Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Determining risk propensity of government program managers for high risk /high payoff projects
(USC Thesis Other)
Determining risk propensity of government program managers for high risk /high payoff projects
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
DETERMINING RISK PROPENSITY OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAM
MANAGERS FOR HIGH RISK/HIGH PAYOFF PROJECTS
by
Jeanne Jeffery Marquitz
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
December 2002
Copyright 2002 Jeanne Jeffery Marquitz
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3093961
Copyright 2002 by
Marquitz, Jeanne Jeffery
All rights reserved.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3093961
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089
This dissertation, written by
Jeanne Marquitz
under the direction o f h.ex.... Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its
members, has been presented to and
accepted by the Faculty o f the School o f
Public Administration in partial fulfillment
o f requirements for the degree o f
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Dean
DISSERTATION Q
A/ f7 f Chairperson
............
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express her appreciation to Dr. Ross Clayton, Dr.
Chester Newland, and Dr. T. J. Busch for their assistance and guidance in preparing
this thesis.
To all the path finders who constructed and perfected visions into actual
realities for the United States of America’s security and future. Thank you.
To my mother and father; my children, Lisa Marie and Jamie Christine; my
granddaughter, Nicole Jeanne; and my furry friends.
Most of all to Bill, my husband.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
List of Figures v
Abstract vi
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 History of Risk 5
2.2 Seminal Contributors to the Concept 7
2.3 Definitions 9
2.3.1. Risk 9
2.3.2. Risk Management 10
2.3.3. Risk Propensity 11
2.4. History of Risk Propensity 12
2.4.1. Prior to 1990 12
2.4.2. 1990 and Beyond 16
2.4.3. Summary 31
Chapter 3: SCOPE AND EXTENT OF STUDY 33
3.1. Research and Development Sector 33
3.2. A Possible Methodology/Tool 33
3.3. Hypothesis 34
Chapter 4: METHODLOGY 35
4.1. How was the Research Accomplished? 35
4.1.1. Interview Guide 36
4.1.2. Three Methodologies 37
4.2. Variables 38
Chapter 5: ANALYTICAL RESULTS 39
5.1. Sample Sets 39
5.1.1. Interview Guide Sample 39
5.1.2. Qualitative Statement Sample 49
5.2. Likert Scale Application 52
5.3. Force Field Analysis Application 57
5.4. Qualitative Statement Application 69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
5.4.1. Individual Force Group 69
5.4.2. Group Force Group 70
5.4.3. Organizational Force Group 71
5.4.4. Institutional Force Group 72
5.4.5. Risk Averters 73
5.4.6. Final Thoughts 76
5.5. Summary of Findings 77
Chapter 6: DISCUSSION 78
6.1. Overview of Findings 78
6.2. Implications 79
6.3. Limitations and the Future 81
6.4. Conclusion 84
Bibliography 86
Appendices 90
1. Interview Guide 91
2. Interviews 96
3. Likert Scale Form 319
4. Force Field Analysis Form 323
5. Qualitative Statement Form 325
6. Qualitative Statements 333
7. Force Field Analysis Statistical Parameters 418
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Interviewee Placement Chart 36
Figure 2: Likert Percentages Summary Chart 54
Figure 3: Questions to Determine Risk Takers 56
Figure 4: Force Field Analysis Charts
A. Individual 60
B. Group 62
C. Organization 64
D. Institution 66
Figure 5: Force Field Analysis Summary Chart 68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
vi
Success in today’s challenging public sector and its environment requires
individuals who can effectively tackle risky assignments. Little attention has been
paid to assessing risk-taking characteristics of individuals in government. This
dissertation develops and explains a diagnostic tool that can be utilized to identify
risk-taking individuals from among those that now work on government projects that
involve high risk and high technological benefits to the government and country.
An interview guide and an open-ended questionnaire are employed in this
research to acquire the necessary data. The methods employed include use of Likert
Scale questions, a modified Force Field Analysis, and a Qualitative Statement format
for in-depth interviews. Individuals with risk-taking and risk-averting propensities
are identified. Risk takers are defined as those who consider risks as opportunities
and challenges. Risk averters are described as those who consider risks as problems
and issues to avoid.
Research results include a diagnostic tool based on a set of key questions that
produce results and identify individuals who have a clear risk-taking propensity in
their work in research and development programs. Additional findings include
identification of the set of driving and restraining forces that influence risk-taker and
risk-averse individuals in their project assignments. The modified Force Field
Analysis array responses at the Individual, Group, Organization, and Institutional
levels. Individual Level Forces produce the highest confidence level in terms of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
discriminating among employee propensities. Common themes and salient points
regarding motivations for risk takers are also revealed by these forces.
The assessment approach and diagnostic tool described in the thesis can be
utilized by the Federal Government to determine the risk-taking propensities of their
program managers. Identification of risk-takers and placing these individuals in key
project management positions should improve the success rates of government
research and development projects. This dissertation demonstrates that finding new
risk-taking pathfinders and championing their visions is possible and necessary for
America’s future.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Risk and risk-taking behaviors are important and often very controversial
subjects within American society. How risk is considered impacts outcomes of
policy debates, the distribution of political power, and the allocation of resources
according to B. Fischoff, S. R. Watson, and C. Hope in an article entitled “Defining
Risk” (1990). Success in today’s challenging public sector and its environment
requires individuals who can effectively tackle risk. State-of-the-art technologies
such as space equipment, electronic mail, or spy satellites helped advance the
United States into the role of the world’s leader; their development included, of
course, the element of unexpected risks.
When Dr. Ruth David became the Deputy Director of Science and Technology
(DDS&T) in the Central Intelligence Agency from September 1995 to September
1998, she expressed the need to increase the population of risk-taking individuals
within the research and development environment. This concept was vital, in her
opinion, in order to retain America’s status as the world leader in the science and
technology arena.
A private sector study completed in 1986 clearly showed that the most
successful executives take more risks (MacCrimmon and Wehrung 1990,422).
Later studies revealed that risk-taking individuals are more aware of and act upon
opportunities inherent in a situation rather than withdrawing due to threats (March
and Shapira 1987,1414) (Sitkin and Weingart 1995,1587). Since direct
correlations are shown between successful executives and risk propensity, how
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
could the Government use what is known to increase risk-taking within the research
and development area? One option is to select individuals who possess a
propensity for risk-taking and, thereby, to increase the probability for advancement
of research and development in the public sector.
The purpose of this dissertation research is to develop and to explain a
diagnostic tool that is useful to discover risk-taking individuals within the public
sector who will be working on projects with high risk and high technological
benefits to the Government. Thus, the risk propensity factor is an important
concept to the field of public administration.
This dissertation, “Determining Risk Propensity of Government Program
Managers for High Risk/High Payoff Projects”, is organized into chapters. In
Chapter Two, the literature review centers on the risk-taking propensity of
individuals in both the private and public sectors. Incorporated into this Chapter is
the history of risk, analysis of seminal contributors to the risk concept, and
definitions. The history of risk propensity prior to and since 1990 is described in
detail.
Chapter Three discusses the scope and extent of the study. The focus is on the
research and development sector of the Federal Government and those individuals
whose mission is high-risk programs with potentially large technological payoffs.
Who are these program managers who consider risk-taking a challenge and an
opportunity to obtain state-of-the-art payoffs? An assessment approach/tool is
proposed that could be utilized by upper management before the actual program
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
begins. This tool looks at the individuals who manage projects, not at how to
manage the program.
In Chapter Four the methodology is explained, and the variables are specified.
The analytical results are provided in Chapter Five for the defined assessment
methodology and tools. Each of the three method applications is examined.
Chapter Six discusses the implications of the study, its limitations and possible
future research, and concludes with final reflections and thoughts about risk-taking
propensity in the public sector.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The focus of this literature review is on the risk-taking propensity of
individuals. It covers studies completed in both the public and private sectors of
the United States. The review reveals a scarcity of studies on risk propensity
within the public sector. Risk-taking propensity is a developing and emerging area
of interest due to the present-day environment.
Within the external environment, many political leaders are promoting
processes and methodologies from the private sector for use in the public sector
(for example the public enterprise idea). The thought behind this thrust is the
political leaders’ belief that the basic answers and cure-alls for most Government
problems can be found within the private sector, and that the Government’s
effectiveness hopefully will improve if these answers are implemented.
The public sector is undergoing constant pressure to change. The workforce is
dramatically declining in number and changing in its nature to a computer literate
workforce. While the customer base for research and development is expanding,
Budgets for research and development (R&D) are decreasing. The R&D resources
that are left are continually being scrutinized for practicality and high effectiveness.
All of the interviewees of this dissertation research commented on the budget issue.
Interviewees #1, #10, #14, #15, #17, and #29 indicated strongly that budgets for
R&D are undergoing decrements while requests for solutions to customer needs are
increasing. Mr. Keith Hall, former Director of the National Reconnaissance Office
who completed his tenure in 2002, delineated this R&D issue in a Town Hall
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
Meeting in the Fall of 2001. Lieutenant General James Clapper, Jr., (USAF) (Ret.),
Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, also mentioned the
decreasing budget and increasing customer base from the military and the
Intelligence Community in a February 2002 Town Hall Meeting. A major R&D
Office in the Intelligence Community lost one half of its budget in May 2002.
(Actual budget numbers are classified.)
Today, and in the past, the standard stereotype of a public sector employee is
one of a risk-averse individual. Generally, risk-taking is considered unacceptable
behavior. To the contrary, the Ford Foundation (1996) publicly stated that public
organizations need to encourage risk-taking because the policy environment is
never entirely predictable and stable.
2.1 History of Risk
The meaning of risk has changed over the centuries. The issue of risk was
considered before Greek and Roman times, but it did not emerge as a discrete,
disciplined concept until the seventeenth century when it emerged in the context of
gambling. A specialized mathematics of chance was developed where probability
of an event occurring was combined with its consequent losses and gains.
During the eighteenth century, with the development of marine insurance, risk
was thought to be neutral, neither bad nor good, and it was only viewed in terms of
probability of gains and losses.
The evolution of risk continued in the nineteenth century due to its importance
in economics. Human beings were thought to be risk averse because they made
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
their choices by a calculus. Special profit incentives also were necessary for
investment.
The twentieth century brought about a transformation in the definition of risk.
Many individuals thought that this change was due to the concept of risk entering
into the field of politics. The past twenty years produced the greatest effects on
this concept.
At the present time the prevailing conceptions of risk imply negative/bad
outcomes, dangers, and disadvantages. In the United States, a predominant
tendency today is for individuals to be preoccupied with what are perceived to be
unnecessary risks of contemporary life. The national perception is that the Federal
Government must protect society from these harmful risks by employing increased
controls and regulations.
Risk aversion is the sine qua non of Government. For some, this search for
safety reduces the country’s ability to accept, analyze, manage, judge and exploit
the opportunities of uncertainty/risk. However, the United States strongly supports
and embraces innovation, especially in research and development. According to
several articles in the 1990s and the interviewees* the Government will trail the
needs of society; instead of being in the forefront of innovation, it will be without a
research and development function (Innovation Journal 1996, 7) (Bussey IV 1993,
12) (Smith 1990, 123, 167) (Laurent 1997, 20). This R&D activity is one where the
government deals with the problems and challenges facing the country. Over 90%
of the interviewees concluded that the Government no longer led R&D and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
American innovation as it had in the past. In fact, one Intelligence Community
agency terminated its R&D office stating that the office was not necessary and too
costly to maintain. Many of the employees left the agency to go to private industry
or other agencies with R&D elements. Another R&D office within this same
agency that dealt with critical present-day issues (the researcher was a member),
succumbed to reorganization.
2.2 Seminal Contributors to the Concept
The study of risk was greatly affected by five individuals or groups whose
seminal writing brought about conceptual change and influenced new thinking
within the country. The first major contributor was the economist, Frank H.
Knight, whose doctoral dissertation in 1916, Risk. Uncertainty and Profit, is
considered a classic. F. Knight clarified the role and meaning of pure profit and its
connection with predictive power. He explained profit in his theory of economic
organization as the result of uncertainty. Risks existed when knowledge about the
future was calculable, for example, as a quantitative probability estimate. Risks
were always insurable while uncertainty was not. Uncertainty existed in the
absence of a probability calculus. Decisions were al ways made under conditions of
uncertainty, relying on decision makers’ judgments and relevant information.
The second notable author was Mary Douglas, who wrote Purity and Danger in
1966. This book was a modem classic of anthropology as well as a beginning
treatment of a cultural theory of risk. M. Douglas was concerned with moral
pollution, specifically in the relationship between dietary restrictions and social
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
order. A basic principle of cultural theory states that wherever and whatever
objective dangers exist globally, social organizations focus on and emphasize those
dangers that reinforce the political, moral, or religious order holding the group
together.
In 1969, Chauncey Starr initiated a (if not the) major issue in risk analysis - the
role of the public - with his question “How safe is safe enough?” He posited five
quantitative relationships or laws describing behavioral phenomena involving risks.
The two laws that received the most attention were that risk acceptability appears
to be proportional to the third power of the associated (real or perceived) benefits;
and the public was willing to accept voluntary risk 1000 times greater than
involuntary risks (Glickman and Gough 1990, 183-193).
The fourth seminal study, written in 1973 by Amos Tversky and Daniel
Kahneman and entitled “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and
Probability,” focused on heuristics and biases in probabilistic thinking. This study,
as well as their 1974 study, helped to explain people’s responses to threats posed
by natural hazards. Ultimately, their ideas evolved into the cognitive/psychometric
theory of risk (Tversky and Kahneman 1973, 207-232).
A fifth seminal study, “Rating the Risks,” was one of many investigations by
Paul Slovic, Barusch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein into cognitive processes
and societal risk taking (1990). This group determined reasons why Californians
chose to live close to earthquake faults. The concepts discovered fell into three
headings - judgmental biases, analyzing judgments of risk, and flexibility of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
judgments. The pioneering efforts of these individuals in social analyses of risk
earned widespread recognition throughout the community (Glickman and Gough
1990,61-75).
2.3 Definitions
2.3.1. Risk
The definition of risk and its elements is complex and multi-faceted. The
definition of risk is viewed and considered differently depending upon the
taxonomy that an individual is utilizing. Worldwide organizations are
fundamentally changing their perspectives of risk on a continual basis; and as a
result, the language of risk is becoming muddied. No wonder risk and uncertainty
are used interchangeably without regard to the correct meanings.
In “Defining Risk,” B. Fischoff, S. Watson, and C. Hope state, “No definition
is advanced as the correct one, because there is no one definition that is suitable for
all problems” (1990, p. 31). For this study a universal common language is
attempted and is necessary for a basis of understanding of this work.
Risk is derived from the Italian word, risicare, which means to dare. Risk is a
choice rather than a fate. Individuals dare to take actions. These actions are what
the story of risk is all about and what it means to be a human being (Bernstein
1996, 8).
The definition of risk in the Academic Press Dictionary of Science and
Technology (1992) is “...as statistics (1) in classical decision theory, a function of
the unknown parameter describing the expected loss associated with a decision
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
rule, and (2) in Bayesian decision theory, expected loss of a decision rule, in which
expectations are taken over all unknown quantities" (p. 1869).
In the social sciences, risk denotes the possibility that an undesirable state of
reality (adverse effects) may occur as a result of natural events or human activities.
Human beings can and still do make causal connections between actions (or
events) and their effects. Undesirable effects can be avoided or mitigated if the
causal events or actions are avoided or modified. Thus, risk is “.. .both a
descriptive and a normative concept. It includes the analysis of cause-effect
relationships, which may be scientific, anecdotal, religious, or magical; but it also
carries the implicit message to reduce undesirable effects through appropriate
modification of the causes or, though less desirable, mitigation of the
consequences” (Renn 1992, 57-8). In other words, the definition of risk is
composed of three elements: (1) How can one measure or specify uncertainties?
(Conceptualization of uncertainty), (2) What are the undesirable outcomes? (Scope
of negative effects), and (3) What is the underlying concept of reality (the degree to
which human knowledge reflects reality)?
Furthermore, the study of risk can be divided into three main categories of
disciplines. These are the natural sciences, the physical sciences and engineering,
and the social sciences.
2.3.2. Risk Management
Bernstein (1996) believes that the essence of risk management lies in
maximizing areas where individuals have some control over outcomes and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
minimizing areas where control is absent. The linkage between cause and effect is
hidden. In fact, the Program Management Institute considers risk management
both an art and a science.
The study of risk has evolved into what is now known as risk management.
Risk management (RM) is defined as “.. .the art of identifying potential
undesirable program events, and then establishing and executing the appropriate
risk abatement actions” (U.S. Air Force Materiel Command 1993, 6). Basically
RM includes the management of knowns-unknowns (what could happen is known,
but the magnitude, possibility, and significance of those events are not known) and
the unknowns-unknowns. Individuals involved with a project need to know and to
communicate the “whys” in addition to the “whats” of RM or the process will not
be effective.
2.3.3. Risk Propensity
One school of thought defines risk propensity as an individual tendency of a
decision-maker either to take or avoid risks that can change over time (Sitkin
1992). A second school of thought defines risk propensity as a measure of
willingness to take risks, and this school stresses consistent patterns of risk-taking
or risk-aversion which influence how risks are evaluated and what risks are deemed
acceptable (MacCrimmon and Wehrung 1990, 433).
However, a consistent risk-taker could fail in a specific case to act on his/her
tendency due to an unexpected illness, a natural disaster, inadequate funding, or
other problems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
2.4 History of Risk Propensity
2.4.1. Prior to 1990
Most theoretical and empirical studies directed toward understanding risk prior
to the 1990s focused on the riskiness of situations (for example, rules of choice) or
the willingness of individuals (for example, perceptions of risks) to take risks in
risky situations. Research concerning habits or traits of those individuals who
make risky decisions are scarce. Research on risk propensity from an individual’s
viewpoint has favored unrealistic situations and in most cases has utilized students
versus practicing managers.
2.4.1.1 In psychology, many developments have followed research of risk-related
attitudes. In 1966, Rotter originated an internal versus external control scale that
incorporates a belief in controlling the environment (Rotter 1966, 26). Atkinson
formulated a theory of motivational determinants of risk-taking behaviors in 1966
(Atkinson and Feather 1966, 87). Zuckerman and his colleagues created a
sensation-seeking scale in 1978 that measures the desire for a stimulating
environment (Zuckerman 1978, 39).
2.4.1.2. Useful studies have been done on relationships between willingness to
take risks and characteristics of the decision-maker confronted with the risky
situations. Personal characteristics studied have included age, nationality,
dependents, sex, race, and education. Other characteristics consist of financial and
business characteristics. The few studies relating to practicing managers were
based only on attitudes, for example, as in frequently switching of roles in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
theory of choices with Wallach and Kogan’s 1961 study or in Shure and Meeker’s
questionnaire (1967).
2.4.1.3. During this same time period, Slovic completed a study in 1964 on the
comparison of risk measures (tools). Most of these were psychologically oriented.
Examples included a dot estimation test, a gambling test, and peer ratings of risk-
taking tendencies. Slovic concluded that the lack of agreement might be due to the
subjectivity and multi-dimensionality of risk (Slovic 1964, 232). Kogan and
Wallach (1967) reinforced his declaration.
2.4.1.4. Dr. Kenneth R. MacCrimmon and Dr. Donald A. Wehrung completed a 12
year study that they entitled, Taking Risks: the Management of Uncertainty (1986).
These authors examined the risk propensities of people who are paid for handling
risks in industry. Their comprehensive research incorporated more than 100
variables in a broad variety of realistic situations. Their research had a solid
theoretical basis. The central focus of their study was to determine whether people
could be categorized as risk takers or risk averters based on their responses to a set
of questionnaires (a risk portfolio tool). As a result of their work, relative
comparisons could be made between the degree of one individual’s risk propensity
to another’s risk propensity in an organization or group risk portfolio.
These authors also developed a design, called the REACT model, to describe
how an individual manages risk. REACT is an acronym as follows: (1) R equates
to recognizing and structuring risks, (2) E equates to evaluating and decision
making, (3) A equates to adjusting the risks, (4) C equates to choosing among
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
different actions, and (5) T equates to tracking outcomes. This model is based on
theories of risk in economics, finance, management, and psychology. A few results
of their empirical study include: first, successful managers do take more risks; and
second, few managers avoid risk in all situations while fewer are consistent risk
takers. A third result is that higher education does not inhibit risk-taking by
managers, but age does; fourth, managers are more willing to take risks in business
decisions than in their personal lives; and fifth, most managers rate themselves as
greater risk takers than they actually are.
2.4.1.5. One year later, James G. March and Zur Shapira wrote “Managerial
Perspectives on Risk and Risk-taking” (March and Shaprio 1987). This work
examines how executives actually define and react to risk, not how they should
define and react to risk. March and Shapira clearly explained that risk-taking is
imperfectly understood within a rational /classical theoretic concept of risk. “The
managers see risk in ways that are both less precise and different from risk as it
appears in decision theory” (p. 1407). “Standard conceptions of risk, with their
emphasis on trait differences among individual decision-makers, are problematic as
bases for talking about managerial risk-taking behavior” (p. 1414). This emphasis
on trait differences (personality traits) can cause problems to occur when looking at
managerial risk-taking behaviors.
Moreover, this 1987 study by March and Shapiro observed that managers would
prefer to look for alternatives that can be controlled or managed rather then
assessing and accepting risks. Three major ways were identified that differ from
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
what would be expected from a decision theoretic perspective. First, “Managers are
quite insensitive to estimates of the probabilities of possible outcomes” (p. 1404).
That is, managers see a risky choice with a wide range of outcomes versus a threat
of a very poor outcome. Second, “Managers’ decisions are particularly affected by
the way their attention focuses on critical performance targets” (p. 1404). That is,
managers view choices in terms of volume to lose rather than the probability of
loss. In other words, managers prefer to consider loss amounts such as 1 million
dollars rather than a probability statement of a 50% business loss. This idea is
reflected in the tendency found by MacCrimmon and Wehrung in their 1986 study
for risk-taking when greater risk was involved. Finally, “Managers make a sharp
distinction between taking risks and gambling” (p. 1404). Most show little desire
to reduce risk to a single quantifiable construct. Again the idea is that there is no
one way to translate a multi-dimensional phenomenon - risk - into one number. In
conclusion, the authors pointed out that a manager who fails to take risks should
not be in the business of managing.
2.4.1.6. Dr s. Wehrung, Lee, Tse, and Vertinsky formulated a theoretical
framework and an empirical test using a sample of experienced executives in
“Adjusting Risky Situations: A Theoretical Framework and Empirical
Test”(Wehrung and others 1988). The theoretical framework characterized
different risk adjustments, such as developing new options and gathering more
information, and then related them to a variety of perceptions. These perceptions,
which might influence the individual’s behavior and choices, include perceived risk
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
and perceived control. These executives had a strong propensity to dominate risky
situations that they faced through controlling mechanisms such as changing the
external decision environment. This study again indicates why a dynamic theory of
decision-making under uncertainty is needed to supercede existing static choice
models. MacCrimmon and Wehrung, 1986 and March and Shapiro, 1987,
suggested this change earlier. The authors also conclude that the current focus on
risky choice (1988) should be broadened to a wider range of studies and research
on the subject of risk behavior.
2.4.1.7. In his 1989 study, “Risk Taking Over Gains and Losses: A Study of Oil
Executives,” Dr. Wehrung selected experienced business executives from both
Canada and the United States for his empirical research. His comments on why he
used experienced individuals in decision-making were informative and revealing.
Experienced individuals may have different perceptions on the riskiness of the
situation and may produce a different evaluation of possible outcomes and choices
than inexperienced individuals resulting in different choices. Additionally,
decision-makers who did not bear all the consequences from their decisions may
handle risky situations differently from those who did (Wehrung 1989, 116).
2.4.2. 1990 and Beyond
Dr. Paul Shoemaker completed a study on the relationship of risk attitudes
across domains and response modes in 1990. He stated, “To date, however, no
generally accepted theory exists that explains or predicts well how people choose
under risk” (p. 1451).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
2.4.2.1. Also in 1990, Drs. MacCrimmon and Wehrung further examined their
1986 research on “Characteristics of Risk Taking Executives” in order to ascertain
the validity of common stereotypes - risk takers and risk averters. The researchers
utilized a multivariate analysis of the relationship between the socio-economic
characteristics and the risk propensity of 509 executives from their 1986 study.
MacCrimmon and Wehrung explained, “No single measure of risk propensity is
adequate to capture the complexity of risk-taking behavior” (p. 432). Multiple
measures of willingness to take risks need to be used. The authors also applied
linear discriminant analysis to determine whether risk takers can be differentiated
from risk averters. The results indicated that the most successful executives were
the biggest risk takers, always positively associated with risk taking, and that the
more mature individuals were the most risk averse, always negatively associated
with risk taking. The maturity factor is comprised of three characteristics - age,
seniority, and dependents. The success factor is composed of four characteristics -
authority, income, wealth, and position.
MacCrimmon and Wehrung go on to say that their data did not imply causality;
they hypothesized “.. .that for most businesses, a person gets to the top by taking
risks and having them work out for the best. The person who does not take risks is
unlikely to get to the top” (p. 433). MacCrimmon and Wehrung also point out that,
at times, people take risks that do not work out, and as a result, career plans are
thwarted. Risks need to be carefully chosen. Their study included only top-level
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
executives in industry. If this research had been expanded to include a wider
sample, the results on success might have been stronger.
2.4.2.2. In 1992, Dr. S. Sitkin and Dr. A. Pablo reconceptualized the determinants
of risk behavior (which includes risk propensity) in organizations into a conceptual
model due to the fact that past research had resulted in many contradictory
findings. Now risk propensity and risk perceptions were placed in a central role.
Prior to this study, only MacCrimmon and Wehrung had considered and utilized a
more integrated approach to risk propensity. Sitkin and Pablo examined current
literature on predicting risk behavior that consisted of three main factors or
determinants - individual characteristics, organizational context characteristics, and
problem-related characteristics. These factors and their elements were thought to
directly effect risk behavior. Such behavior is defined as factors that influence an
individual’s decision-making in a risky context. Risk behavior is characterized by
the degree of risk associated with the decisions made.
The authors proposed an alternative model, or what they called a
reconceptualized or mediated model of the determinants of risk behavior. The new
model proposed that risk propensity and risk perception acted in a mediating role,
which caused the shift of determinants/factors from directly affecting risk behavior
to indirectly affecting it. The reconceptualized model also exposed contradictory
findings of existing models and revealed a means of reconciling the contradictions.
With this risk behavior reconceptualization, two factors were major. Within these
factors were key variables that were the determinants of risk behavior.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
In the first factor pertaining to individual characteristics, the key determinants of
risk propensity included risk preferences, inertia, and outcome history. Risk
preference is defined as one individual characteristic that influences a person’s
actions (Bockhaus, 1980). In other words, “...a decision maker who enjoys the
challenge that risks entail will be more likely to undertake risky actions than those
individuals who do not” (p. 12). According to Sitkin and Pablo, “...a focus or
tendency recognizes that the general desire to pursue or avoid risks, for example
risk preferences, does not determine specific risk behaviors, but rather it affects the
general likelihood of a person’s behaving in more or less risky ways, for example
risk propensity” (p. 15). Inertia is defined, as an individual’s orientation toward
handling risks in specific contexts, which tends to persist over time, forming a
relatively stable pattern (Rowe 1977; Slovic 1972, 17). Outcome history is defined
as a person-situation interaction characteristic: the degree to which decision
making behavior for those previous risk-related decisions resulted in successful or
unsuccessful outcomes. The inertia and outcome history determinants proposed
were new factors.
For the second factor pertaining to organizational/problem-related
characteristics, the key determinants of risk perception were comprised of problem
framing, social influence (this included both leader and culture elements), problem
domain familiarity, organizational control systems, and top management
homogeneity. Problem framing is defined as a situation is presented to a decision
maker as an opportunity or threat in terms of gains or losses. An organization’s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
culture and an organization’s leaders were identified as two of the strongest sources
of social influence. Social influence can change an individual’s beliefs, perceptions
and actions. Problem domain familiarity is defined as “... the familiarity that
results from increased levels of past experience in a given problem domain
independent of what outcomes resulted” (p .22). Organizational control systems
can be perceived either as high or low risk in the same situation. The difference
depends upon which aspect of the decision-making process is rewarded or
punished. For example, is the decision-making process an outcome control or a
process control system? Top management team homogeneity occurs when “... team
members are more likely to value mutual support and consensus above rational
debate, reasonable conflict, and decision quality, resulting in the inadequate
collection and processing of diverse and conflicting information” (p. 20). This
group process makes risk perceptions more extreme than individual risk perceptions
in a heterogeneous group and does not allow consideration of all available
information. Organization control systems and risk propensity were proposed as
new determinants of risk perception by the authors.
Sitkin and Pablo posit eleven propositions pertaining to each of the key
determinants. Risk propensity affected all these key determinants. The authors
consider risk propensity to be an unexamined missing variable in most past
research; they believe that risk propensity represents a key explanatory variable. In
fact, Sitkin and Pablo’s Proposition 10 asserted, “Decision makers’ risk behavior
will be consistent with their risk propensity” (p. 29).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
Sitkin and Pablo also discussed various groups of individuals, for example
decision-makers in government organizations that often have been portrayed as and
are considered risk averse in orientation. Janis and Mann (1977) identified the
hyper vigilance response (a form of risk averse behavior) that is a result of
decision-makers perceiving their situations in threatening negative terms (p. 28).
Staw, Sandelands and Dutton (1981) formulated a threat-rigidity hypothesis at an
individual level. This theory states that the presence of a threat results in cognitive
and motivational manifestations such as a tendency to emit well-learned responses,
an attention to dominant cues, and a reliance upon prior expectations (p. 28). These
tendencies are consistent with risk averse behavior. These authors contended that
the three proposed determinants (risk preferences, inertia, outcome history)
converge in government and university settings, causing more risk averse behavior.
This convergence incorporates large past failures, historical inflexible use of risk-
averse routines, and personnel-screening criteria.
Throughout the reconceptualization analysis, Drs. Sitkin and Pablo did not
prove or disprove their derived propositions. Rather, these authors hope that they
provided an agenda for future research in an area of risk propensity.
2.4.2.3. An empirical study, “Determinants of Risky Decision-Making Behavior:
A Test of the Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions and Propensity,” was conducted
in 1995 by S. Sitkin and L. Weingart. This report examined the results of two
studies on a portion of the earlier posited reconceptualized or mediated model of
1992. The authors investigated how risk propensity and risk perception mediates
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
the effects of problem framing and outcome history on risky decision-making
behavior. Nine separate hypotheses were tested and evaluated (p. 1576-1588).
The results of Study One provided support for the role of outcome history in
their posited mediated model. Study Two provided support that problem framing
has a direct and indirect affect on risky decision-making. Both Study One and
Study Two clarified our understanding of the causal path and how mediated
determinants influence the process. Four hypotheses focused on the risk perception
determinant. Five hypotheses focused directly on risk propensity.
The five that focused on risk propensity included Hypotheses 1,3, 4, 6, and 7.
Hypothesis 1 stated, “The more successful the outcomes of a decision maker’s risk
related decisions have been, the higher his or her risk propensity” (p. 1576).
Hypothesis 3 proposed, “The higher a decision maker’s risk propensity, the lower
the level of perceived situational risk” (p. 1577). Hypothesis 4 advanced, “The
higher a decision maker’s risk propensity, the riskier will be his or her decision
making behavior” (p. 1578). Hypothesis 6 suggested, “The effect of outcome
history on risky decision-making behavior will be fully mediated by risk
propensity” (p. 1579). Hypothesis 7 projected, “ The effect of outcome history on
risk perception will be fully mediated by risk propensity” (p. 1579).
All of these hypotheses were empirically tested and proved to be true. Study
One demonstrated how outcome history flows to risk propensity and then to risk
perception. The flow continues from risk perception to risky decision-making
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
behavior. Study Two proved that the problem-framing determinant affects risky
decision-making behavior directly and indirectly.
Overall, the results of Study One and Two provided support for inclusion of risk
propensity and risk perception as mediators of the effects on risky decision-making
behaviors. These studies also provide preliminary support for the mediating
approach, thus challenging the direct effects model that underlies most previous
research on risk behavior. This finding also is grounded by the 1987 March and
Shapiro study. Additionally, the finding that an individual’s propensity to take or
avoid risks affects decision-making is grounded in the 1986 MacCrimmon and
Wehrung study. Those authors conclude that “.. .once an individual’s risk
orientation is fixed, individual or group decision makers can be purposely selected
on the basis of their outcome histories and risk propensity to influence the
likelihood that more or less risky decisions will be made” (p. 1589).
2.4.2.4. William Gardner and Mark Martenko produced a literature review
entitled, “Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to Study Managers: a Literature
Review and Research Agenda” in 1996 (p. 45). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) was being utilized (and still is) to study the relationship between
psychological types and managerial attributes, behaviors and effectiveness. I.
Myers saw mental functions as the core of type theory. Perception was defined as
that which determines what people see in a situation, and their judgment
determines what they decide to do about it (Myers and Myers 1980, 1). Perceptions
may be due to sensing (S) or to intuition (N) and judging may be thinking (T) or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
feeling (F). (S. Sitkin defines a perception as a decision-making assessment of risk
inherent in a situation.) Management theorists, for example P.C. Nutt, have
claimed that mental functions combine to form four decision styles (a decision
style is equated to a managers’ risk perception and an adoption decision). One
decision style, the ST, relies on logical analyses of factual data. SF individuals, a
second decision style, rely on personal values in order to evaluate all the collected
facts. The NF decision style, a third category, considers the needs of the people
and the possibilities for serving their needs. The final decision style, the NT
individuals, utilize theoretical and impersonal logical analyses to examine the
issues within the problem (p. 56).
P.C. Nutt utilized top and middle level business managers for his study
regarding the impact of uncertainty upon these four decision styles. During this
study, a manipulation of uncertainty occurred by varying the spread of the return
on investment. From the resulting statistics, Nutt and others proposed that “...SFs
perceive relatively low levels of risk and are extremely risk tolerant, especially
when they anticipate sharing the risk; STs perceive high levels of risk and are
highly risk averse; NTs and NFs perceive and tolerate risk at moderate levels” (p.
56). (Tolerance is defined as the act of allowing something.) However, a few
divergent results were found in a literature review such as Blaylock’s 1981 report.
Blaylock found NTs are the most risk averse in strategic planning scenarios (p. 57).
The authors concluded that the MBTI could be utilized as a tool (type construct)
for examining relationships between a manager’s personality and attributes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
However, . .there are still rational worries about type theory and its
operationalization” (p. 45). In addition, they pointed out that managerial research
using all four scales or focusing on the structural properties of type theory was very
scarce.
