP, LARSS, post-docs, etc.)

> Observer 4: "Hope that NASA continues to invest in education so that
> there is a mix of high school students, college students, researchers,
> post-docs, etc."
>
> "You learn as you teach" -- having to explain it helps to have it
> funded

-   More options for flexible work arrangements

**July 18, 2007 NASA FOCUS GROUP**

**Wants?**

-   **none**

**E-mail Responses**

**Anything Else?**

-   Would be interesting for someone to look through all of the LMS
    procedures from a researcher perspective and determine the time
    burden. When considered individually, the time seems insignificant,
    but it can be overwhelming when taken together.

-   I am concerned about reprisals for bringing up some of these issues.
     It could look poorly upon workers who complain; nevertheless, I am
    glad to see that the center is starting to explore these issues.

-   If NASA wants to regain and maintain its reputation as a leading
    aeronautics research institution, it needs to attract the best and
    brightest. Right now, the attractiveness is wanting: low pay,
    minimal budgetary support for research and facilities, and a poor
    research process (i.e., programs, milestones, metrics, etc.)

# Appendix B -- NASA FIRST Focus Group Question List

> **[Incentives/Motivators]{.underline}**
>
> Q1: What drives you to perform well on the job?
>
> Q2: Which benefits are most important? Least important?
>
> **[De-Motivators]{.underline}**
>
> Q3: What Center and/or organizational behaviors (e.g., policies,
> practices, etc.) cause you to be less satisfied with your job?
>
> Q4: Why would you consider leaving NASA?
>
> **[Senior Leader Perceptions]{.underline}**
>
> Q5: Your thoughts about LaRC senior leaders?
>
> **[Employment and Hiring Practices]{.underline}**
>
> Q6: Do you feel that permanent and term employees are treated
> differently? If so, how?
>
> Q7: For Engineers: Are you willing to change your research focus? Why?
>
> Q7: For Non-Engineers: Are you willing to change your career focus?
> Why?
>
> **[Generational Workforce Perceptions]{.underline}**
>
> Q8: How important is \"job security\" to you? Job flexibility?
>
> Q9: Do you feel accepted by older members of the workforce? Why?
>
> **Other issues for your thoughts and input**

# Appendix C -- Additional Questions Created by NASA FIRST

![](media/image3.pct){width="6.593055555555556in"
height="7.278472222222222in"}

# Appendix D -- NASA FIRST Survey

**NASA FIRST Survey and Interview Talking Points:**

Using the NASA Annual Human Capital Survey and Office of Management and
Budget Statistical Survey Guidelines, we have generated some talking
points to address the following objectives:

(A) To define Langley employees' career goals;

(B) To clarify the perceptions about Langley hiring practices -- PERM
    vs. TERM, and

(C) To identify what motivates and de-motivates Langley employees.

Objective I: CAREER GOALS

1\. Do you wish to have a long-term NASA career?

2\. Do you wish to work for outside organizations in future? If yes,
please check one or more:

Industry other Federal Agency

Academia Self-employment

3\. Do you plan to remain in your current field of expertise?

4\. Do you plan to pursue a profession in management?

5\. Will you like to pursue a job transition opportunity?

6\. Do you plan to further your education? If so, what type of education
do you wish to pursue? Check one or more:

Undergraduate Certificate Graduate Certificate

Executive Leadership Training Agency Leadership Training

Masters Degree Doctorate Degree

7\. Am I given an opportunity to improve my skills in my organization?

8\. Do my supervisors/ team leader(s) in my work unit support employee
development?

9\. Does your supervisor recommend and help to develop an individual
training plan?

10\. Does your supervisor support any training opportunities that you
present?

OBJECTIVE II: Motivators

These are three core questions to be answered and explored.

1.  Why did you pursue employee with NASA Langley?

Salary Insurance

Flexibility Education and Training Opportunities

Work Schedule Job Security

NASA (name recognition) Type of Job (i.e., research)

2.  Why did you continue to work at NASA Langley?

Family Work Environment Security

Promotion Flexibility Job Security

Salary Job Satisfaction

Education and Training Opportunities

3.  What drives you to perform well on the job?

Professional Recognition Personal ethics

Salary Work Environment

Flexibility Promotion

Security

4.  What de-motivates you on the job? What causes you to consider
    leaving or your resignation?

Reduction in Force threat Lack of job-related resources

Lack of promotion Lack of support for professional growth

Lack of peer appreciation Lack of supervisors/team leaders appreciation

Lack of work-life balance Unrealistic job expectations (i.e., deadlines)

Lack of funding

# Appendix E -- Focus Group Invitation Letters

**Onsite Letter:**

Good Afternoon,\
 \
As you may be aware, the number of NASA Langley Research Center\'s
(LaRC) employees eligible for retirement is steadily growing.
 Presently, you are one of approximately 122 civil servants aged 35 or
younger at LaRC.  This is a great concern of Langley's senior leaders,
and everyone working here today.\
 \
Langley's senior leadership has read studies and reports about our
generation that do not seem to reflect this generation here at LaRC.
 Therefore, they would like to know what you want as employees, what
motivates and de-motivates you. As a result, they have asked Langley's
NASA FIRST participants (see below for more information on FIRST) to
help them understand our generation.\
 \
We have a unique opportunity to directly affect how center management
views and works with the age 35 and under generation.  In order to give
them the understanding they are seeking, we need to study our
generation.  We will not be hiring consultants.  We will not be talking
to your managers.  We would like to speak with YOU!!!\
 \
**We will be hosting 3 open discussion sessions located at the
Navigation Center (Bldg. 1212, Second Floor): July 9, 2007 at 9 -- 10 AM
EST; July 13, 2007 at 9 -- 10 AM EST; and July 18, 2007 at 1:30 -- 2:30
PM EST.**  To register to attend one of these sessions please e-mail
Donna Turner ([Donna.S.Turner@nasa.gov)]{.underline}, and mention the
NASA FIRST Focus Group and your choice of sessions.  There will be 20
slots available for each focus group session and a waiting list will be
kept.  We will not be taking attendance.  We are just asking that you
show up to one of them and give us your honest input. If you are
wondering what we may ask, our questions are simple:

What motivates and de-motivates you?

Are you looking for job flexibility?

Does the Center have the best incentives in place for the next
generation of NASA employees?  \
 \
***We value you and your opinions, and we definitely would like to learn
from you.*** Please take advantage of this opportunity and plan to
attend one of these sessions. Light snacks and beverages will be served
with an honor system for payment.\
 \
Thank you for your help.\
 \
Melissa Carter, Jennifer Keyes, Robin Schlecht, and Katrina Young\
Langley\'s NASA FIRST Team\
 \
NASA FIRST (Foundations of Influence, Respect, Success and Teamwork) is
a one-year developmental opportunity for GS-11's and 12\'s. This program
is designed to help develop skills required of tomorrow's future
leaders.  

**Offsite letter:**

Greetings,

As you may be aware, the number of NASA Langley Research Center\'s
(LaRC) employees eligible for retirement is quickly growing. Presently,
there are only 122 civil servants aged 35 or younger at LaRC. This is a
concern of Langley's senior leaders, and everyone working here today.

Langley's senior leadership has read studies and reports about our
generation that do not seem to reflect what they see at LaRC. Therefore,
they would like to know what you want as employees, what motivates and
de-motivates you. As a result, they have asked Langley's NASA FIRST
participants (see below for more information on FIRST) to help them
understand our generation.