2.4.2.5 Dr. B. Bozeman and G. Kingsley examined the widely held assumption
that public managers are more risk averse than private sector managers and
revealed their empirical findings in the March/April 1998 Public Administration
Review. Bozeman and Kingsley comment that very little research has occurred on
risk-taking of public managers even though the quantity of public management
literature has increased and an interest in empirical studies comparing private and
public management has transpired.
The best-known risk aversion studies do not differentiate between public and
private organizations. Risk-taking is a common element of a public manager’s
work life. Their methodology included taking a multivariate measure of risk
culture. The authors define risk culture as “... the organization’s propensity to take
risks as perceived by the managers in the organization” (p. 110). Perceptions
create the risk culture since it is these perceptions of top managers and their risk
behavior that point out what is or is not acceptable risk behavior. The results
reveal that public managers differ little from private sector managers in their risk
orientations. “The prescriptions for greater goal clarity, employee trust, and cutting
red tape and formalism...” (p.l 17) that reduces risk aversion works both in the
public and private sector. Since the concept of risk orientation is valid, perhaps
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
this finding adds to and reinforces the idea that a comparison of individuals’ risk
propensity between the public and private sectors needs to be generated and is
justifiable.
2.4.2.6. Mark T. Kennedy in collaboration with Professor K. Mumighan conducted
an experiment and reported their findings in the Kellogg Journal of Organization
Behavior 1998. The purpose of the paper, entitled “The Role of Identity and
Familiarity in Risky Decisions” (p. 1-23), was to test the hypothesis “.. .that risky
decisions are driven by an interaction between anticipated impact on the decision
maker’s identity and the decision maker’s familiarity with the decision domain” (p.
4). Mr. Kennedy believed that the reconceptualized model of risk developed by
Sitkin and Pablo (1992) is an impressive accomplishment, but all their key
determinants of risk behavior including risk propensity can be reduced to the
identity-familiarity hypothesis.
Eighty MBA students tested the identity-familiarity hypothesis in a gambling
experiment. The results only partially confirmed this proposition. Participants
who were considered specialists with a particular game would be less likely to try
and risk playing another game. The identity and familiarity interaction was not
supported by the z-test. In fact, participants who knew two games were less likely
to change than those who knew only one game.
2 A.2.1. In the January/February 1999 Public Administration Review, Moon
examined managerial entrepreneurship in the public sector and explained his
findings in an article entitled, “The Pursuit of Managerial Entrepreneurship: Does
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Organization Matter?” (p. 31-41). This type of entrepreneurship is defined as the
positive managerial properties that promote changes with respect to organizational
products (or enhancing customers’ satisfaction), processes (for example decreasing
red tape), and behaviors (for example increasing the propensity of risk-taking). (At
the present time the concept of entrepreneurship, which is incorporating managerial
improvement and market-like competition, is being widely publicized as an answer
and possible panacea for many existing problems within the Federal Government.
However, not enough conceptual clarifications or adjustments for the public sector
have been made.) Moon defined risk-taking as a strict managerial term, which
discusses the propensity for organizational change and innovative decision-making.
Moon investigated both top management’s and ordinary staff members’
propensities for risk-taking. Results indicated that the top managers in public
organizations are perceived to have a lower likelihood of making risk-taking
decisions than those in private organizations (mean t-test 6.64 versus 7.85) (p. 38).
There was no difference between ordinary staff members in public and private
organizations (p. 40). Furthermore, reducing hierarchy and formalization is not
sufficient to promote top managers’ risk-taking behaviors. Structural and cultural
changes to the organization are also necessary. (These results enhance the earlier
findings of Bozeman and Kingsley in 1998.)
2.4.2.8. In 2001, Dr. N. Nicholson and E. Soane from the London Business
School, M. Fenton-0’Creevy from the Open University Business School, and P.
Willman from the Said Business School Oxford, conducted an empirical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
investigation on the conceptualization and measurement of risk propensity. Risk
Propensity and Personality explains this personality profiling research and its
conclusions.
Building upon research by MacCrimmon and Wehrung (1986) and modeling
work by Sitkin and Pablo (1992), the authors make a theoretical adaptation from
the 1992 definition of risk propensity (“... is the tendency of a decision maker to
take or avoid risks”) (Sitkin and Pablo, p. 12). This adaptation implies that risk
orientation should be consistent across several risk domains and decision types.
Risk propensity is defined “.. .as the frequency with which people do or do not take
different kinds of risks, i.e. risk propensity is tested here as a summary concept for
the risk-taking behavior of an individual across time and situations” (p. 6). The
study covered six domains incorporating health, safety, social, recreational, career
and financial risks. The sample set comprised 1,669 individuals, who were
financial traders in investment banks and college students, in London, England.
Four key conclusions resulted from this London research. First, personality
characteristics along with other factors, for example, age and sex, influence risk
taking in any domain. An individual who exhibits risk propensity reveals a strong
Big Five personality pattern comprised of high extraversion (a key component in
most domains is the sensation-seeking characteristic) and openness, and low scores
in neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Second, risk taking is not
entirely generalizable ...” (p. 18) to another domain. The third determination
states that risk behavior is patterned. Some individuals are habitually risk averse or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
risk takers. A third group also exists that reflects domain-specific patterns of risk
behavior. The fourth and final determination asserts “.. .personality profiles can be
used to predict risk taking in each of the six domains measured, and overall risk
taking” (p. 18). The authors conclude that personality profiling would be a useful
approach for managers’ risk management plans.
2.4.2.9. An Electronic Data System’s (EDS) Project Management Consulting
Study Team presented a paper entitled “Assessing Risk Attitude for Improved
Visibility to Project Risk: at the Fourth European Project Management Conference
on 6-7 June 2001. After evaluating studies of past projects, the team discovered
that a project’s attitude toward risk changed many times over the course of time,
but this shifting was not recognized. After analyzing past-project lessons learned,
project and risk management literature, and utilizing a systematic approach for the
research study, a repeatable risk attitude assessment process was formulated.
The authors created a list and definitions of the essential characteristics and
components of a risk attitude. The four major categories were maturity,
environment, knowledge, and support. A risk attitude assessment questionnaire
was constructed from the list of essential characteristics. The questionnaire is
utilized by the project manager who employs an evidence-based assessment
technique. This technique probes for evidence or lack of essential risk
characteristics. The results of the probe are assigned values by a four-value alpha
scale. ‘A’ is considered to be very desirable, positive, and good. ‘D’ is very
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
undesirable, negative, and bad. The results can be displayed on either a Current
Project Risk Attitude graph or a Project Risk Attitude Over Time graph.
The EDS Research Team believes that project managers can use the gathered
information to be more effective in decision-making. Business leaders also benefit
since they can redirect resources, if necessary, from risk averse to risk tending
projects; thereby, increasing the probability of a project’s success and possibly
creating resource savings.
2.4.2.10. K. R. Walsh and H. Schneider of Louisiana State University recently
wrote a paper entitled “The Role of Motivation and Risk Behavior in Software
Development Success” in a 2002 Information Research (p. 1-21) that focuses on
applying “.. .agency theory to manage the behavior of individuals in the context of
software development” (p. 1.). Agency Theory is a management theory and
another approach to risk management. Risk management’s traditional methods are
comprised of controls and procedures that may have a negative effect on
motivation, and thus, reduce the project’s chances for success. Agency Theory
concentrates on individuals (agents) who make decisions for an organization.
Walsh and Schneider state both monitoring and contracting are important
motivational influences. In addition, the individual’s skills and techniques will not
ensure success without the individual’s motivation to use them.
The authors adapt K. M. Eisenhardt’s propositions of Agency Theory to
software development and propose three hypotheses derived from these
propositions. The empirical research needed should revolve around outcome-based
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
software contracts versus behavior-based contracts. Outcome-based software
contracts are thought to increase the project’s success.
2.4.3. Summary
The examination of existing research and studies on risk-taking propensity
illustrates an area of knowledge, which penetrates into and is observed in many
theoretical concepts. The decision-making theory of March and Shapiro, the
personality/core type theory of Myers and Briggs, the organizational culture theory
of Bozeman, the entrepreneurship theory of Moon, and other variations including
managerial perspectives and refraining and adjusting of situations, to name a few,
are all examples in which risk-taking propensity plays a role. MacCrimmon and
Wehrung first brought forth an integrated approach and focus, which utilized
multivariate analysis test procedures on risk propensity. Sitkin and Pablo
continued the progression by formulating a useful visual conceptualization of
existing data into a mediated or reconceptualized model of the determinants of risk
behavior, which was tested in part by Sitkin and Weingart. Sitkin and Weingart
examined how risk perception and risk propensity mediate vis a vis the effects of
outcome history in Study One and problem framing in Study Two risky decision
making behavior. The results from these two studies provide support for
incorporation of risk propensity and risk perception as mediators and preliminary
support for the mediating approach.
The realization that risk-taking propensity is multi-faceted and complex is not
new. The realization that no one methodology can explain risk-taking propensity
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is not new. Whether risk propensity is considered a stable and fixed dispositional,
individual characteristic or is an individual’s current tendency that can change over
time is a question and an ongoing debate between two schools of thought that is
unanswerable at the present time. What is more important and practical is how to
identify those individuals who demonstrate risk propensity when an individual is
needed to manage a high risk/high payoff project at a specific time. The question
is, “What could be used to increase risk-taking in the research and development
activities of the public sector?” One approach is to develop and utilize a new tool
and methodology.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
Chapter 3. SCOPE AND EXTENT OF STUDY
Chapter 3 defines the focus of the study, the place where the lack of risk-taking is
a vast detriment to national security. A possible solution to increase the effectiveness
and success rate of projects is suggested. A hypothesis is stated.
3.1. Research and Development Sector
Certain groups within Federal Government agencies focus on research and
development projects/programs with potentially high technological payoffs. These
groups continually demand and need a special type of individual - one who has a
propensity for risk-taking. In fact the Office of Technology Assessment considers
risk a priority-setting issue across all Federal research agencies.
Highly qualified technical experts in the field of research and development are
becoming quite scarce since many of the experienced scientists and engineers are
retiring and/or taking early- outs according to Dr. Gary Smith, a past DDS&T of the
CIA. Moreover, most of the highly technical high payoff projects that are
characterized as state-of-the-art are usually associated with high risk.
3.2. A Possible Methodology/Tool
During a government project cycle, existing risk management processes and tools
may be used to manage, to reduce and to filter the risk element within a project or a
program. However, are methodologies and tools available that could be used before
the project cycle is initiated or set in motion that additionally could help, manage,
reduce, and filter the risk element or possibly enhance its positive aspects by looking
at the individual managing the project rather than the project itself? An assumption
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
in this case is that risk-taking is not wrong in the research and development world
within the public sector. This concept, of course, is contrary to the existing culture
within the public sector that exhibits and at times seems to profess a love for risk-
aversion. Individuals could increase their effectiveness and their capacity to handle
problems involving the uncertainty of risk within these highly technological, research
and development projects if they possessed a risk-taking propensity.
Better handling of risk and uncertainty means that individuals see positive aspects
within risky situations, and that they are better able to manage risk within programs.
These individuals see opportunities within risky situations and do not succumb to
situational threats.
3.3. Hypothesis
Risk-taking is more than risk management. Risk-taking propensity enables an
individual to go beyond the threshold of existing standards of reasonableness even
though unknowns still exist within the program/project.
This researcher seeks to develop an assessment methodology that will indicate
who are risk-takers and who are risk-averters or in other words those who have a
propensity for risk and those who do not have a propensity for risk (are risk averse)
in the public sector.
The hypothesis posited in this dissertation is as follows:
The assessment methodology defined in this dissertation identifies individuals with
risk-taking propensities in the public sector.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
Chapter 4. METHODOLOGY
Chapter 4 includes a discussion of the individuals who comprise the sample set
and the three-prong assessment methodology utilized. The dependent variable and
four independent variables are established.
4.1. How was the research accomplished?
The researcher contacted and interviewed 31 individuals, the sample set, who'
were known professionally by reputation or by actual past work experience. This
target population, who were either recently retired individuals or still actively
working Program Managers in the Intelligence Community (only one was from the
Department of Justice), was chosen since these individuals dealt or deal with major
risks on a continual basis.
The composition of the interviewees was diversified and they are impressive as to
education, experience, and positions. 42% had PhDs, 39% had Masters, and 19%
had Bachelor degrees consisting of technical and non-technical subject areas. On
average, the interviewees had 30 years of work experience; 19% were females. The
interviewees held positions ranging from Program Managers to Deputy Directors of
agencies. One individual actually helped start an agency. The interview time ranged
from one hour to five hours. The average time was around two and one-half hours.
After a general discussion and introductory comments in which the researcher
explained who she was and what she hoped to accomplish, the interview began.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
4.1.1. Interview Guide
An Interview Guide (Appendix 1) was used to start the discussions and obtain
comparable answers. The guide incorporated 18 questions that contained 50 separate
sub-questions. Questions ranged from open-ended/unstructured informational
gathering types to yes/no types. After a general discussion and the actual interview
(See Appendix 2), the researcher made judgments as to who was a risk taker and who
was a risk averter. Then, all the interviewees were placed on an Interviewee
Placement Chart (Figure 3) indicating where the researcher thought they should be
regarding their propensity for risk-taking before the analysis of the interview data.
Each interviewee’s position was based on judgments and reputations of the
individuals. The researcher would like to point out that each interviewee was well
known in the Intelligence Community. The researcher deliberately chose individuals
whose reputations ranged from strong risk taking to strong risk aversion
Risk Takers Neutral Risk Averters
#1 #3 #7 #30 #19 #11 #4 #12 #21 #5
#2 #28 #15 #27 #29 #13 #16 #23 #6
#9 #26 #22 #20 #8
#10 #24 #31 #25 #18
#14
#17
INTERVIEWEE PLACEMENT CHART
FIGURE 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
4.1.2 Three Methodologies
Utilizing three separate methodologies, the interview data were then analyzed.
The Likert Scale format obtained individuals’ positions and feelings on specific
risk-taking elements. The possible answer categories included the following:
strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree. The Likert Scale
Form is Appendix 3 of this dissertation. Please note that unstructured questions
were not used with this format. The answers to the unstructured questions, for
example questions one and two, were analyzed by the other two methodologies.
Using a modified Force Field analysis as the second method, each of the interview
questions was classified into one of four force areas. The Force Field Analysis
method was altered to the extent that only a portion of the process was utilized. This
portion consisted of determining the types of forces to consider when taking a risk-
taking action and discovering whether these forces would help or hinder the proposed
action. These force areas can drive (increase momentum) or restrain (inhibit
momentum) the management of any research and development program depending
upon how an individual feels and acts about the specific force.
The Individual force level is the individuals’ themselves. This force incorporates
ten specific questions into one group related to the individual. The Group force level
is comprised of ten questions and it explains how a group can influence an
individual’s risk-taking propensity. The Organizational force level equates to how an
agency impacts the individual’s concept of risk. Fourteen questions constitute this
force area. The Institutional force level is the Federal government and is comprised
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
of six questions. These questions examine how the Government can modify an
individual’s behavior regarding risk-taking. All of these force areas may impact the
management of a research and development program in varying degrees by acting as
either driving or restraining forces on the program manager. The Force Field
Analysis form is Appendix 4.
The third methodology is the Qualitative Statement format. This method
synopsized specific questions unanswered by the other two methodologies; thus, this
format allows for examination of each individual’s thoughts and ideas about various
aspects of risk taking. The Qualitative Statement Form is Appendix 5.
4.2. Variables
The dependent variable for the researcher’s study is the risk propensity of
individuals who are government Program Managers who deal with risky issues.
The independent variables consist of the following: (1) risk-based behavior
relative to the individual, (2) risk-based behavior relative to group attitudes, (3) risk-
based behavior relative to organizational attitudes regarding risk, and (4) risk-based
behavior relative to the institutional attitudes regarding risk. These four independent
variables match the four force areas.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Chapter 5. ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Chapter 5 provides first, one sample response to the Interview Guide, one sample
response to the Qualitative Statement Guide, and the results of the analyses of
interview data that focused on the hypothetical statement introduced in Chapter 3.
Three sections are devoted to the three applications of the methodologies utilized for
the research on risk-taking propensity. The final section is a summary of the
findings.
5.1. Sample Sets
In order to fully understand the wealth and type of gathered data, one complete
interview and one Qualitative Statement example are included in Chapter 5. The
total collection of responses to both guides is located in the Appendix.
5.1.1 Interview Guide Sample
INTERVIEW GUIDE -# 17
What this researcher is attempting to do is very difficult since there are no agreed upon
definitions of risk-taking or risk aversion that are readily available. Dealing with a subject
that is not well defined, the researcher had to attain rapport with the individuals interviewed
and to understand what they mean by risk-taking and risk aversion. The interviewee (#17) is
described below; then his/her responses are noted.
PhD in math and physics. 23 years in government (DIA, DOE, DOD) DOD
managed 5-6000 people. Now on boards.
Today, women are doing things with groups of people, not as individuals. Risk averse
behavior equates to behaving as a consensus group. One must make new things happen by
yourself.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be useful
to share with others?
Risk-taking in the government depends upon the group you are with at the time. Also
the technology you are working with and the environment in which you are working. There
are three significant consequences of risk-taking in the government:
• Risk-taking can put the government in a better position in the global community and
the individual in a better position within the agency.
• A risk-taker is sought after for his opinions and knowledge.
• A risk-taker can show the products and services that would help/assist the government,
move the country forward, and keep the country strong.
Risk-taking is limiting. The risk-taking envelope is so narrow and small that you do not
realize how limited you are really.
2. Have you developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
The country could not have made the progress it has or become the number one nation
in the world without risk-taking.
#17 could not have done what she accomplished in the government and in private
industry without taking risks.
Examples of #17’s career progression.
Obtaining jobs was very difficult since #17 is a female. The environment and the culture
were against females working and in particular working as scientists and researchers. Jobs
were difficult to obtain in these fields. #17 had an opportunity to work with computers. At
this time, computers were just beginning to be considered for utilization in scientific and
technical areas. #17 did her Master’s thesis with a computer - the first time this was done.
She wrote the first program on double precision mathematics. Now this actual program is in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
the Smithsonian as a major stepping stone in the development of computers and their
application and she received an award.
#17 did useful things to obtain a job. When she applied to IBM, they told her that the
company had no room for a woman scientist. When she heard that Admiral Rickover was
conducting interviews with individuals who had degrees in mathematics, computers, or
physics, #17 interviewed and obtained a job. She was one of ten individuals selected by the
Admiral to work on the atomic submarine. The group started off on something quite
different. She helped with a two- dimensional design of a reactor.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Examples
1 . In the 1970s, #17 was the Assistant Secretary of DOE for Resources. (This included oil
resources, TV A, Teapot Dome, and the Dams.) She built the first coat generators that use a
different technology that decreased pollution.
2. She started the synthetic fuels industry and companies. 1500 people work
for her. She went to Congress to explain her idea and obtain financial backing. One
of her bosses was made head of the synthetic fuel industry. The program failed after
18 months. It hurt her to take a risk in this case. She was in a hurry to set up the
program. A problem developed - an interpersonal issue with the boss who was
made head of the fuel industry. He had his own agenda. She feels that if she had
been placed as one of the officers of the synthetic fuel program, it would not have
failed. The boss, who was made the head, had his own agenda. The good of the
country was not his priority.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
b. Were these events similar in nature all of the time?
Yes, they were similar in nature all of the time. The projects involved something that has
never been done before or steps taken before.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions? and
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
These actions had never been thought about. We really did not know if they were risky
or not. See #7 for further information.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions? and
d. How did they show you?
In one example when she was at the DOE, the Secretary of Energy supported her.
Congress supported her. #17 asked for $3B and received $30B. Other agencies also
supported her. She wove them into the council. She talked to Britain, France, Sweden, and
Germany since they had some technology that the US did not have.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Yes.
b. If so, how was this trait important or vital for the mission?
This trait was important personally and for whomever you worked with. She worked
with agencies that had not existed before, for example, like DIA (which she helped to
originate). Or in jobs that were new like being the first Assistant Secretary for Automation
and Computers for OSD.
Risk-taking individuals leave agencies with little pots of risk-taking individuals. An
agency should have only 10% risk-taking individuals. The rest of the agency should include
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
90% of risk averse or other types. These people will continue to improve processes and to
keep the steady state going.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a
problem and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks? For example, was it your spirit to succeed when
others were afraid to do?
The actual need for the government and the fact it is exciting to do and accomplish the
mission. If you take a risk, the government might have a need for the project’s outcome(s)
afterwards (at a future date).
In today’s world, the government does not have risk-taking assets (those individuals who
take risks). Individuals who do not have these assets cannot take risks.
Reasons why #17 went into government.
1 . In government, jobs are interesting (not the money factor).
2. If the government does not have the assets, it could be hanging out on a clothesline.
Phenomenon - Risk aversity is cultivated by the inability of government to reward in
normal ways, for example, awards. Risk aversity feeds upon itself. The more you have, the
more you get. Spiral down - less and less chances. This model (RA) is normal and the best
way to go in the government. (At least for 90% of an agency which keeps the steady state of
the government going.)
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
The people she worked with were comfortable with her propensity for risk-taking. It was
#17 who was taking a risk. They received a lot of benefits from her work. She put
management principles in when she was with DOE. She turned around this agency in two
years which Congress had said was the worst managed agency in the government.
b. Were these people risk-taking or risk averse?
At the time, there was not a word for risk-taking. However, they did not think of
themselves as risk averse individuals.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Upper management liked her risk-taking actions.
d. Did upper management appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Some agreed with #17 and some disagreed with her. They did not talk about the
issue at any great lengths.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
They formally and informally agreed with her risk-taking actions.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
As you go up the ladder, the less risk-taking you are due to your vested interests. You
become comfortable with the environment, etc. She did not want to change due to vested
interests. She had done risk-taking at the highest level. Then about two years ago, #17 again
became more risk-taking. Work was/is not self-satisfying to her without risk-taking actions.
An individual changes course due to vested interests during his/her life. You are not the
same risk-taker or risk-averter throughout your career.
9. Relationships
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
Relationships normally change the makeup of the project or what you are doing in the
project. If someone said no to #17, she just moved and went up to another level. If she went
side ways (requested support from a person in a lateral position), problems developed from
this maneuver.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
She does not like to gamble. #17 likes to exercise her options. Some of her stocks are
conservative.
She likes to sail and sailed the first trimaran in the Virgin Islands.
She played tennis and is a bird lister (a person who really does see birds).
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Her organization is more risk-taking when the organization is new/younger. Keeping its
established identity is more important than risk-taking as it gets older. Splitting an
organization is good. There is continual turning over and more risk-taking occurs.
b. What about present practices?
No. See letter a.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
See a.
d. Are the practices more conducive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
Practices are more conducive to risk aversion.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and starting
your career? and
f. Or did you become more risk-taking as you were further along in your career?
#17 increased in risk-taking activities over the life of her career. She was in five
departments in the Federal Government.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or assist
and aid you? If so, how?
They assisted and aided her because the project and the agencies were new. The
institution liked new and creative ideas and these ideas made sense. Congress liked
these ideas.
b. What are specific examples?
#17 is 1 of 5 individuals who started DIA.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Rules did not exist. See earlier vocabulary; regulations did not deal with risk.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
You need to have a strategy and a process with risk.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
#17 used the system to move the project forward. This might mean that she would
have to bend the rules.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
The organization did not think of her actions as risks. She was increasing the scope,
enlarging the project, changing the objective; for example, the emergence of software to
change satellites remotely.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
For them risks were equivalent to making changes. This view changed risk from making
a great leap forward (which is exciting to do) to a minutia mentality (green-eye
shade). How much will it cost the government, for example?
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this cause a
problem?
Open and explicit. No.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
Helped the progress of her projects. Helped her risk-taking actions.
The hierarchical organization is better at making decisions. If it is flatter, you must make
interpersonal friendships in order for decisions to be made and to increase the progress of
the project.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
The projects did not exist. They were new ideas for projects.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes. She was on the Hill quite a bit.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Yes. Most of the time. For example, the computer security issue at NIST. #17 said that
it was wise - “Never confront the issue directly.”
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
Occasionally. See DOE example, #3. #17 feels that she did not handle the issue well.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
No problems.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Individuals did what they were assigned to do and went beyond the minimum. Most
were risk takers.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Most of the projects did not because they were new projects. When she was in DOD,
she took members from Congress to NIH. Talked to people in Alaska using a satellite. She
received money from Congress for the necessary requirements. Congress was amazed at
what could be done.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
Straggle to obtain the finances.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
Yes, the needs of the group impacted the project. Drove the project (first laser with
TRW for shooting down missiles.)
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
Did not discuss.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#17 worked within the existing system.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected her personal needs. Time away from home, etc.
5.1.2 Qualitative Statement Sample
QUALITATIVE STATEMENTS
Learned
Risk-taking depends upon the group you are with, the technology
you are working with & the environment you are in.
Significant consequences of risk-taking: (1) put the government in a
better position in the global community & individual in a better
position within the agency, (2) sought after for opinions &
knowledge, 93) show the products & services that would assist the
government, move the country forward, & keep the country strong.
Risk-taking is limiting & the envelope is so narrow & small you don't
realize how limited you really are.
Philosophy
1Could not have made the progress the country has or become the
number one nation in the world without risk-taking. Risk averse
behavior equates to a consensus group. Must make new things
happen by yourself r
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
happen by yourself.
2Today, women are doing things with groups of people, not as
individuals. Could not have accomplished what she did without risk-
taking. Environment & culture were against females working
especially as scientists & researchers. Did her Master's dissertation
with a computer - the first time done.
3Wrote the first computer program on double precision mathematics -
now in the Smithsonian as a major stepping-stone. One of ten
individuals selected by Admiral Rickover to work on the atomic
submarine.
3
a 1
2
3
Events
National needs.
Built first generators that utilized different technologies that
decreased pollution.
Started the synthetic fuel industry & companies.
3
b 1
Events
Based on something that has never been done or steps taken
before.
4
b 1
2
People
Her actions had never been thought about since they were never
done before. She did not know if risky or not.
People she worked with were comfortable with her risk-taking
propensity.
4
d 1
People
In one example, the Secretary of Energy & Congress supported her.
Asked for $3B & received $30B.
5
b 1
2
3
Values
Important personally & with whomever she worked with. Worked
with agencies or in jobs that had not existed before - helped
originate DIA.
Agency should only have 10% risk-taking individuals, 90% of risk
averse or other types.
90% will continue to improve the processes & to keep the steady
9stable) state going.
6
b 1
2
3
Desires
Need for government. Exciting to do. To accomplish the mission.
Possible government need for the project's outcome(s) at a future
date. Today, government does not have risk-taking assets.
Reasons for going into the government: (1) jobs are interesting, (2)
if government does not have assets, could be hanging out on a
clothesline.
Risk aversity is cultivated by the inability to reward in normal ways
(awards) & it feeds upon itself.
7 Attitudes
a-1 Comfortable since she was taking the risks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 Received benefits from her work. |
7
b 1
Attitudes
Not a word for risk-taking. Not think of themselves as risk adverse.
7
c 1
Attitudes
Liked her actions.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Both types.
7
e 1
Attitudes
Both formally & informally agreed.
8
b 1
2
3
Vested Interests
As you go up the ladder, less risk-taking due to vested interests.
You become comfortable with the environment, etc. Not want to
change.
Work is not as self-satisfying without risk-taking actions.
Individual changes course during your life due to vested interests.
Not the same risk-taker or risk-averter.
9
b 1
2
Relationships
Change the makeup of the project or what you are doing.
Just moved & went up to another level.
10
a 1
2
Other Activities
Sail, bird lister, tennis.
No gambling.
11
c-2 1
2
3
Practices
When an organization is new, more risk-taking occurs.
When an organization becomes older, more important to keep
established identity.
Splitting an organization is good because more risk-taking occurs.
12
a-2 1
Policies
Assisted & aided her because the project & agencies were new.
Liked creative ideas that made sense.
12
b 1
Policies
One of five individuals who started DIA.
13
a 1
Regulations
Rules did not exist about risk-taking.
13
b-2 1
2
3
Regulations
You need to have a strategy & process with risk.
13
c 1
Regulations
Might have to bend the rules to move the project forward.
14 Organization
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
a 1Organization did not think her actions were risky. (Increase scope,
change objective, emergence of software, for example, to change
the satellites remotely.)
14
b 1
Organization
Risks are equivalent to making a change.
2 Now change risks from making a great leap forward to a minutia
mentality. How much will it cost the government?
15
a 1
Structure
Hierarchical.
15
b-1 1
2
Structure
Better at making decisions.
If it is flatter, you must make interpersonal friendships for decisions
to be made & increase the progress of the project.
16
a 1
Political
New ideas & projects did not have visibility, but did go to the Hill
quite a bit.
16
c-2 1
2
3
Political
Most of the time she had to go to the Hill.
For example, the computer security issue at NIST. Wise "Never
confront the issue directly." Show what is needed perhaps.
16
d-2 1
Political
An interpersonal issue developed with one of her bosses. He had
his own agenda & the program failed. She hurried the set up of the
program.
17
d 1
Resources
Took Congressional members for a demonstration to obtain
financing.
18
b 1
Needs
Did not discuss. Drove the project.
5.2 Likert Scale Application
Each of the interviewee’s answers was placed into one of the five possible
categorical answers. Using the potential list of risk takers, for example, nine risk
takers out of twelve respondents answered that they “strongly agreed” on question
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
3.b for a result of 75%. The Likert Percentage Summary Chart (Figure 4) exhibits
all of the applicable questions with the completed data analysis.
The results of the Likert Scale application indicates that 14 questions or 30% of
the total questions point to individuals who have a risk-taking propensity with
research and development programs. These questions are presented in the chart
entitled “Questions to Determine Risk Takers” (Figure 5). The confidence levels
range from 60% to 100%. The questions are segmented into the applicable resultant
categories.
Thus, if one would use the questionnaire with the Likert Scale methodology to
test a new individual, and this individual answered question #5.a as “strongly
agree”, then one would have a 90% confidence that the individual is a risk-taker,
since 12 of the 13 interviewees (92%) were risk takers. If this individual answered
question #6.a-l as “strongly agree” and #6.a-2 as “strongly disagree”, then the tester
would have an 80%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
?
%
S-A TOT % A TOT % N TOT % DA TOT % S-DA TOT
RT RA RT RA RT RA RT RA RT RA
3.b 75 25 12 33 67 15 0 0 0 25 75 4 0 0 0
4.a 0 100 1 46 54 13 50 50 2 46 54 11 50 50 4
4.b 86 14 7 39 61 13 0 100 1 33 67 9 0 0 0
4x 67 33 3 42 58 12 50 50 10 40 60 5 0 100 1
5.a 92 8 13 20 80 15 0 100 2 0 0 0 0 100 1
6.a-l 80 20 15 16 84 13 0 100 1 100 0 1 0 100 1
6.a-2 0 100 1 50 50 2 0 0 0 28 72 18 90 10 10
7.a-l 100 0 4 38 62 21 0 0 0 60 40 5 0 100 1
7.a-2 67 33 3 38 62 8 0 0 0 38 62 16 75 25 4
7x 50 50 2 50 50 14 29 71 7 57 43 7 100 0 1
B.a 67 33 6 36 64 14 0 0 0 50 50 10 50 50 2
9.a 100 0 1 20 80 10 0 0 0 56 44 18 100 0 1
ll.a-1 50 50 16 75 25 8 0 100 2 0 100 3 50 50 2
Il.a-2 50 50 2 50 50 4 0 100 1 47 53 15 75 25 9
ll.c-1 62 38 13 33 67 10 0 100 1 67 33 6 0 100 1
ll.d -1 100 0 1 14 86 7 100 0 1 57 43 7 50 50 14
ll.d -2 60 40 15 43 57 7 100 0 1 14 86 7 100 0 1
ll.e 73 27 11 50 50 4 0 0 0 18 82 11 60 40 5
ll .f 71 29 17 10 90 10 0 0 0 0 100 1 67 33 3
12.a-l 67 33 3 46 54 13 0 100 1 36 64 11 100 0 2
12.a-2 100 0 3 53 47 15 0 100 1 25 75 8 67 33 3
13.b-l 100 0 1 41 59 22 0 100 1 50 50 4 100 0 3
13 .c 63 37 19 0 100 4 50 50 2 50 50 2 25 75 4
14.C-I 80 20 5 38 62 24 0 0 0 50 50 2 0 0 0
14.C-2 0 0 0 50 50 2 0 0 0 42 58 26 100 0 3
14.C-3 0 100 1 80 20 5 0 0 0 39 61 23 100 0 2
NOTE: TOT IS THE TOTAL RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION UNDER EACH CATEGORY
% SA IS THE PERCENT THAT STRONGLY AGREE
% A IS THE PERCENTAGE THAT AGREE
% N IS THE PERCENTAGE THAT ARE NEUTRAL
% DA IS THE PERCENTAGE THAT DISAGREE
% SDA IS THE PERCENTAGE THAT STRONGLY DISAGREE
LIKERT PERCENTAGES
FIGURE 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
?