We have a unique opportunity to directly affect how Langley's center
management views and works with our generation. In order to give them
the understanding they are seeking, we need to study our generation. We
will not be hiring consultants. We will not be talking to managers. We
would like to speak with YOU!!! As a former NASA Langley employee, you
have a perspective that is not available here at LaRC. We are looking to
understand more by asking questions like:

-   What motivated you while at Langley?

-   What de-motivated you?

-   Why did you leave?

-   What would you recommend Senior Leadership use as the best
    incentives for the next generation of NASA employees?

We will be hosting a conference call on July 10, 2007 at 7 PM EST if you
are interested. For the voice portion of the telecon, all you have to do
is call 866-875-7443 and type in 4166523 as the passcode (which is the
same code for everyone) on July 10th at 7 PM EST. Due to limitations, we
will accept the first 19 callers to dial-in. The conference call should
last no longer than one hour. Please make plans to call in.

Again, we value your opinions and input. We look forward to hearing from
you soon.

Thank you for your help.

Melissa Carter, Jennifer Keyes, Robin Schlecht, and Katrina L. Young

Langley\'s NASA FIRST Team

NASA FIRST (Foundations of Influence, Respect, Success and Teamwork) is
a one-year developmental opportunity for GS-11's and 12\'s. This program
is designed to help develop skills required of tomorrow's future
leaders.

# Appendix F -- Presentation Slides to NASA Langley Center Leadership Council

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.466666666666667in" height="4.25in"}

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image6.jpeg){width="5.5in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image7.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image8.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image9.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image10.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image11.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image12.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image13.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image14.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image15.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image16.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image17.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image18.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image19.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}![](media/image20.jpeg){width="5.488888888888889in"
height="4.25in"}

# Appendix G -- Center Project Handout for Center Leadership Council Presentation

![](media/image21.png){width="6.295138888888889in"
height="7.004861111111111in"}

![](media/image22.png){width="6.403472222222222in" height="7.0125in"}

# Appendix H -- Research Reading Summaries and Notes

**\"Attitudinal Differences Between Generation-X and Older Employees\"**

**Authors: Natalie Ferres, Anthony Travalione, and Ian Firms**

**Source: International Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Volume 6
(3), 320-333**

**www.usq.edu.au/extrafiles/business/journals/HRMJournal/IJOBVolume6/FerresTravaglioneFirnsPaper3.pdf**

**"Call Them Gen Y or Millennials: They Deserve Our Attention"**

**Source: Merrill Associates**

**Topic of the Month: May 2005**

**(Topic of the Month articles of interest for volunteer resource
managers and nonprofit leaders)**

[**http://www.merrillassociates.com/topic/2005/05/call-them-gen-y-or-millennials-they-deserve-our-attention/**](http://www.merrillassociates.com/topic/2005/05/call-them-gen-y-or-millennials-they-deserve-our-attention/)

**Accessed on 03/20/2007**

Generation Y were born into the world when children and family were
fashionable. Other world facts and happenings included Las Vegas as a
"family destination" and "Baby on Board" signs were the trend.
Generation Y "children have been wanted, valued, and coddled from
birth."

Another interesting fact about Generation Y is that this generation
seems to conform to traditional values, rules, and standards. However,
they are very open and liberal about differences. Generation Y are
tolerant of difference. This generation is the product of the Civil
Rights Movement and the children of Baby Boomers. Therefore, they reject
prejudice and are incredibly tolerant of older people (i.e., looks,
experiences, preferences, etc.) This group is very open-minded.

Also, this is the generation on the go. Gen Y likes to have things
happen quickly. They prefer fast checkout, self-checkout, and quick,
conveniences. "They are the 24/7 generation, used to shopping online at
2 a.m. or researching a product on the net so they can be prepared,
informed buyers."

"Variety and stimulation are the norm for Generation Y. Life is full of
experiences and they want to live a life filled with endless variety and
change."

Generation Y is a group of multi-taskers who never live according to the
status quo.

**\"Federal Human Capital Survey- NASA\"**

**2006**

**http://www.fhcs2006.opm.gov/**

**\"Generational Diversity\"**

**Cari Dominguez, Chair of the US EEOC**

**Copyright 2003**

**http://www.mcca.com/site/data/magazine/coverstory/0803/perspectiv...**

Summary: Organizations typically overlook the significant impact of
generational diversity. As a result, 81 percent of such organizations do
not include cross-generational issues in their diversity training.
Generational blending requires attention for several reasons including:

1\. In today's American workforce, there are four different generations
at work.

a)  The Silent Generation: ages 59 and older

b)  The Baby Boomers: ages 41 to 48

c)  Generation X: ages 24 to 40

d)  Generation Y: ages 23 and younger

2\. Each generation has been shaped by different world views and
historic events. Therefore, they approach work and career in different
ways.

3\. "Generational blending can enhance creativity and productivity, as
age-diverse work teams are able to approach problems and challenges from
a variety of vantage points and draw from greater breadth of
experience."

4\. If organizations understand generational differences, this may help
with organizations' to recruit, develop, and retain top talent,
regardless of age.

5.Organizations that understand the significance of generational
diversity have an edge over competition and other organizations as they
attract talent.

6\. Intergenerational conflict can also counter effective because it can
affect morale and productivity of an organization. In many cases, it can
lead to EEO complaints and lawsuits.

Interesting Fact: "Although workers under the age of 40 are not
protected by the federal age anti-discrimination law, younger workers
also can be the targets of age-based stereotyping, particularly as they
move into positions of greater responsibility.

7\. The size of Generations X and Y combined is still not large enough
to replace the number of older workers leaving the workforce.

**\"Generation X Speaks Out on Civic Engagement and the Decennial
Census: an Ethnographic Approach\"**

**Author: Melinda Crowley**

**Source: US Census Bureau**

**www.census.gov/pred/www/rpts/Generation%20X%20Final%20Report.pdf**

**\"Generation Y\" -- From Wikipedia**

[**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y)

**Accessed on 03/20/2007**

Generation Y is a term used to describe a cohort of people born after
Generation X. In terms of specific dates of inclusion into Generation Y,
there are many speculations. The mostly widely perceived date of
inclusion, based on market research, is from 1978 -- 2000. If the years
1978 -- 200 are used, then the size of Generation Y in the United States
is approximately 76 million.

Other common monikers used for Generation Y is:

-   The Net Generation

-   iGeneration

-   MySpace Generation

-   Reagan Babies

-   Second Baby Boom

-   MyPod Generation

-   Millennials

-   The D.A.R.E Generation

-   Generation Next

-   Echo Boomers

-   Google Generation

-   Grand Theft Auto Generation

-   Nintendo Generation

-   Halo Generation

-   Me Generation

-   Cynical Generation

A defining event for Generation Y is the Challenger explosion on January
28, 1986. This event separates Generation X from Generation Y, as most
members of Generation Y were either not yet born or too young to
remember this major national event. Also, other cultural events include
The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the X Prize and beginning of
personal spaceflight.

Generational Demographics

Many Generation Y children are the offspring of Baby Boomers; therefore,
"there is a perceived tendency to share social views with the Boomers
and culture with Generation X, who serve chiefly as their 'older
cousins' or even older siblings.

However, some recent market research contradicts this theory, and
asserts: "The generation of today's young adults under 35 and teenagers
most resemble are the dying GI generation, the people who are the foot
soldiers in World War II and the Rosie the Riveters. That was the
generation known for its civic purpose and teamwork and upbeat attitudes
and institutional trust..."

Generation Y is the first group to witness to experience technologically
firsts such as:

-   The Internet

-   Camera phones

-   Sophisticated computer graphics

-   GUISs

-   Digital cable

-   Social Networking

-   Cellular phones

-   Instant messaging

-   DVDs

-   Digital audio players (iPod, MP3 players)

-   HDTV

-   DVR and TiVo devices

-   GPS

-   Text Messaging

-   Satellite Radio

-   PCs with modern operating systems and mouse-based point and click

**\"Generation Y: The Millennials, Ready or Not, Here They Come\"**

**NAS Recruitment Communications**

**Copyright 2006**

Three Major Characteristics of Millennial Group

1.  They are racially and ethnically diverse;

2.  They are extremely independent because of family/parenting;

3.  The feel empowered. -- They feel a sense of security and are
    optimistic about the future.

Who is Generation Y?

Description

-   Generation Y is composed of people born between 1977 to 1994;

-   Presently, there are over 70 million people who are members of
    Generation Y; and,

-   Generation Y population is more than three times the size of
    Generation X population.

Home Life

Generation Y is being raised in the age of the "active parent." More
time has been spent with children as a result of divorce. Child is the
focus of Generation Y parents. Parents of Generation Y are very
hands-on. Businesses have recognized that fathers are important to child
rearing and are making accommodations. As a result of the focus on the
family, Generation Y "believe that they can accomplish most anything,
and if they don't, they can always go back home and get help and
support" (2). Lastly, they have a strong sense of entitlement.

Technology

\* Generation Y grew in the advancement of personal computing power.
Three out of four teenagers are on-line, and 93% of those ages 15 -- 17
are computer users. The majority of children eight years of age and
older online are into E-mailing, gaming, and instant messaging.

**\* Source: The Millennials: Americans Born 1977 to 1994; National
Center for Health Statistics.**

Generation is very used to receiving information from multiple sources
in a matter of seconds. Therefore, if they do not receive information in
a timely fashion, this generation will immediately choose another
source. This directly relates to employment and regulations. For
example, if Generation Y will question such things as uniform
requirements and schedules, and if they are not pleased with the
answers, then they will look for other sources.

Population

Generation Y is a diverse group of individuals. They are also very
tolerant with the diversity around them. "One to every three Caucasian
people is a member of a minority group." Working and interacting with
people from other ethnic group is normal and acceptable.

![](media/image23.pct)

**Source: The Millennials: Americans Born 1977 to 1994; Bureau of
Census, 2000.**

Characteristics of Generation Y

Pros:

1.  Adaptability: comfortable to adapt to situations.

2.  Technologically Savy: grew up with tech advances and comfortable
    with it and taking advantage of them.

3.  Ability to grasp new concepts: learning-oriented generation.

4.  Efficient multi-taskers: Do it fast and better than competition.

5.  Tolerant: Try to make diverse workforce feel at home as well as
    comfortable.

Cons

1.  Impatient: Raised in technological, fast-paced world and like
    instant gratification;

2.  Skeptical: Question the truth as a result of culture of deceit
    (i.e., political cheating, lying, and corrupt business leaders,
    etc.)

3.  Blunt and expressive: Favor self-expression over self-control.
    Making a point is most important.

4.  Still Young: Because of lack of experience, there are willing to ask
    questions. It is better for them to ask questions because it saves
    time. No need to waste time to figure it out.

5.  Image Driven: Make personal statements with image. This very
    important

Education

Millennials are one of the most educated generations. They love to
learn. College attendance is the norm. Based on 2002 Census data, 64% of
women and 60% of men attend college after graduating from high school
and 85% attend college full time.

Asian-American women are the most educated group of Generation Y. They
are most likely to attend and obtain a degree from a University. 56%
have college experience and 16% have a bachelor's degree.

**Source: The Millennials: Americans Born 1977 to 1994; Bureau of
Census: Educational Attainment, 2002.**

Interesting perspective about job market:

-   51% do not expect job offers upon graduation

-   16% are headed to graduate school

-   57% are moving home after graduation

-   56% are willing to relocate for a job

-   34% are concerned that off-shoring (i.e., out-sourcing) will affect
    them

-   74% think that relevant work experience is more important in getting
    a job

-   The national average for expected first year salaries is \$39,500

**Source: monstertrack.com, Entry-Level Job Market Outlook, Spring
2004.**

Employment

Attitude about Work

They do not plan on being at the same location for an extended period of
time.

They want to be at the top of the chain right away.

The Generation Y employee wants to the work better and faster than their
co-workers. (Being competitive with themselves and other is their
nature).

Impact on the Workforce

Shortage of workers as Baby Boomers retire and Gen Y enters the
workforce.

Clash of the generations because grandparent-aged worker will work along
side much younger workers. Gen. Y does not want to be "seen" as the
"child."

According to survey by Lee Hecht Harrison, 60% of employers are already
experiencing intergenerational tensions at work. (Source: Generation Y:
They've Arrived at Work with a New Attitude, 2005).

Generation Y is expected to get along with Baby Boomers better than
those who belong to Generation X.

Generation X and Y difference/obstacle: The feeling of "I had to work to
work to get here, why don't they?" Gen. Xers do not think that Y wants
to do menial tasks,

By 2012, Generation Y will have filled the 18 -- 34 age group. Younger
employee will increase by 10% between 2003 -- 2012, according to Bureau
of Labor Statistics.

At the same time, workers aged 35 -- 44 will decrease by 6%.

Most Commonly Used Media of Generation Y for Career Opportunities:

MonsterTrack.com, Career Fairs, and Personal Networking.

**(Source: Understanding Generation Y: Student Monitor-Media and
Lifestyle, Spring 2004)**

Position selection is behavior driven, not monetarily. Gen Y want to
work "there" because they want to, not because they have to.

Appreciate technology only when useful to them. E-mail and Internet have
made communication very impersonal; this is acceptable most of the time,
but not during the application process.

To catch their attention -- use colorful, upbeat, and modern campaign.
Be different from the rest.

Want the personal touch. Will fill out the application on-line but this
is about it. Want the interaction with the recruiter as well as the
basic information about the company, the possibilities, and the
opportunities.

THE BEST PEOPLE TO CONNECT WITH GENERATION Y ARE GENERATION Y.

Generation Y heavily influenced by the parents.

Use personality profiles to hire people with similar work habits and
views will reduce the tension and turnover in the workplace.

Elements Important to Workplace:

1.  Good Relationships with boss and co-workers;

2.  Income;

3.  Opportunity for growth;

4.  Opportunity to showcase skills and receive recognition of a job well
    done;

5.  Challenging daily work;

6.  Flexible schedules for social and personal time; and

7.  Casual dress environment.

Ways to Retain Generation Y Employee

1.  Encourage their values. (show them their value and worth. Let them
    express themselves and have input into decision making process)

2.  Train them. If you want the job done right, tell them how to do it.

3.  Mentor them.

4.  Show them how their work will contribute to the bottom line. Need to
    know their impact.

5.  Provide full disclosure. Be honest.

6.  Create customized career paths.

7.  Provide access to technology. Have the latest and best technology at
    their fingertips to attract and retain them.