%
S-A TOT % A TOT % N TOT % DA TOT % S-DA TOT
RT RA RT RA RT RA RT RA RT RA
15.b-l 100 0 1 37 63 19 50 50 2 43 57 7 100 0 2
I5.b-2 100 0 3 56 44 9 0 0 1 29 71 17 100 0 1
15.b-3 75 25 4 40 60 15 100 0 1 40 60 10 100 0 1
15.b-4 100 0 1 46 54 13 100 0 1 29 71 14 100 0 2
16.a 33 67 6 45 55 20 67 33 3 100 0 1 0 100 1
16.b 33 67 9 53 47 15 0 0 0 20 80 5 0 0 0
16.C-1 54 46 13 36 64 11 0 0 0 43 57 7 0 0 0
16.d-l 67 33 6 40 60 15 0 0 0 50 50 8 100 0 1
17.a 50 50 2 47 54 19 100 0 1 33 67 6 67 33 3
17.b 67 33 3 41 59 17 100 0 1 50 50 6 67 33 3
17.C-1 67 33 6 38 62 21 100 0 1 50 50 2 100 0 1
17.C-2 75 25 8 35 65 20 100 0 1 50 50 2 0 0 0
17.C-3 67 33 6 52 48 23 0 0 0 0 100 2 0 0 0
17.C-4 0 100 1 58 42 12 0 100 1 50 50 14 50 50 2
17.d 0 9 0 54 46 13 100 0 1 38 62 8 44 56 9
e-1 100 0 1 63 37 8 0 0 0 29 71 17 60 40 5
e-2 57 43 7 42 58 12 0 0 0 43 57 7 60 40 5
18.a-l 0 0 0 57 43 14 100 0 1 27 73 11 75 25 4
18.a-2 0 0 0 50 50 12 100 0 1 38 62 16 100 0 2
18.a-3 100 0 1 57 43 7 100 0 1 41 59 22 100 0 2
18.C-1 0 100 3 48 52 25 0 0 0 50 50 2 0 0 0
18.C-2 100 0 3 33 67 6 0 0 0 40 60 15 33 67 6
I8.d-I 0 100 1 0 100 1 0 0 0 40 60 20 78 22 9
18.d-2 67 33 12 41 59 17 0 0 0 0 100 1 0 100 1
NOTE: TOT IS THE TOTAL RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION UNDER EACH CATEGORY
% SA IS THE PER C EN T TH AT STR O NG LY AG R EE
% A IS THE PER C EN TA G E TH AT AGREE
% N IS THE PER C EN TA G E TH AT ARE NEUTRAL
% D A IS THE PER C EN TA G E TH AT D ISAGREE
% SDA IS THE PER C EN TA G E TH A T STRO NG LY DISAGREE
LIKERT PERCENTAGES
FIGURE 2 (CONT.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
QUESTIONS
CALCULATED
CONFIDENCE STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY
LEVELS AGREE DISAGREE
91.1-79.3% 5.a
89.2 - 74.6% 6.a-2
91.9 - 79.2% 6.a-1
89.2 - 76.0% 3.b
90.1 - 72.6% 11.a-1
90.0 - 75.5% 11 .a-2
73.7 - 52.77% 11.e
87.3 - 77.3% 18.d-1
92.6 - 75.3% 11.f
87.1 - 76.8% 17.C-2
85.6-77.0% 11.C-1
87.1 - 69.1% 11.d-2
90.8 - 70.4% 13.C
90.8 - 79.6% 18.d-2
NOTE 1: RESPONSE RATE OF 8 OR HIGHER PER EACH RELEVANT QUESTION
NOTE 2: 30% OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS ARE RELEVANT INDICATORS
QUESTIONS TO DETERM INE RISK TAKERS
FIGURE 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Thus, if one would use the questionnaire with the Likert Scale methodology to test a
new individual, and this individual answered question #5.a as “strongly agree”, then
one would have a 91.1% - 79.3% confidence interval that the individual is a risk-
taker, since 12 of the 13 interviewees (92%) were risk takers. If this individual
answered question #6.a-l as “strongly agree”, then the tester would have a 91.9% -
79.2% confidence interval that the individual is a risk taker. If this individual
answered question #6.a-2 as “strongly disagree”, then the tester would have an
89.2% - 74.6% confidence interval that the individual is a risk taker. The other
eleven questions that indicate a risk taker and the applicable confidence intervals are
itemized in Figure 3.
The researcher used the well known statistical formula to calculate the confidence
interval for key questions in the Likert Scale Method. Since there are 31
interviewees (samples) then the following steps were used:
1. Calculate the sample mean for each question.
2. From the sample mean calculate the variance.
3. For a 95% confidence, calculate 1.96 times the square root of the
variance (standard deviation) and divide by the square root of the number
of samples.
4. Other confidence levels could be calculated from 98% or 99%.
5.3 Force Field Analysis Application
The interviewee’s answers were tabulated into the appropriate Force Field
Analyses’ charts. This placement depended upon their answers. If the interviewee
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
regarded the question as driving and assisting the program, then the number of the
question was placed in the Driving Section of the form. If the interviewee
considered the question as hindering and impeding the program, then the number of
the question would appear under the Restraining Section.
The Force Field Analysis charts (Figure 6 A thru D) show how each of the
individuals answered all the questions in terms of whether they were a driving or a
restraining force. The total number of questions for each of the four Force Field
Groups were as follows: Individual and Group Forces - 10 each, Organizational
Forces - 14, and Institutional Forces- 6.
Each individual’s results were tabulated for each Force Field Group. For
example, Interviewee #1 expressed the viewpoint that all the answers were driving
the program for the Individual Force. None were restraining. Therefore,
Interviewee #1 received a score of 100% in this category. Interviewee # l ’s other
scores under the Driving Force Area were as follows: 60% for the Group Force, 92%
for the Organizational Force, and 33% for the Institutional Force.
The Force Field Analysis Summary Chart (Figure 5) explains the data that related
to the Force Field Analysis method. The four forces are listed with their applicable
key questions and the final results. The data are grouped into the four force groups
that are also the four independent variables.
If a tester uses the Force Field Analysis methodology and the individual selects
the specific Individual Section questions as driving forces, then this individual is a
risk-taker. The individual will obtain scores ranging from 90% to 100%. If the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
individual selects the Individual questions as restraining forces, then this individual
is a risk averter. The individual will obtain scores ranging from 90% to 100%.
If an individual selects the specific Group Section questions as driving forces,
then 53% of the time this individual is a risk taker. Scores will range from 80% to
100%. If the individual selects the Group Section questions as restraining forces,
then 56% of the time this individual is a risk averter. Scores will range from 40% to
100%.
For the Organizational Force questions, the results indicate that 47% are risk
takers. Risk takers will obtain scores ranging from 50% to 92% under the Driving
Force Area. 50% are risk averters under the Restraining Force Area. Risk averters
will obtain scores from 50% to 100%.
For the Institutional Force questions, 47% are risk takers under Driving Forces
and 50% are risk averters under Restraining Forces. Risk takers will obtain scores
ranging from 33% to 83%. Risk averters will obtain scores from 84% to 100%. The
confidence intervals and the standard sample for each key question are computed in
Appendix 7, Force Field Analysis Statistical Parameters.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
DRIVING
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1X X X X X X X X X X
2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
6 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
8 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
10 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
11e X X X X X X X X X
111 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
18c X X X X X
18d X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
10 9 9 6 6 0 9 3 10 10 8 5 9 9 9 8
COUNT
RESTRAINING
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
X X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X X X
X X
X X X X X X X
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X
X
1 1 4 4 10 1 7 2 5 11 1 2
COUNT
NOTE - ROWS ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS IN FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS - INDIVIDUAL
FIGURE 4A
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DRIVING
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
11e
111
18c
18d
7 9 9 9 7 9 7 1 9 6 3 7 4 10
COUNT
RESTRAINING
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
1 1
COUNT
NOTE - ROWS ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS IN FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS - INDIVIDUAL
FIGURE 4A (CONT.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
DRIVING
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
4a X X X X X X X
4b X X X X X X X X X
7a X X X X X X X X X X X X
7b X X X X X X X X X X X
9 X X X X X
17a X X X X X X X X X X X X X
17b X X X X X X X X X X X X X
17c X X X X X X X X X X X X X
18a X X X X X X X X X X X X
18b X X X X X X X X X X X X
6 9 5 10 6 5 3 4 10 8 9 3 8 9 3 9
COUNT
RESTRAINING
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
4aX X X X X X X X X
4b X X X X X X X
7a X X X X
7b X X X X X
9X X X X X X X X X X X
17a X X X
17b X X X
17c X X X X
18aX X X X
18bX X X X
4 1 5 0 5 5 7 6 0 2 1 7 2 1 7 1
COUNT
NOTE - ROWS ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS IN FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS - GROUP
FIGURE 4B
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
DRIVING
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
4aX X X X X X X X X X
4bX X X X X X X X X X X
7aX X X X X X X X X
7bX X X X X X X X
9X X X X X X X X X X
17aX X X X X X X X X
17bX X X X X X X X
17cX X X X X X X X X X X X X
18aX X X X X
18bX X X X X
10 10 2 6 4 8 7 5 0 5 8 10 1 8 6
COUNT
RESTRAINING
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
4a X X X X X
4b X X X X
7a X X X X X X
7b X X X X X X X
9 X X X X X
17a X X X X X X
17b X X X X X X X
17c X X
18a X X X X X X X X X X
18b X X X X X X X X X X
2 8 4 6 2 3 5 10 5 2 0 9 2 4
COUNT
NOTE - ROWS ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS IN FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS - GROUP
FIGURE 4B (CONT.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DRIVING
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
4cX X X X X X X
4dX X X X X X X X X
7cX X X X X X X X X X
7dX X X X X X X X X
7eX X X X X X X X X X X X
11aX X X X X X X X X X X X
11bX X
11cX X X
11dX X
14X X X X X X X X X X X X X
15 X X X X X X X X X
16dX X X X X
17dX X X X X X X X
17eX X X X X X
13 8 3 12 8 7 2 7 47 10 1 7 9 3 6
COUNT
RESTRAINING
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
4c X X X X X X X X X
4d X X X X X X
7c X X X X X X
7d X X X X X X X
7e X X X X
11a X X X X
11b X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
11c X X X X X X X X X X X X X
11d X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
14 X X X
15 X X X X X X X
16d X X X X X X X X X X X
17d X X X X X X X X
17e X X X X X X X X X X
1 6 11 2 6 7 12 7 10 7 4 13 6 5 11 8
COUNT
NOTE - ROWS ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS IN FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS - ORGANIZATION
FIGURE 4C
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DRIVING
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
4c X X X X X X X
4d X X X X X X X
7c X X X X X X X X
7d X X X X X X X
7e X X X X X X X X X X X X
11a X X X X X X X X X X X
11b X X X X X
11c X X X X X
11d X X X X
14 X X X X X X X X X
15 X X X X X X X X X
16d X X X
17d X X X X
17e X X
8 7 2 6 0 3 7 6 3 8 6 11 8 6 12
COUNT
RESTRAINING
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
4d
11a
11b
11c
11d
16d
17d
17e
6 7 12 8 14 10 7 8 11 8 9 3 6 8 2
COUNT
NOTE - ROWS ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS IN FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS - ORGANIZATION
FIGURE 4C (CONT.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DRIVING
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X
2 5 1 2 0 4 11 3 4 2 1 3 4 1 3
COUNT
RESTRAINING
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
3
12
13
16a
16b
16c
19
4 1 5 4 6 3 5 5 3 2 4 5 3 2 5 3
COUNT
NOTE - ROWS ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS IN FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
X X
X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS - INSTITUTION
FIGURE 4D
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DRIVING
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
3
12
13
16a
16b
16c
19
2 1 1 3 0 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1
COUNT
RESTRAINING
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X
X
X X
X X X X X X X
X X
X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X
4 5 5 3 6 4 4 5 4 5 4 3 5 5 5
COUNT
NOTE - ROWS ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS IN FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS - INSTITUTION
FIGURE 4D (CONT.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS - SUMMARY
FORCES KEY QUESTIONS DRIVING FORCE
INDIVIDUAL
1,2, 5, 6, 8, 10, lie,
Ilf, 18c, 18d
Results indicate that the top 15 individuals are
risk-takers, who obtained scores from 90 - 100
%
GROUP
4a, 4b, 7a, 7b, 9, 17a,
17b, 18a, 18b
Results of the top 15 individuals indicate that
53% are risk-takers, who obtained scored from
80- 100%.
ORGANIZATION
4c, 4d, 7c, 7d, 7e,
11a, lib , 11c, lid,
14,15,16d, 17d, 17e
Results of the top 15 individuals indicate that
47% are risk-takers who obtained scores from
50 - 92% (the top score).
INSTITUTION
3, 12, 13,16a, 16b,
16c
Results of the top 15 individuals indicate that
47% are risk-takers who obtained scores from
33 - 83% (the top score).
FORCES KEY QUESTIONS RESTRAINING FORCE
INDIVIDUAL
1,2, 5, 6, 8, 10, lie,
Ilf, 18c, 18d
Results indicate that the top 16 individuals are
risk-averters, who obtained scores from 90 -
100 %
GROUP
4a, 4b, 7a, 7b, 9, 17a,
17b, 18a, 18b
Results of the top 16 individuals indicate that
56% are risk-averters, who obtained scored
from40 - 100%.
ORGANIZATION
4c, 4d, 7c, 7d, 7e,
11a, lib, 11c, lid,
14, 15, 16d, 17d, 17e
Results of the top 16 individuals indicate that
50% are risk-averters who obtained scores from
50 - 100%.
INSTITUTION
3, 12, 13, 16a, 16b,
16c
Results of the top 16 individuals indicate that
50% are risk-averters who obtained scores from
84 - 100%.
Note: See Appendix 7 for mean values and confidence levels for key questions
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS - SUM M ARY
FIGURE 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
5.4 Qualitative Statement Application
The wealth of information obtained from the interviews was extensive,
substantial, and substantive. Many issues were raised from the interviews besides the
risk-taking propensity of individuals, but those issues are not considered in this
research paper. Common threads, common themes and salient points to consider
regarding risk are revealed in this portion of Chapter Five.
The application of the Qualitative Statement Form allows an examination of each
individual’s thoughts and ideas about various aspects of risk. Again the data can be
grouped into the four force groups that are also the four independent variables, if
desired. See Appendix 6 for each interviewee’s synopsized answers. This
application reinforces the results from the Likert Scale and the Force Field Analysis
methodologies. The risk takers’ ideas are considered first and then the risk averters.
5.4.1 Individual Force Group
What are the reasons for risk taking? In the past, the reasons were thought to
include: (1) the mission of the agency, (2) the objectives of the Cold War, (3) a push
from the top leaders, and (4) the fact that individuals were solving a critical and
national problem (or a crisis) for the good of the country. The motivating element of
risk taking and the reason for risk taking is knowledge power. Knowledge power is
more important than position power. Resulting failures or errors that are made are
much less serious than not taking the risks at all according to one of the more
proactive risk takers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
“Today, the Government does not have risk-taking assets.” Government has
become reactive versus proactive in its actions as it was in the past. This statement
was repeated over and over again. Many said that progress has reached a plateau.
Research and Development programs in the Government have developed into
modalities where no creativity is allowed. Leaders are needed who are risk-taking
and who view risk-taking as beneficial, advantageous, and vital for the
programs/projects. It is important for the country to remain strong and safe.
“Nothing else matters.”
Finally, for many risk-taking individuals, taking risks is a necessity both
personally and programmatically. According to one individual, risk-taking is the
constant in his career. Risk-taking gave him the freedom to do what he wanted to do
and he enjoyed taking risks. Another person concluded that work is not as satisfying
without risk-taking.
5.4.2. Group Force Group
Risk takers need to learn about the individual people within the group and the
processes and actions of the group in order to push their ideas successfully through
the system and the entity’s processes. One risk taker recommended adopting a style
that was not threatening to the risk averters. Others suggested ignoring or working
around the problem people; going up to another level for approval; and possibly
changing the makeup of the program, but not the goal. The bottom line was not to
give up. Failure is unacceptable.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Many of the women interviewees commented that individuals in their groups
resented them, not avoided them, because they were risk takers and women. All
women constantly had to explain their proposed plans by proving the point with
evidence as to why their proposed actions were reasonable, correct, and acceptable.
5.4.3. Organizational Force Group
The practices of the past indicate that risk-taking occurred because of a very
strong mission fostered by top management. The agency engineers, who are the
program managers, worked hand-in-glove with contractors for successful project
completion. Taking risks meant making great leaps forward. Today, risk-taking is
concerned with a minutia mentality. “How much will it cost the Government?” said
Interviewee #17. A number of interviewees also imparted this same thought during
the interview process.
“Today, risk-taking is not a rewarding career path. Following the organization’s
path is the way to go,” stated Interviewee #14 and others. Individuals find
constraints with other pathways. Major constraints within the organization include
the following: (1) obtaining financial resources when needed and the necessary
amount of funds to do the job, (2) receiving responsibility for the program, but not
the authority, (3) persuading senior management to plan strategically for the future,
(4) communicating with other individuals, (5) increasing bureaucracy to include
more signatures, approvals, and briefings than ever before, and (6) existing systems
that do not allow adequate support to managers. In addition, a flattened hierarchical
type of structure was preferred for the organization.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Over and over again individuals complained that technical efforts are too
politically sensitive. Agencies did not want risk-taking and creativity because they
could not afford a freewheeling perception with Congress. In fact, several went so
far as to state that their agencies were micromanaged by Congressional Staffs. Thus,
a partial solution to these problems was given by one of the more risk-taking
individuals. “Know your agency. How it works. What makes it tick? What are its
policies and norms?” Know these policies, rules, regulations and processes better
than anyone else in order to move programs to successful completion and
conclusion.
Two statements emerged during the organizational questions that were quite
thought provoking. First, over 20% of the risk takers stated when an organization is
new, more risk-taking occurs. Second, the Intelligence Community is no longer
leading research and development and technology development. Contractors are
now the drivers and innovators of technology.
5.4.4. Institutional Force Group
Risk-taking individuals indicated that they discovered problems, sensed
opportunities and national needs for the country ahead of other individuals. They
prefer to characterize their work as state-of-the-art.
Rules and regulations can cause delays in schedules, change a solution
methodology, and even stop programs. These regulations exist because management
is afraid of being misled. A majority of risk takers do bend rules and regulations. In
fact, one individual took “perverse pleasure” in bending the rules to meet his
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
objectives. If necessary, he and other risk-taking individuals would ask forgiveness
afterwards. Only the Defense Advanced Research and Project Agency’s regulations
were cited as actually moving the projects forward. “Risk is the name of the game.”
The political element of the institution can cause concerns for risk takers. The
Intelligence Community is always faced with political overtones regarding its
acquisition of systems, especially “big buys.” One risk taker remarked with an
interesting point, “ A lot of risk takers are not politically astute; you need to be to
successfully complete your project.” Another individual added to this observation
by concluding in her remarks that timing must be right in the political sense or the
program would never be implemented. A final comment by one of the more
proactive risk takers declared that a program manager and risk taker should show
what is needed for the program and why it is needed. She concluded, “It is wise to
never confront the issue directly.”
5.4.5. Risk Averters
Valuable information also emerged from those individuals who were categorized
as risk averters. Just as with the risk-taking individuals, different degrees of risk
aversion exist. A few individuals are extremely prone to risk aversion while others
display less aversion and occasional risk-taking characteristics. Only one individual
prior to the interview said that he was averse to risk-taking. No one else ever
admitted this trait either before or after the interview.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
Some answers repeated and thus validated previous statements and data produced
from risk-taking individuals. New information revealed a number of salient points
and data to be considered.
“Risk taking enables the mission (the now) and the vision (the future) of the
organization to be reached,” stated one risk-averse individual. Mission incorporates
minimal risk-taking. Vision is where the largest amount of risk-taking is needed;
this is where the objectives of the program are reached. Both mission and vision are
needed for the group, the agency, and the institution.
Risk averse individuals might take risks if they are driven to do so and the
circumstances dictate taking risks, not because they want to try something new and
creative. Perhaps this phenomenon could be called reactive risk-taking.
These reactive risk takers are basically forced to act in a risk-taking manner, but
are inherently risk averse. Reactive risk takers thoroughly examine and analyze the
risks. Reactive risk takers are very selective, careful, and prudent when compelled
to take a risky action.
True risk prepense individuals are more proactive. Risk prepense individuals are
capable of forecasting, surveying the panorama, and forecasting possible issues and
applicable risks before other individuals observe and even are aware of them. Risk
prepense individuals are willing to try new and innovative actions and ideas; they
are tinkerers and learning agents of research and development in the public sector.
The third type of individual is the risk averter who sees risk as a problem, a concern, and
an issue to avoid. All risks are threatening situations to this type of individual.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
Risk averters constantly talk about risk management. Risk management is the
key in program management and being an effective Program Manager. Risk-taking
equates to risk management according to one recent doctoral graduate. Several risk
averse individuals expressed this point as a necessity and characterized this definite
need as being “a prudent risk taker.”
Among the six women interviewed for this study, 33% are averse to risk and 67%
are prone to risk taking. All of the women had over twenty-five years experience
and held senior level positions. They discussed the issue of women in the research
and development world during their interviews although the researcher did not
specifically question or initiate this dialogue.
A woman must be a reasoned risk taker, not flighty. Her reputation and all other
females now and in the future could be ruined if she did not perform successfully.
One failure is one failure too many. She would be quickly removed from her
position as a program manager and/or upper management and quietly shifted to a
lower position in another group or organization. Prospective job opportunities
would not be available for other women for several years. This perception factor is
always hovering at the edge of the women’s actions. Some are more cautious than
others, but all consider the ramifications of risk taking to some degree. (The
researcher fully agrees with this statement and has seen this problem surface many
times over the past thirty years. In one case, the individual was shifted to another
agency and finally left the government. Years passed before other women were
allowed to attempt a program manager’s position.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
5.4.6. Final Thoughts
A risk taker will find problems to solve and equates risk taking to, “How do
people solve problems?” A risk averter, especially those recently out of graduate
school, used more textbook answers than their own examples of risk-taking even
those that have worked in Government for a minimum of ten years. No recent
graduate appeared in the risk-taking group.
People who are risk takers really enjoyed being interviewed; they discussed risk
for long periods of time unlike risk averters. Risk takers explained, conversed, and
commented upon their risk-taking experiences and exploits from three to five hours.
Risk averters only talked from one to two hours. In most cases, the more averse the
interviewee was, the shorter the conversational period. At times specific individuals
seemed to be uncomfortable in answering the questions and struggled to find
examples to describe their past actions. The risk propense individuals were
animated and found to their delight the interview to be a thought-provoking
experience. All expressed an interest in a copy of the researcher’s dissertation and
thanked the researcher for the opportunity to participate.
A final, significant observation was made by a proactive risk taker when she said,
“Agencies should only have 10% risk takers; 90% should be risk averters. The 90%
will continue to improve the process and keep the steady (stable) state going.” Other
interviewees agreed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
5.5. Summary of Findings
The three-prong assessment methodology, consisting of the Likert Scale
Application, the Force Field Analysis Application, and the Qualitative Statement
Application, identified individuals with risk-taking and risk-averting propensities in
the public sector.
The Likert Scale method reveals the following: (1) seven questions or 46% of the total
questions indicating risk-based behavior are related to the individual, (2) one question or 7%
of the total questions indicating risk-based behavior are related to group attitudes, (3) six
questions or 40% o f the total questions indicating risk-based behavior are related to the
organization’s attitudes, and (4) one question or 7% of the total indicates risk-based
behavior relative to the institution.
The Force Field Analysis method indicated that the independent variable - the
Individual Force Group - produces a higher confidence level - 90% to 100% - than
the other three Force Field Groups.
The Qualitative Statement method completes and strengthens the validation and
verification of the identification of individuals with risk-taking propensities.
The concluding chapter provides further insight regarding the implications of
these results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Chapter 6. DISCUSSION
The basic and fundamental reason for this research was to develop an assessment
methodology to identify individuals with propensities for risk taking within the
public sector. A three-prong methodology was built that allowed identification and
classification of risk taking individuals.
The first section of Chapter Six reviews the developed assessment methodology
followed by a synopsis of the results of the research hypothesis, and conclusions
drawn from this data. Section two discusses the implications for the public sector.
Section three explains the limitations and possible potential for future research. The
final section contains final thoughts and ideas.
6.1. Overview of Findings
The defined assessment methodology is comprised of three separate elements.
The application of the Likert Scale method, the modified Force Field Analysis
method, and the Qualitative Statement format for in-depth interviews combine to
form a methodology to delineate between risk takers and risk averters. Risk takers
are defined as those individuals who consider risks as opportunities and challenges.
Risk averters are described as those individuals who consider risks as problems and
issues to avoid. This combined methodology is a form of triangulation that
facilitates a more complete picture and a better understanding of an individual to be
produced that can be validated and verified by each of the three methods by itself.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
First, the Likert Scale Application revealed specific questions that individuals
with a high degree of risk propensity would respond to and what those answers
would be. Second, the Force Field Analysis application examined the interviewees’
answers that determined whether the individual is driven or restrained by forces and
elements in their lives during a program. The Individual Force Group findings
indicate that 100% of the risk takers find these forces to be driving them. The third
and final method, the Qualitative Statement Application, analyzes, synopsizes and
then reviews the interviewees’ answers to determine independently whether the
individual is a risk taker or a risk averter. Each method helps to verify and validate
the findings.
After the analysis of data by the three-prong defined assessment methodology and
tool, the researcher reviewed the results with the earlier placement of individuals on
the Interviewee Placement Chart. The interviewees’ reputations and judgments and
the researcher’s pre-analysis beliefs reflect the actual results of the analysis. In a few
cases, the only deviation was the degree of intensity of the interviewee as to risk
propensity or risk aversion.
6.2. Implications
How may the information obtained from this research be utilized and how may it
help to answer the question, “Which program managers in the Federal Government
have a propensity to take risks?”
First, this study advances an assessment approach for Federal Government upper
management that does not exist at the present time. No methodology is now utilized
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
by the Federal Government to determine risk propensity in an individual program
manager or among managers; no such assessment is used in selection processes for
program managers who manage high-risk projects. If an assessment approach were
utilized, the probability would increase for a better outcome in terms of success rates
of research and technology development (high risk/high payoff projects) within the
public sector. The success of public sector high risk/high payoff projects will then
only be limited by technology rather than the strengths and attributes of the
government program managers who control the work.
Second, this research adds to existing risk propensity research and may facilitate
comparisons and contrasts of public program manager strengths with the private
sector. Keep in mind, however, that bottom lines for private industry and the
Government may be quite different. This difference is a topic in itself for further
research. Individuals in the private sector have other obligations in their careers, for
example, the bottom line. The study also adds to knowledge and assists in answering
questions regarding the identification of risk taking program managers in the public
sector.
Finally, Government could consider a person’s propensity to take risk in
promotion decisions, in training programs, in hiring and assignment practices, in
crisis staffing, and in the development of a risk policy. Essentially, the field of risk
studies is still in an early stage of development in Government.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
6.3. Limitations and the Future
With qualitative research of any type, two issues are predominant and frequently
mentioned. One issue is regarding the subjectivity of the researcher/evaluator versus
objectivity and the search for what is correct and true.
E.G. Guba’s ideas are presented in Michael Quinn Patton’s book, entitled How to
Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation, regarding this first concern. His explanation
that “.. .all kinds of evaluation data should be reliable, factual, and confirmable” (p.
166), whether the information is qualitative or quantitative in nature, is less relevant.
The key is for the researcher/evaluator to be neutral and to remain so throughout the
project. Such objectivity was accomplished during this study (p. 167). Since the
interviewees answered the questions in their own words with the utilization of the
interview technique, the study took more of an objective approach than a subjective
one.
The second issue revolves around the possibility of too small a sample size.
Enough data was generated from the methodology to clearly and strongly support the
results of the study.
The next step for potential research would be to change and replace the non
significant questions. In some instances, additional questions need to be inserted.
For example, following questions #1 l.e and #11.f should be a question that asks if
the risk taker has been a risk taker throughout his/her career. Question # ll.e asks if
the interviewee was a risk taker when he/she was younger and starting his/her career.
Question #11.f then asks if the interviewee became more risk-taking as he/she was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
further along in his/her career. Results indicate that a proactive risk taker is a risk
taker throughout his/her career. An increase in the number of key discriminant
questions and the effectiveness of the overall questionnaire should result from this
action.
The questionnaire would be streamlined by removing expendable questions that
do not add to and verify useful information. This move alone could reduce both total
interview time and analytical time.
One of the main questions for further research is how to persuade and procure
public sector usage. The researcher would approach management through a variety
of mechanisms to allow a study to be initiated and conducted. During the course of a
new employee’s indoctrination into an agency in the public sector, for example, tests
and interviews are administered. The defined assessment methodology is a tool that
could be utilized during this time period. Still another possibility would be to
develop an instrument perhaps similar to the Meyers-Briggs tool for utilization.
Expanding the focus of the research from a research and development area of the
public sector (a very specialized work arena) to the operational arena of the
organization, for example, that is more diverse in scope and mission, is a possible
topic for additional research. Will the defined methodology work in this different
arena? What additional key questions are needed to determine risk-taking
individuals? The possible applications are interesting and thought-provoking.
Several other research subjects could be developed due to the abundance of data
gathered from this study. For example, the issue of women in high risk, high
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
technological research and development could be examined. Why are few women in
the research and development area? The researcher interviewed six women that
were highly educated (33% had Ph.D. degrees and 50% had Master degrees),
experienced (over twenty-five years in government alone) and held senior program
managers and upper management positions with several agencies in the Intelligence
Community. When the researcher tried to find other women with these same
characteristics to interview, the results were discouraging. Only a small percentage
of women exist and are found in the researcher and development world. 50% of the
female interviewees comprised the top women in three Intelligence Community
organizations. No other women could be found. (The other 50% were recently
retired from the public sector.) What causes this situation is one possible future
research topic.
Why are women judged differently from men (or are they) regarding success and
failure rates? If this situation exists, does it contribute to the scarcity of women in
research and development in the public sector? This is still another possible research
area to be examined.
The reactive risk taker concept is a future concept that could be considered,
studied, and examined. The reactive risk taker exists. Do reactive risk takers affect
research and development projects and, if so, what is the effect on these types of
public sector projects? Do reactive risk takers exist in the private sector as well as
the public sector? The value of the reactive risk taker concept discovered by this as
yet paper is unknown, and needs to be investigated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
In conclusion, the defined assessment methodology should be utilized to a high
degree in the Intelligence Community and perhaps in other research and
development areas, for example, the Department of Defense. This use would allow
for an expansion of questions, if necessary, due to cultural differences between these
two elements.
6.4. Conclusion
A new functional, practical approach to discerning risk propensity is available for
application. Knowing who possesses an affinity for risk and uncertainty sees them
as a challenge could develop into an extremely powerful risk management/mitigation
tool. Management of risk should be considered both quantitatively and qualitatively
in order to understand the concept fully. If managers do not manage risk, then they
will be controlled by the idea of risk rather than these individuals controlling the
concept and its consequences.
Dr. Peter Bernstein in his book, Against the Gods, examines the role of risk in
society over the centuries. He states that the conversion of risk-taking from an
unknown into a disciplined field of inquiry has resulted in “... one of the prime
catalysts that drives modem Western society” (p. 1). Risk management in research
and technology programs must consider all aspects of risk. To invent the best
possible solutions for technological problems requires the Government to discover
and employ individuals who dare, create, and move beyond what is expected or what
is the next orderly progression within technology. America’s future certainly is
affected by those who are willing to take risks. Aaron Wildavsky once wrote an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
article in which he states that, “No risk is the highest risk of all” (Wildavsky, 1990,
120). Finding risk-taking individuals is essential and important.
Discovering the history and intricacies of risk-taking in the Government and
talking to individuals who constructed and perfected visions of realities was a
moving experience. Hopefully, history will repeat itself and proactive risk takers
will step forward. More importantly, the Government will sanction their risk-taking
actions and champion their visions. The nation’s security and future is at stake.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology. San Diego: Harcourt Brace
Jovenovich, 1992.
Atkinson, J. W., and N. T. Feathers. A Theory of Achievement Motivation. New
York: Wiley Publishing Company, 1966.
Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny. “The Moderator-mediator Variable Distinction in
Social psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical
Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51 (1986):
1173-1182.
Bernstein, Peter L. Against the Gods. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1996.
Blaylock, B. K. “Method of Studying Perception of Risk.” Psychological Reports.
49(1981): 899-902.
Bozeman, B., and G. Kingsley. “Risk Culture in Public and Private Organization.”
Public Administration Review. 58.2 (1998): 109-118.
Brockhaus, R. H. “Risk-taking propensity of Entrepreneurs.” Academy of
Management Journal. 23 (1980): 509-520.
Busey, James B. “Technology, White House Policy Offer Golden Age Prospect for
United States.” Signal. 47 (1993): 12.
Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966.
Fischhoff, Baruch, Stephen Watson, and Chris Hope. “Defining Risk.” In Readings
in Risk. Edited by Theodore S. Glickman and Michael Gough. Washington,
D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1990.
Fischhoff, Baruch, Sarah Lichtenstein, and Paul Slovic. “Rating the Risks.” In
Readings in Risk. Edited by Theodore S. Glickman and Michael Gough.
Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1990.
Gardner, William, and Mark Mortenko. “Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to
Study Managers: A Literature Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of
Management. 22 (1996): 45-84.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
Innovations in American Government. New York: Ford Foundation, 1996.
Janis, L, and L. Mann. Decision Making: A Psychological Analyses of Conflict.
Choice, and Commitment. New York: Free Press, 1977.
Kennedy, Mark T. “The Role of Identity and Familiarity in Risky Decisions.”
Kellogg Journal of Organization Behavior. 1998: 1-23.
Kogan, N., and M. A. Wallach. “Risk Taking as a Function of the Situation, the
Person, and the Group.” In New Directions in Psychology, III. Edited by G.
Mandler. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.
Knight, Frank H. Risk. Uncertainty and Profit. New York: Century Press, 1916.
MacCrimmon, Kenneth R., and Donald A. Wehrung. Taking Risks: The
Management of Uncertainty. New York: The Free Press, 1986.
________ . “Characteristics of Risk Taking Executives.” Management Science. 36
(1990): 422-435.
March, James G., and Zur Shapira. “Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk-
taking.” Decisions and Organization. Edited by C. B. Maguire and J.
Raydnor. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.
Moon, Myung Jae. “The Pursuit of Managerial entrepreneurship: Does Organization
Matter?” Public Administration Review. 59.1 (1999): 31-41.
Nicholson, N., M. Fenton-0”Creevy, E. Soane, and P. Willman. Risk Propensity
and Personality. Swindon, England: Economic and Social Research
Council, 2001. Google, MSN.
Nutt, P. C. “Decision Style and Its Influence on the Strategic Decisions of Top
Executives.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 30 (1986b): 39-
62.
________ . “Strategic Decisions Made by Top Executives and Middle Managers
with Data and Process Dominant Styles.” Journal of Management Studies.
27 (1990): 173-194.
Renn, Ortwin. “The Social Arena Concept of Risk Debates.” In Social Theories of
Risk. Edited by Krimsky, Lehdon and Dominic Golding. Connecticut:
Praeger, 1992.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
_________ . “Concepts of Risk: A Classification.” In Social Theories of Risk.
Edited by Krimsky, Lehdon and Dominic Golding. Connecticut: Praeger,
1992.
Rotter, J. B. “Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External control of
Reinforcement.” Psychological Monographs. 80 (1966): 1-28.
Rowe, William D. An Anatomy of Risk. Malabar: Krieger Publishing Company,
1988.
Shoemaker, Paul J. H. “Are Risk-Attitudes Related Across Domains and response
Modes?” Management Science. 36.12 (1990): 1451-1460.
Shure, G. H., and R. J. Meeker. “A Personality/Attitude Schedule for Use in
Experimental Bargaining Studies.” Journal of Psychology. 63 (1967): 233-
252.
Sitkin, Sim B., and Laurie R. Weingart. “Determinants of Risky Decision-making
Behavior: A Test of the Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions and Propensity.”
Academy of Management Journal. 38.6(1995): 1573-1592.
Sitkin, Sim B., and Amy L. Pablo. “Reconceptualizing the Determinants of Risk
Behavior.” Academy of Management Review. 17.1 (1992): 9-38.
Slovic, Paul. “Assessment of Risk Taking Behavior.” Psychological Bulletin. 61
(1964): 220-233.
. “Information Processing, Situation Specificity, and the Generality of
Risk-taking Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 22
(1972): 128-134.
Smith, Bruce L. R. American Science Policy Since Would War II. Washginton,
D.C.: The Bookings Institution, 1990.
Starr, Chauncey. “Social benefit Versus Technological Risk.” In Readings in Risk.
Edited by Theodore S. Glickman and Michael Gough. Washington, D. C.:
Resources for the Future, 1990.
Staw, B. M., L. E. Sandelands, and J. E. Dutton. “Threat-rigidity Effects in
Organizational Behavior: A Multi-level analysis.” Administrative Science
Quarterly. 20(1981): 501-524.
The Innovation Journal. 22 (1996): 5. Google, MSN.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency
and Probability.” Cognitive Psychology. 4 (1973): 207-232.
________ . “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science. 185
(1974): 1124-1131.
U. S. Air Force Materiel Command. Acquisition Risk Management Guide.
Pamphlet 63-101, (1993).
Wallach, M. A., and N. Kogan. “Aspects of Judgment and Decision Making:
Interrelationships and Changes with Age.” Behavioral Science. 27 (1961):
555-564.
Walsh, K. R., and H. Schneider. “The Role of Motivation and Risk Behaviour in
Software Development Success.” Information Research. 7 (20021: 1-20.
Webb, Scott., C. D. Peterson, I. Uttridge, and Don O’Hara. Assessing Risk Attitude
for Improved Visibility to Project Risk. Paper presented as part of the Fourth
European Project Management Conference “PMI Europe 2001” at the
Annual Meeting of the Project Management Institute, London, United
Kingdom, 6-7 June 2001. Google, MSN.
Wehrung, Donald A., Kan-Hon Lee, David K. Tse, and Han B. Vertinsky.
“Adjusting Risky Situations: A Theoretical Framework and Empirical Test.”
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2 (1988): 189-212.
Wehrung, Donald A. “Risk Taking over Gains and Losses: A Study of Oil
Executives.” Annals of Operations Research. 19 (1989): 115-139.
Wildavsky, Aaron. “No Risk is the Highest Risk of All.” In Readings in Risk.
Edited by Theodore S. Glickman and Michael Gough. Washington, D. C.:
Resources for the Future, 1990.
Zuckerman, M. “The Search for High Sensation.” Psychology Today. February
1978: 39-46, 95-99.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
APPENDICES
This section of the dissertation contains the seven appendices that contain the raw
and analyzed data that forms the basis for the analysis and conclusions shown in
the earlier chapters of the document. The appendices are as follows:
Appendix 1 - contains the complete list of questions used for each of the
31 interviews.
Appendix 2 - contains the all the interview data collected during each
interview.
Appendix 3 - contains the Likert Scale form.
Appendix 4 - contains the Force Field Analysis form.
Appendix 5 - contains the Qualitative Statement form.
Appendix 6 - contains the Qualitative Statement data.
Appendix 7 - contains the detailed statistical data on each of the key
questions used in the analysis for this dissertation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
APPENDIX 1 - INTERVIEW GUIDE
The Interview Guide is a standardized script composed of 18 questions that
contain 50 sub-questions. The questions range from yes/no types to open-
ended/unstructured informational gathering types. After an explanation of who I
was, what I hoped to accomplish, and a brief description of possible project
examples, the interview began. The Interview Guide allowed the researcher to
successfully draw-out examples, ideas, and thought from the interviewees.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
INTERVIEW GUIDE
A. To start off the discussion with each interviewee, I explained whom I was and
what I hoped to accomplish.
B. Then I went through the following explanation and set of questions.
During a project cycle you may have taken risks and were successful. Again
during a project cycle you may have taken risks and failed. At other times, you may
have had an opportunity to take a risk, but chose to do nothing.
Forces were in play that drove and pushed you, and other forces were
operating that restrained and opposed your risk-taking actions toward reaching your
goal. Utilizing force field analysis, the following forces impacted your risk-taking
actions (looking at a successful project, an unsuccessful project, and a project in
which you took no action whatsoever).
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think
would be useful to share with others?
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-
taking actions?
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the
mission?
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking
actions?
d. How did they show you?
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you
find it a problem and an issue to avoid?
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed
when others were afraid to try?
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your
propensity or aversion to risk-taking?
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you
to be risk averse? If so, cite examples.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude
you from risk-taking? If so, how?
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-
taking?
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or
did they espouse being risk averse?
b. What about present practices?
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were
younger and starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking as you were further along in
your career?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-
taking actions or assist and aid you? If so, how?
b. What are specific examples?
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful
regarding risk-taking (obeying top management commands)?
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your
project forward?
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or
unstated? Did this cause a problem?
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project?
Did the structure help or hinder risk taking?
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with
Congress?
b. Did you have to sell your project?
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were
they?
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk
taking? If so, what were they?
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to
perform and complete the work?
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the
right number?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go
beyond the minimum? Were they risk takers or risk averters?
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle
to obtain the finances?
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the
project?
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or
bypass the issue?
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect
your personal needs?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
APPENDIX 2 - INTERVIEWS
All of the interviewees, except for one individual from the Department of Justice,
either worked or are working in the Intelligence Community. This target population
was chosen since these individuals dealt or deal with major risks on a continual basis
in Government. 19% had Bachelor degrees, 39% had Masters degrees, and 42% had
PhDs covering a range of technical and non-technical areas. 19% were females.
The interviewees held positions ranging from Program Managers to Deputy Director
of agencies. 30 years was the average work life.
The interview time ranges from one four to five hours. The average time was
approximately two and one-half hours. The more proactive risk takers seem to talk
the longest. All of the interviewees pronounced that the y really enjoyed talking
about their work and life experiences. Moreover, the interviewees felt that they
made a difference and contributed to America.
The interview data has been sanitized since a number of examples and
comments are classified in nature.
INTERVIEW GUIDE RESULTS - #1
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
Errors that an individual makes are less serious than not taking risks. Risks are
opportunities. If you are too conservative, progress cannot be made.
Be a non-conformist. If faced with a rule, find out what the penalty is. Then move ahead.
You need to have “Freedom of Action” to make choices and to make progress. You might
have to accept the penalty in order to be successful.
Know your agency and how it works. (See Institutional Policies)
AGE AND WHERE LOCATED IN ORGANIZATION
Higher up in mgmt you can take more risks. The Law of Large Numbers saves you. (Have
a number of projects that you can be unsuccessful or partially successful and the successful
projects will be a greater number and the focus of others will be farther from the failures and
they will consider you successful.)
Lower level mgmt has a shorter focus, management looks closer at them; not take too much
risk.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
At the time, he balanced opportunities and restraints.
Non-conformist regarding his looks and how he did his work.
Appearance and manner gave clients of the agency what they wanted.
Concentrate on results, not the process.
Knowledge power vs. position power with new independent job. Knowledge power much
more important and is the answer to motivation to continue to be risk-taking.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
#1 had an insufferable arrogance due to education level.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Upper mgmt felt he was deficient due to age - young. Always younger than rest.
Wanted to prove himself. Very risk-taking.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Individuals tried to restrain occasionally. #1 gave him a bureaucratic administrative
job to do.
a. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Most knew to be ahead of curve, you need to be risk-taking.
b. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Some of upper management wanted Bruce to be risk-taking. One of his managers did
not fit into organization culture of risk-taking. He made sure that this person would
find out as little as possible.
c. How did they show you?
Continue to give him more responsibility, riskier programs; eventually became DD of
the agency at a younger age than most.
5. Values
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable? b. If so, how was this trait
important vital for the mission?
Yes
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
Gave young and educated people more risk-taking projects when a manager.
Took big risk - hire young guys (not afraid of future). Project - had only young
individuals (25 yrs or younger). They were very successful. Win for customer, win
for agency and for money flow, and win for young guys.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity. #1 had arrogance that the programs
would succeed.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
He wanted to solve problems of the Government. And the health of the nation. He
forced the issues so that our nation would be in a better position.
Additionally, #1 advocates an underdog philosophy - must be better than rest of the
world. Wanted to be superior. Get other agencies to fund agency. R&D of Navy not
fund agency so that agency not be able to do the work. Stereotyped glad to be so -
can succeed with state of the art programs.
OTHER INFORMATION
#1 knew that he had to have further education to gain focus/status for future career
plans.
Example of a successful risk-taking action.
Program consisted of a multi-programmer/multi-processor digital computer. In 19XX
the agency nets Program Z (automate by computer). Successful completion in 19XX.
Another agency said it would fail. No political consequences due to classification.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
a & b. #1 made one person do administrative and bureaucratic work. Take out of
their risk-taking project.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
In another program, the agency was tasked with the lead for the NAVY with a specific
program. #1 probably chose the wrong individual to be the program manager. Did
not succeed.
Solve the problem by doing deep selects - choose people like him to promote to
leadership positions.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
c&d.. Example 1. Upper management was extremely nervous about a possible battle
with competitors (political) within the Navy. Risk averse in this case. Not too happy
with his actions.
Example: #1 wanted individual to do state of art, not normal deployment, as Vice-
President Bush wanted. Progress for country and program is doing state-of-the art.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Most of the time, upper management agreed with his risk actions.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Fact that other navy group had the lead (designated in navy authority) in communications.
Caused him to take risks and be better organization than the other navy group.
Risk averse - Associate Director in 1980. Be the “Coach” with Director about another
agency issue. The style of the other agency was bureaucratic and definitely not to make
waves. Conservative in nature under its director. #1 is not like this. He was afraid for the
organization (its survival and money). Not personally afraid of anything. Bruce took a
hands off approach and let the Director deal with the other agency. Still not sure if this was
the right or wrong thing to do.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
Yes. See #8b. Afraid for his agency.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Scuba diving, pilot, not fear for life.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 0 0
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Past practices - cultivate customers and manage groups. It was necessary to bring the
customer to the path of truth and light. NRL is the best place to obtain necessary
products and state-of-the-art work. Organizational style equates to tolerance of risk-
taking.
b. What about present practices?
Not know. Doubt that it is different.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
Not appear to have been changed.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Practices more conductive to risk-taking.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career?
The only stipulation or issue was to be careful not to embarrass organization as you
go up the ladder.
When #1 was the Deputy Director the rule was that briefings must be reviewed first
and perhaps temper the writing. #1 would put the briefing in the mail the day before
the briefing so that the reviewer was reviewing it at the same time he was giving the
briefing.
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
When lower down the totem pole, #1 has more freedom to talk to the Assistant
Secretaries of Defense, etc.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms (RESOURCES)
You need to know your agency. How it works, what makes it tick, what are its policies and
norms.
The agency laboratory is a very unusual Govemment.agency. The laboratory is largely
customer funded. No appropriations from Congress. 80% of product is marketed and sold
to other agencies. 15-20% is research that manager must get funding for. The agency is like
private business and sells to Government.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
No. Bring to the customer the truth and light of the organization. See previous #11
discussion.
b. What are specific examples?
Technological risk of organization - if you aim too low, you risk that a competitor
will sell something better. In addition, a large number of organizations feel that they
cannot aim too high technically. They either give up or not try.
The agency is considered highly technically.
Examples are unavailable - classified information.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
#1 knew the formal rules better than anyone else did so he could be more risk-taking.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Not really.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Took perverse pleasure in bending the rules so that he could meet his objectives.
Find out what the penalty is for bending the rule.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Took risks in order to survive and be the best.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
See institutional policies or norms #12.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
Objectives of agency were open and explicit. It did not cause a problem.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
The organizational structure was a line organization. #1 felt that a matrix structure is
not good.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
Allowed line managers to nurture personnel for development. The downside of this is
the issue that managers cannot move individuals in case they need these individuals
elsewhere.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
The agency does not receive appropriations from Congress.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
FAILURES
Project from Assistant Secretary of Defense. Pick computer (from the commercial
world) to militarized. Not have the skills to sell the idea to NAVSEA, who always
used a specific type of computers. Result - the Navy utilized more than one computer
and was not unified.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
In the 1970s, the agency became visible when Congress realized that the government
was building what contractors could build. Had to take a change of direction.
Otherwise, the agency was pretty well insulated from politics.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
No.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
#1 had to work at obtaining the right people. He customized position descriptions.
Insisted on a degree - what he called a positive education requirement. #1 set up rules
and procedures for the institution. In some cases, he would choose young individuals
so he could mold them to be risk takers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10 3
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Most of the individuals were risk-takers (usually hand-picked by #1) and definitely
went beyond the minimum threshold.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Yes.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Did receive necessary funds when it was needed.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
Under President Johnson, salaries were similar to industry (not underpaid compared
to private industry). AT other times had some problems.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
Constraints - the worst were the personnel ceiling rales.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#1 became adept at evading the personnel ceiling rules. He utilized the Presidential
Intern Program individuals and/or hired individuals part-time.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected his personal needs.
OVERALL VIEW OF #1
1 . Extremely intelligent. Considered 1 of the top experts in his field.
2. Enjoys being considered different in appearance and action.
3. PhD - went back to school so he would be given more challenging jobs,
opportunities for risk-taking. AB by age 18. Went to work for Federal
Government.
4. Always in positions of authority - younger than other managers in similar jobs.
5. Only 1 lateral job shift; rest of the time he was promoted.
6. Dry sense of humor.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10 4
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #2
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
With the type of work (research and development) that #2 accomplished, an individual is
looking for what we don’t know. An individual can be inefficient and still be a success in
R&D.
Due to the interview, #2 thought about whether he would classify himself as a risk-taker.
He decided that he is actually a passive risk-taker. #2 thinks things through and then
challenges his employees with the technical problem. Other individuals (government
managers) rely upon and prefer to utilize experiences and past methods. #2 prefers to try
new methodology. He likes to “come up with ideas that stretch the system”. (These ideas
are new and innovative.) Jim considers his methodology as a challenge and opportunity to
move radically ahead technical, but is a personal risk also.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
#2 likes to stir the pot and come up with the answer.
What is risk-taking is difficult to define and explain. Thresholds are fuzzy and very
subjective. Risk-taking is a judgment call. There is no checklist on what you have to
do to take risks. An individual must use everything in his experience and intelligence
to be a risk-taker.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Technical problems that needed a solution. Other individuals did not think that the
problem could be solved. “How do I solve this problem?”
In addition, #2 also thinks of ideas and issues that he finds interesting to work.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
#2 has made a career of working out these types of problems. Problems and ideas that
are interesting and a challenge. (A risk adverse person is one who is an attorney.)
All events were a challenge and, yes, very similar in nature.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Very few individuals avoided Jim or restrained his risk-taking actions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 0 5
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
His actions are extremely necessary and vital for the mission.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management both agreed and disagreed. The reactions were mixed.
d. How did they show you?
Upper management just told #2 “no”. The relationships between upper management
and #2 were good most of the time. Received promotions, bonuses.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
#2 considered risk-taking as both beneficial and valuable.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
If #2 didn’t have this trait, many programs could not have been completed and the
welfare of the nations would be in a less advantageous position among the rest of the
nations.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
#2 was driven to take risks to help the country and the Federal Government.
At this point of the interview, #2 discussed a program that did not succeed and was
considered a “failure”.
A new center called was created to help the people who did analyses within the
Intelligence Community. (This was a new business area.) At first, the Government
thought the center was a good idea. However, the Government was not ready to do
this since they did not have employees who could do the work after receiving the
information and FFRDC had to disband the center. #2 was able to salvage one person
from the center who continued on and is doing very successful work. The problem
seemed to be that both the Government and MITRE did not understand what was
necessary for the center to succeed. This was a learning experience for both the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Government and FFRDC. Three basic elements are needed in order to succeed. The
customer needs a mission, have the money, and have internal management
(employees who knew what to do with the information).
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
Everyone liked that fact that #2 had a propensity to risk. As a program manager, #2
was able to choose his own team. He acted as a “conductor”. He chose people who
he felt could go in the right direction.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Individuals were risk-takers.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Upper management wanted #2 to succeed.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Upper management appeared to have individuals who were risk-taking and risk
averse. Overall general feeling was mixed.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Upper management informally agreed with #2’s risk actions. Upper management
utilized what Jim and others call “rock management”. This type of management can
recognize what is reasonable risk, but they cannot define it.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Caused him to be risk-taking. Worked with a contractor all weekend. The contract became
more like a joint venture than a contract. #2 was a program manager and then assisted and
worked jointly with the contractor to find a technical solution to the scientific problem.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
When #2 was in the Agency, he received a performance appraisal report (PAR) that was
extremely bad. (The supervisor did not like risk-taking.) The PAR’s reviewing official
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
knew that his PAR did not reflect #2’s work over the past year and that the evaluation was
flawed. He had the PAR changed to be accurate. If the Agency’s performance evaluation
system had not worked, #2 would have quit the Intelligence Community and the Agency.
As a result of this experience, #2 “hunkered down” for a year and did not take any risks.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
None.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Past practices allowed #2 to be risk-taking.
b. What about present practices?
At the present time, present practices do not allow risk-taking.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how? and
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
c&d. Practices have become risk averse. Technology efforts have become too
politically sensitive. Congress does not want the Agency or others to take risky
actions. The mind-set of the agencies is that they do not want individuals to be
creative (could be risky). Just do the job. Do not make waves. The agencies cannot
afford to have a bad perception (with Congress).
A comment from #2 indicated that few people are left that are risk-takers and the new
employees do not seem to be risk-takers.
At this point, #2 discussed a PFIAB study that occurred about three years ago. The
President sent a requirement (letter) to the PFIAB requesting an analysis and report on
the issue of risk adversity within the Federal Government especially in technology and
computers. Three important findings were discovered. First, managers and upper
management feel threatened by others. Second, if something should go wrong or not
be considered as successful as it should be, retribution can take eighteen years or
longer to go away. Finally, upper management does not want to be bothered with
hard decisions and difficult technical issues.
Regarding the PFIAB study, #2 made the statement that “Emperors are not properly
attired.” The S&T leadership of the Agency said that they could not fix the problem.
The problem was too hard. The Agency heads will not support the SIS S&T
managers. The system in place will not allow the support. The heads are too busy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 0 8
with nation-wide problems and other issues that are not Agency related. The heads
are also trying to stay out of the news.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career?
No.
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#2 is much more risk-taking now that he is older and as he became progressively
older, he became progressively more risk-taking. He is not offended if his idea is
considered stupid. He is not afraid of peer review. #2 likes and tried to keep out in
front of all the rest.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
The institutional policies and norms assist and aided #2. The Agency considered itself
a state-of-the-art, innovative and creative institution. The Agency allowed the
employee to utilize his own experience, intelligence, and judgment.
b. What are specific examples?
Example 1 .
Acting as a COTR, #2 tried a new and innovative idea. He talked a
contractor who was working with antennas to try this new approach.
Example 2.
While working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, a contractor could not
meet the specifications of a new and innovative product. The product, however, did
meet the needs operationally. There was no scientific method invented to measure the
specification. The contractor did not know how to proceed and was ready to call it
quits. The overall net effect would have been extremely bad for the welfare of the
nation. The country needed this new system. #2 assumed a very high intellectual
risk. He also exceeded his authority. If he failed, he could have been fired by the
Secretary of Defense and also been in trouble with the DCIA. The program was
completed successfully.
Rules were informal and powerful.
c. Did these rules impact your project? How?
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 0 9
Yes, management did not want to be misled. Slowed down the project.
b. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Yes. #2 would occasionally do what was necessary (risk-taking) and then asked for
forgiveness afterwards. This type of behavior was a judgment call by #2.
Examples of this were his j oint venture proj ect with the contractor and his work on the
critical OSD project.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
The organization took risks to maintain the security and safety of our nation and its
citizens. The Agency’s employees consider that risk-taking is a vital part of the
organization’s mission and necessary for the country’s future.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
The organization and the employees cannot articulate a definition of reasonable risk.
Employees develop their own ideas of risk. Reasonable risk is called “rock
management” by #2. Rock management can recognize what is reasonable risk, but
cannot express or define it.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives of the organization were open and explicit. This did not cause a
problem.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
#2 has worked in various types of organizational structures as he moved around within
the Federal Government and eventually into a FFRDC.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
#2 felt that the structure neither helped nor hindered the project’s progress and risk-
taking.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1 0
The project had the necessary visibility.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
#2 did not have to sell the projects since they were necessary for the country’s well
being and security.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
The maxim was to go forth and get the job done.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
The only problem was discussed under #9. The issue was with his immediate
supervisor at one point in his career.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
All the individuals had the necessary qualifications.
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Yes.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
The individuals did what they were assigned to do and usually went beyond the
minimum. Most of these individuals were risk-takers.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
The projects received the necessary money.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
The projects also obtained the finances at the correct time.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
In most cases, the group needs did not impact the project. However, in one instance,
the needs of the group did impact the project.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
The group needs happened to be what the project was trying to obtain. #2 did not
know how to solve the issue at first, but the group (headed by #2) developed a
methodology and new business model to solve the problem.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#2 tried to work within the existing system, but, if necessary, he would bypass the
issue.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
Occasionally, a project would affect #2’s personal needs. The Joint Venture project is
such an example. Took time away from his family.
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #3
With his MPA paper (survey type), the Director (Kelly) took the paper and results to
Congress and had the retirement age changed from 65 to 57 years.
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
You need to be tough. “Toughness is a state of mind.” - was a motto on J. Edgar Hoover’s
office. This thought and idea prepares you to analyze the issues and/or the project and take
risks.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
“Do the right thing.”
#1 and #2 combined. Toughness in number #1 equates to perseverance, persistence,
and ability to change, if necessary.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Risk-taking: #3 saw a need for the programs ahead of other individuals. If the
programs were not formulated and implemented, #3 felt that the country would be at
risk (again a common thread being a threat to national security). These programs
were national and international in scope.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1 2
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes, these were similar in nature. #3 did not look for a easy way out. Some called it
“the hard way.”
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Others avoided being around Bud during the Vietnam War and the FBI.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Most individuals did not consider #3’s actions necessary and vital for the mission.
These individuals did not push themselves and did not enter into new problem areas
when the agency had trouble covering the issues mandated by law and Congress.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management was mixed. Some agreed and some disagreed with Bud’s risk-
taking actions.
d. How did they show you?
Some individuals acted jealous and had a hidden agenda. Some individuals were
helpful and assisted #3 in order to resolve the problem for the country.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
#3 considers risk-taking beneficial and valuable.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
#3 discovered new problems and issues that no one else had considered or discovered.
The solutions to these problems were important for the national security of the
country.
#3 obtained resources both financial and human. One of the results was a primer
written on a national problem - how to, what is it, etc. Another result/product was the
first joint liaison group with a foreign country focusing on international crime.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
A challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
National security and national interest was the upper most thought in #3’s mind.
This was also true when #3 was in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. #3
would occasionally have his hand slapped for some of his risk-taking actions, but the
commanders privately told him that he did the right thing for the people under him
and for his country.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
People avoided him during the Vietnam War because he did his job and people were
afraid of him. “A turtle must stick his head out in order to progress.” Bud became
that way due to education (MPA) and culture that he came from (Italian Catholic).
That way - need to accomplish and aid for the good of the country and his family.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk averse.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Specific individuals wanted him to do these projects. With Project Y, the Assistant
Director asked him to do this very dangerous mission. #3 had to be under deep cover.
See other examples.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
They appeared to be risk-takers, but in actuality most of these individuals were risk
averse. Risks came from within the organization - strifes, fighting, etc. - “An internal
bureaucratic minefield.” External people - the bad guys - were a physical threat.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Both informally and formally agreed. It would depend on the activities that #3 was
involved in whether formal or informal. Informal allowed him to do the job and not
ask how he was going to do it. Very goal-oriented.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk
averse? If so, cite examples.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1 4
Yes, vested interests influenced his proclivity for risk-taking.
During the Vietnam War when men were in danger of death and shot.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
Yes. Not do anything, if not do anything, rather than get the job done (an 80% solution is a
similar idea to what #3 was saying). Inept managers in the organization. At the present
time, the problems back then are beginning to surface, for example, Hanson (spy),
laboratory issues (evidence not have the proper QA/QC), and missing documentation
(evidence for trials). Now is coming home to roost.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Motorcycling, race sailboats, hunting, fishing.
Went through schools and practiced limiting risks.
This limits and places boundaries on risks. Following the same techniques and utilize the
same tools, if possible, for other risk-taking actions.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Risk-taking.
b. What about present practices?
Risk averse. Due to acts as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other acts
as the Electronic Surveillance Act, individuals became very disillusioned and
frustrated with the issues. Some individuals left. Promotion was based on desire
rather than just do the job well. Duality within the organization, individuals not want
to subject their family to moving, etc.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
The Bureau became more risk averse.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Risk averse.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11 5
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career?
No.
f. Or did you become more risk-taking as you were further along in your career?
Became more risk-taking as he became older. Bud knows that you must manage the
risk. He called this factor, the judging wherewithal of an individual.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Did both bar and impede and assisted and aided him. He received a letter of censure
and a letter of commendation at the same time (saved a kid) - a dichotomy. #3 retired
from the FBI because he felt that the Bureau had changed and it was not “his bureau
any more.”
b. What are specific examples?
An organizational norm - the FBI did not believe that the problem existed with
country 5, only to organized crime (MAFIA). Local police believed that there was a
problem. As a result of his actions, #3 wrote a primer on organized crime with
foreign countries.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Informal. Did not like to take many risks. If you take a risk, make sure that you can
succeed.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Yes, by causing delays in the schedule and how Bud wanted to solve the problems.
#3 would evaluate the capability and then he would progress. Some individuals
subverted his project because they were afraid of him and the projects.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Bent the rules in order to be risk-taking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
“Don’t embarrass the bureau. You better be successful, if not, then don’t try it.”
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
See letter a.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
Objectives were open and explicit. No.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
Hindered the progress of his project - closed power elites and positional authority.
Little charismatic leaders except for Hoover.
Hindered risk-taking.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes, with program x.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Presidential Crime Track, FBI were at odds. Political j ousting for position. Network
and apparatus to solve a crime problem. Couldn’t go as far as Congressmen wanted.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1 7
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
Yes. See examples. Involved in a series of projects that tested concentration many
risk-taking actions.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Yes.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Yes, did what they were assigned to do.
Problem occurred when management especially Headquarters became involved.
Risk takers.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
#3 had to fight for all projects.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Must qualify the case. Make a good argument and obtain money. Always compete
for money against others. Bud never got turned down for pleading case for money.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
Not know how to answer.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
Not answer.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
Bypass the issue in order to reach the program’s goals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1 8
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
Lived away from the family for several years so that the family would not suffer.
Project affected his personal needs.
INTERVIEW GUIDE -#4
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
Most workers and managers in government are risk adverse. Although a lot of lip service is
now being paid to the delegation of authority and responsibility, failure is not easily
tolerated. This is a culture built on longevity and job security if you keep your nose clean
and don’t rock the boat. FERS and .com companies are helping to accelerate that change,
(.com companies equate to rapid technical changes and increased movement of individuals
from company to company. FERS equates to the ability of individuals and the power to
move around from agency to agency or being able to jump back and forth from the public to
the private sector.) All government agencies have the same characteristics like this.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
No. #4’s work philosophy - 1 expect everyone to work up to their potential and to do the
best job they can day in and day out. #4 has a strong work ethic. Government doesn’t owe
you a thing. He works the biggest problems first. “If you do the best you can, the rest will
take care of itself.”
#4’s definition of risk is “To expose yourself to hazard or danger.”
He brought up Warren Blank’s book The Nine Laws of Leadership written in 1995.
Blank espouses not avoiding risks, but embracing them. #4 does this at home and at work
by making lists of problems and then working the biggest problems first.
Blank also states that taking risks may not result in success because no one can completely
control the outcome. The probability that the leader will develop a successful path depends
on the interaction with the decision-making environment. #4 is very comfortable in the
environment. He has been basically doing the same job for 16 years. Given that experience
he can make decisions that someone less experienced would say are risky. (Sounds like the
study done @training for risk.)
#4 likes to excel in times of diversity and danger (project XYZ). You don’t have to be
smarter than others, but you need to be goal oriented and have a follow-through attitude.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1 9
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
#4 considers himself to be a risk-taker. At 14, he had to develop a skill since he no
longer received an allowance and at 18, he was expected to leave home and support
himself (received $1000 and kicked out of the house). He learned to be self-reliant
and self-supporting. #4 was an Eagle Scout - motto was Be Prepared. When he was a
junior in college, #4 lost his job at the Latch String Company. Had to find another.
#4’s experiences formed his competitiveness and goal oriented behavior and his inner
person. He feels that you cannot separate risk and how we deal with risk from the
person
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
These events were not similar in nature all of the time. These examples are life’s
lessons I instilled at an early age that helped him “deal with leadership and risk-taking
on the job.” “I already had a solid foundation for dealing with risk.” Nature vs.
Nurture - both. Perhaps inherent in nature. #4 was a twin and was always
competitive. Leadership and risk are very similar.
#4 has a fear of failure. He very goal oriented. When you start something, you need
to finish the job. In order to do this, you need to have discipline (key). Work smarter,
but who can outwork you. Be prepared to do your homework and you are
infrequently surprised. This will allow you to know how to handle an unexpected
issue. (Life experiences.)
While fear of failure would tend to indicate a tendency towards being risk adverse in
fact it has the opposite effect. You will try innovative approaches to solve problems
and you will never give up. Makes you more risk-taking.
Recent work experiences: ZZZ (Aug 99) - IA, Comms; X Funding - one of hundreds
of decisions that he make - one mistake will cost you a tremendous amount of good
will which is hard to get back and becomes a credibility thing.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Utilized the ZZZ example through out the rest of the paper.
Other individuals did not avoid being around Keith. They were very supportive since
was the one at point position. It was better me then them, (in front of the firing
squad)
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
These actions were necessary and vital for the mission.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management agreed and were very supportive of my risk-taking actions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 0
d. How did they show you?
#4 was chewed out on numerous occasions, but was rewarded at the end with success.
He obtained the Director’s Award for Excellence.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Yes and no. Depends on the situation and your experience. As a leader you
instinctively know (gut feeling). Pick and choose.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
Very critical given that this is an organization in its formative stages, budget
fluctuations, dynamic nature of our business. Change is a fact of life. Risk is a fact of
life so deal with it. Risk-taking is more important since AAA is a new organization.
General O is a risk-taker.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
A challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
Knew it was the right thing to do and I had the ability to make a difference. Loyalty
was a factor (spirit to succeed). Also summer was here (lots of factors - tangible and
intangible that fit into the equation). I was able to be more flexible in my personal
life.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking? and
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
We were all risk takers. We knew that we had to succeed. Some folks were willing
to be martyrs, some conducted affairs in a panic mode, not healthy.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
This project was the most critical thing that the agency was dealing with - DCI, Sec.
Def. up to the President.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 1
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
They were risk-takers because the worse case had happened.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Formally agreed.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Two of his divisions were on the firing line. I had to jump in and fix the problem.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
No.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
#4 likes to participate in sports activities and he even co-sponsored a sports competition
within his office in order to promote team building.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Since the organization is fairly new, there were no precedents or past practices.
b. What about present practices?
The present practices will utilize the XYZ paradigm. These include what was done
during the XYZ program. The main element is to take domain experts and put these
best people on the problem to ensure that the failing program has the best chance
possible to succeed.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
N/A since the organization is fairly new.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
The practices and the organization is risk averse. Risk averse in the sense that the
organization will do more homework to find out what the risks really are and how to
obtain alternative solutions to these risks. (More like risk mitigation.)
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career?
No, #4 did not take more risks in the past. He feels that the opportunities to take more
risks have increased and are broader in nature as he has become older.
f. Or did you become more risk-taking as you were further along in your career?
#4 also stated that he is much more risk-taking as he has advanced up the ladder.
(Does not compute with e.)
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
The institutional policies and norms did not assist and aid his risk-taking actions. The
institution basically threw out the window all the policies and allowed #4 to try what
he felt was necessary in order for Project XYZ to get back on track.
b. What are specific examples?
Project XYZ was impacted negatively by the 2000 year change. Thousands of
individuals and organization counted on the product produced by #4’s organization.
All the way up to the President of the U.S. #4 assumed the biggest risk since he was
number one within the team that was sent to fix the problems.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
The rules were formal and explicit when he volunteered to fix Program XYZ. He had
to report every morning and evening to the head of his agency on his team’s progress.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
The rules impacted his project. Someone from his team had to be there 24 hours/day
for all seven days. Team members worked 14 hour days for three months with no
time off at all.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 3
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Yes, #4 bent the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move the program forward. No
overtime pay was given to the workers. #4 was able to obtain any individual he
needed when he wanted them. #4 actually made new rules within the organization.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
#4’s organization decided to take risks for three reasons. (1) for the mission of the
organization, (2) for national security, and (3) for the continued life of the agency. If
it did not succeed, the agency’s life would have probably been terminated by
Congress.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
The organization thinks reasonable risk is whatever it takes to get the mission
accomplished and the job done.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives of #4’s organization were open and explicit. This did not cause a
problem with his endeavors.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
At the time of the critical needs of program XYZ, the organizational structure was
thrown out. The organization just wanted and needed the program to succeed and get
back on track.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The structure helped the progress of #4’s project and his risk-taking actions by
allowing him carte blanche with his actions. The structure only wanted success and
was willing to do practically anything.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes, the project definitely had the necessary visibility with Congress, the President,
and other members of the Intelligence Community. Nothing was hidden or could
have been hidden. The project impacted directly national security.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 4
b. Did you have to sell your proj ect?
No, the project did not have to be sold. It was absolutely necessary that the project
was successful.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Yes, there were a number of political overtones. If the project was not turned around
from a dismal failure to a success, the director of the agency would lose credibility
within the Department of Defense and the I.C. An inquiry would be made by
Congress to find out what the problem was and why the agency could not fix it. The
realization that the agency might not continue was very real.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
There were no problems with risk-taking actions. #4 could perform whatever actions
were necessary to ensure that the project would succeed.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
All the people on the team had the necessary qualifications to perform and complete
the work.
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
#4 handpicked the best individuals to perform the job.
He also acted as the stabilizer within the project. One individual wanted to be a
martyr to the cause and stay at work regardless to his personal health or his family.
Another individual ran around always in panic mode that did not help the project at
all.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
All the individuals were risk takers and they all worked a 14-hour day 7 days a week.