**\"Getting to Know Generation X\"**

**Source: NAS Insights**

**Date: 2006**

**www.nasrecruitment.com/TalentTips/NASinsights/GettingtoKnowGenerationX.pdf**

**\"Helping Employers Secure Advantages in a Shifting Labor Market: Five
Ways to Connect with Generation X and Y Workers\"**

**Source: Kelly Services**

**Date: April 2005**

**www.smartmanager.us/eprise/main/web/us/hr_manager/document_center/genxy_whitepaper.pdf**

**\"The Labor Force Experience of Women from \'Generation X\'\"**

**Author: Marlsa DiNatale and Stephanie Boraas**

**Source: Monthly Labor Review**

**Date: March, 2002**

**www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/03/art1full.pdf**

**\"Leading the Multi-Generational Workforce\"**

**Source: Outsource Training.biz LLC**

**www.outsourcetraining.biz/pdf/Leading%20the%20Multi-generational%20Workforce%20(sample).pdf**

**"Managing by Defining Moments"**

**Authors: Geoffrey E. Meredith, Charles D. Schewe, PhD, and Alexander
Hiam**

**Date: Copyright 2002**

**Publisher: Hungry Minds, Inc; New York, New York**

**ISBN: 0-7645-5412-3**

*Incentives/Motivators*

-   [Q1: What drives you to perform well on the job?]{.underline}

    -   Exciting, creative, fun work environment (aka Pike Place Fish in
        Seattle, WA) (26)

    -   Gen-Xers probably respond well to work assignments that allow
        him/her to be in touch with his/her friends (34)

    -   Gen-Xers would like assignments presented "as a wild adventure,
        an exciting opportunity to do something unexpected and fun" (35)

    -   For N-Gens explain implications of not fixing a problem right
        away (rationale) since they want to understand the big picture
        before making a commitment. (35)

    -   N-Gens like to work in a team setting (35)

    -   After a job, make sure you thank N-Gens and recognize their
        effort in a very personal and meaningful way (35)

    -   Use technology (35)

    -   Gen-Xers tend to "crave lots of feedback" and "want to know how
        they are doing at all times. So don't wait until a project is
        done to offer praise or share information on performance."
        Reinforce what they are doing right. (129)

    -   Challenges (Gen-Xers) (129)

    -   Gen-Xers "prefer straightforward internal communications that
        focus on how changes or new initiatives will affect them
        personally. Focus on communicating openly and honestly and
        without a lot of corporate positioning." (129)

    -   Gen-Xers are looking for "a balance between work and private
        life, a chance to work independently, opportunities to use new
        technology, and workplaces that are more like communities."
        (130)

    -   Gen-Xers should be rewarded with things such as extra vacation
        days and the freedom to spend time with their family, pursue a
        hobby, or do absolutely nothing. (131)

    -   Gen-Xers expect work to be fun. Do "fun and spontaneous things
        like bring in ice cream, party hats, and noise makers when an
        important milestone is met." (131)

    -   "The easiest way to nurture a desired behavior among Gen-Xers is
        to encourage it when you see it." (131)

    -   "What Gen-Xers Want: Challenge, Excitement, Feedback,
        Recognition, Time Office, Training, Fun at work, Meaningful
        work, An end to politicking" (135)

    -   Managers should check in with their Gen-X employees once a month
        about their short-term performance and development goals. "Most
        managers don't check in with their Gen-X employees nearly that
        often, and that is why the employees feel ignored,
        under-appreciated, and out of the information loop." (138)

    -   "Make sure that employees understand what the priorities are,
        and why they are priorities." (138)

    -   Gen-Xers "crave meaningful feedback, participation in the
        decision-making process, the knowledge that their work is making
        an impact, and recognition for a job well done." (141)

    -   "Companies should think of low-cost rewards to compensate and
        motivate N-Gens \-- allowing them more flex time in their work
        schedules, opportunities for enhancing their social interactions
        with other workers, and greater leeway in designing their work
        environment, for example. But in the end, money talks for this
        cohort." (149)

    -   N-Gens are "very comfortable with new technology and see
        embracing it as part of being on the cutting edge." (150)

    -   N-Gens are expected to have a very high debt ration when they
        get out of school and therefore "are very focused on getting
        high-paying jobs and starting out on a career path as soon as
        possible. ... Cash awards are likely to be highly motivational
        for this cohort" (154)

    -   N-Gens "want their work to be meaningful, and they want it to
        foster relationships that extend beyond the workplace." (159)

    -   N-Gens "want to be able to feel that their work is meaningful,
        and that they are contributing toward the accomplishment of a
        large goal, be it corporate or societal." (159)

    -   "Another way to keep N-Gens engaged is for managers to do things
        like take younger employees to high-level meetings, not as
        participants, per se, but as spectators. Doing so exposes
        employees to interesting discussions about the company and gives
        them a taste of what they could be doing in the future." (160)

    -   "How to keep younger \[N-Gen\] workers happy: give them
        opportunities to work in small peer-related teams, turn projects
        into entrepreneurial endeavors, let them choose their own hours,
        find out their skills and interests and help them become
        self-fulfilled, find ways to make work meaningful beyond just a
        paycheck, create ways for them to spend time with upper
        managers, have them work for ethical leaders, set up a mentoring
        program, be generous with rewards and recognition." (161)

    -   "Use recognition to help scratch N-Gens' itch for success and
        progress. ... Formal award ceremonies with public recognition of
        achievements are often a good thing. Certificates of
        appreciation can work wonders too." (170)

    -   "When it comes to feedback, Gen-X employees do much better with
        informative feedback than with controlling feedback." (173)

    -   Work motives that cross both Gen-X and N-Gen employees are:
        Self-Expression, Status, Recognition, Rewards, and Personal
        Needs. (187)

    -   Other work motives for Gen-Xers are: Excitement, and Control
        (187)

    -   Other work motives for N-Gens are: Affiliation, Purpose,
        Consideration, and Responsibility (187)

    -   Incentives that fit the Gen-X Cohort well: (191)

        -   Anything fun, such as travel, a night on the town, a change
            of location, or a temporary posting to a new area

        -   Tickets to entertainment events

        -   Things they think are fun -- let them design the activity

        -   Travel options in which the employee chooses when and where
            to go and whom to go with

        -   Flexibility to select next assignment or co-workers

    -   Incentives that fit the N-Gen Cohort well: (193)

        -   Recognition through gifts of useful items for the work
            environment that employees can place and control the use of
            (such as a swing-arm lamp with dinner or a CD player with
            headphones)

        -   Job rotations or short-term assignments that prevent boredom

        -   Entertainment 9tickets or events, but make sure they are of
            their choice, not yours)

        -   Advancement to positions of greater responsibility

        -   Becoming members of a micro-team than can bond to accomplish
            specific tasks and goals

    -   "A simple but powerful motivator \[for N-Gens\]: Thank you notes
        and frequent verbal recognition and encouragement. N-Gens want
        to be noticed and appreciated and often feel like they're not
        getting enough attention." (193)

    -   What N-Gens want in a job: Respect (92.9%), Fair Treatment
        (92.3%), Flexible schedule (91.2%), Money (88.1%), and Fun
        (87.2%) (193)

-   [Q2: Which benefits are most important? Least
    important?]{.underline}

    -   MOST IMPORTANT:

        -   Gen-Xers embrace efforts to improve their quality of life
            such as flex time, telecommuting, casual dress, and unpaid
            time off. (131)

        -   "Learning new skills through training" is high on the
            motivator list for Gen-Xers (133)

        -   For Gen-Xers both Moms and Dads will need to take time off
            work to care for sick children (133)

        -   Gen-Xers want a family-friendly boss / company (133)