They knew that the future of the agency depended upon them and that the
continuation of the U.S. could be affected by their actions.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
The project received a realistic amount of money to complete it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 5
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
The money was received when it was necessary.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
The needs of the group did not impact the project. The project was bigger and more
important than anything else.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
In this case, specific needs were not considered due to the importance of the project
to the nation and to the agency.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#4 worked within the existing system and he also would bypass the system in order to
attain his goal.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
Yes, the project affected #4’s personal needs and his personal needs impacted the
project. One could call this a symbiotic relationship with this project.
#4’s definition of risk is “To expose yourself to hazard or danger.”
He brought up Warren Blank’s book The Nine Laws of Leadership written in 1995.
Blank espouses not avoiding risks, but embracing them. Keith does this at home and
at work by making lists of problems and then working the biggest problems first.
Blank also states that taking risks may not result in success because no one can
completely control the outcome. The probability that the leader will develop a
successful path depends on the interaction with the decision-making environment.
His is very comfortable in the environment. He has been basically doing the same job
for 16 years. Given that experience he can make decisions that someone less
experienced would say are risky. (Sounds like the study done @training for risk.)
He likes to excel in times of diversity and danger (project XYZ). You don’t have to
be smarter than others, but you need to be goal oriented and have a follow-through
attitude.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 6
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #5
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
Government:
Bureaucracy inhibits and is risk averse perhaps even the processes causes risk adversity.
Risk-taking can be found in one level of an organization and not in another level of the same
organization. Government could and should include risk-taking as necessary and an
important factor of bureaucracy.
People and risk-taking:
a. People who take risks are highly successful and valuable to the organization.
b. #5 cannot explain their preference for risk-taking. These individuals are called
“cowboys”.
c. Almost impossible to demonstrate risk aversity which does inhibit progress. You can’t
change their behavior or motivate them to take risks.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
As a program manager, the degree of risk-taking depends on the phase in the life cycle of
the project. There is a great quantity of risk, of course, within the research and development
world. The next generation of a project the operational question should be why is it
necessary to take a risk? The plan should be to try things that create parallel paths for
innovative programs (risk management). You must design a framework of risk into the
program and the projects.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
When the office was attempting to start a new program (in one of the hardest science
areas known) that no one else in the government had attempted before, #5 had to
explain the story all the way up to the Director of the Agency. When he talked to the
Comptroller and her staff, #5 point blank stated that this program had innumerable
risks. “The chances are that 90% of the money will be spent on failures with a 10%
success rate for the investment. However, the problem was so important, we could
not try to attempt this program.” This was a national security issue.
#5 acknowledged the problems, explained the issues, and showed the value of the
payoff was definitely worthwhile.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
At this point I asked #5 if he did this all of the time with these types of situations
occurred. He said yes.
People become discouraged about the bureaucracy. The structure inhibits positive
actions and prudent risk-taking. You actually need to be salesmen about laying out
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 7
the program within the structure and about risk issues. In big and important programs,
it is necessary to design fallback ideas. This is very important, (alternative solutions
to the problems)
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
#5 experienced other individuals avoiding him and also restraining his risk-taking
actions.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
In one example, #5 acted as a Mission Director for Program N. There was a software
problem and #5 was the only individual at the site that could make a decision on what
to do. He alone made the decision in the middle of the night. #5 thought through
what other individuals would have asked, contributed or said about the issue. The
next day #5 explained the issue, his actions, and more importantly how he thought
about what others would have said to the main supervisor. The supervisor thought
#5’s action was necessary and vital for the mission.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management agreed with his risk-taking actions. His decision was supported -
positive reinforcement.
d. How did they show you?
Upper management told everyone that the decision was valid and necessary for the
continuation of the mission.
Another Mission Director for the same program was risk averse and would have not
taken the risk that enabled the mission to continue and have better results.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Risk-taking is absolutely necessary.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
Risk-taking is important for progress and increasing capabilities of the country.
Some organizations or areas in organizations do take more risks than others. Due to
increasing and increased risks due to the mission, it necessitates that the organization
must take risks in order to meet the needs and the requirements of the tasks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 8
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
As a Mission Director for Program N, #5 was stimulated because he could do more
for the mission (increase productivity and better efficiency). The other Mission
Director was risk averse. He did not want to push program N’s limits or be put in a
position that he would have his hand slapped.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
Most of the people #5 worked with on the project felt the same way as #5 did and
agreed with his actions. The key according to #5 was to explain why the need existed
to take the risks and define the reasons for his actions. More junior individuals would
take more risks, but could not explain their positions as well. This causes a problem
and puts questions into people’s minds.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
c&d. Upper management formally said no because they can’t explain the issues and
the circumstances to upper management.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
When upper management heard the whole reasoning behind his risk-taking actions or
his proposed risk-taking actions such as in Program M, they usually agreed formally
that the actions were essential for the national interests. Not to do anything or shy
away from the problem because it was too difficult was not an alternate.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 9
Increased his risk-taking.
At one point, a junior officer was given an opportunity to excel by #5. This officer was to
support a team effort. #5 had a plan if things went bad. His experience and instincts were
right. The junior officer completed his task and did excel.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
At times, the idea of making progress or to take risky actions did not seem possible due to
specific individuals. One individual in particular would take the opposite viewpoint to
either shake up the system to find a better way or due to personality conflicts. It was
necessary to constantly discuss and negotiate with him - slowed down the process.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
#5 likes to fly airplanes. He feels that flying is compatible to risk-taking. When you fly you
need to plan out alternative actions in case something failed. This is part of the training that
you receive. This is similar to program management in the technical field. You need to be
able to use this same technique.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Culturally in the past the organization build a reputation of “new programs.” The
organization was known for introducing change and introducing risk.
b. What about present practices?
Present practices have become more risk averse. Perhaps this is partially due to the
fact that the systems themselves have become more mature.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
It is much more difficult to identify the main threats to national security. Because of
this fact, programs have been delayed and some even derailed.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Today, the practices are more conductive to risk aversion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 3 0
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career?
#5 feels that he took the same number of risks when he was younger as he is now -
consistent.
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#5 does believe that as he went further along in his career his maturity level and
experience level permitted him to be much more confident in his risk-taking actions.
12 Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Neither institutional policies nor norms barred or impeded #5’s risk-taking actions nor
assisted and aided him. If you know and understand the program and issues, you can
find ways within the spirit and the letter of the rules and regulations.
b. What are specific examples?
Program A was a program that was in an intermediate stage of development. Upper
management decided that the next level was too expensive and too risky to try and
that the money could be utilized elsewhere. Upper management wanted the
Government to terminate for the Convenience of the Government, but eventually was
overruled by Congress (#16). National security could not be put at risk. Program A
was too important.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Both formal and informal.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Yes. At times, slowed down the project.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
No. See #12a.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 3 1
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
In the office, the organization assumed major risks
Because of the inherent risks of the projects.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Known to take major risks and accomplished SOTA research and development in the
Federal Government.
A course was designed and customized in program management to train both the
COTR and the contractor. A major investment was made by the Agency both in time
and money in order to obtain the best-trained individuals.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit. No problems were caused by this open
communication.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
A hierarchical type of organization.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The structure can inhibit risk-taking like XYZ office. A large project must be more
thorough and it must look at all the consequences of all alternates. Structure can
hinder the progress of the project.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
All of the program had high visibility especially with Congress.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 3 2
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
c&d. At one point, #5 had to go before the Deputy Director of Science and
Technology and the Comptroller to explain the importance of one particular project.
The project was saved because it had high visibility with Congress. The DDS&T
wanted to utilize the money elsewhere, but could not do so because of the political
fallout and questions that would occur with Congress.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
a&b. Very much so. The only issue was an interpersonal frustration with one specific
individual.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Yes, the individuals went beyond the minimum assignments on a daily basis. They
were risk takers in the real sense of the team. Long hours, went to extremely
dangerous places undercover.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
The project received a realistic amount of money to complete the project.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
At one point, #5 had to fight for the money from the internal upper management.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
Yes, the needs of the group impacted the project. #5 needed to manage and balance
the group.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
#5 had to avoid burnout by managing extremely carefully. He had to constantly
balance between the group and the program. Individuals were highly motivated
because they knew the ramifications and threats to national security if they did not
succeed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 3 3
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#5 worked within the existing system to solve the problem. Before he made a risky
action, #5 would come up with several scenarios and alternative solutions.
People can be a problem within the organization. There is a learning curve on how to
do things. Individuals needed to make compromises for the organization to survive.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
#5 needed a lot of time to counsel individuals. This took some time from his personal
needs and wants.
INTERVIEW GUIDE R E SU L T S-#6
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
#6 feels that it is necessary to minimize risk and avoid it as much as possible. However, he
expressed the point that risk-taking has changed significantly over the past 5-10 years due to
(1) funding, (2) how one does business as a result of uncertainties in the business world, and
(3) issues made by the individuals themselves. Programs and projects are constantly
changing which is a major factor and very important to the overall success of the mission.
The acceptance of risk-taking has increased. #6 called it risk accommodation. Differences
to accepting risk are due to the technical difficulty of the problem and amount of required
funding in solving the problem. NASA tried a new approach to accommodating risk. (The
better, faster, cheaper program.) NASA has stated publicly that this program is not working.
(I heard the same comment from a NASA spokesperson at the National Risk Management
2000 Seminar.)
#6 also stated that taking risks are not career builders. If you fail in anyway, your career is
damaged. At times, you may never recover. Additionally, in the bureaucratic world, an
individual is not duly awarded even if the individual is successful.
Dealing with risk is definitely an uncertainty. Needs to be made into a discipline.
At the present time due to politics, engineering projects and programs are not “blooming
again.” The financial risk is at the heart of the issue - why projects are not blooming and
risks are not being taken. An example of this is when Congress (an organization and
employee risk) created NIMA. Would NIMA be able to do what the mission was of the
organization?
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
No specific philosophy was developed.
Today, individuals must deal with risk and formulate an individual philosophy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 3 4
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Basically, #6 is a risk averter due to past experiences when he was a youngster. He grew up
in the depression and his parents were risk averters. The culture was definitely a non-risk
environment.)
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Most of the events farther along in his career were a “hodge-podge” in nature. The
only similarity that occurred was a combination of three factors. These factors
included: how the organization was formulated, the issue of minimal funding, and the
rapidly changing technology drives.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
At times, #6 felt that others might have been avoiding him since he did not take risks.
#6 commented that he felt the task was to avoid risk because the benefits of accepting
risk were not obvious.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Some individuals felt his actions were not vital and necessary for the mission, but
since others avoid him perhaps they did not agree with his assessment (Keith).
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
d. How did they show you?
c.&d. If an individual wanted to take risks and used a logical argument, then upper
management agreed to the proposal.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
#6 did not consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable. In today’s world, an
individual will need to use and manage risk in order to progress. “The new generation
must utilize and study risk.”
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
This trait is vital for the mission. A willingness to take risks must be present, but the
individual must know how to manage risk. You will have better results. Before the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 3 5
organization would call a project a success or failure due to luck. Now the success
rate is how an individual can manage risks and uncertainties.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a problem and an issue to avoid. Now the world necessitates a clear
diametrically opposite viewpoint.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
N/A
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
Some individuals felt #6 was too conservative in his actions and thoughts about not
taking risks.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Some individuals were risk averse and some were risk takers.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Upper management felt that the project was important for the national interests and
national security.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Upper management had mixed feelings - risk averse and risk-taking.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Upper management informally agreed with his risk actions. However, both #6 and
upper management voiced the following statement. “Avoiding risk in today’s world is
not a safe path to walk.” Now and in the future an individual cannot do avoid risk if
you want to progress. Create methods and have individuals on board to recover from
risk. For example, perhaps a team to manage risk.
The attitude prevails that an 80% solution to the technological problem is good
enough. If you obtain 80% of what is wanted and needed, then you reached the goal
and can stop all further efforts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 3 6
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Vested interests influenced Ms rise adverse behavior only when he was protecting his
position.
Example - risk-taking.
#6 tried to promote a successful model for the formulation of the infrastructure of an
agency. The principles of several successful programs could be used by and for the new
agency. The agency’s upper management did not want to utilize tMs type of methodology.
The agency had no understanding, ability, and skills to handle the risks incorporated in #6’s
idea. The agency did not know its requirements, but preferred to build to behaviors. #6
stated that the agency did not know how to actually do the engineering work it was required
to do.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or orgamzation preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
The only caveat from upper management was that the customer is always right. (These
individuals handle the funds.) TMs was where the preclusion existed.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restram your risk-taking?
#6 did not participate in any risk-taking activities. He is very conservative in nature. His
personal mvestment plan indicates tMs characteristic.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
'The orgamzation allowed Mm to be risk averse in Ms actions.
b. What about present practices?
A “bow wave” of change regarding risk and uncertainty is taking place. The necessity
of risk management must be considered in the future incorporating skills, attitudes,
and cultures.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13 7
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
The organization is specifying individuals to focus on particular areas of risk.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
More conducive to risk-taking.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career?
f. Or did you become more risk-taking as you were further along in your career?
e.&f. #6 has stayed the same throughout his career - risk averse.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Institutional policies and norms assisted and aided him. Made certain that #6 had
strong technical individuals to do the actual work.
c. What are specific examples?
The organization allowed an individual, who really knows his subject matter and is
considered an expert in risk; give a talk at the Risk Management 2000 Seminar. The
risk was the fact that this individual does not do well in speaking to a large audience.
His presentation was an outstanding success.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
The rules were informal and only cautionary.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
The rules did not impact his project. #6’s actions impacted the project.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
#6 did not bend the rules.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 3 8
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
The organization allowed the program manager to take risks. Now risk-taking
involves the emerging risk management concept. Risk-taking is becoming part of the
culture.
Upper management should only look at the risk management plan, not the technical
issues. The program manager handles the technical issues. Upper management
should have the job function of becoming the expert for risk management.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Reasonable risk depends on what is the implication. The organization espouses the
concept of the 80% solution. This concept could be considered what is acceptable
risk.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
Objectives of the organization were open. No problems.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
The organization’s technical structure is a matrix and hierarchical type. But not in a
rigid sense. An individual can go and talk to anyone even the president.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The structure helped the progress of your project. The management was good because
it included all the vested interests and the customers. It used PATs. Everyone was
involved in making decisions.
Also those individuals who are promoted can create new ideas, but management does
not want to see dead bodies or dead groups left behind.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes, the project had high visibility with Congress, etc.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 3 9
b. Did you have to sell your proj ect?
No.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Yes. If #6 failed, could ripple into other programs and for any future organization’s
consideration to perform new programs.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
Individuals are promoted by technical skills, not management skills. Organization
must develop the management area. This is a big risk for the organization - not
possessing the necessary people skills to manage individuals.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
Yes.
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Yes. Having the right mix, etc. fosters the correct climate.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Individuals went beyond the minimum. Individuals were both risk takers and risk
averters.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
The project was boxed in (limited) to a certain extent.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
A struggle occurred at times even though #6 would point out the need far enough in
advance.
The drivers of a project or program have been changed from Performance, Schedule,
and Cost to Cost, Schedule, and Performance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 4 0
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
The needs of the group neither impacted nor restrained the project.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
N/A
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
Enough freedom was given to individuals to work the problem out. However, #6 did
have oversight from upper management.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
#6’s personal needs were based upon his strong proclivity to be risk averse.
COMMENTS
#6’s experience has been an awakening of necessity of obtaining a risk management
capability. Since the organization is under constant change, decreasing funds, faster
movement of technology, obtaining a different sort of employee base, individuals must
solve different problems with different methods. (Information Technology solves issues this
way.) The future necessitates a different perspective for working technology issues.
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #7
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be useful
to share with others?
An individual cannot mitigate risk in many cases because the government managers are
stuck with what individuals they are given or have. These government managers try to mold
or fit these individuals to what they need. For example, the NSES contract has high risk,
and an adequate supply of money. Identification described that the contracting officers and
the staff needed education. Managers can nibble around by choosing individuals for the
program.
In corporations, however, individuals can be used as (1) pawns or (2) create themselves as
pawns. Individuals go where they can get more money and/or interesting work.
In Government, work is in the old mode. Work for years to obtain a pension. You begin to
know individuals and pass them around. This is a roadblock to change. You recruit other
individuals from their work in source selections, integrated product teams, etc. Get what
other individuals want to give up.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 4 1
Corporations have problems, not to such a great degree as government. Corporations have
the litigation issue.
Therefore, the questions seems to Steve - How much risk is there when one has to take risk
to avoid a cadre of personnel that you do not want in your program?
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
Personal perspective is #1.
Mitigate and try to change within resource pool. Send to training, rotate for experience, and
attract by rotation.
If you create an environment that makes people comfortable and work is fun, people will
gravitate toward your business. Example - when NIMA stood up. There was freedom to
talk, little conflict, and a sense of family existed. Managers not have to work to obtain
qualified individuals. They held out a “beacon” and individuals migrated to you. Similar in
DARPA. Attract in a passive way. You are reducing risk of the program because you can
pick and choose individuals.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
A neat aspect exists within government. You cannot be fired. “If they only realized,
they could venture and not lose a thing. What are they afraid of?”
Perhaps not attract that kind of mentality. In the last 10—20 years, creative
individuals not join the government. Government is more rote. Task driven versus
creativity.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
How people perceive work - the environment is different in government (task driven).
Example - The Technology Integration Center at DARPA. This is a social
experience. The idea is to build a big laboratory environment and put multi-programs
together. Have experimenters work in the same laboratory. Broke a government
mold. Live and breathe together - programmatically, collaboration. Therefore, the
programs should progress faster, advance technology further then if separate labs.
(Now use this idea in other areas.) Now look at inter-program capability. Idea -
network senior capability and fuse them. Individuals talk to one another constantly
for state-of-the-art projects and programs. SOTA is possible due to personal and
technological cooperation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Restrain his risk-taJdng actions.
Example - 10 years ago. John was a typical bound individual who worked nuts and
bolts of project. Steve worked under him. John did not want to take risks. He was
afraid due to reprimand and penalties. In the government, you will possibly move up.
Example - 15 years ago, the program manager was burned out. He had to leave.
Upper management had to talk and sell the idea to potential recruits that you couldn’t
fail because everyone thought that it was going bad anyway.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
No.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management was more conservative with Steve’s risk-taking actions. Because
they are closer to the flag pole (meaning that these individuals are closer to the
director and his power and authority).
d. How did they show you?
No active or passive support (perhaps a pat on the back). It is too hard and painful at
times to take risk. Some individuals are like this.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Yes.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
You need this trait for your employees to work in a proactive manner and react to
problems as challenges and issues to be solved, not as a roadblock (Environment).
For example, DARPA has a high risk, high payoff environment. Individuals are not
afraid to fail. Congress and the Pentagon agree and recognize that DARPA’s mission
is to take risks. DARPA has a $22-3B budget. DARPA can rest on their laurels.
Occasionally, you need a home run to keep the legacy environment.
In most cases, agencies and individuals are afraid of failure - become labeled.
Problem with peer pressure.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 4 3
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
A challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
#7 is cavalier and has a maverick side in his personality. He hates bureaucracy.
Example - See #13. Steve bends the rules. Not use regulations. (Instruction #54).
Successful with project. He manipulated bureaucracy. Pay the price at a later date, if
necessary.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking? and
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
People below #7 will follow because they trust you no matter what you do. People are
looking for this kind of leader and environment. “Follow you almost over the cliff.”
Other people not want to see you leave. Individuals start being protective of the
leader.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Upper management told him to be careful.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk averse.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Both.
Informally and passively agree with Steve’s risk actions. Personally agree with his
actions. Formally - with certain upper management may abandon you in a minute
(very hurtful). Steve does not see a formal agreement very often. “Lack of
responsibility” of upper management for the necessity of backing their managers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 4 4
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Constantly, #8 is up and down. You must be able to ride the roller coaster and commit to
the ride. People below #8 will follow him. See #7.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
When you take a risk like gambling with money, you can lose big. A typical person needs
to be very careful. You must protect yourself and the positions of the people. You want to
be recognize and an image stuck in their mind that must extend yourself outside the bounds.
“Risk will not cause harm to the individual.”
Example - When #8 was a GS-12 he briefed GS15s and above. Not want to do. But he
knew he must create a niche and a name for himself- “a big threshold to cross.” This was a
big risk to take.
Laurie, another GS-12 who worked with him, could not do a good briefing and therefore
could not break out of the box.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
#8 likes to race cars. He considers this part of his self-image - pride and machoism. He
considers that external and internal pursuits are related and that external pursuits can further
a cause internally within the agency.
Today, #8 feels an increased pressure that losses would be greater if he fails in race car
driving. Race car driving is an identifier for #8 in the workplace. He briefs in front of the
Executive Board that is a big factor in his professional career life. (People know that he has
raced cars.)
Example - #8 used the car and labeled it with configuration management examples for his
briefing to the Executive board. Use motor scooter now.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse? And
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 4 5
b. What about present practices?
With the agency (DMA - NIMA), not much change with the attitude toward risk.
Risk-averse.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how? and
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Business process “du jour”. Not see changes within the organization. The
organization follows a knee jerk reaction to events.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? and
f. Or did you become more risk-taking as you were further along in your career?
#8 has not changed much. There have been peaks and valleys. The factors that have
influenced him are: (1) organization that he is in, (2) the bosses that he has had, (3) the
workers that are under him, (4) the project that he is working on, (5) those things
outside of work are impacting his life
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Both types. It depended on which organization he was in at the time.
b. What are specific examples?
An individual adapts to the environment that he finds himself to a certain extent. See
#2, 5, and 15.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Both.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Yes. With DARPA, the rules focused on moving the projects forward and taking risks
to do so.
While with DMA and NIMA, taking risks were considered a no-no.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 4 6
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your proj ect forward?
Bent the rules in order to move the project forward. Not have to use regulations due
to Instruction #54 (NIMA). #8 tried to solve problem without bending the rules, but
could not do it. See #6.
It depends on the mission of the agency. While in DARPA, #8 did not have to bend
the rules since the focus of the agency is high risk high payoff programs. Risk is the
name of the game.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Different organizations take risks depending upon the mission of the agency. See #15
for the various agencies that Steve worked for and their missions.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
See #15.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit. No.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
1 . USD A - upper management very bureaucratic, very structured. Acted as a
babysitter with no risk allowed. Formed Steve’s mold.
2. USGS - structured, bureaucratic government. Strong levels of breakout with
individuals. The agency is known not to be risk taking. Would give jobs, and
individuals would work independently. Increase Steve’s creativity.
3. DMA - worked in a Specific Program Office that was risk-taking. A different
environment. Steve was on his own. He needed to figure out his niche and
what his program was suppose to do and how to do it. If the program fails, the
organization would fail. Steve was successful.
4. Comerex - this was an operations environment. Cannot make mistakes. Must
obtain requirements of the programs. This was a step back with Steve’s risk-
taking actions.
5. CIO - like DMA. USIS architecture for the Intelligence Community. Increase
risk-taking. How you represent your organization within the CIO. You know
when to take risks.
6. NIMA - when the agency was formed, there was lots of room for risk taking
actions.
7. DARPA - increase risk-taking actions by Steve. The agency expected you to
take risks. The agency, you, and the program were to take risks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 4 7
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
See letter a.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
It depended upon the agency and the program that Steve was working on. With
regard to creating the NIMA Acquisition Center, he did not have external visibility.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes, he had to sell the NAC constantly.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
While #8 created the NAC, there was a turf fight with specific individuals. It was a
“nightmare”.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
Yes and no. It depends upon which agency Steve was an employee. See #15.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
In DARPA, #8 had the required team. With NIMA, Steve had to work with what you
can get.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Some were risk takers and some were risk averters. Depended upon the agency and
the environment.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Various situations - some did and some did not.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 4 8
DARPA received the funds when it needed it. In fact, it would squirrel money away.
NIMA has no future. Industry receives 10% for R&D. NIMA has 5%.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
The needs of the group impacted the project by both restraining at times and driving
the project. Internal chemistry occurred.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
There was a visionary and broad-focused group versus an operational functional group
that had to cooperate and communicate in order to meet the requirements of the war
fighter.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#8 worked within the existing system when a problem occurred.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
At times, the project affected Steve’s personal needs.
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #8
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
Take risks when that is the only alternative. Others like to take innovative and creative
approaches. Risk is most successful and appealing when you have to do it.
You cannot avoid risk. Risk is part of engineering and the intelligence business. The KEY
is management by knowledge and experience.
EXAMPLES
Program X (C&C) - only method was to take a risk. This was also a historical solution
(from past experience, know that this is the only proven way). If you want a result, you had
to take the risk.
Program Corona - the President of the US lost his will to do over-flights across Russia.
NRO had 12 failures in a row. Keep trying until the US was successful.
The situation must dictate you taking a risk.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 4 9
Everyone agreed that taking the risk was the only way to go. You need to sell your
program.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
#8 stated that you need to buy down risk as much as possible. Test and/or develop
technology to eliminate most risk. Put risk reduction in front. Sometimes you need to
run parallel paths with a program to eliminate unnecessary risk.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Risk-taking for national security.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
The longer that you work as an engineer you develop an instinct with people who
deliver products. You know your contractors and their risk tolerance as well as the
other individuals around you in the Program Office. Personally, you cannot take too
many risks. Avoid these actions and also those individuals who take a lot of risks.
You might end up with a bad reputation from other individuals.
Personnel also should not take too many risks.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions? and
Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission? and
Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Both agree and disagree.
b. How did they show you?
Questions from upper management were explained with detailed answers. This
resolved any potential disagreements.
Integrity is a gray word like risk. Other individuals are risk averse. #8 didn’t. He
viewed himself as a conservative risk-taker.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Yes, risk-taking is beneficial and valuable.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 5 0
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
Risk is doing something that you are not sure of the outcome regarding technology,
scheduling, and finances. You need to do risk-taking actions so that the mission can
be completed.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
Driven to take risk-taking actions if you want to be successful. Circumstances
dictated that he had to take the risks.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
You are leading the organization. Some individuals were uncomfortable. #8 worked
with and through the individual’s issues regarding the rationale behind his risk-taking
decisions. Make a comfort level for the individual about the risks.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Both types.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Upper management was not sure. #8 put his reputation on the line.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
In earlier times, upper management were more risk-taking than they are now.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
#8 had to develop a personal relationship with these individuals. He also had to show
and prove that he was a prudent risk-taker. Informally and formally agree.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 5 1
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Yes. Risk-taking tolerance has been greatly reduced. Upper management was told by
higher ups that there would be no more systems if #8 could not be successful with the one
that he was working on.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
Yes. People below you are more comfortable with a lower level of risk-taking.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Likes to skydive. #8 is a gambler. Conservative in his financial affairs.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
There were more cowboys around in earlier times. They had more adrenaline than
they did brains. Past practices were more risk-taking.
b. What about present practices?
More risk averse.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
Appropriate rales were put into effect. More prudent practices. Explain everything.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
#8 feels that the practices are the same - conducive to risk-taking and a high level risk
effort. Due to risk management, we have become smarter. We are also learning more
about our mistakes.
Today, the agency is doing high-risk operations with backup plans. Not necessary
considered high technology. Individuals must reevaluate and state the type of risk and
what alternatives that are available. Increased risk means an individual must be more
cautious.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#8 is more confident with his abilities today to deal with risk. Willing to take more
risks today due to this.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Bar and impede his risk-taking actions. He felt that he was “always climbing a wall of
worry.” He would lose.
b. What are specific examples?
See programs. Most of the time he had to always convince his boss that your actions
are well thought out and that you are a prudent risk-taker.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Both.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Yes. At times, they slowed the project down while detailed explanations were given.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
#8 at times had to bend the rules in order to be risk-taking. For example, he had an
individual that he wanted to send to school full-time. But according to Title 5, he
could not hire from the outside. Not true as another individual did what #8 wanted to
do previously.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
#8’s organization took risks since it was an opportunity to be successful. The
organization could not obtain success any other way. If it pulled off the projects, the
organization would produce intelligence.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 5 3
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Reasonable risk is “not getting caught.” An individual and an organization cannot
cause an embarrassment to the US Government. A specific example is the Bay of
Pigs. The Government did not think about alternates.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this cause
a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit within the Agency. No problems.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical type of organization structure.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
Structure did not hurt risk-taking.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes.
b. Did you have to sell your proj ect?
Sell your project over and over again.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Other individuals think and have different ideals as to what the project hopes to
accomplish.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
No problems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 5 4
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Yes.
b. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Individuals did what they were assigned to do and some went beyond the minimum.
There were both risk takers and risk averters.
c. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Yes, the project had a realistic amount of money.
d. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Received money when he needed it due to the critical need for the country.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
The project consumed the needs of the individuals/families and the group.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
Time with their families.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
He worked within the existing system.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the proj ect affect your personal
needs?
He stated that he ended up divorced from his first wife due to his job and the demands
placed upon him. However, he always has enjoyed his jobs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 5 5
INTERVIEW GUIDE -#9
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
If you want society to progress and become better for all individuals, technology is required.
This is the upside for the citizens. Of course, risk does exist with progress and technology.
The Government has “not been shown the door” meaning that it is important for the
Government to continue to use this methodology for society and that its citizens agree to the
Government’s policy of utilizing technology in this way.
#9 has experienced few failures. He feels that it is extremely hard to convince upper
management to take risks. The Government became reactive to problems. The Government
is a passive resistor or actively damages you as an individual, if you take risks. US Army
Lab System became “nasty” in particular, but #9 feels that this is a systematic problem
throughout the Government.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
#9 feels that it is important to take risks. The Government should be taking risks especially
in research and development. Upper management does not really understand the issues.
(An example of this was when #9 was working with ORD in the mid to late 1980s. ORD
sent money to build a project z for the war fighter and others. Army management spends
the money on something else. Mark was reassigned when he pointed out that this was not
what the money was budgeted for by ORD.)
At the Night Vision Laboratory, the organization started off being very innovative, but it
developed into a bureaucratic nightmare.
#9 “moved on (changed jobs) if the government organization became stuck and was not
interested in and performed research and development.”
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
#9 was risk-taking in his actions,
c. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes. The actions that #9 pursued were as follows.
1 . #9 entered organizations that were floundering and wanted to turn things
around. He sensed that they would be receptive to his ideas and his risk-taking
actions.
2. #9 sensed an opportunity and he pursued it. When he ascertained that the time
was ripe, he would move quickly.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 5 6
#9 feels that a void exists in Government regarding near-term and strategic
thinking and planning.
He never consciously pursued his risk-taking actions. #9 never knew (and still
doesn’t) any other way or method.
When #9 started Project C research in 1983-4 at the Night Vision Laboratory,
you could be a free thinker and be creative. This attitude and characteristic was
encouraged to a very high degree. The Laboratory desired these types of
individuals.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Individuals wanted to be around him and actually gravitated toward him.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Individuals considered #9 “a lightening rod (where progress could be made) and a
breath of fresh air.”
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Most of the time upper management agreed with #9’s risk-taking actions. #9 adapted
his style to not threaten individuals (who were risk averse) so he could undertake risk-
taking actions. #9 learned to work people and actions and the specific organizations.
When upper management became bureaucratic and stuck (risk averse), #9 would
move on to another opportunity.
d. How did they show you?
Upper management became more bureaucratic and/or would not allow him to
continue with or start new projects.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Yes, very much so. For Government and society to progress and become better for all
of its citizens.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
Missions inherently need risk-taking actions in order to be completed.
#9 had to “make technological break-throughs for the General,” but other individuals
couldn’t even keep toners in the printers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 5 7
Risk mitigator would take a lesser way (not like #9). Trades were programmatic
rather than technical. (No apparent differences with the final products.) #9 never gave
up perfection or SOTA gadgets and software.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking was a challenge and opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
#9 saw opportunities when others did not see them. In fact when he was asked to
write a Staff Summary Sheet for Westfields, he wrote it was necessary to do this
program - must seize the opportunity. He had to change the paper to “Explore
technical feasibility of...” because the language was too risky. Everyone knows his
name know in Westfields.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
#9 chose about 1 4 risk-taking individuals so !4 were for and 1 4 were risk averse.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
1 4 and 1 4 (retired in place). They did not make too much of a determent in the
organization.
c. How did upper management feel about the project? and
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Values of upper management - in their heart they agreed with #9’s actions, but they
sold out. The real reason was that they wanted promotions, etc (political'). Tried to
finesse him with giving him Program A to work. The issue extremely bothered him
for upper management not to tell the truth.
Upper management five years before promoted risk-takers. #9 was considered a
“Hero”. This made #9 more positive and proactive to make the program a success.
e. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk averse. See above for examples.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 5 8
f. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Informally agreed, formally disagree. Earlier they had formally agreed with his risk-
taking actions.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Taking personal risks helped #9’s career and his heart. #9 saw opportunities to make
significant progress when he took risks. The constant in his career was risk-taking.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from
risk-taking? If so, how?
Never. #9’s close personal friends admired his risk-taking actions.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
#9 founded a mutual fund so that he could be more risk-taking than what was
available. Others have asked to join his fund group.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Risk-taking.
b. What about present practices? and
c. Have they changed, and if so, how? and
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
more signatures, approvals, and briefings in order to do the same things done Became
risk averters - downhill. There is more bureaucracy. Must have many before.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career?
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#9 was risk-taking when he first started in his career and he is still has the same risk
propensity level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 5 9
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Bar and impede his actions.
b. What are specific examples?
During the mid to late 1980s, another agency asked the Army lab to develop a project
(which was technically feasible to accomplish). Army management spent the money
on another project. #9 objected and was reassigned due to his objections.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Informal and powerful.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
In more than one incident, rules slowed down or stopped progress with #9’s projects.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Bent informal rules. More people than rules.
#9 would get people to use Rule B rather than Rule A.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Organization took risks.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
It would depend on where in the organization you were placed. #9 had 5 to 10% of
divisions’ budget - $5M and he had 2 or 3 years to see if the program would work.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
Up front, the objectives were very rational and exact, but this could stop as the
program progressed with increased costs. People’s career and promotions were on the
line. Rational and irrational objectives existed at the same time. 5% of #9’s programs
failed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 6 0
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Called matrix (appeared to be more efficient), but operated hierarchical.
(Schizophrenic - two types).
During the TQM phase “We are pretending to build a consensus, but the organization
is really making decisions (not the people within the process line).
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
People rather than the organization caused the problems.
There was a prioristic mentality in the organization. Institutional flexibility existed, if
the people wanted to utilize it.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress? And
b. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
The projects did not have a lot of visibility. The organization was buried down in the
noise (other organizations had much more visibility and more political overtones).
c. Did you have to sell your proj ect?
#9 did not have a chance to market his risk-taking philosophy. The times #9 visited
Congress the results were fruitful. Upper management was jealous of his contacts like
GDEP Committee for Program C.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
See Values under #7.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
If #9 lacked the right individuals, he would fix the problem by narrowing the focus of
the program. Descope the program to ensure he had enough budget and personnel.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16 1
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Yes, most went beyond the minimum and were risk takers.
d. Did the proj ect receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Most of the time. If necessary, #9 would descope the program to ensure he had
enough budget.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
At one point (when L. gave his program money), #9 did not receive the money due to
a stovepipe Army.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
No, the needs of the group did not impact the project. #9 chose projects that fit the
skill set. Allowed individuals to have a more visible role, for promotion, etc.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
To obtain promotions, visibility in front of upper management, etc.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#9 worked within the existing system, but if necessary, he bypassed the issue.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
#9’s own promotions were affected by risk-taking actions - “Instantaneously
suffered.”
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #10
PROJECTS TALKED ABOUT
a. Program K -$2 1/2B, technology production.
When #10 took over, the program was in serious difficulty. All the design was
completed and should have been stopped two reviews previously. DMA needed to
start production. It was necessary to complete the project and work together with the
rest of DOD. Important for national security, programmatic and also personally. #10
volunteered for the job because the program was critically important for the country.
She thought that she could solve the problems and complete the program - maybe.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 6 2
b. Start-up a new group - Technology committee System Component (Program L) from
scratch. The group and what it represented was unpopular in DMA. Young when she
took it over.
c. Program M - taking over the leadership of the ZZZ. This is where the USIGS
architecture was defined. Later the merger of the 7 groups (including a series of
defense agencies) into the formation of NIMA. This was considered not to be
important by upper management. But #10 proved the ZZZ was essential. The ZZZ
did the tasking. ZZZ was not perceived as successful when she took over. She
worked with the D/CIA and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The
organization was been pulled by the CIA and DOD. #10 was asked to take the job
because of national security and she had the skills to pull it off.
Critical Aspects - Goal = must be very important and have major objectives. She
needed to have a degree of comfort that she can do the job. (The organization’s
mission and major objectives must be important for the country’s security. #10 must
also think that the organization’s goals are important and vital for the country’s
welfare.) ZZZ was comprised of many cultures.
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
Risk-taking is good. An individual needs to stretch and grow both the organization and the
projects due to the changing world. You must have a leader that perceives risk-taking in
individuals as beneficial, advantageous, important and vital for the program, not a
punishable offense against the individual. The leader “must create an environment that risk-
taking is necessary and important.” Actions can be punishing.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
#10 assumed bigger projects financially and in scope. She believed that there is an
important reason to work and complete these programs. She made a difference - “for
the good of the country”- (DMA motto). In reality this is a history of her work and
career over the years.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Risk-taking actions. See below.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes. With #10’s career, there was no question about the progression of her risk-
taking actions. As a female, women do not pursue a career at the time she started in
the 1960s. And they certainly were not in positions of leadership. Approximately 7 to
8 years after she started, the environment was changing and she also set goals for
herself. 38 years in Government where she set specific goals. See examples on page
1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
No, others did not avoid being around her. Her peers were SES individuals. The
feelings were mixed. Some individuals resented her because she was a woman and a
risk-taker. Others respected her, but were not comfortable.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Some SES individuals felt that she was not a good fit with the organization. Those
individuals under her worked very hard for her and knew that she would take risks for
the mission, the country and their programs.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management was supportive of her. They were comfortable with her, but it
took some time to see this occurring. Upper management needed to consider if they
wanted her or not. Her successful history was important for their analysis. She
constantly had to justify her actions.
d. How did they show you?
Gave her harder and harder assignment.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Risk-taking is beneficial and valuable.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
#10 feels tremendous satisfaction when she completes an assignment successfully.
There is a rush when she pulls the program, etc. off. “It is fun to take risks.” A
successful completion is not obtainable if you don’t utilize risk-taking.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 6 4
#10 was driven for the safety of her country. For example, with Program M she had
to increase the mapping capability at a faster pace. DMA’s mission was to map for
the USA. The country needed a system to look at pictures and obtain intelligence out
of the picture for the military. There were two problems that occurred with Program
M. First, the requirement was extended too long. She called this the “big creep.”
Interfaces could not be completed. Second, was the big band theory. All the work
could not be done with one action. She solved the problem and completed the
program.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the proj ect feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
The people #10 worked with liked her risk-taking proclivity.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk takers.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Upper management felt it was very important.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Appeared to be risk-taking.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Both formally and informally agreed with her risk actions.
CASES
1 . Project K team were selected for being energetic, risk-takers, and they liked
to do different and new things on a daily basis. The scope was increasing
and was too long.
2. Project L (start-up group) - tried to obtain the same type of people. Takes 3
years of longer to become a stable organization. (Schon book - look alike).
Looking for and needed risk-takers.
3. Program M - #10 brought 60% of the population into the organization. CIO
influenced other groups so one needs and must obtain risk-taking
individuals. CIO was a stable state. You must inspire the organization to
risk-taking. Go around and talk to people. Speeches are critical to clarify
why it is important for the country.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 6 5
No. It was important to her for the country to remain strong and safe. National security.
Nothing else mattered.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
There were no relationships that precluded #10 from risk-taking. She had the support from
the leaders.
Upper management just told her why it was important. She did the right thing with the DCI
and the Vice-Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She explained her proposed plans by
proving the point with evidence of why these actions were correct.
“Bind yourself to some great objective.”
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Likes to do aggressive hiking. Conservative with her stock portfolio. She believes to leave
it to the experts.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Yes, at DMA. At the CIO, the organization was different. However, at NIMA, #10
changed jobs and left when the director was not a risk-taker.
b. What about present practices?
Today, the environment is very different. More complex as far as leaders are
concerned. There is no single leader - multiplicity of leaders.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
There is no single leader- multiplicity of leaders.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Practices are risk averse. Micromanagement from Congressional Staffs. One failure
today means that you lose your money, not before. The bottom line is different. It is
a very serious situation. Not necessarily receive the support that one needs.
Individuals are risk-taking because of what they believe in. #10 believes in the
security of her country and the fact that R&D is necessary for our country to remain
on top.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 6 6
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? and
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#10 was always a risk-taking individual. After the first 8 years when she was still
defining her goals for herself, #10 became much more risk-taking.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Yes, policies and norms did assist and aid her. The projects that #10 worked were
not typical projects. They were exempt from bureaucracy. Rules did not apply.
Institutional policy did not support the projects.
b. What are specific examples?
See Project L and Project K.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
These rules were formal and semi-formal.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
The rules set sufficient controls in place that you had reporting guidelines.
Mechanisms must be in place. Who is accountable and what is being done to
complete the project.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
#10 found creative solutions to solve problems. For example, she would have kitchen
sessions where you would talk about your problems and then the group could come up
with crazy (?) approaches to solve the issue.
She used CIA processes that were a more liberal interpretation and have the
authorization to do it.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
The organization took risks for national security.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 6 7
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
In Projects K, L, and M, there are 3 very different definitions of what is reasonable
risk.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objects were open and explicit. A reward system was in place that always
recognized good work and was always used. You as a leader did a good job.
15. Organizational Structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The doors were always open. Access was available whenever it was needed. More a
flattened hierarchical model where #10 could talk to people, and walk the floor. This
is the type of structure that is needed for successful conclusions. It is vitally important
that layers need to disappear.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes. Communication is the key for success.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Always have to sell your projects.
There is a growing realization (understanding) and need that there is a national
defense and security need (threats) of operations and terrorism. Not necessary a
political will of the population and Congress. There is scrutiny, skepticism and
oversight. Seems to be a growing factor in Congress on “How to build and run
satellites.” More information is open. Media is influencing Congress. Need to
constantly and continuously justify to everyone.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
No.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 6 8
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
See examples. Communication issues.
The director did not like risk-taking.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
#10 had to find and hire the right people. This takes a lot of time.
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
She had to find some of these individuals.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
These individuals went above and beyond what they were assigned to do. They had to
sacrifice for the program and for national security.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it? And
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
It is critical to have enough money. #10 had to go after the money that she needed.
She had to estimate and justify what she needed to do the job.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project? and
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
The needs of the group were secondary compared to the project.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#10 worked within the existing system.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 6 9
Yes, her personal life and needs wee impacted. Gave up something when she was
running risk-taking programs. (Didn’t say, but she was saying without words her
personal life — could not marry.)
INTERVIEW GUIDE -#11
#11 mentioned that you don’t have to be smarter then other individuals. You need to have
logic and common sense in order to succeed.
Director of Advanced Systems and Technology. Now Director of the I Group.
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be useful
to share with others?
Risk-taking in government is very hard. You are put out on a limb. Risk tolerance is
decreasing and is at a very low level. If the program does not work the first time or if there
is just a tiny failure, it is considered the end of the world. Not like the Corona Project time
period. (Many failures before the government had the first success.) It is now “stifling”.
Today the problem is the oversight structure. The structure is everywhere and in all
directions - Congress, Community Management Staff, etc. The people are there, but they
are afraid. You must prove that the risk is worth taking to everyone else.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
#11 creates an environment that is a risk nurturing environment. She is the buffer
from all the problems. Her staff can concentrate only on the work. She is supportive
of risk-taking individuals as the Director is. You do not find this in operations.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
When #11 ran Area XX, she had to make decisions with incomplete information.
Individuals follow either one or two below.
1 . Keep requiring information (data and recommendations) or
2. Make a judgment at some point.
Government decisions are risk-taking.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes. #11 follows #2.
Examples - physical risk.
The General (risk averse) wanted the contractor to write a letter with a
recommendation to blow the gyros since the door was stuck. The General was risk
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 7 0
averse and did not want to make any decisions. He wanted the contractor to do his
job.
#11 had to make a decision on whether to fly through a meteor shower and continue
to image or not. Carol said that her inner sense - gut feeling - was to go ahead and do
it.
DECISIONS MUST BE MADE WITHOUT ALL THE INFORMATION - RISKY -
THAT IS WHAT R&D IS ALL ABOUT.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
No, others did not avoid her or restrain her risk-taking actions.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission. You obtain more respect
when you are willing to make a risky decision.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management agreed with her actions. The director trusted her. She explained
that project x had to die since there was a mechanical problem.
d. How did they show you?
He told the DCI and the Joint Chiefs that it had to be done. The nature of the job is
risk and upper management needs to support you.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Risk-taking is beneficial and valuable.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
You must be risk-taking in order to complete the program. National security is at
stake. There is no sure thing in R&D. Risk-taking is fundamental in business and in
the space business.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 7 1
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
#11 had as much information that anyone else would have. She was comfortable with
the information (sufficient delta information) to make a decision(s).
#1 l ’s thought - Individuals look at the delta. This is where the difference in people
occurs. Where is the threshold that makes individuals happy and allows them to make
a decision?
A risk-taker equates to or takes larger risk-taking actions (a smaller delta than others).
The example of the General in #3 killed team decisions and was a very destructive
individual.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
The people around #11 felt secure and safe. She was the contributing factor to good
morale. Risk averse people drove others nuts.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Important to national security.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Formally and informally agreed with Carol’s risk-taking actions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 7 2
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk
averse? If so, cite examples.
At this question, #11 discussed the idea of women in the R&D world. She had to act
with caution, not to be considered flighty (females). Her reputation would be ruined
and so would all other females. She must be a reasoned risk-taker. She must be
within the line of all other individuals (both male and female). Impact - bad for other
women. Increase pressure on her.
A perception factor existed at all times. A balance between taking too many risks and
the fact that you need to make progress.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from
risk-taking? If so, how?
Chief Engineer would get phone calls, etc. about the situation and have an opportunity
to understand the situation sooner than anyone else. The sooner timeframe would put
a damper on the situation. He had a Ph.D. He had a need to almost prove #11 was
wrong. Looking for failure (motive - he wanted her job).
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
#11 does skin-diving and downhill skiing.
Her stocks are high yield ones.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Past practices were more vested in risk-taking.
b. What about present practices?
Yes, they have changed. See #1. Oversight issue. Must prove that the risk is worth
taking to everyone else.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
Yes, much more risk averse.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 7 3
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Risk aversion. An element exists that is risk-taking.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career?
f. Or did you become more risk-taking as you were further along in your career?
#11 has increased slightly in risk-taking as she became more familiar with her abilities
and had successes.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Assisted and aided Carol’s risk-taking actions.
How - stood behind her and her actions.
b. What are specific examples?
Play with the big guys and make progress in a lot of programs.
You can fail in R&D with smaller amounts of money. Failures are important.
Lessons learned are very important perhaps more important than success. Change is
evolving in this case. Carol has $ZZZM in discretionary funds.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Rules are informal and powerful.
More rules (quantity) less risk there is.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
The rules allowed the project to be better.
How - allowed upper management and others to translate the problems into more
easily understood issues that others might have had experience with.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Yes, #11 bent the rules. Then you beg forgiveness and then ask for permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17 4
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
The organization took multiple risks. The mission of the organization is do research
& development programs and #11 revises R&D programs.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Use a well-thought out risk mitigation plan and trust your program managers to do
their best.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit.
A lot of flexibility and risk-taking.
No.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
A horizontal structure.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
#11 likes this type of structure. She can direct reports to the director of the
organization and the people who work for her can report directly to her. Helped the
progress of the project and increased risk-taking.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes, the project had the necessary visibility perhaps too much so.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes, #11 had to sell her project since it was new concepts and state of the art.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Yes, there were political overtones. Congressmen give business of the contractors to
home districts. Very much so. This causes impacts to the programs. Hill Staffers are
trying to get ahead. Make a name for themselves.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 7 5
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
#11 had a chief engineer that would come to work very early, have telephone calls
from the contractor to him about problems, etc. He did not cooperate or team play
with his coworkers. Did not help the risk-taking environment or other individuals on
the team.
Also, see #1 examples.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? &
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Yes. #11 aggressively recruit the talent that she needed. 4 or 5 key players can make a
success of a program (or cause it to fail, too).
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Yes. They went beyond the minimum. Good anticipatory individuals have the job
done - need to be proactive individuals.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Most of the time.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
For the most part, the money was received when it was needed.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
No, neither restrained nor drove the project. “ The program affects the needs of the
group and the individual.”
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
N/A
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#11 worked within the existing system.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 7 6
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected her personal needs.
At one point, she was asked to do 1 job, which was not what she wanted to do. But
she did it.
INTERVIEW GUIDE -#12
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
Engineering viewpoint
Identify and manage risk by a risk mitigation plan. At the minimum, identify the number
and come up with alternatives. An individual needs to “work by pulling the threads” which
are the dependencies. Must assess and then go after. Find out what the impact is and then
go forward.
An individual needs to plan for things that you cannot identify. Have a reserve for this type
of problem. ($600M)
Overall
There are no incentives to be a risk-taker in government. The culture cannot support risk-
taking. Everyone is success oriented (which means that they cannot fail partially or fully).
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
a. There is a wide spectrum in government. Management and leaders need to intuitively
know which individuals are risk sensitive (taker) and risk averse people. (Intuitively
know by gauging over time what a person had done and how he has reacted.) A group
can be risk-taking, but they need to leave the carnage behind them.
b. Use Meyers-Briggs test.
c. Pioneer (risk-takers) - Planter theory (risk averters)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 7 7
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Factors
Depend on the schedule and the amount of time to complete the requirements for the
customer. Not want to fail.
Take a risk if he could minimize the failure.
The shorter the schedule, risks increase.
A lot of effort occurs during the last 5% of the project that is not really needed for the
success of the project.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Yes. It is inherent in the bureaucracy that allows this type of action to happen. The
whole Government revolves around bureaucracy. Difficult to get things done due to
the oversight issue and the customers.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
An ultra-conservative individual cannot keep up. The challenge is to develop
followers and to mitigate apprehension of the individuals.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
You must minimize the risk before you present your project plan to the Director.
They agreed and disagree.
d. How did they show you?
Upper management approves and disapproves programs and projects of #12’s.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
This definition is relative based on a decision to be made.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
An individual cannot make progress unless you take risks. John Kennedy took the
risk to go to the moon and as a result there were many benefits.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 7 8
This is a characteristic of an effective leader.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
NIMA sees risk-taking as a problem and an issue.
#12 sees risk-taking as an opportunity and a challenge.
For example, the reorganization of the A&T Directorate was a risk-taking action.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
#12 wanted to go forward and as an opportunity to excel.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
Effective leaders need to have a diverse workforce. Looking for people who aren’t
like you. They will bring things up, and a decision will be made - then go forward.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Both. See a.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
They are risk adverse. Manage risk too tightly. Consequences are too high. #12 finds
there is an element to explore and risk-taking.
For example, the ZZZ debacle. Announced and discussed in the Washington Post.
Systems need to be buttoned up.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk adverse.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Formally agree.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 7 9
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk
averse? If so, cite examples.
Vested interests caused him to be risk averse. This type of behavior causes a
perspective and reflection that is bad on the specific office and on NMA. It also
ripples into the world.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
Yes, certain relationships precluded Bobby from risk-taking.
CMS, etc. state that NIMA and his office cannot do certain programs and/or projects that
they want to do.
An example of this was when NIMA was working the Intelligence Community
Geographical Net. This Net uses JAVA Code. The CIA does not have a policy in place yet
for JAVA Code. This would take work. The CIA will not let the work go forward until a
policy is in place.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
#12 has a diversified investment portfolio.
He works too many hours to have other activities. He has given up motorcycles and playing
football due to work. “Time is so precious.”
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
DMA was a risk averse organization. To modernize the organization would take 8 to
10 years. You need a special environment to do this that is small and tight and highly
educated group such as SPOEM.
b. What about present practices?
Today in NIMA it is uncontrolled and there is not the special environment that is
needed to be risk-taking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 8 0
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
Today, government processes limited risk-taking. Minimize to individuals.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Still more conductive to risk aversion.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career?
More risks when #12 was younger.
f. Or did you become more risk-taking as you were further along in your career?
As Director of Technology, #12 manages risks better and
more risk in Technology. The culture in Technology should be risk-taking. It is hard
to increase risk-taking in military environment.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Probably bar and impede his risk-taking actions.
Policies in place can protect and cause issues that need to be corrected in order to
accomplish the work and the mission.
b. What are specific examples?
Program X (same as discussed by K) needed policy changes. The group had to work
day in and out to accomplish the mission. The issue was about the release of imagery.
Cannot be accomplished without Y2K problem being solved. This was an example of
policies in place that caused issues that needed to be corrected.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
The rules were mixed both formal and informal and military and Intelligence
Community policies.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
IC cannot keep up with the commercial sector due to the restraints of the policies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 8 1
The CIA’s ZZZZZZ is an example of fixing yourself up with a bandage. (This is an
example of working with the private sector. See notes on this from Joint Intel
Conference.) Due to compartmentalism of IC, you decrease effectivity.
A new rogue group needs to be started in order to get the work accomplished. There
is too much bureaucracy and policies that are inadequate.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
#12 bent the rules everyday, of course. “Rules are meant to be broken.” Then you fix
them. You need a goal and an objective.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
#12’s organization took risks because of his customers and their needs, mission, and
objectives.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Reasonable risk is when you obtain data that is accurate and timely. You need to take
risks in order to do this.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit and are found in the strategic plan of the
agency.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
#12 works in a hierarchical structure, but slightly flatter. Flatter in the upper level.
Hierarchical underneath.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
With the flat upper management, the organization could move ahead. However, it lost
the quicker, faster, cheaper programs due to this structure.
Also the organization had a short fuse - near time due to the military ties (Director is a
General). It reaped benefits from corporate research and development (private sector).
Hindered risk-taking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 8 2
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
No.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Yes. There are many issues at stake with the different areas nationally. Congress has
the issue of pork money and the constituent areas where it will be placed. Bobby has
to go constantly to testify about issues.
Example - NIMA was given the National Technical Alliance from the NRO.
Congress put money into the program to fix things that were wrong. The President
did not want to do it. The NTA is not going out to the commercial sector and it needs
to. The program is now being recompeted. Your programs need a straightforward
plan and must be communicated clearly.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
Yes. NIMA is very military which is near term mission accomplishments. Risk-
taking is not necessarily near term.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
#12’s assessment of current individual shortfalls is that they need training.
An effective workforce takes things out when not needed such as overhead. Perhaps
there is too much outsourcing and too many contractors.
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Needs training especially with certain career fields such as systems engineering.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Most individuals did what they were assigned to do. Most did not go beyond the
minimum. Most were risk averters.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18 3
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Research and development received 10% of TOA really only 3% in NIMA (not good).
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Most of the time it was a struggle to obtain the finances.
Tendency within government that R&D money has been cut back dramatically.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
No, the project impacted the needs of the group. The Director and senior executives
work 24/7 days per week.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
None. About 10 years ago, his workweek increased.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
Work within the existing system.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected his personal needs and his personal and family life. Quality of
life decreased.
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #13
PROJECTS TALKED ABOUT
a. During his first time as the Chief Scientist in the DC Group, #13developed a new
system. The cost was within Congress, the performance 9 ahead by leaps and bounds;
the schedule was 3 % years. #13 had to push hard in all 3 areas. People worked 24/7
hours per day and were very dedicated. The Contractor took big risks. Utilized the
cost share clause and they regulated overtime. This was a pioneer effort and method.
Congress gave money 4 times in the 1980s, which was very unusual. #13 had to use
ingenuity and creativity to solve the issues. He had 8 different tiger Teams to resolve
the issues, which was very tedious. #13 was in charge of all these groups. What
transpired was a rarity - a perfect example to have all 3 factors (cost, schedule, and
performance) come together. Incorporated also was an insertion of new technology -
new materials, new communication, and new design. Was a revolutionary program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 8 4
The people were hard working, but had fun working on the program because they
knew it was something unique and distinctive.
b. Program B involved high-risk technology. Revolutionary capabilities through new
technology. Work with magnetic versus ball bearings. Program could not be applied
because it did not work. Money was spent on this high-risk project. It was research
and it produced results.
c. See other papers #13 gave me.
METHODOLOGIES UTILIZED
1. With the FIA development, there were 3 contracts in parallel using different
approaches and materials. Had to complete within 3 years. Two contracts delivered
what the NRO wanted.
2. Find hidden problems. This procedure costs more, but is a terrific risk reduction
element.
3. Collaboration also reduces risk. The NRO, NASA, and the Air Force Laboratory use
technology that was developed. All three groups can use all or part of the
development. Use multiple contracts in this case to get to the end goal. This process
also decreased risks.
Nature of risks that you have to take are always changing.
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
You have to take risk to advance in any endeavor.
a. You only obtain marginal forward steps if you do not take risk. Need to get “big
results” you have to take risks. Technology looks at different ways and processes
such as contracting. Otherwise you are wasting the taxpayer’s money.
b. You can take risk and succeed. The key is that you need to manage risk. The means
as described in example a was to develop technology and prove that the technology
works. Technology must be ready however.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
In order to obtain big results, you must take risks.
See#l.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
#13 was risk-taking. The events that triggered him were mission critical and a really
compelling national need. A national change and security was necessary and
encouraged.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 8 5
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes. #13 would look at different ways to do a program. New technology has the best
chance to transition you to a better position.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions? And
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
#13 tried to figure out new technology. People shied away in the early 1980s. Use
solid-state transistors with quasar. #13 bugged N until he agreed to allow #13 to try
the project.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions? And
d. How did they show you?
In the beginning, upper management disagreed. See above example. People were
very conservative because the ideas were new and there was extreme risk to the
project. As time went on and Bill was successful, he was promoted and received
kudos for the work that he had done.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Risk-taking is beneficial and valuable.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
It is vital for the mission in order to make leaps in progress. Must be innovative in
your processes and in technology, etc. Where new technology is involved.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
#13 feels that taking risks is fascinating and fun. There are different ways and
methods to manage risk. See page 1 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 8 6
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
The people liked #13’s risk-taking proclivity.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Most were risk takers.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Upper management encouraged risk-taking only if they were not responsible for the
end product. (Not want anything bad to happen on their watch.)
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Other management encourages and promotes risk-taking.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
The situation is similar in the commercial sector. If the technology is not mature, you
face recall (like the tire problem). Upper managers discourage use of new technology
unless it makes a real difference in cost and reliability.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk
averse? If so, cite examples.
No.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from
risk-taking? If so, how?
No. An individual must become conditioned to risk and trained and educated to be
able to handle risk and not be afraid of it. There are “natural risk-takers in the NRO”.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Likes to snow ski because of the risk and the adrenaline. He likes to parasail and
gamble within his own limits.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 8 7
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Risk-taking. Program Managers always had cost margins, which were their cushions.
This was an important mechanism to decrease risk. They kept their promises to
Congress. Always kept to the schedule. Cost was the leverage (insurance) and what
they promised as to performance the Program Managers kept.
b. What about present practices?
Not risk-taking. Program Mangers not have cost margins. In the 1990s, Congress
reexamined after the Cold War. Had the Forward Funding issue. The flexibility was
taken away from the Program Managers. No one else in the Federal Government had
this capability. FIA program does not have the funds. How much below the
performance level will the cost cap impact the program? (Congress)
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
See letter b.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
The practices are more conductive to risk aversion. The Program Mangers do not
have the tools to manage risk anymore. Program Z has a specific cost cap and
therefore the program looks like it is going down.
NASA had the methodology of faster, better, cheaper model. Goldin underestimated
the bad publicity about this problem (many failures attributed to it).
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career?
Yes.
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#13 feels that he has become more conservative slightly over the years due to his
career path, not taking risks with the projects though.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 8 8
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Yes, policies and norms did assist and aid him. The Director specifically gives
general encouragement to his troops to increase risk-taking. For without risk-taking,
the NRO would not meet the goals for the country.
b. What are specific examples?
See Project 2 and Project 1 .
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Informal rules given in Town Halls (say okay to do risks.) Not in books.
Formal rules - Have Director Innovation Initiative - $25K award on the Internet. Also
ask from universities and other similar types. #13 is on the committee. Real “skunk-
works” work. Motivation for companies to come in on front-end of an idea.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Helps.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Not have to bend the rules.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Took risks and still do for the security of the country.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Different as to what you’re doing and where it is in the timeline. See example.
Conservative with NIMA and customers (operations). New projects - different and
experimental.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this cause
a problem?
Open and explicit. No.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 8 9
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
Helped the progress and the risk taking of the project.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
The programs ranged from secret to above. Yes, the necessary visibility is there.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
In the past, projects did not have to be continually sold like similar projects need to be
known.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
None that #13 knew about.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
No.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? And
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Yes.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the m inim um ?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Individuals did what they were assigned to do and went beyond the m inim um . See
examples. Risk-takers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 9 0
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
In the past, the projects received a realistic amount of money. Today, certain projects
do not even receive a realistic initial amount of money.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Same as letter d.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
The needs of the group did not impact the project. The project took precedent over
the needs of the group.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
N/A.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the
existing system or bypass the issue?
Worked within the existing system. In one case, there were 8 Tiger Teams with
access to experts in the United States. Long-term consultants willing to serve our
country and solve problems whether technical or programmable issues.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected #13’s personal needs - his family, etc.
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #14
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be useful
to share with others?
Risk-taking is not rewarded. The present culture regarding large projects $ 100M and up,
works only for the engineering work and focuses on “not allowing the bridges to fall down.”
Nothing new and different is going on. This is a basic problem with the CIA, NRO, and
DOD. Individuals are enjoying their positions, but not working the problem solving
elements that is the basis of life.
A consensus type of development for programs exist. However, there is no creativity in
consensus. Progress had reached a plateau.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 9 1
In addition, organizations are not doing forecasting. Few groups are involved in doing this
type of work. Previously, there were many groups doing this type of work. Organizations
have to go outside to find this forecasting methodology.
Government does not seem to be looking for creativity.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
#14 was a NCO at the age of 18 years old in the Army, then the Air Force then in SIGINT.
He developed an attitude - you can complete your task even though it was high risk.
Government sent # 14 to school - math (BS), astrophysics (MS) at the University of Kansas.
He then would solve problems given to him versus what he determined was a problem.
Risk-taking is defining a problem and solving that problem regardless of the rewards and
distractions. BASIS -Define a problem and solve the problem.
In 7,7.7., #14 went to a culture that would make quantum leaps. He had to have one miracle
per year. The probability of success was less then 10%. He was allowed to spend money,
find the resources, and the people to solve the problem.
When the AAA agency originated, there were really 6 people and the American industry.
Example - Corona Program, U-2, etc. No formal infrastructure and no reporting lines
existed.
1970 - problem of extraction of individuals from a plane. There were multi-disciplinary
issues. Use a model oriented to solve a problem (characterize the elements).
An example of a problem - Make a bridge not a bridge, like a helicopter. The problem is
this must be reoriented. A typical engineer will use an analog already used. Using this
methodology can lead to disasters.
ZZZ was comprised of risk-takers. These individuals were not necessary loved within the
agency and on the outside. The group was supposed to do quantum leaps where the payoff
is large and the probability to fail is high. #14 was given authority to fail. You were given
money (more money for problems) with success. Worked on cameras, night vision, infrared
issues. Did paramilitary problems. Built only 1 or 2 of something. Worked with Nobel
laureates such as Gabor. You could go anywhere in the world for answers.
In 1972 the Landsat programs were begun (ideas) originally due to ZZZ program on z.
Developed program between meteorological, Landsat, other program (KH) that could
monitor information on what the wheat production was doing.
Problem - How to forecast what standing crops were in May for Russia? Use computer
models, also the multispectral idea.
Example: When would Russia run out of oil? Global problems (ZZZ) versus piece of the
problem (AAA). Problem solving with accurate data (mensuration).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 9 2
1970s - formulated economic problems:
a. First issue was food. It would drive everything. Climentelogy was the basis
for US climate program. People in the White House who supported this program
cover program for forecasting.
b. Resources. Russian oil. Series of models in petro-chemical industry,
pipelines, too. Look at any country in the world from the model to engineering.
Other aspects such as gold, platinum, uranium.
Question in the 1970s - how are we to communicate? Multi-conference on television, how
we can collect and IC interface with 50 users in Government. Optical videodisk program,
now it is CD ROMS.
Out on a limb, you must have an escape mechanism. #14 used science and measurement.
Leave a way for others to carry on. Must no even think that you can fail. Also from
successes that you had before. Engineers who failed in the past are traditional managers.
Made failures and went into AAA and know hoe to manage. Not get back on the “risk
horse.”
Worked through 1984 except for one problem out of five. Due to technical advancement,
communicate the problem well. IR spectral radial metrics - what is it? What do the
molecules do?
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Risk-taking. See examples under #2.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes. #14 had the freedom to be able to determine what a problem was with unlimited
resources.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
No. #14 considers these individuals as “colleagues.” If you could prove operationally
and test it yourself, people would be proactive for you. The customers had to have
these projects and you would have “full-commitment” from everyone.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Yes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Both. #14 looked at upper management as “patrons.” This has a different set of
arrangements and attributes then a typical and normal upper management.
d. How did they show you?
Upper management would give you more money for new problems. This was an ideal
setting for you to find and solve new problems.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Absolutely.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
If you didn’t take risks, you would not be able to complete missions that must be
completed successfully. The burden is that you will lose people. An example was the
economic element in Russia. (We knew Russia would collapse in 1981 due to the
decrease in oil production.)
You cannot solve all the problems. Must know what can be solved. Perhaps use
philosophical concepts 1,000 years old, or math theory 100 years old. # 14 used this
to be successful and you need to do this to create and solve a problem.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
A challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
Want to make quantum leaps, be creative and innovative for national security. There
is no other way to complete the mission without taking risks. See examples for
further information.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 9 4
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
People that he worked with had the feeling “What is he going to do next?” What was
his mission in life? #14 felt that this was his career and risk-taking was an important
element and major portion.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking
c. How did upper management feel about the proj ect? And
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Appeared to be both risk-taking and risk averse.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Both formally and informally.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk
averse? If so, cite examples.
Vested interests gave him the freedom to do what he wanted to do and #14 enjoyed it.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from
risk-taking? If so, how?
No. He would ignore these types of individuals and worked around them.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
No gambling. Conservative with money - have mutual funds and high-risk stocks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Risk-taking.
b. What about present practices?
Taking risks is not a rewarding career path. See #1. Following the organizational
path is the way to go.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how? And
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Today, technology allows a higher degree of diagnosis. Problems could be solved,
sooner, but not have a better solution.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
Same. #14 looks at problem solving, not risk. Risk is which problem should you
solve first.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Assisted and aided #14. See examples.
b. What are specific examples?
See examples.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Informal.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
#14 was able to talk to upper management and obtain their approval.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
#14 does not believe that there were any “rules.” What he was doing was not a game
- no rules, no time outs, etc. Today, there is “no difference.”
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Took risks for national security.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
There is no definition of reasonable risk.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this cause
a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit. “The price of failure was so great - the worth
of risk is so much - national security.”
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
A hierarchical type of organization. #14 ignored the structure.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The structure knew hoe to handle a person like #14. Surround him with handlers.
Sometimes they became excited about what #14 was doing and accomplishing.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
#14 received a lot of help from many, not formalized.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
#14 told me to look at a picture on the wall of a group of covered Iranians.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they? And
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
A lot of risk takers are not politically astute. Dr. Land of Polaroid was very
successful. Need to be to successfully complete your project. Risk-takers need to be
with a team of handlers. This is necessary to succeed.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Yes. #14 could go inside and outside of the Government for answers to questions that
he had. He could go anywhere to obtain the support that he needed.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Yes. Yes. Risk takers.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Yes.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Received the money when he needed it.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
No. The mission was the country’s national security.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
N/A.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
Work within the existing system. In today’s world, the problem or barrier is the fact
that certain individuals guard the organization and the position in the organization that
they hold and then there are other individuals who solve the problems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
198
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
#14 was physically exhausted, not burned out. He was working 3 or 4 problems at the
same time. #14 retired 15 years ago. He is still working one problem. He does not
want to stop until this problem is solved successfully.
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #15
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
#15 did not take a risk, not really. He did everything he could that would decrease risk.
Used alternatives (does not have anything to do with risk-taking propensity).
In an area of significant change, he prepared for opposition. Know more about people and
what and how they affect the program.
Example
1993-4 #15 worked a Communications Program that was revolutionary. Started before in
the 1980s, but was eventually killed by the Graham-Rudman Bill. Aerospace Corporation
revisited and looked at the program. Needed reliability and power standards. The agency
had two contractors do a study. In 1994, Congress told the NRO to take $10M out of its
budget to work this program. Upper management was split on whether to attempt the
program or not. (There was not one person who was concerned about the technology.)
People were stuck in the middle. If the program worked, it would take 10 years to
transition over at the agency, and have orders of magnitude of change for communications.
#15 asked that a NRO message be sent out about the program (Boyd did not like this, head
of P&A). But everyone else supported the idea. Congressional guidance was to go to small
and innovative businesses. (This was a political idea of getting everyone on board.)