        -   "On-site childcare centers or childcare referral programs
            help to attract and retain" Gen-Xers (133)

        -   In the face of tragedy, due to event such as September
            11^th^, provide employees, especially N-Gens, "a chance to
            express their feelings and admit their fears." (150)

        -   N-Gens "are more likely to respond to such perks as flexible
            scheduling, the ability to take unpaid leave, and permission
            to work from home \-- perks typically not offered to
            entry-level employees." (154)

        -   Tuition reimbursement is particularly valued by N-Gens

        -   "N-Gens are looking to settle down. Early marriage is one
            way for them to find stability in an uncertain world." May
            "start families early" and therefore "be attracted by
            flexible work options, such as job-sharing, telecommuting,
            and part time opportunities." (156)

        -   "Most young people are interested in the transferability of
            pensions and 401(k) savings." (156)

        -   N-Gens "prefer honesty and authenticity" ... "corporate
            communications must be simple and straightforward and
            without a lot of public relations spin." (157)

        -   "Companies that have on-site workout facilities or that
            offer free or reduced rates at an off-site gym can use those
            perks to help attract and retain fitness-conscious N-Gens"
            (158)

        -   N-Gens will find "cafeteria-style health plans that offer
            flexibility and a wide range of coverage" the most appealing
            (158)

    -   LEAST IMPORTANT:

        -   "N-Gens don't see the need for company health plans that
            have low deductibles" (158)

*De-Motivators*

-   [Q3: What Center and/or organizational behaviors (e.g., policies,
    practices, etc.) cause you to be less satisfied with your
    job?]{.underline}

    -   Work that isn't interesting enough to hold attention (boring
        project) (34)

    -   Gen-Xers distain long hours, office politics, and time away from
        family (122)

    -   Gen-Xers hate being told "I'm the boss, and you do as your told"
        (123)

    -   Don't expect Gen-Xers to be dedicated to their work to the
        exclusion of all else (123)

    -   Don't assign Gen-Xers to traditional teams and expect them to
        thrive (127)

    -   Gen-Xers do not want to be told directly what to do by
        supervisors (129)

    -   Gen-Xers are quickly turned off by phony managers and corporate
        game playing (129)

    -   Due to events such as September 11^th^, N-Gens are more fearful
        for their personal safety. As a result they may be fearful about
        getting on airplanes for business trips too often.
        "Teleconference, faxing, e-mailing, and phoning will be
        preferred to having face-to-face meetings." (150)

    -   "1 or 2 weeks off and a standard benefits package are not going
        to wow many in this cohort" (154)

    -   "N-Gens see working in cubicles as akin to solitary
        confinement." (155)

    -   The Internet plays a prominent role in the lives of N-Gens. As a
        result "they will abide by restrictions that put limits on
        racially, sexually, or religiously sensitive material, but see
        other restrictions as overly totalitarian." (155)

    -   N-Gens are "probably the most marketed to \[cohort\] of all time
        ... so they are very aware of hype. ... They are turned off by
        extravagant exaggerations of reality. ... Corporate
        communications must be simple, straightforward, and without a
        lot of public relations spin. Otherwise this cohort will lose
        their belief in management, and motivating them will become even
        more of a challenge." (157)

    -   N-Gens "expect to have the fastest, sleekest equipment available
        to them. They consider having up-to-date computer equipment,
        along with high-speed access to the internet, as one of life's
        necessities." (158)

    -   N-Gens "will fight the system if they think leaders are not
        acting fairly or are lacking in integrity." (159)

    -   "N-Gens are likely to resent impersonal management more keenly
        than other employees" due to their reaction to events such as
        September 11^th^ causing this cohort to have a "need for genuine
        caring and consideration in the workplace." (171)

    -   "Managers and organizations may not be bale to get away with the
        insensitive behavior they've gotten away with in the past -- at
        least not without risking the dissatisfaction, de-motivation,
        and possible defection of the important new \[N-Gen\] cohort."
        (171)

    -   Be careful "about turning Gen-Xers off accidentally by using any
        motivators or incentives that seem overly cheerleader-like and
        awaken their cynicism. Be careful of assumptions with this
        cohort." (191)

    -   When Gen-Xers "resent the time spent at the motivational event
        -- it can become de-motivating instead." (191)

-   [Q4: Why would you consider leaving NASA?]{.underline}

    -   Gen-Xers are impatient. They don't want to wait around for 10
        years for a good assignment, they want one now or they will
        leave to try to find it somewhere else. (124)

    -   Gen-Xers are more likely to jump from one job to another,
        piecing together marketable skills that they can sell down the
        line to the next employer (125)

    -   N-Gens "expect to be paid for performance, so seniority-based
        advancement will not motivate them to stick around. Rather, it
        is more likely to drive them away." (155)

    -   "In providing \[N-Gens\] with technology training, make sure the
        material you are offering is absolutely the most up-to-date
        technology around. If it is outdated, N-Gens will start looking
        elsewhere for work that is a little more challenging and
        cutting-edge." (159)

    -   "Managers and organizations may not be bale to get away with the
        insensitive behavior they've gotten away with in the past -- at
        least not without risking the dissatisfaction, de-motivation,
        and possible defection of the important new \[N-Gen\] cohort."
        (171)

*Senior Leader Perceptions*

-   [Q5: Your thoughts about LaRC senior leaders?]{.underline}

    -   "I'm the boss, and you do as you're told" won't work with
        Gen-Xers (123)

    -   Gen-Xers don't expect a company to look out for them very
        carefully so they better do it themselves (124)

    -   Managers need to articulate honestly and clearly what Gen-Xers
        employees can and cannot expect from their employer / boss /
        lead / project / position / ... (125)

    -   Gen-Xers are impatient. They don't want to wait around for 10
        years for a good assignment, they want one now or they will
        leave to try to find it somewhere else. (124)

    -   Gen-Xers in survey after survey report that they don't trust
        their managers, don't think their employers trust them, and want
        much better more open, and more honest communication with their
        employers (125)

    -   Gen-Xers do not want to be told directly what to do by
        supervisors (129)

    -   Gen-Xers "prefer bosses who take a personal interest in them to
        bosses who keep things on a purely professional level." But only
        take the time to get to know your Gen-X employees "if you are
        genuinely interested in them." (129)

    -   Gen-Xers tend to distrust anyone in a position of authority due
        to dire events from their coming of age years (129)

    -   N-Gens "will fight the system if they think leaders are not
        acting fairly or are lacking in integrity." (159)

    -   "Another way to keep N-Gens engaged is for managers to do things
        like take younger employees to high-level meetings, not as
        participants, per se, but as spectators. Doing so exposes
        employees to interesting discussions about the company and gives
        them a taste of what they could be doing in the future." (160)

    -   "Gen-Xers' communications with their managers are usually quite
        poor." (172)

    -   "Managers often misread the independence value as indicating
        that Gen-X employees resent direction and do not want
        attention." (172)

*Employment and Hiring Practices*

-   [Q6: Do you feel that permanent and term employees are treated
    differently? If so, how?]{.underline}

    -   

-   [Q7: For Engineers: Are you willing to change your research focus?
    Why?]{.underline}

-   [Q7: For Non-Engineers: Are you willing to change your career focus?
    Why?]{.underline}

    -   N-Gens are open to change (33)