The power (modulator, amplifier), etc. would be in one little device. Lincoln Labs made
one device that had separate independent components. (If it was successful, then the
engineering work would be done at the same time. Use all the other directorates in the
agency to accomplish the work.) #15 also asked 14 other FFRDCs, contractors, MIT to do
systems analysis and design. This was done successfully in two years. All other
technological elements got behind this program. Cost $75B, the prototype $150B.
In 1993, support for technology was drying up. The Air Force canceled the program, which
was like the original program had been. The device had failed on the satellites before the
launch.
Seven contractors went to 4 contractors at the first stage that took 6 months. Then the
competition was held. Selected two contractors for the hybrid. The selection of the brass
boards took over 39 months. Demonstrated that one could do it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
199
Lincoln Labs told the truth to #15. If you test (demonstrated) the program in the original
way, you would have to redo it at the right frequency that was a new wavelength. This
could be done - must modify the original device.
#15 looked for a flight to test it. If the flight occurred, a break-through would come about
and be very successful. The proposal - 30 months, $70M to start. Decision was to be made
in 1999. Competed the satellite build and it lengthened the program. Resistance came from
within. When the director said that he wanted a business case for cost, why, etc. They were
put in charge of doing the business case. Resistant group was independent, not want to do
the program at all. #15 said look and talk with individuals looking at the future, not the
present.
Fall 1999 - ESSENCE OF DECISIONMAKING (took a class at Harvard where he
discussed this book). People thought the NRO was risk averse, not really. Lots of books
talk about case studies, but not why. Can’t use creative, innovative programs in a
constructed Program Office (with 45 days RFC due to the rules and regulations, etc). The
director had a target of 10% for R&D work. Not ever got it from Congress, but he tried.
The program went through 2 or 3 business cases. Others took $100 M for other things.
“When it is advanced research, you may not have a requirement.”
January 2000 briefed the director about last business case. Lots of debate. Some people
could not understand the reasoning of why not. General Y had left. Didn’t have strong
enough advocates. The program needed to be on and with the FIA program. Could not
obtain change in FIA since it is a Congressional mandated program to do a specific thing,
but it would increase the risk.
The director is a consensus person. He said will do it (merits of it), but the question is when
will it be done. Guidance from the director: (1) find if constrained bandwidth, (2.) what
intelligence value would be forthcoming - what the customer wants? Answers - 1 . yes, 2.
didn’t address this question.
With consensus, however, not do SOTA work and not do risk-taking. Another office took
all the rest of the money. Appealed to the new Director of Y, put enough money for basic
survival. All advisory groups liked this proposal.
This program would change the capability of communications architecture so that we could
have communication all the time. Change the Global Intelligence Grid.
New Admiral (Director of Comms) thought the program was a stupid idea. Without FIA
modified, there was no other way to move forward with the program. Stabbed in the back
by the NRO Program Office. The issue was risk, but couldn’t find any risk in the maturity
of technology. Check organizational model (II) by G. Allison.
It takes 5 years to build a satellite. Know two years before to get into the budget. Study the
cost, schedule, risk, and performance that you will get. 3 years before getting into the
budget. *This is a big problem. Takes 2 decades to do something new and different as new
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 0 0
technology. Individuals do not want to hear about new technology because processes today
are not in place for future programs.
Final words -d o a new program in a place like AS&T. R&D build first increment of the
new system. Let people who build these things to do it. People responsibility to build it.
The program manager should do it. Need a documented requirement. This is where John’s
program was basically stopped. If the program had been directed by the Director and upper
management, probably middle management would have resisted.
Excellent example of Gov. Politics - Model HI - Group processes in Allison’s Decision
making book. The problem lies in the group according to #15.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
See #1 for further information.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Making major steps and orders of magnitude in advancement. See example.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Most of the time.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions? and
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Restrain his risk-taking actions. The resistant group did not to do the project at all.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions? And
d. How did they show you?
See example in #1.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Yes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 0 1
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
See #1.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
A challenge and opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
Wanted to make quantum leaps forward for the agency and the country.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
#15’s efforts with a valued program were met with resistance and John was surprised.
Political in the way of opposition was the risk. When you make a change doing
business, people become risk averse and not want to do the program.
Problem comes from (1) elements of the people, (2) the director. People like
incremental changes. Not new radical technological departures.
If a customer wants it, then it is a different story. NIMA are image analysts. Looked
at the wrong customer. Should have NIMA as the customer. Will take a risk and get a
budget due to customer demands.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk averse.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
See example.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
The Director of the agency wanted to go ahead while the Chief of the group was risk
averse.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Informally.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
202
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk
averse? If so, cite examples.
No.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from
risk-taking? If so, how?
The Chief of his group did everything in his power to stop the project. #15 was
stabbed in the back.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Gamble. Risky technology stocks.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Risk-taking.
b. What about present practices?
None now risk adverse.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
You need a documented requirement. Look at the structure and processes within the
organization. The existing processes do not allow for new or radical changes.
(Constructed Program Office.)
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Risk aversion.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
203
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
Some ways more risk taking now and some less. #15 is more selective with the
problem. He does formulate the problems like Bill G. Ask about steps.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Yes. Exhausting because they use processes to stop the program. Processes need to
be understood well. Even if you know better than upper management, still not be able
to move a revolutionary program (technological) advancement.
b. What are specific examples?
See example under #1.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Both informal and formal.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Look at the structure and processes within. Not bad people. Existing processes just
don’t work for accommodating new things. Need a radical change. Need significant
customer backing. Customer not know what he really wants. There is a disconnect
between the customer and the salesmen.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
No.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
For national security.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
The agency does not have a definition.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
204
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this cause
a problem?
Yes, open and explicit. No.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
See #13 b for further information.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Thought a lot about politics when John was working the program. Specifically, letter
from the Senator. Took three months to answer the question.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes, many times due to the changing faces within the organization.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Yes. Had to answer questions put forth by Congress. Had to take money out of the
agency’s budget to do the project.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
Yes. Takes too long for a change to occur in the developmental timeline due to rules,
regulations, etc. Individuals do not want to hear about new technology because
today’s processes are not in place for future programs. The program manager has the
responsibility to build the program. He should have the authority and power to do so.
The first build should not be called the operational model because this is other
individuals’ responsibility. Call the first one a “demonstration”. This is the first
implementation of the project. In addition perhaps you need to take the idea out of the
organization. (There is a book by Christenson written about disruptive technology.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
205
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Yes.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Yes, risk-taking.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
No.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
A major struggle.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
Yes. Restrain.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
Not enough money.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
Worked within the existing system.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
Project affected his personal needs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 0 6
INTERVIEW GUIDE -#16
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
Risk-taking is a different kind of beast. You are doing something different than the standard
process that is in place. You provide better capabilities for customers, which is the main
reason and motivational factor for risk-taking.
#16 received support from upper management. Early in his career, the norm was to lean
forward and find ways to do things smarter. He was not shot for his risk-taking actions.
Characteristics of the Environment in order to accomplish and take risky actions:
1. Clear process framework in place.
2. Clear objectives with some maneuver room.
3. Strong management support.
4. Outside influences are kept away.
5. Adequate budget. Need a way to recover if necessary.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
The environment today is risk averse.
There are too many rules to follow.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
#16 needed to be in an environment and a position (COTR) where he had more power,
more authority in this office than in other offices.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
When he was in the Special Program Office that had a national mission, where the
office was pushing the state-of-the-art, where the environment encouraged risk-taking,
he constantly tried actions that were risky.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
The only restraints with his risk-taking actions were when #16 encountered
disagreements with his proposed technical ideas. (If his technical concepts were the
best way to proceed with the program.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 0 7
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
These actions were necessary and vital for the mission except an occasional technical
disagreement.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Both agreed and disagreed.
d. How did they show you?
#16 was not constrained by having to ask permission first before he attempted an
action. He also was given clear feedback. #16 received lots of promotions and
bonuses.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Yes.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
It is very vital for the mission. You obtain better capabilities, and keep the necessary
schedules and sometimes gain timesavings resulting in a better schedule than what
was originally proposed. You might obtain financial savings. But you need financial
flexibility in order to be risk-taking.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Yes. You must identify the risks and consciously manage risks. Risk-taking makes
the job interesting.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to do?
(1) The desire to succeed.
(2) Supporting an important mission for the security of the country.
You must ask what do you need to accomplish your project or the part of the project
that you have been given. A clear imperative is necessary!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 0 8
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
The people that #16 worked with felt that his risk-taking actions were correct and vital
for the mission except for the disagreements regarding the technical approaches.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking in the SPO.
Now as a Director of Acquisition, many are risk averse.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Felt good. See #1 for further information.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking in the SPO.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Upper management informally agreed with his risk-taking actions. Their attitude and
the environment that he was in indicated their agreement with his risk-taking actions.
The only time negative feedback occurred was when they wanted him to learn or
when they wanted to help. #16 never received repercussions from his risk-taking
actions.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Today, have insufficient resources across the community that might have caused him to be
risk averse. If he would be a GS-13 in today’s environment, he would have a different
attitude than what he has.
#16 wanted to make FIA completely different than what Community Management Staff and
DOD wanted. They wanted a low risk approach (risk averse) for this program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 0 9
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
In the Special Program Office (during the 80s), Bill would have disagreements about
technical approaches with various people. This slowed things down and impeded progress
in the short term.
During this time period, #16 experienced stream-lined power programs.
Today, you must ask 100 people to get 1 yes to go ahead, if that.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Sports of all kinds. Play golf every Saturday. Read science fiction. Like poker. His stock
portfolio is constrained since when he was a COTR. The regulations are very clear as to the
ethical aspect and not so clear as to the perceived aspect, but #16 still feels very strongly
about what he is and is not able to do even though he is not a COTR.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Risk-taking.
b. What about present practices?
Both the IC and DOD are extremely risk averse as shown by the FIA example.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
Will not allow individuals to be creative, innovative, or risk-taking.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Risk aversion.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
For the first 10 years when #16 was in the Department of Interior and Commerce,
there was not much money although he was in a research and academic environment.
Flat in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 1990s (USGS, DMA, NRO), his risk-taking
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 1 0
increased greatly and then at the end flattened out a bit. Late 1990s and beyond, fairly
consistent since NIMA was formed.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Neither according to Bill regarding risk-taking. Rules about risk management do
exist. These rules are formal and explicit. Use quantitative metrics perhaps only for
failures. You need the five factors in order to succeed when risk-taking actions occur.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
#16 did not feel that lack of risk-taking rules impacted his project.
c. Did you bend the mles in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Yes, #16 bent the rules in order to be risk-taking and move the project forward.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
The Special Program Office did take risks in order to meet the aggressive objective
and mission of the group. If you succeeded, you would receive great recognition.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Reasonable risk was subjectively judged. However, the project had to meet the
objectives and succeed in performance. Then the risk was supported. Today, no
definition exists.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit. They had to be in order to meet the mission.
Today, the objectives are open and explicit for the top 3 to 5 objectives.
There was no problem with open and explicit objectives. This condition encouraged
people. When feedback was obtained, performance and customer satisfaction was the
first focus. Cost be damned. Regarding the schedule, do the best you can.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 1 1
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
The agency (DMA) was hierarchical. But the SPO was flat.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The office had less than 150 people with $300B budget. Informal culture. #16 had
access to upper management. All resources were in one place. The main focus was to
obtain the best progress for the program.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
The SPO in 1980s did have the necessary visibility.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Bill had to sell the project up front. The project was not looked at during the
development.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
None other than the importance for national security.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
No. Today, #16 has to spend a great deal of time with selling his project
continuously. It is a very intensive activity. There are others “advising you all
through the process of your project development”.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
The SPO individuals were hand picked by the Director from DMA and OD&E. They
had the best technical minds. They received intensive training in programmatic skills.
(No CMM at the time, but SPO would be Level 2 or 3.)
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Not have interpersonal skills.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
212
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Went beyond the minimum. They were risk takers.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Yes the project had a realistic amount of money to complete it with a realistic margin.
Today, the programs are under resourced all the time. It is a continual fight. #16
spends a lot of resources (money and People time) to explain why they need money
for the program. He called the situation “a game”.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Today, it is a struggle. The investment is not sufficient for the needs that are out
there. This is a tough problem throughout the community.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
The needs of the group did not restrain the project in the SPO, but drove the project.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
The environment and support were there and they were of good quality. The office
had a high priority of obtaining individuals. The team was high performance and they
bonded well. They worked long hours and were very cohesive. They shared a desire
to succeed. The money recognition was very good. The informal and formal
processes were well thought-out.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#16 would assess the type of problem as to whether he would work within the existing
system or bypass the issued. The framework was flexibility.
Today, the agency is not doing priority work or focusing properly. This is why he
fought for over a year to lease a space (Dulles North lease) for his office so that the
environment was what was necessary for risk-taking. The entire group would be in
one place.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected his personal needs especially with his family.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
213
INTERVIEW GUIDE -#17
What I am attempting to do is very difficult since there are not definitions of risk-taking or
risk averse that are readily available. Dealing with a subject not defined. I have to obtain
the rapport with the individuals that I interview. Try to understand what they mean by risk-
taking and risk adversity. I must “be a path finder to do this.”
PhD in math and physics. 23 years in government (DIA, DOE, DOD) DOD managed 5-
6000 people. Now on boards.
Today, women are doing things with groups of people, not as an individual. Risk adverse
behavior equates to a consensus group. Must make new things happen by yourself.
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be useful
to share with others?
Risk-taking in the government depends upon the group you are with at the time. Also
the technology you are working with and the environment you are working. There are
3 significant consequences of risk-taking in the government.
1. Risk-taking can put the government in a better position in the global
community and the individual in a better position within the agency.
2. A risk-taker is sought after for his opinions and knowledge.
3. A risk-taker can show the products and services that would help/assist
the government, move the country forward, and keep the country
strong.
4. Risk-taking is limiting. The risk-taking envelope is so narrow and small
that you do not realize how limited you are really.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
The country could not have made the progress it has or become the number one
nation in the world without risk-taking.
#17 could not have done what she accomplished in the government and in private
industry without taking risks.
Examples of Dr.#17’s progression.
Obtaining jobs were very difficult since #17 is a female. The environment and the
culture were against females working and in particular working as a scientist and
researcher. Jobs were difficult to obtain in these fields. #17 had an opportunity to
work with computers. At this time, computers were just beginning to be considered
for utilization in scientific and technical areas. #17 did her Master’s dissertation with
a computer - the first time this was done. She wrote the first program on double
precision mathematics. Now this actual program is in the Smithsonian as a major
stepping-stone in the development of computers and its applications and received an
award.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
214
#17 did useful things to obtain a job. When she applied to IBM, they told her that
the company had no room for a woman scientist. When she heard that Admiral
Rickover was conducting interviews with individuals who had degrees in
mathematics, computers, or physics, #17 interviewed and obtained a job. One of ten
individuals selected by the Admiral to work on the atomic submarine. The group
started off with something quite different. She helped with a two- dimensional design
of a reactor.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Examples
1 . In the 1970s, she was the Assistant Secretary of DOE for Resources. (This
included oil resources, TV A, Teapot Dome, and the Dams.) She built the first
coat generators that use different technology that decreased pollution.
2. Started the synthetic fuels industry and companies. 1500 people work for her.
She went to Congress to explain her idea and obtain financial backing. One
of her bosses was made head of the synthetic fuel industry. The program
failed after 18 months. It hurt her to take a risk in this case. She was in a
hurry to set up the program. A problem developed - an interpersonal issue
with the boss who was made head of the fuel industry. He had his own
agenda. She feels that if she had been placed as one of the officers of the
synthetic fuel program, it would not have failed. The boss, who was made the
head, had his own agenda, not for the good of the country.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes, they were similar in nature all of the time. They were based on something that
has never been done before or steps taken before.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions? And
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
These actions had never been thought about. Really not know if they were risky or
not. See #7 for further information.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions? and
d. How did they show you?
In one example when she was at the DOE, the Secretary of Energy supported her.
Congress supported her. #17 asked for $3B and received $30B. Other agencies also
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 1 5
supported her. She wove them into the council. She talked to Britain, France,
Sweden, and Germany since they had some technology that the US did not have.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Yes.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
This trait was important personally and with whomever you work with. She worked
with agencies that had not existed before, for example, like DIA (which she helped to
originate). Or in jobs that were new like being the first Assistant Secretary to
Automation and Computers for OSD.
Risk-taking individuals leave agencies with little pots of risk-taking individuals. An
agency should have only 10% risk-taking individuals. The rest of the agency should
be 90% of risk averse or other types. These people will continue to improve the
processes and to keep the steady state going.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to do?
The actual need for the government and the fact it is exciting to do and accomplish the
mission. If you take a risk, the government might have a need for the project’s
outcome(s) afterwards (at a future date).
In today’s world, the government does not have risk-taking assets (those individuals
who take risks). Individuals who do not have these assets cannot take risks.
Reasons why #17 went into government.
1 . In government, j obs are interesting (not the money factor).
2. If the government does not have the assets, it could be hanging out on a
clothesline.
Phenomenon - Risk adversity is cultivated by the inability to reward in
normal ways, for example, receiving awards. Risk adversity feeds upon
itself. The more you have, the more you get. Spiral down - less and less
chances. This model (RA) is normal and the best way to go in the
government. (At least for 90% of an agency which keeps the steady state of
the government going.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 1 6
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
The people she worked with were comfortable with her propensity for risk-taking. It
was #17 who was taking a risk. They received a lot of benefits from her work. She
put management principles in when she was with DOE. She turned around in two
years what Congress had said that DOE was the worst managed agency in the
government.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
At the time, there was not a work for risk-taking. However, they did not think of
themselves as risk adverse individuals.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Upper management liked her risk-taking actions.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Some agreed with #17 and some disagreed with her. They did not talk about the issue
at any great lengths.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Both formally and informally agreed with her risk-taking actions.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk
averse? If so, cite examples.
As you go up the ladder, the less risk-taking you are due to vested interests. You
become comfortable with the environment, etc. and she did not want to change due to
vested interests. She had done risk-taking at the highest level. Then about 2 years
ago, #17 became more risk-taking. Work was/is not self-satisfying to her without
risk-taking actions.
An individual changes course due to vested interests during your life. You are not the
same risk-taker or risk-averter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 1 7
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
Relationships normally change the makeup of the project or what you are doing in the
project. If someone said not to #17, she just moved and went up to another level. If she
went side ways (or a request to a person in a lateral position as the original no), problems
developed from this maneuver.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
She does not like to gamble.
#17 likes to exercise her options. Some stocks are conservative. Became risky later on.
She likes to sail and sailed the first trimaran in the Virgin Islands.
She played tennis and is a bird lister (a person who really does see birds).
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
The organization is more risk-taking when the organization is new/younger. Keeping
the established identity is more important than risk-taking as it gets older. Slitting of
an organization is good. There is continual turning over and more risk-taking occurs.
b. What about present practices?
No. See letter a.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
See a.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Practices are more conductive to risk aversion.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 1 8
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#17 increased in risk-taking activities over the life of her career. She was in five
departments in the Federal Government.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Assist and aided her because the project and the agencies were new. They liked new
and creative ideas and these ideas made sense. Congress liked these ideas.
b. What are specific examples?
#17 is 1 of 5 individuals who started DIA.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Rules did not exist. See earlier vocabulary and regulations did not deal with risk.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
You need to have a strategy and process with risk.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
#17 used the system to move the project forward. This might mean that she would
have to bend the rules.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
The organization did not think of her actions as risks. She was increasing the scope;
enlarging the project; change the objective, for example, the emergence of software to
change the satellites remotely.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Risks were equivalent to making a change. Changed risk from making a great leap
forward (which is exciting to do) to minutia mentality (green-eye shade). How much
will it cost the government, for example?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
219
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this cause
a problem?
Open and explicit. No.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
Helped the progress of her projects.
Helped her risk-taking actions.
The hierarchical organization is better at making decisions. If it is flatter, you must
make interpersonal friendships in order for decisions to be made and increase the
progress of the project.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
The projects did not exist. They were new ideas and projects.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes. She was on the Hill quite a bit.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Yes. Most of the time. For example, the computer security issue at NIST. #17 said
that it was wise - “Never confront the issue directly.”
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
Occasionally. See DOE example, #3. #17 feels that she did not handle the issue well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2 0
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? And
b.
c. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
No problems.
d. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Individuals did what they were assigned to do and went beyond the minimum. Most
were risk takers.
e. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Most of the projects did not because they were new projects. When she was in DOD,
she took members from Congress to NIH. Talked to people in Alaska using a
satellite. She received money from Congress for the necessary requirements.
Congress was amazed at what could be done.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Struggle to obtain the finances.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
Yes the needs of the group impacted the project. Drove the project (first laser with
TRW for shooting down missiles.)
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
Not discuss.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#17 worked within the existing system.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected her personal needs. Time away from home, etc.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
221
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #18
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be useful
to share with others?
The Government is a risk adverse organization. Only a compelling need is the basis for
allowing risk. There is no other way for risk-taking to occur within the Government.
#18 has observed pockets of risk-taking individuals who are creative and solution-oriented
people. They are very confident.
Those pockets are decreasing because of the expense of the projects. The expense is larger
then the thresholds. Congress expects complete success.
Risk is inversely proportional to less challenging programs.
Congress does not allow program margins, which mitigate risks.
Implications of past external actions:
a. Program Management is not Program Management anymore.
b. Not have the resources and authority to do the job.
c. Individuals have to do a more modest attempt at obtaining objectives of the projects.
d. Must have risk mitigation plans.
Having multiple vendors is one example.
Funding precludes this action for any duration. This action of multiple vendors actually
increases risks. Risk is transformed.
Consequences:
1 . Program can cost more. Come up with second source if the first fails. Does cost
more money.
2. Extends time duration.
3. Increases programmatic risks. Most of these are now outside the program manager’s
control.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
Risk-taking in government changes for different reasons throughout life - “Competing
dimensions”.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
222
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
When #19 joined Office ZZZ/CIA, risk-taking was part of the environment. ZZZ
expected him to be an autonomous operator (undertake or carry on without outside
control). He was to make recommendations for the project and problems and then do
it. He was to have a high degree of initiative.
There are 3 kinds of people.
1. Those who wait to be told what to do.
2. Those who recommend and wait for the authority to do it.
3. Those that just do the work (no job assignment) and report back.
(Not necessarily have to be in your job jar.) If you do this, your sphere of influence is
greater and eventually become known as a leader.
These individuals spur on what needs to be done. Find a solution.
1 . People find problems.
2. Then fix the problem. These individuals are solution-oriented — if the
project is challenging and they meet the objectives, then the project is successful.
(Risk is within this condition and is necessary to overcome in order to achieve
objectives.) (This is the first time he mentioned the subject of risk in this question.)
What are the individual attributes that equate to leaders? More inclined to take risks.
Other attributes include: political acumen, good judgment, solid technically,
understand the program, good communication skills. Consider that they are
approaching something worth doing. Problem analysis and decision-making - what
can go wrong and the likelihood of the potential things and adverse consequences
going wrong and what the results could be.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
These ideas (above) parallel to how we think about programs.
1 . There must be a need and a great benefit.
2. We are trained early on to what risk is and the potential results of taking
risks (inputs). Must have risk mitigation plan. Similar to how we do
things now in research and development.
3. Risk is too great, the reward is too small.
4. The risk-taking attribute must be analytical.
5. Leadership and communication must articulate a vision of what is
necessary to enlist others to do the project and face the risks. In the
process of this, we develop the next generation of risk-takers.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
No.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2 3
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Yes.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management agreed most of the time and only disagreed with #19 with his
technical approach.
The expectations of the office and the agency were focused on solution oriented to
solve the problems.
d. How did they show you?
By promotions, etc.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
“Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” If risk-taking is worth doing, the outcome
beneficial, a sufficient benefit to warrant the risk, is able to see potential
consequences, and have backup plans.
Examples:
1 . A successful program had a backup system and a safety net in place.
2. An unsuccessful program - TPED had no backup plan, foolish to ask - not
prepared to do the program.
An individual must recognize the dimensions of the risk and plan for solving the risk.
Also, when the likelihood is bad and an individual must know the potential
consequences.
The motivation to accepting risk and willing to recognize the risk becomes so great,
an individual should not try doing it.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
In order to achieve the objectives of the mission (see #3).
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge since you must have risk mitigation plans before you act
(not necessarily an opportunity).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2 4
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to do?
“Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” If there were sufficient gains to warrant the risk,
#19 would take the risk. (The problem is what is the definition for what are sufficient
gains.)
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
Others felt the same way. Does not say which way. (Actually, when I talked with
several individual who worked for #19 and upper management stated that #19 was an
extremely risk adverse individual. He didn’t like to take any sort of risk and would
not even discuss it.)
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Both types.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Important for security and for future endeavors.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Both. Find a solution to the problem. Complete the mission.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Informally agreed with John’s actions. See letter a for further information.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples. (A special concern or take in maintaining or influencing a condition,
arrangement, or action.
When #19 was younger with a family, he did not take many risks since his family’s future
well-being was very important.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
No. Not from the inside of the organization. His family did however.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2 5
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Everyday life has choices to make. Safety, stability on behalf of your family. His
investment plans have this same characteristic. #19 is conservative and analytical to an
extreme. The dimensions of risk include responsibility and accountability.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Risk is an intrinsic element of what ZZZ did. Recognize the need, solution oriented,
imagination, initiative, creative, etc. Need to develop technological satisfaction. Risk
is the dependent factor throughout. Independent risk factor is the technological aspect
of the projects.
Need to focus on the individual and the environment.
Corona failures focused on environment. Recognize the challenge and the science
was new. Have a good idea and received billions with just 6 viewgraphs.
b. What about present practices?
Today, the Agency P has tremendous oversight.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
The Agency P has to take an enormous amount of time to sell a program.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Practices are more conductive to risk aversion.
The risk is now external. What are the forcing functions are and what do they allow
us to do? For example, Congress, etc., not what is necessary technologically, for
example.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
He is taking more risks in the later part of John’s career. Earlier on he was less likely
to take risks because of his family.
The changes for different reasons throughout his life due to “competing dimensions”.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2 6
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Assist and aid #19.
b. What are specific examples?
Talked about the Corona project. Not his however. Not talk about his programs.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Rules were formal and explicit.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Yes. Could help the project. Example - must have a risk mitigation plan. Cannot
deviate from this plan.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
No. The rules were there for a reason.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Since the very beginning, the Agency and #19’s office, ZZZ, has taken risks in order
for national security and to meet the requirements of the projects.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Was not defined.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
Open and explicit.
This did not cause a problem.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2 7
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The structure was helped by obtaining additional feedback and finding possible
potential consequences that would aid in the project’s success.
The structure helped with the risk-taking.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Most projects were compartmented in the past. Today, more is out in the open.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Occasionally.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Yes, but #19 did not talk about them.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
No. #19 was given a position and told to do the job. Taught to have a risk mitigation
plan.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
Yes.
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Yes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2 8
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Did what they were assigned to do.
Went beyond the minimum.
Both risk takers and risk averters.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Most of the time.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
In the past, #19 received the money when he needed it. Today, it is a straggle most of
the time to obtain what is needed.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
No.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
N/A.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
Worked within the existing system.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
His personal needs came first when he was younger. Now occasionally the project
might come first.
INTERVIEW GUIDE -#20
The tool, a delegation of authority, is not utilized a lot. Need to delegate to have progress
with the project. Micromanagement causes less risk-taking.
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
The acquisition system prevents risk-taking. There is not a lot of risk-taking today.
Risk-taking only appears in emergencies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
229
Example - Defense Threat Regulatory Agency trying to stop the CW bunker (in Gulf
War) that caused sick people. Try to accomplish hyper spectral development called
FTRI. Use an UAV and put on a scanner and sensor to keep track and keep evidence.
Yesterday just integrated the last piece in the Predator. DTRA stated that they needed
this in 30 days.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
#20 thinks that he is a pretty good risk-taker. His group is considered mavericks in The
Aerospace World. The group breaks the standards. #20 is doing things outside
“Aerospace” charter that is an internal risk. In fact he will subcontract to a contractor who
works for DOD in order to escape from the green ticket problem.
He spent 22 years in the Air Force ended up as a Colonel. He enjoys working in a new
environment with new risks - funding and technology.
He thinks that leaders are more risk-taking than managers:
a. Leaders are risk-takers.
b. They manage people.
c. Leaders find more ways - very creative.
d. In the Air Force did Project Warrior where it needed leaders.
e. Do what his people do. This is another way to cut the mustard.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
He is a risk-taker according to him. (Sounds like he learned from the environment
that he was and is in.)
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Grew up with risk-taking since lived on a farm.
1 . Personal risk - health
2. natural disasters occur in this type of environment
In Vietnam, he learned by the operational environment by virtue of his job.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions? And
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Worked around rules and an envelope of comfort. Some individuals are negative
about risk-taking especially those working at the NRO. They end up as SETA. They
become followers instead of leaders.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 3 0
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management disagrees because the work his group is doing is outside the mold.
New business is risk-taking.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Yes.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
Risk-taking is progress. Without it you will stymie progress.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
See risk-taking as a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
He sees the situation with something positive in it instead of throwing up his hands
and driving away.
Example - Federal Protective Service
This group protects buildings against chemical warfare. His group came up with a
concept to solve the problem. He talked to higher people in West VA. He talked to
grassroots people. How do you market something like this? Do you go to the monkey
or the organ grinder (workers or upper management)?
Example - Blast problem.
The computational fluid dynamics group fought to get into the fraternity. They
developed walls to absorb blasts in a three dimensional way. They were put out on
the streets, which was a risk to try. Must put the big battle in back of you and proceed
on.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 3 1
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
Liked his risk-taking because #20 provides and environment that focuses on certain
qualities and out-of-the-box thinkers.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-takers.
c. How did upper management feel about the project? And
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Adverse to the way the program happens (out-of-the-box). Aerospace Corporation
likes to see #20 and his group’s innovative and creative ideas and, of course, his
successes.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Both formally and informally agree. Look at time cards and check job orders. Higher
amount, the more risk-taking.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
No.
He realizes that the program that he grew from the beginning and FTIR can only do so
much. Result might be more successful with a replacement of an imagery tool.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
No. The organization is bound by law to work only certain areas and with only a certain
number of people. If individuals are risk averse or cause problems outside of his group, #20
will ignore them and press on.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 3 2
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Diversified stocks - high, medium, low.
One fund in an aggressive growth - $10K to $80K.
Likes to canoe, fisherman (trout) in hard areas.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Allowed you to be somewhat risk-taking.
b. What about present practices?
Aerospace moved technology to other venues where individuals are more risk-taking.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
Yes, increase risk-taking.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
More conductive to risk-taking especially in today’s war on terrorism.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
Not changed much.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Entrepreneurship and risk-taking are encouraged. In pockets of Aerospace individuals
are discouraged from risk-taking. Corporate encourages risk-taking however.
b. What are specific examples?
Since upper management encourages risk-taking, Bob’s group is working on several
projects for the future and the war effort.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 3 3
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Formal - Careful of organizational conflict of interest issue.
Informal - be careful, security issues, need to know.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
At times, the rules slowed the process, were very labor intensive, and/or more
expensive. However, the rules were vitally important for national security.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Yes.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Certain areas of the organization take risks while others are risk adverse. His group is
a leading edge with the kinds of people and technology. Become the focal point -
system engineering. What drives the policy or the front end of the cycle?
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Considers high risk IR&D. No definition for reasonable risk.
Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
Open and specific since it is a FFRDC. At times as a FFRDC, there are certain rules
and regulations regarding what the organization can do, not do, and a gray area exists.
#20 does things that are outside the Aerospace Charter and in the gray area.
No problems.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical to a point. 50% is matrixed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 3 4
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
Helps the progress of a project and helps (supports) risk-taking. Become more
focused. Use risk reduction techniques.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
N/A.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Internally yes.
Example: This was a corporate strategic initiative. Capabilities are other space
activities. Put in the context of homeland security (Pete Aldridge). What can
Aerospace bring to the program rather than his four pet projects. $2M funded toward
project from Aerospace.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
No.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
The problem is a cultural difference between East and West of the corporation. The
West is more risk adverse. Problem focus rather than technological focus.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? And
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Yes. #20 basically grew the group from scratch. He chooses the people that he wants
and needs.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Yes, did what they were assigned.
Yes, went beyond the minimum.
Risk takers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 3 5
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
No.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
A struggle to obtain. Perhaps he will get more.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
Yes, the needs impacted the project - restrained the project.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
When #20 was trying to have a recapitalization of the legacy systems in the CMO, he
couldn’t obtain the money through the black world system. The impact resulted in
having to restrain the people to be able to do the work. In the end, the program was
completed, but not as successful as it could have been.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
Work within the existing system to solve the problem.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected his personal needs.
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #21
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
The majority of individuals are risk-adverse in the senior level. When you reach the upper
levels, you find that the majority of individuals are risk adverse rather than managing risk
(risk management). (#21 believes that risk-taking equates to risk management.)
In order to change this phenomenon -
1. You need a strong manager to shift the above concept, or
2. Only when a crisis situation occurs or when you cannot push any more
rather than shove any more will there be any changes.
Risk needs to be managed smartly (work with risk in a smart fashion) and you need to
implement risk mitigation tools and practices.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
q - o
2 3 6
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
a. Manage risk. Do not be risk averse.
b. You need a process in place to manage risk like the Directorates AT & IS.
Actively train individuals to follow and hold them accountable.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
#21 learned with lessons through observation. He utilizes this methodology with
everything. #21 will assume a certain degree of risk regarding cost, schedule, and
technology development.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Risk management occurs all the time. Events are not necessarily similar in nature.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
#21 was not aware of any individuals restraining his risk-taking actions. Individuals
gravitate towards him because of his risk-taking actions.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
These actions are considered necessary and vital for the mission.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Sometimes upper management agreed and sometimes they disagreed with his risk-
taking actions.
d. How did they show you?
In one instance, John O. suggested not taking such a big step, but to take several small
steps instead.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
“Yes, absolutely.”
Risk-taking actions may complete the proj ect/program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 3 7
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
The success of the mission depends on how you deal with risk. Risk-taking is
essential. You must formulate the proper balance with risk-taking actions and risk
adverse actions based upon the probability and consequences of the proposed
step/action. The key element in program management is risk management. Risk
management has a direct calibration with program management success.
With the ECSI launch, you must be very careful. The probability and consequences of
risk comes to fruition. (This was a very important project for the continuation of and
increase for national security.)
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
#21 is able to take risks because he has a good risk management process, and a
good mitigation strategy. He knows that he could take corrective actions and
put himself on a positive track. There are no surprises with his risk-taking
actions since he manages risk.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking? and
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Both risk-taking and risk adverse.