    -   "Gen-Xers are always on the lookout for a bigger and better
        opportunity. Rather than staying with one company for life, many
        Xers are looking to build marketable job skills quickly, then
        move on to the next opportunity. During their coming of age
        years, they saw their parents downsized after years of being
        loyal to the company, and Xers are not about to let that happen
        to themselves." (132)

    -   N-Gens respect institutions and therefore are much more likely
        to remain loyal to the company. (149)

    -   N-Gens see "change as something positive and beneficial." (150)

-   [Other]{.underline}

    -   Gen-Xers are "the first cohort for whom the career search may
        never be completely over." (132)

*Generational Workforce Perceptions*

-   [Q8: How important is \"job security\" to you? Job
    flexibility?]{.underline}

    -   A Gen-Xers sees themselves as an independent free agent in the
        world of work (33)

    -   N-Gens are open to change (33)

    -   Gen-Xers are "the first cohort for whom the career search may
        never be completely over." (132)

    -   "Gen-Xers are always on the lookout for a bigger and better
        opportunity. Rather than staying with one company for life, many
        Xers are looking to build marketable job skills quickly, then
        move on to the next opportunity. During their coming of age
        years, they saw their parents downsized after years of being
        loyal to the company, and Xers are not about to let that happen
        to themselves." (132)

    -   Gen-Xers "realize that corporate loyalty will get them no where"
        (132)

    -   After children Gen-Xers are more stable (133)

    -   "Most \[Gen-Xers\] don't expect to stay in the same job, or even
        work for the same company, for more than a few years. Their
        whole career is built around being flexible enough to seize new
        opportunities when they come along." (136)

    -   N-Gens respect institutions and therefore are much more likely
        to remain loyal to the company. (149)

    -   "N-Gens respect institutions, but they don't have the same
        feeling of absolute, unquestioning deference to the company, the
        family, ... or the government that the ghost cohorts did." (149)

-   [Q9: Do you feel accepted by older members of the workforce?
    Why?]{.underline}

    -   Gen-Xers lack the optimism and idealism that bonds other cohorts
        together (125)

    -   "The difference in values between the Baby Boomers (both sets)
        and Gen-Xers is so pronounced that it's no wonder these groups
        have trouble getting along in the workplace." (127)

    -   Gen-Xers "free agency and independence tends to get them in
        trouble with Boomer managers and supervisors" (127)

    -   N-Gens have values of "respect for institutional values,
        conservatism, and the feeling of having been unified by a
        national crisis" in common with the World War II cohort

    -   "Make room in the monthly schedule for at least one casual
        get-together" as this provides for the face-to-face interactions
        that don't happen as often due to e-mail and telecons and
        telecommuting (168)

    -   N-Gens' expectation of quick success can often be frustrating to
        "older managers who had to pay their dues along the way." (169)

    -   "The Gen-X mentality may offend older supervisors, leading to
        accusations of poor attitude and insubordination, which
        employees feel are unjustified." (172)

-   [Other]{.underline}

    -   N-Gens have an expectation for immediate success (21)

    -   Gen-Xers value informality, cynicism, and street smarts (21)

    -   Gen-Xers have needs for emotional and financial security and
        desire for independence (21)

    -   Gen-Xers value friendship highly (33)

    -   Gen-Xers take a cynical view of the future (33)

    -   Gen-Xers seek to improve own quality of life (33)

    -   N-Gens are anxious about safety and security issues (33)

    -   N-Gens view diversity as a highly positive thing (33)

    -   N-Gens want to understand the big picture before committing (35)

    -   Gen-Xers have a slacker image (124)

    -   Gen-Xers see their interested outside of work as being more
        important than their work (124)

    -   Gen-Xers are impatient. They don't want to wait around for 10
        years for a good assignment, they want one now or they will
        leave to try to find it somewhere else. (124)

    -   Gen-Xers are more self-reliant than members of other cohorts
        (125)

    -   Tragic events such as Challenger and September 11^th^ have made
        Gen-Xers take a "no guarantees" mentality (126)

    -   Gen-Xers learned early on to be independent (127)

    -   Gen-Xers tend to "crave lots of feedback" and "want to know how
        they are doing at all times. So don't wait until a project is
        done to offer praise or share information on performance."
        Reinforce what they are doing right (129)

    -   Gen-Xers put a lot of importance on friendships (129)

    -   Gen-Xers "want to enjoy life." They "learned long ago than work
        is just a paycheck, and that the things that really matter is
        life (family, friends, hobbies) are much more fun than work."
        (130-131)

    -   Gen-Xers "expect work to be fun" (131)

    -   Gen-Xers are likely to remain more loyal to a company that shows
        concern for the environment (134)

    -   Gen-Xers and N-Gens think of ethnic and social diversity as no
        big deal (134)

    -   Gen-Xers have always been ahead of the technology curve (136)

    -   Both Gen-Xers and N-Gens are good at multitasking (136)

    -   N-Gens "have learned self-sufficiency and self-reliance from an
        early age" just as Gen-Xers did (144)

    -   N-Gens have never known life without CDs, computers, answering
        machines, or cell phones. As employees they are truly wired and
        technologically savvy." (145)

    -   N-Gens "have a strong sense of entitlement, and many carry
        unrealistic expectations about how fast they will advance in the
        workplace." (145)

    -   N-Gens are more fearful for their personal safety than people of
        older cohorts (146)

    -   N-Gens "tend to be less cynical, more idealistic and altruistic,
        and far more optimistic than Gen-Xers. (148)

    -   N-Gens do consistently reject "their Boomer parents' liberal and
        anti-establishment values" (148)

    -   N-Gens respect institutions and therefore are much more likely
        to remain loyal to the company. (149)

    -   N-Gens are more likely than Gen-Xers to be team players

    -   N-Gens like Gen-Xers are "not interested in letting work consume
        them and define who they are. They are looking for a balance
        between work and life right from the start." (154)

    -   For N-Gens "the internet has become a way of life and using it
        for practical purposes is second nature to them. Cell phones,
        pagers, instant messaging, and more have also become a way to
        communicate with people in far-flung locations in real time."
        (159)

    -   "Gen-X employees do not know how to elicit the desired emotional
        support and reassurance / security from their supervisors."
        (172)

**\"Managing the Generation Mix 2007\"**

**Source: Managing the Generation Mix, 2nd Ed**

**Authors: Carolyn Martin, Bruce Tulgan**

**Date: 2006**

**www.rainmakerthinking.com/mix2007.doc**

**\"Managing Generation X: How to Bring Out the Best in Young Talent\"**

**Author: Bruce Tulgan**

**Capstone Publishing Limited, 1996**

**Source: US Office of Personnel Management**

Some common misconceptions about members of Generation X (born between
1963 -- 1981) are that these individuals are "slackers wasting their
lives in low-pay, low-status, short-term jobs." Other stereotypes
include that they are disloyal employees who wish to move from
job-to-job without paying their dues. Contrary to these misconceptions,
Generation Xers aspire to be self-sufficient through "learning and
increased opportunities for growth -- and making a contribution.
Generation X employees view each assignment as a learning experience and
a way to gain skills to make themselves more marketable. If managed
effectively, they can be a wonderful source of creative productivity."

One recommendation to get "the best out" of Generation employees is
communication through feedback. This generation needs regular
constructive feedback that will aid in success as well as reduce future
mistakes. Younger workers can then see that the work is paying off and
can also learn how to achieve more success. This will lead to more
confident workers who are productive and willing to use creative
talents.

This generation needs a constant feedback loop. The model according to
Tulgan should be FAST... Feedback that is Accurate, Specific, and
Timely.

Constructive feedback fosters learning and growth opportunity. Gen Xers
often "grow anxious without any reliable status reports on their job
performance."

Therefore, the best work environment for this demographic is one where
they are given total responsibility for a specific project along with
the tools, information, support, and freedom they need to focus on
accomplishing it.

In conclusion, managing Generation X employees requires ridding oneself
of preconceived notions about this group and providing them with the
environment, information, and freedom to perform their best.

**\"Why employee surveys fail... and how to achieve success\"**

**Source: MERCER Human Resources Consulting**

**Date: December 20, 2005**

[**www.mercerHR.com**](http://www.mercerHR.com/)

When surveys are poorly designed and implemented, and when there is no
follow-up action, the can have negative impacts and do not gain intended
results.

Not only is a failed survey a waste of time, it can also lead to
employee disengagement.

When an organization conducts a survey with follow-up actions, most
employees have an 84% engagement rate versus only 39% when there are no
follow-up actions.

Why Surveys Fail?

Here are 10 key areas that could be potential stumbling blocks; however,
these are suggestions of how to improve them or avoid them.

10 Key Areas include:

1\. Project Planning

-   Define long-term project goals and establish Key Performance
    Indicators (KPIs)

-   Integrate with business strategies and change initiatives

-   Estimate time and resources requirements

-   Obtain input from representatives of major parts of the
    organizations

-   Develop a network of champions who support the survey

-   Create a project management infrastructure

2\. Communications

-   Develop an end-to-end communication plan

-   Establish a clear schedule and responsibilities for communication
    "events"

-   Create a survey brand to establish coherence and continuity

3\. Questionnaire design: Make the Survey Relevant

-   Begin with a tested theoretical model for the questionnaire design,
    focused on business performance

-   Gather employee input on key areas of concern

-   Gather manager and other stakeholder, input on key areas of interest

-   Include questions that allow for organization-wide and local
    follow-up action

4\. Timing

Ensure the survey results are available in time to provide input

Schedule data collection to avoid disruptions to work and to reach a
maximum number of employees

5\. Prioritization of issues

-   Use norm comparison to identify areas of strength and weakness

-   Make historical comparisons to monitor trends

-   Use key driver analysis to identify the areas that have the greatest
    impact on performance

-   Focus on vital issues for follow-up action

6\. Engaging senior management

-   Ensure rapid review of survey results by senior management after
    data collection

-   Allocate sufficient time for a full, interactive senior management
    review of results and to reach consensus on issues and priorities

7\. Data delivery

-   Design data delivery with the end user in mind

-   Ensure that results are presented in an engaging and
    easy-to-understand manner (keep simple)

8\. Follow-up support

-   Provide follow-up training for managers and or survey champions

-   Continue to involve the survey champion network to support managers
    in developing action plans

-   Identify and document best practices

-   Create a library or database of best practices

9\. Monitoring and accountability

-   Define clear management responsibilities for survey activities

-   Establish follow-up goals on the basis of actions, rather than on
    improvement in survey scores

-   Conduct a regular monitoring of survey follow-up action

-   Regularly review survey activities at management meetings

10\. Linking survey results to business outcomes

-   Integrate survey results with the business planning process

-   Use survey results to guide and evaluate the success of change
    initiatives

-   Integrate survey data with human capital metrics

-   Establish the linkage of survey results with measures of
    organizational performance

**\"Within Reach \... But Out of Synch: The Possibilities and Challenges
of Shaping Tomorrow\'s Government Workforce\"**

**Source: The Council for Excellence in Government & The Gallup
Organization**

**Date: December 5, 2006**

**www.excelgov.org/UserFiles/File/Within%20Reach%20But%20Out%20of%20Synch.pdf**

# Appendix I -- Presentation Slides to NASA Marshall Senior Leadership

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center\'s NASA FIRST team investigated
recruiting and retention in a multi-generational environment. We have
included their presentation to MSFC\'s senior leaders so that future
work can use these results.

![](media/image24.jpeg){width="5.679861111111111in"
height="4.252083333333333in"}

![](media/image25.jpeg){width="5.679861111111111in"
height="4.252083333333333in"}![](media/image26.jpeg){width="5.679861111111111in"
height="4.252083333333333in"}![](media/image27.jpeg){width="5.679861111111111in"
height="4.252083333333333in"}![](media/image28.jpeg){width="5.679861111111111in"
height="4.252083333333333in"}![](media/image29.jpeg){width="5.679861111111111in"
height="4.252083333333333in"}![](media/image30.jpeg){width="5.679861111111111in"
height="4.252083333333333in"}![](media/image31.jpeg){width="5.679861111111111in"
height="4.252083333333333in"}![](media/image32.jpeg){width="5.679861111111111in"
height="4.252083333333333in"}

# Appendix J -- About the NASA FIRST Pilot Program

![](media/image33.pct){width="3.7395833333333335in"
height="2.501388888888889in"}The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Foundations of Influence, Relationships, Success,
and Teamwork (FIRST) is a program designed to provide Grade Schedule
(GS) GS-11 and GS-12 employees in science, engineering, and professional
administrative positions with the foundational skills necessary for
their future success within the Agency. The objective of the program is
to (1) develop a community of prospective future leaders who will have a
full understanding of the Agency's vision, mission areas, and (2)
provide "individual contributors" and "influence leaders" the
opportunity to develop foundational influence, teamwork, and
relationship skills in context of working from an Agency perspective in
service of the Agency's Succession Management Strategy. As a result of
their experiences, NASA FIRST participants will become inspired,
motivated, and enlightened as NASA's next generation of Agency leaders.
This year-long, part-time program, including four training modules,
shadowing, group projects, individual assessments, and activities, is
the foundational development program in NASA's overall succession
management strategy. According to NASA, this strategy is designed to
provide leadership skills and knowledge of the Agency's vision and
mission to the Center's "best and brightest"---NASA's future leaders.
Therefore, the NASA FIRST program is designed for high-potential civil
servants who are committed to serving NASA, and are seen as future
leaders by their supervisor, manager, and Center Director.

The 2007 pilot class of NASA FIRST includes 41 participants from all ten
NASA centers, including White Sands Test Facility, and the NASA Shared
Services Center. The four Langley participants represent diverse
backgrounds and current assignments. Robin Schlecht joined NASA Langley
as a Langley Aerospace Research Summer Scholar (LARSS) student in the
summer of 2002 and as an engineering co-op in 2003. Now, Robin is an
aerospace engineer in the Advanced Aerospace Systems Branch in the
Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate. Robin is responsible for
designing and developing state-of-the-art technologies that will enhance
the performance of advanced aircraft. Jen Keyes joined NASA Langley in
the summer of 1999 as an Advanced Undergraduate Research using Optical
Radiation in the Atmosphere (AURORA) Program Intern and then as an
engineering co-op in the fall of 1999. Now, Jen is an aerospace engineer
in the Space Mission Analysis Branch in the Systems Analysis and
Concepts Directorate. Jen's latest work has involved the development and
analysis of the Exploration Objectives for the Moon and Mars. Melissa
Carter joined NASA Langley in 1998 as an engineering co-op. Melissa is
an aerospace engineer in the Configuration Aerodynamics Branch in the
Research and Technology Directorate. Melissa's current research includes
the Blended Wing Body, sonic boom prediction and mitigation, and jet
noise. Katrina Young joined NASA Langley as a LARSS student in 1998 and
began as an education co-op student in 2000. Katrina is a program
analyst in the Office of Strategic Communications and Education assigned
to Public Affairs. Katrina's duties include communicating the NASA
Vision and Mission as well as research to NASA employees, stakeholders,
and members of the general public through media, exhibits, and community
outreach activities.

# Appendix K -- NASA FIRST Lessons Learned

**Lesson I:** *"Knowing yourself and being true to yourself is
essential"*

Knowing yourself and being true to yourself is one of the greatest
challenges that was faced during this program. As highly driven people,
sometimes it is easy to get caught up in competition with other people.
However, it is essential to step back and really consider what makes you
happy. Instead of seeing that you have to continue up the ladder of
command, it is important to realize at what point would you not be
enjoying the job but simply doing it to continue up. Money and power are
constantly portrayed as the way to happiness. However, it is important
that as individuals we discover what truly makes us happy and not allow
other influences to sway us to go against our beliefs.

**Lesson II:** *"Seeing the "Big" picture really helps with the
day-to-day activities"*

It can be really easy to simply focus on only the work we are currently
doing. However, NASA FIRST gave us the opportunity to step outside our
work and see all that NASA does, and everything that influences our
goals. Being able to talk to senior leaders and see all the different
research the centers are doing gave us a better appreciation for the
overall mission of NASA and where we fit in. This understanding helps
when we return to our day-to-day activities by providing the broader
context for the work we as individuals, a center, and an agency do.

**Lesson III:** *"Relationships with mentors and coaches are valuable
resources for development"*

Through NASA FIRST each of us has had the opportunity to have a mentor
and some one-on-one coaching. These relationships have provided insight
into our work, our place within our branches, and possible options for
our futures. The individuals we have been fortunate enough to have
assist us during this year have been an invaluable sounding board for
new ideas, inspirations, and discoveries.

**Lesson IV:** *"NASA FIRST gave us a progression path for personal and
professional career growth (now and in the future)"*

Each of us on the Langley team entered the NASA FIRST Program for
different reasons and with different expectations. We are all leaving
the program with more knowledge about NASA, leadership, and ourselves.
NASA FIRST has in that way provided each of us with opportunities to
grow and to map out paths for our futures.

**Lesson V:** *"There are many ways to be leaders and leadership is
practiced ... continually"*

Leadership is not only about becoming the NASA Administrator or a member
of the Senior Executive Service. You can be a leader at many levels from
the senior leadership at the agency or a center to a team or group lead
position for a project within a branch. All of these levels will benefit
from great leadership!

**Lesson VI:** *"Knowing what you value is important"*

Knowing what your personal values are, how they drive you, and affect
the way you make decisions are important as they affect every aspect of
your life both at work and at home. Your values affect what motivates
and de-motivates you.

The other centers do some incredible things and play integral roles for
agency and mission success.

**Lesson VII:** *"The other centers do some incredible things and play
integral roles for agency and mission success"*

Having had the opportunity to learn about the other centers' histories
and current work as well as meet people from each location has greatly
enhanced our understanding of the agency and our networks of personal
connections that we can continue to make use of in the future.

#  

# Appendix L -- Recommendations for Selecting a Mentor 

**Characteristics of a Good Mentor:**

-   Understands the need for work-life balance

-   Can serve as a neutral listener and sounding board and ensure that
    information discussed will remain confidential where needed

-   Explains how an organization works, who the key players are, and can
    also elaborate on the overall vision/mission of the organization

-   Has a winning attitude and personality that works well with mentee
    (does not always bring personal negative viewpoints into the
    mentoring relationship)

-   Understands and demonstrates flexibility as mentor (work schedule,
    meeting times, etc.)

-   Offers personal and professional advice that is applicable to
    mentee's work and life situations

-   Willing to introduce mentee to new individuals, experiences, etc. to
    help set and accomplish goals

-   Provides open, honest, and relative advice

-   Demonstrates a desire to be a mentor and clearly wants to be a
    mentor

-   Willing to listen

-   Willing and available to get together (in person, on phone, over
    email, instant messenger)

-   Knowledgeable of the people, environment, and areas I work with/in,
    without having direct conflicts of interest if I need to discuss
    specific situations or behaviors or examples or hypotheticals that I
    need advice on

-   Offers stories from their own career/life of relevant situations

-   Looks out for the mentee in terms of opportunities that would be
    good fits (work, life, ...)

-   Both the mentor and mentee need to be flexible since "life happens"
    and plans may need to change

-   Mentors should not assume anything regarding the mentee. Mentees can
    surprise with regard to what they both know and do not know. There
    are several categories of needs where the mentor can offer:

> The enthusiastic beginner = needs direction
>
> The disillusioned learner = needs coaching
>
> The cautious completer = needs support
>
> The self-reliant achiever = needs responsibility

-   Where projects for mentees are involved, clearly defined boundaries
    are required.

-   Mentors need to offer continual feedback regarding expectations,
    performance and success criteria.

**When Selecting a Mentor:**

-   Make the mentee interview (at least 3) potential mentors

    -   Enables the best fit since every mentee will likely need
        something a little different

    -   Good experience interacting with others (both the interviews and
        the process of asking someone to be your mentor and then having
        to tell the others you interviewed that you didn't feel they
        were the best fit. Although this was tough, looking back it was
        valuable)

-   Have a relationship agreement to help set/limit expectations (how
    often to meet, where, how, how long, how to refer to each other,
    etc.)

-   Seek a mentor who has completed NASA leadership courses such as
    Leadership Development Program, Senior Executive Service

-   If applicable and of interest, choose a mentor who is outside of
    your organization or not someone to whom you report directly

-   Choose an individual who wants to be a mentor rather than someone
    who sees it as another duty or requirement

-   Keep an open mind about expectations for you and the mentor

# Appendix M -- Recommendations for Success for NASA FIRST 

**Class of 2008**

To ensure that Langley's 2008 NASA FIRST class successful completes its
leadership training, we recommend the following actions continue and/or
be added:

-   Allow the participants access to the Center Leadership Council to
    aid in their understanding of NASA's policy and directives as well
    as to interface with senior leaders;

-   Ensure that they understand early the proper procedures and policies
    when collecting data and who appropriate persons are and/or what
    channels of communications are recommended;

-   Have the Center Point of Contact meet with them at least monthly to
    gauge needs, offer advice, and provide directions

-   Allow participants the ability to choose their center project from
    multiple choices

# Appendix N -- Additional Information about NASA FIRST and

**Contact Information**

[For additional information on NASA FIRST please visit:]{.underline}

http://www.leadership.nasa.gov/nasa_first/home.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_nasafirst_120806.html

[For write-ups on the different training modules please
visit:]{.underline}

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_nasafirstKatrina.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_nasafirstKeyes.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_nasafirst_schlecht.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_nasafirst_carter.html

[Contact Information for the Langley\'s NASA FIRST Class
2006-2007]{.underline}

Melissa Carter: Melissa.B.Carter@nasa.gov (757) 864-8606

Jennifer Keyes: Jennifer.P.Keyes@nasa.gov (757) 864-1958

Robin Schlecht: Robin.W.Schlecht@nasa.gov (757) 864-9615

Katrina Young: Katrina.L.Young@nasas.gov (757) 864-3868

[Project Sponsors]{.underline}

Cindy Lee: Cynthia.C.Lee@nasa.gov (757) 864-6114

Marty Waszak: Martin.R.Waszak@nasa.gov (757) 864-4015