Based on their personalities and levels of experience (professional maturity level). #21
knows how to handle risks. Over time they will get positive reinforcement and leam.
c. How did upper management feel about the project? And
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
More risk adverse in early stages ofNIMA. Upper management is just starting to be
more tolerant of risk-takers if they adequately explain the whys. See additional
comments #1, a.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 3 8
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
See earlier answers in #4, c&d. Informally.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Vested interests definitely play a role. Care about what you are doing. Are you a risk taker
or a risk averter? If you are a risk taker have you completed projects successfully?
There are very few things that do not have a vested interest in. Make sure all are properly
managed.
If you see an individual doing something that is not well thought out and the consequences
would not stop the mission, you should allow the individual to make a stab at it and make
mistakes. These individuals will learn many new details and lessons.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
The only relationship that precluded #21 from risk-taking was when he works with a
Contracting Officer. This individual is a risk adverse person. #21 wanted to do something
that was not illegal, but the CO wanted the program to follow a prescribed format and
completed using specific methodologies so that there would not be any possibility of
protests. He had to back off and be patient.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
#21 likes to be in control. He has a certain degree of control. Tom will be risk adverse if he
does not have enough control. He will not have confidence. As a result, Tom will not
attempt to progress. Examples include factors concerning health and safety.
He does not mind finding himself in extreme and odd circumstances and being on a roller
coaster as long as he is able to put a tremendous amount of forethought into it.
He does not gamble and did not answer about his stock portfolio.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 3 9
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Past practices only allowed him to be risk averse.
b. What about present practices?
Present practices are still risk averse. Only Dr. Kriegel and the DPS Program Office
were risk takers.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
Outside the crisis area, present practices are still risk averse.
There are a few senior leaders that take risks. This practice should increase risk-
taking in NIMA.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
NIMA has not changed enough yet to allow for an increase in risk-taking practices.
Bill Allder (D/Acquisition) is more of a risk-taker, than Gene Smalling (D/P&C).
Tom Coglin (Chief Financial Officer) is in the middle.
ATS has more risk-takers. An increase in risk-taking in general will occur after
Tom’s Risk Management Program is implemented agency-wide.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#21 has become more risk-taking due to his experiences as well as using risk
management techniques. More experiences have taken away the constructs and
boundaries that he had when he was young.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Neither. The existing policies did not hinder or help. Since NIMA is a fairly new
agency (5years old), policies did not exist and had to be written. (The problem is the
cultural differences between the different parts that were combined to form the new
agency. Some were from DOD and some were from IC.) Nothing needed to be
resolved in order to proceed with the risk management program and methodology.
See #4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 4 0
b. What are specific examples?
N/A
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
There were no rules. #21 is in the process of writing rules through the risk
management process.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
N/A
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your proj ect forward?
N/A
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Different parts of the organization do take risks while other parts do not. The parts
that take risks assess the risks, know enough about the situation and then proceed.
The other risk averse parts are concerned with potential consequences or they do not
understand the program well enough. These parts do not take risks.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
At the NCCB, #21 sees the leaders in action. If an individual uses viable risk
mitigation methods, serious consequences will not occur. If the program while
undergoing risky actions has negative consequences of cost (manageable), schedule,
or performance that are not too great and the opportunity to be successful and obtain
major strides forward in the research and development of a program equates to what
the organization thinks is reasonable risk.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
Today, objectives are far clearer than a year ago. AT Management made a point at the
February Quarterly to explain the vision of Bill Allder, the Director. AT Management
continued to update the progress and changes in September and October. Before this
point, it did not occur. Before the problem indicated that the AT vision and objectives
were not clear. Management needed to get these statements out to the workers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 4 1
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The program is the formulation and implementation of the risk management process,
an enterprise level program. #21 feels that this program is now mature with AT & IS
people. Then he will spread it out to the whole agency.
The way that #21 is implementing the risk management process program; it is not
impacted by the organizational structure.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Risk Process program has minimal, if any. C3I, CMS more aware of it. Neither have
helped or hindered.
USIGS - very aware, helped and hindered.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
R. program - no.
USIGS-yes.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
R. program - no.
USIGS - yes, major.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
No. Risks taken in concert with senior management or some projects are low. Now,
it is very risky. Will have to see what transpires.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
SPEG generally yes. Process Action Teams - yes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 4 2
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Not enough people. At one point, the team was 50% Ml. Now the team is running at
33%. The people were allocated, but actually not have what #21 and the team needs.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Yes, did what they were assigned to do. Risk-takers.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
No budget was allocated.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
No money was designated for project. Problem.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
Yes, both restrained and drove the project.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
(1) Need more people.
(2) Guidance on how to do a process. Documentation and implementation issues
are there. Did drive process.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
Solve the problem or come up with alternative method. Have to adjust the scope or
the schedule.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
Yes, the project affected his personal needs. Best to motivate and resolve the issues.
Had to adjust his needs. Interface definitions are not completely there. He had to
become adaptable to the situation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
243
INTERVIEW - #22
Final Words.
The Agency did not have the foresight with research and development.
You must have risk-takers.
You need the right set of individuals to manage and staff your projects.
Not have this organization for the future, things will come back and surprise the
organization.
Cannot rely on others.
A vision is needed.
The background, knowledge and education of research and development are necessary!
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be useful
to share with others?
Unless you are in the right environment (organization and management), the organization
and the individuals are very conservative and will not take risks. You must have the right
organization.
You had to have some successes in order to be allowed to take more risks.
You must be able to develop technology that could be turned over to another organization.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
#22 sees himself as a risk-taker. He enjoys the challenge and likes to push development.
He is engaged in several projects at one time. Starting new things is exciting, and the
adrenaline is flowing. #22 likes to read a lot at home about other interesting topics.
#22 likes a big risk - high risks with big payoffs are his definition of being successful.
#22 feels guilty about mistakes because you are using government funds, but you do learn
something even with mistakes.
#22 utilizes a staged process that is a conservative approach. He does not like to finance
with large amounts of money. This is one way in which he mitigates risk.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
#22 feels that he is a risk-taker.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
244
The events go back to childhood days where he was in football and track. HE lettered
in a mile, Captain of the track team. He graduated from college in 3 years. Pushed on
with a Ph.D. rather than a Masters. This was a risky action. HE did not know what he
would do in the CIA. His advisor in college told him to look for the problem. He did
the same thing at the Agency with Bill G.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
All events led him down a path to risk-taking. The environment, his personality and
traits, his willingness to step to the front to take the heat are all factored into his risk-
taking. #22 feels that there are three elements - his stubbornness (personality), his
scientific integrity, and his principles.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
In the office that #22 was in, he did not experience avoidance, as risk-taking was one
of the office’s prime objectives.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Actions were necessary and vital for the mission. The only problems that #22 had
was the fact that there was never enough money to do everything that was necessary
and that he wanted to do.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Mixed - agreed and disagreed.
d. How did they show you?
Not obtain the support that he needed. #22 would go to others if he did not get the
support. He would find other projects that would parallel the main project that he was
really interested in. He had to prove things to people - the why of the program.
Focus on creative and innovative methods to beat the system and obtain the
objectives.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Risk-taking is beneficial and valuable.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
245
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
In order to obtain the goal of the mission of the program, #22 had to have this trait.
1 . You have to be willing to make mistakes, learn and grow from these. Must
persevere when you know you’re right technically.
2. You must be innovative enough that you see the problem, find the smartest
people and organize them into a group, find a solution and then go. You
also must have camaraderie of a good team.
3. If successful, you’re in for the long haul. You must be dedicated,
disciplined, focused and principled.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity. Risk -taking in science and technology
is a challenge and is intellectual stimulation.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
The mission of the program drove #22 to take risks. He was doing something good
for his country that meets an intelligence requirement. #22 has one or two projects in
hand that if all goes well, the results of the programs will be “damn good”.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
#22 would try to find the best people to work for him. He also would try to find the
best in the world and the country to assist with his projects. They would work with
him since he had interesting problems and that it would benefit the country. #22 went
to the individuals who did the inventing and were the area experts. You need to
understand these individuals, and obtain their services since they are the best. One
manager told #22 that he could not understand how Jim got one team of his together.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking.
c. How did upper management feel about the project? And
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Upper management was both risk-taking and risk averse.
See below.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 4 6
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Formally they agree with #22’s risk-taking actions, but informally they were afraid for
themselves. Upper management does not want to get burned on their shift of duty.
Risk-takers must not sit back, but be in the front educating and trying to obtain the
right individuals. The danger is if management gets burned by risk-taking, they do
not appreciate it.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Influence his proclivity for risk-taking.
1. Regarding projects that he wanted to work on, #22 will ask if the customer is still
needing it. #22 has a bias toward it since the program is his baby and he will do
anything to make it successful.
2. When you have to declare victory.
3. Must be pragmatic and dynamic - you cannot ride one pony forever.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
No. #22 did the following.
Finding out what the organizational processes and regulations are can stop you until you
know what these processes are. Figure out the lay of the land and then use this information
to move your project forward.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
#22 does not like gambling. He has no stocks. His main risk-taking activity is house
remodeling which he considers to be high risk. #22 and his wife are decorating their house
unusually with art work over all the walls. He use to coach soccer and basketball, and drove
a corvette.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 4 7
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Yes, past practices did allow him to be risk-taking in ORD. Risk was stated in the
office policy. Some risk was good. A whole lot of esoteric risk is fine. But when you
have a lot of risk in regards to the mission, this is not what is acceptable.
b. What about present practices?
Pre-September 11, his office does not do risk-taking.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how? And
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
His office and the government have too much bureaucracy. Risk-taking is low-level,
minimal risk-taking, no incentive to be an advocate for risk-taking. Previously, there
was advocacy from the top like the NN88, and the M. Now upper management is not
an advocate for risk-taking. Upper management and others push aside Agency
scientists and go to other outside laboratories, private sector, etc. Money for research
does not exist. Jim is “pissed”.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
In his 30s, #22 took technical risk. In his 40-50s, #22 took political risk since
management could not do much to his career (promotions, etc.).
#22 worked programs for many years and he would not let the project be defeated due
to lack of money or politics. He would find someone in the political side of the house
to back #22. #22 made his ideas known in the right communities and he knew the
rules of the game.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
The institutional policies and norms did both actions - bar and assisted #22.
b. What are specific examples?
When #22 was in ORD/Agency the environment was great. Smart people went
through the organization. He was able to learn from these people primarily from the
technical side.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
248
As #22 went away from the ORD world and into S&T, Jim feels that he does not see
the visions of former heads such as Les Dirks and Jim Hirsch that rippled on down
from above. There are no lessons from the leaders and the environment is very
stifling.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Rules were both formal and informal. #22 followed the formal rules regarding doing
things the right way such as safety first, legally, and with people.
b. Did these rales impact your project? How?
#22 made certain that he allowed enough time in his acquisition life cycle for
everything to be accomplished.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your proj ect forward?
Informally risk-taking by going around by looking at other projects that would cover
both his project and another project.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Took risks and did not take risks. Upper management was the deciding factor.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Reasonable risk is considered as an evaluation of his projects compared to the larger
scale R&D projects. You need to understand the dynamics of large-scale R&D
projects.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit. No problem resulted. In ORD, #22 was told,
“If you have one ranger, one riot will occur.” (Meaning the Texas Rangers could and
would handle risk-taking to the extreme.) [Bill used this thought also. #22 worked for
Bill and he was one of his mentors.]
Now #22 works in big team efforts because of the complexity of the problem that the
organization is trying to solve.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 4 9
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Both the Agency and the agency are hierarchical. In the agency, #22 has better access
to management. (I wonder why.)
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The agency - the structure helps the progress of his project. At times the structure
helps and at times the structure hinders risk-taking.
ORD - The structure does not help. When ORD was dissolved, risk-taking was gone.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
When it was necessary, the project did have the necessary visibility. Very minimal
due to the nature of the work.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Not required most of the time. See letter d.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
None.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
When the project had a large amount of risk, #22 was conservative in his steps leading
to progress of the program.
You must persevere when it does take a long time to sell your program. Your
program takes longer to sell than the risky technological problems. The question is
really - How do I get to the advocates? You must have the right set of technology,
evidence, and science when you’re selling the project. Get advocates. Then you will
be successful.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 5 0
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
In ORD, #22 would pick his own team. In the agency, you need to be a political
leader. A science leader equates to a different set of skills that are needed and the
realization that you cannot pick your team.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Overachievers - 110% of their time. Individuals are smart, creative risk-takers, and
have self-pride in their work.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it? And
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Most of the time.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
In ORD, money was a constraint. So was the lack of a strong advocacy. In the
agency, the environment was different. Deal with different personalities, biases to
work with. Control is different perhaps even smaller. The work is more complex.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
See letter a.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#22 would work within the existing system. #22 is straightforward and blunt.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
(This seems to be his personal needs.) Intellectual curiosity, a drive to succeed,
mission goal must be met, solve the problem.
In the agency world, you need to play nice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 5 1
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #23
Research and development equates to focusing on technology. You can get surprised. How
flexible can Stan be? There are 4 tenants (elements) of risk management that you must
have.
1 . planning
2. resources - people, money, schedule (need to see closure, and you have to build/make
hooks.)
3. empowerment (from upper management)
4. flexibility
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
Individuals do one of three things when faced with risks in the government. First, they can
avoid risks - risk avoidance. Second, they can move around risks - risk aversion. Third,
individuals know that risks are inevitable. You must assess the risk, assess the impact of the
risk, and then minimize the dangers of risk. The third factor is the key and very important.
The key is to look for a problem, let your imagination run wild while looking at the
problem. You cannot avoid risk if you want to move ahead with your project and to be
successful. “You must have a hook in place to work around risks.” Rack and stack the
risks. Assess the impacts of the risks (forecast the future). Then ask yourself how do I
manage the risk, if it is a major risk.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
See answer #1.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
During the mid-1980s, #23 undertook a number of risk-taking activities.
1. Managed an X experiment. Dangers of failure due to meteorological
issues. Experiment took place in White Sands, New Mexico. Great risk,
analysis of whether or not the project is doable. Mechanisms are in
place to decrease the other risks except for the weather issue.
2. QQQ - has to do with a 90-day drift with a highly choreographed
satellite for signals. Managed logistics very tightly to avoid problems.
HE owned the vehicle (unlike the earlier attempts). Stan set up a
secondary collection if he couldn’t obtain the data the first time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
252
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
#23 built plans that were flexible in case the plans would collapse within itself.
“The key is planning.”
Look at the impact (if no hooks). If the impact of failure would fail the objectives of
the mission, Stan would not take the risk.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Some of the time #23 would feel pressure from his peers to get on with the program.
#23 would pick people that their philosophy looked at the problem the same way that
he did. **Must have a team that when there were risks, they would follow the same
process - plan, analyze, etc. as #23 did. B.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Necessary and vital for the mission.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management empowered Stan to do what he had to do to reach a successful
concluded.
d. How did they show you?
They showed #23 by backing up his actions, progress, etc. If they did not, he would
have moved to another job.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Risk-taking is beneficial and valuable.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
Risk is the price you have to pay to go forward with programs, progress, technological
successes, etc.
Research and development is stepping into the unknown that is another name for risk.
The key is to realize and know that risk exists. Risk management is the tool in which
to maximize benefits produced from a project in order to move forward.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
253
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
The need for information is what drove #23 to take risks. You need to manage risk-
taking and risk takers and not be foolhardy.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
The people were simpatico with #23. They understood why the risks needed to be
taken.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Upper management agreed with Stan about his methodology.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking when #23 was at the NRO.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Informally agreed with #23’s risk-taking actions by empowering him.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk
averse? If so, cite examples.
The inherent goal of #23’s work was to obtain the answers. His vested interests were
a step behind the goal of the program’s mission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
254
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
If #23 could not do a job due to relationships within the project’s group that precluded him
from risk-taking, then he would lead with his feet (or in other words he would leave that
job). #23 feels that this is the reason why he never received a SIS at the NRO.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
If #23 needs money for a specific object on his list, he manages the risks so that he
will not lose out. He observes the consequences. #23 does not want to do anything
that will lead to disaster.
His stock portfolio is mixed in conservative and risky stocks. He will gamble with a
set amount of money. He likes to fish and owns his own fishing boat.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Other than a few exceptions, the environment was risk taking utilizing risk
management.
b. What about present practices?
Now the NRO is risk averse.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
Individuals are brain dead between the ears. Afraid to do anything.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Definitely, practices are the risk aversion type.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#23 is the same or is slightly more risk-taking because of the matured techniques that
he has learned and developed to manage risk.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 5 5
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Assisted and aided him.
b. What are specific examples?
See previous 2 examples under #3.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
When there were 3 parts to the NRO, Program B gave #23 the necessary
empowerment to do things and to take risks. Informal and powerful. Now it is just
the opposite. First, the NRO merged 2 V i cultures (A,B,C). Second, subsequent
leaders not give what is needed to the engineers. The philosophy is different. Focus
our resources only on break-through programs. This can be bad. You cannot really
know what is a break-through program.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Helped to move the project forward. Today, it does not do this.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Yes, #23 bent the rules.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Took risks to satisfy the objectives of the organization’s mission.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Reasonable risk is what felt right at the time the decision was made.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit. No.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 5 6
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The structure helped the progress of his projects. The structure helped his risk-taking
actions. The key was the individual in the structure.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
The project had the necessary visibility within OD&E, the Agency. Did not have to
have visibility with Congress - somewhat secret.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes, #23 had to sell the approach that he was going to take.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
N/A. National security only.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
All you had to do was to brief as to how you would manage the risks, and the cost to
OD&E if you did not take the risk action.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number? and
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
One individual could not see the big picture. So #23 decided to pick the teams
himself in order to have the right individuals and the right number. They did what
they were assigned to do and most went beyond the minimum. They were risk takers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 5 7
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
NO.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
It was a struggle to obtain the necessary finances.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
Little impact from the group. Stan had more impact on the group.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
N/A
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
With both cases, #23 would do. He felt that he must meet the objective of the
programs.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected his personal needs.
INTERVIEW GUIDE -#24
#24has a PhD from the University of Denver in Physics/Math. He is a DISL in NIMA
within the Exploitation Division. At the moment he is working in Program J.
#24 stated that he must push and prod risk-taking. It is very important to have fun.
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
Risk-taking is really about a person’s attitude. A risk taker is secure in his opinions or
ideas. He is willing to live with the consequences of his risk-taking actions.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
You cannot progress without taking risks. Grace Hopper said something like this about risk-
taking. An individual needs to have intelligent thought-out risks. Take the risks and go
forth. People in government feel safe and not want to take risks at least the majority of
people in government do not take risks. (Unlike individuals in the private sector.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 5 8
Government workers do not do anything regarding risk. With the private sector, money in
the bottom-line.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
While #24 was located in China Lake, he received Naval industrial funding (NIFP
money and charge numbers). When China Lake found out he could handle bigger and
bigger projects, they trust in his judgment and he could trust in his own judgment and
convinced himself that he could take risks (regarding technology). But #24 had
difficulty with taking risks involving his judgment of people.
c. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes, once he learned that he could take risks and succeed regarding technical issues.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Others have not avoided being around Bill.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
These actions were necessary.
d. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management was supportive and agreed with Bill’s risk-taking actions.
e. How did they show you?
At the present time with Program J, Rumsfield and Tenant cannot seem to make a
decision.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Yes, it is beneficial and valuable.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
If you don’t take risks, you cannot get the job done. Some risk-taking actions will pan
out, some will not. “Risk is essential.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 5 9
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
“One way to have fun and do interesting things. You also learn new things.”
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
People like Bill’s propensity to risk-taking.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Some were risk-taking and some were risk averse.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Most were willing to take risks and support Bill with his risk-taking actions. A few
individuals were not.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Most were risk-taking.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Both formally and informally agreed with his risk actions.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
#24 has strong personal beliefs and opinions about certain things. He is a cattle herder with
this Program J. He must work with and handle other agencies and countries. Other people
should take risks, too to move ahead and reach objectives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 6 0
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
None. He is now a DISL. A DISL can push more than if lower down in the organization.
He can be loud and obnoxious. He makes a meeting interesting.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
He is very cautious with his own money. His stocks are mixed with risk and conservative
investments. He likes to backpack (as an individual), scuba dive, river-running in a sports
kayak. Lots of fun. When he is in control, he likes to take risks.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
When he was in China Lake, the organization was risk-taking.
b. What about present practices?
China Lake is still risk-taking.
NIMA is risk averse.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
#24 does not know about NIMA since it is only 4 years old. One of agencies that
compose NIMA, DMA, was very risk averse.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Risk aversion.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#24 has been a consistent risk taker. The type of risk has changed over the years.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 6 1
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
The institutional policies at China Lake aided #24 ’s risk-taking actions. #24 could go
back to D.C. and obtain money himself for his own project, if he wanted to. He was
not constrained by management.
With NIMA policies and norms barred and impeded risk-taking actions.
b. What are specific examples?
The Director of NIMA, Admiral Dan Tone, did not give financial or middle
management support to the engineers and program managers.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
There were no formal and explicit rules.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
The rules impacted the project by slowing and/or stopping the progress of the project.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your proj ect forward?
In a few cases, #24 had to bend the rules to move the project forward and be risk-
taking. Most of the time, Bill knew the rules better than anyone else. (Like Bruce.)
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
At China Lake, certain individual types pushed risk-taking. This was eccentric and
unusual.
At NIMA, the trends are caused by:
1 . Operations Directorate drives the agency (interested on names on the map
which is not advanced work),
2. Multispectral concept is not rocket science (25 year old technology). Hyper
spectral is 15-year-old technology. The organization is too cautious at the
extreme state-of-the-art level. Not use what is now developed or being
developed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 6 2
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Reasonable risk for NIMA equates to mild band baby stuff. NIMA has to grow up.
The world is changing too fast. NIMA must be willing to push things more.
#24 is in the Advanced Research Group called O.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives of the organization are open and explicit. This did not cause a
problem.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The structure helped and hindered the progress of #24’s project and risk-taking.
Helped - can be left alone and program managers can run the projects. Individuals
can take risks and get the work done.
Hindered - the Tenent and Rumsfield issue is very frustrating.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes. Congress gave the agency the objectives (3 things). This was an interesting
occurrence. Does not happen too often.
b. Did you have to sell your proj ect?
Yes. The project should be 20 years long, not the time line given by Congress.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Congress and the staffers wanted the NRO to jump the gun and push ahead even
though the team and the technology was not quite ready.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
Yes. The financial element is definitely a major constraint. It is a fact of life.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
263
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
No. The team does not have enough individuals. The team is on Stop Work Order
#10. On February 14, 2001 the project was stopped again. People are leaving. Those
that are left do not have the right experience. There is less team work going on than
what is really needed in order to succeed.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
The individuals did what they were assigned to do.
Some individuals went beyond the minimum. Some were risk takers and some risk
averters.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it? And
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
The project did not receive a realistic amount of money. Tenent and Rumsfeld cannot
make up their minds as to what to do with the program.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project? and
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
Yes, the needs of the group impacted the project by restraining the progress. See #17.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#24 does both - work within the existing system and bypassing the issue. It depends
upon the problem. Bill works within the system, perhaps “under” the system
(informally) by talking to the individual, etc.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project impacted his personal life. There are times when he sets aside for his
family. This is very important.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
264
INTERVIEW GUIDE -#25
You must take into account the Time Component element into whether or not you take risks.
If the upside does not occur very soon after taking the risk, you need to look at the risk
closely and see what the payoff would be. A cost/benefit analysis must be taken into
account with the time element.
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
First of all with my experience at the NRO, if you take risks you must do so with individuals
you trust. These individuals must be first rate. The program he is now in is a program that
is failing where people do not trust one another. If you have a high degree of respect for
both with the personnel and the technical part of the program, the program will be
successful.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
If you take a risk, you must have good planning and you need to put effort into this
planning. You must know what you are getting into before you proceed. You must
understand. You must have confidence, trust, and respect with the other individuals (in the
program and upper management) before you take risks. You need to have confidence for
yourself as well before you take risks. When you take a risk, there is both a benefit and a
downside for the program.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
The events that triggered #25 to be risk-taking are composed of two elements: a large
upside potential factor and a relative minor downside element. These are considered
qualitative in nature.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
These events were similar in nature.
Example
When faced with the opportunity to track Bin Laden at a remote site, #25 told his people to
go ahead and try. They were able to tract him for over 6 months until a politician told the
media that the government was doing this. Then B stopped and the government could not
track any longer.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 6 5
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Yes, others restrained his risk-taking actions because they are/were afraid of failure,
for example, in CSG/NRO. The NRO is now a risk adverse organization. It does not
know how to manage risks.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Not necessary and vital for the mission. Individuals are too afraid of the fall-out.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management disagreed with his risk-taking actions. Deathly afraid of failure.
d. How did they show you?
J showed him and others by informal statements at the required group Monday
afternoon meetings.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Risk-taking is beneficial and valuable.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
If you know the up and the down side of the proposed risk actions, you will know
what the upside will do for the mission and the program.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
#25 focused on the benefits and what they can do for the program and national
security. When he took risks on a personal basis in 1994 in the stock market, he
looked at the upside of the Microsoft stock and decided the upside was very great.
The results are now sending his son to college.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
266
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
Some individuals were risk-takers by nature and some were risk averse. The
differences consisted to what extent they understood the risk technically
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Could be risk-taking (understood technically) or risk averse (not understand).
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
If upper management are risk-takers, they will allow you to take risks. If upper
management are risk averse, they will overly constrain you so you will have an
increased probability that you will fail.
“Cost of not taking a risk can far exceed the downside of not taking the risk.”
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
When he was in CSG/NRO, J was risk averse.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
They both formally and informally agreed with his risk actions.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
There were times that #25 did not take a risk because of the downside. The downside
included: could be bad for his reputation, how people viewed him, could destroy his career.
He cannot be crazy and you must be careful.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
During the CSG days, there were things that he could have done, but was stopped by J. J
had to work against higher standards than the rest of the engineers, and had to be more
aware politically than his peers.) J did not trust very many people. His interpersonal skills
did not foster trust with him.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
267
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Gambling - not do since it is not entertaining.
Stocks - have a higher risk factor, well diversified however.
#25 likes to snorkel, ski, and backpack.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Risk-taking since there was not so much oversight.
b. What about present practices?
Very much risk averse.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
The NRO has swung way over to the risk adverse side. There is a great amount of
oversight since the organization has become overt.
#25 wrote the first Strategic Plan in Plans and Analysis Group of the NRO. He
utilized a standard set of questions in an interview technique. One of his questions
was, Should the NRO stay covert or be overt? Since they became overt, it is more
politically hard to deal with and the organization is more risk adverse.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
The practices are more conductive to risk aversion.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? Or
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#25 took more risks, as he was further along in his career.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 6 8
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
15 years ago the institutional policies and norms assisted and aided him. When he put
new software programs into the ground stations. This was risky because you had to
keep the other software packages running and the new ones when activated had to
work correctly. He was given the latitude and the power to go forth and do his job.
b. What are specific examples?
See answer under a.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Informal and powerful rules regarding risk-taking. No formal rules existed. Today,
the rules are formal and “masked”. Individuals state that the FAR, for examples, does
not allow you to do this or that. But does the FAR really say that?
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Today, these mles impact #25’s projects. The J program utilized the Weighted
Guidelines methodology, which limits the amount of award fee a contractor can
possibly earn due to the amount of risk involved. The award fee for the J program is
only 10%. #25 does not know why the B company ever accepted this amount - stupid.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
#25 bent the mles in order to move his project forward.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Not take risks because the organization is afraid to fail. If there are SAPs, the
organization will take risks because these programs are hidden from Congress and
other eyes. The political downside is very low.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Reasonable risk does not exist.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 6 9
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this cause
a problem?
The objectives are open and explicit. No.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
With decisions that need to be done in a timely manner, the hierarchical structure is
better. If the organization is flatter or a collaborative structure, this structure will help
risk taking.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes, definitely. Congress actually pushed the NRO to start the program earlier than
what they had planned.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Congress said to start sooner (2 years early) and accelerate the program.
Congressional staffers feel that the NRO is too risk averse.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Yes, political overtones existed. Congress did not want the organization to wait. The
organization had to fence the money, and come up with an approach and a plan that
the CMO and NIMA would agree to. These actions increased the risk since the NRO
needed the other organizations’ agreements. Unlike the conditions if only the NRO
does the program alone. Also since the NRO has become overt and has more
oversight.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
You can take some risks. “What is the downside of the program?” Look at whether
the risk is too big and/or what is the political downside, if any. Important elements.
The J program went from $400M to $1,5B. H is keeping the program alive. #25 does
not know why unless there is a political reason. (Important to the existing terrorist
problem, however. Perhaps this is why.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 7 0
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
This is one of the highest risk programs, and the heavy hitters (those individuals who
are experts in their respective fields) are not on the program. This is one of the
reasons for Program J’s failure.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Individuals were risk averters. The interpersonal dynamics are extremely bad. No
one trusts the other government agency individuals, who are in the program. #25, an
NRO individual, does not trust the NIMA employee. (I interviewed this individual
also. He seemed to be a highly qualified and dedicated person, who wants the
program to succeed.) The individuals do what they were assigned to do. Most of
them go beyond the minimum.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
No.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
It is a constant struggle by the Director of the NRO to obtain enough money just to
keep it going a little longer.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the proj ect? Restrain or drive the proj ect?
The needs of the group impacted the project by restraining the program.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
The experts that the program needs are not in the program. There was not enough
money planned for this program. Due to the acquisition strategy, a major problem
occurred. The strategy utilized a performance-based statement of work. The choice
to use this type of strategy was incorrect, as the Government could not ask questions
about the proposed technical aspects of the program during the competition. Later
problems have developed due to this factor.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 7 1
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#25 worked within the existing system.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected his personal needs. “You pay a price.”
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #26
#26 needs to visualize how he is going to do something and what he wants to do. (A visual
person)
He also needs a common thread throughout the process before he starts.
“Go forth and do dissertation.”
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
#26 has a broad spectrum of information about risk-taking. Risk-taking in government
depends on where you are - the environment and the culture of the organization. Ron said
that these factors would not stop him from risk-taking. Example - Elint depot in
Sacramento. Worked with the CO at the Sacramento Army Depot on a new and creative
project for them.
The Army Space Program Office (ASPO) is risk-taking. Risk-taking depends upon the
leader of the organization whether you take minimal or maximum risk-taking. How did they
take and accept risks changes.
#26 likes calculated risk-taking. He pointed out that this is where I am going with my
dissertation. Ron does not know how he is going to do this in the beginning of the project.
#26 is a “wild horse” (he does not want to be bridled). He picks a direction and goes with it.
Then he guides individuals to follow his direction. (Go outside the box with creative
thinking; manipulate people, etc. in order to do this.) #26 considers this an “adventure”. #26
does not engage in too many schemes at the same time.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
The plan (scheme) might vary due to:
1. situation
2. what personalities are involved
3. what is trying to be done technically
4. whether it is a new contract, ECP, etc. that is being undertaken.
#26 is usually dealing with individuals who are 1 or 2 grades higher than he is.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 7 2
#26’s process is as follows:
1. What is the requirement? (Desert Storm antenna)
2. Build a system
3. Send to test (Wachucah)
4. Went out on a risk and “just did it”. “Luck just doesn’t happen, you must prepare
for it.” (to be able to do the mission)
How do you prepare for it?
Come into a new situation or organization and just listen and learn what is going on before
you say anything. Pick-up similar patterns (sounds like grounded theory). Stake out a
position - where I want to be, how do I accomplish it and what could impact or influence
what he is doing. Do a lot of what, if theories and thinking. Wait for an opportunity. Can
bum up the heat - manipulate, etc. Look for indicators if he has to bail out or do something
else. Then run his escape routine - where he could go. Then he found the weak spots of
bad individuals, fuel the fire, went to division director and asked for transfer. Immediate
supervisor made bad decisions, ethics issues, bad for customer - Project IEWD.
Example
How does a system work?
What needs to be done?
Lay out the plan.
Found a problem in the project.
Finally the project died due to this problem.
Create a Concept of Development - how he wants to build the project. Built TDU.
Best compliment that he gets, is when he gets kicked off of the project. Others take
ownership and do the project. (He has done the risk-taking, organized, created and set-up
what needs to be done and how to do it.)
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Risk-taking. The way his family lived in Connecticut and lives they are always risk-
takers. Out of the edge of the environment. What does the neighbor need? (similar to
what does the country need)
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes.
1 . Work in a tightly controlled base (foundation).
2. This is where I want to go.
3. #26 wants to know how it works? (Why he takes it apart or does
something different)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 7 3
Today, people/projects are more sophisticated and with people more technically
astute.
#26 is in a calculated risk right now with the project that he is working on. Also he
delayed promotions to maximize learning where he is now located - to get the
maximize effect of his job, the people he is working with and meeting.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Some restrain his risk-taking actions.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Yes. #26 obtained the job that he is in due to the fact his risk-taking actions were
necessary and vital for the mission.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Both agreed and disagreed. #26 had to adapt to get things done when he met averse
people. Came up with work arounds. (Look at things and events that he had to do
with a project as an opportunity.) He gained insight, unproven communication path (a
technical step). Proved that his link worked.
d. How did they show you?
Those that agreed became partners in crime, worked as a team — maximize the
efforts. Get synergy.
Those that disagreed #26 would fight, argue and go into a tug of war. #26 will modify
a risk or terminate if a problem occurred.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Absolutely.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
This trait was absolutely vital for the mission. You have to have risk-taking. Risk-
taking brings direction, build synergy, break or build the situations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
274
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Found risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
#26’s spirit to succeed drove him to take risks. He broke new ground. Outside the
box thinking. Push the envelope. Just the challenge of doing it.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
Most individuals (60-70%) had trouble with risk-taking individuals such as himself.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk averse.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
The higher you go up in management, the more risk averse that you are. Have to be
more creative when briefing, tone it down and streamline the message.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk averse.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Had both formally and informally. Depends on the situation. Formal agreement -
like with John Cooper.
Informal agreement - suck them along until you get their buy-in.
f. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Yes. In what he is doing in order to achieve the goals of the mission. He only is involved in
something unless he believes in it especially risk-taking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 7 5
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
No.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
No gambling.
Stocks - some in high risk. Mixed. Some mutual funds.
Fly airplanes, swim.
“If not grounded in one area, cannot take risks in other areas.” (Meaning that Ron
knows where he is in 1 area of his life - in this case his family — where he does not
take risks or only small risks. He feels confident of who he is and what he stands for
and therefore he can take risks in other areas of his life.)
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
With Vint Hill depends on who you are working for. Even balance of risk-taking and
risk averse.
b. What about present practices?
Most in the NRO like to take risks. (Vint Hill does not exist.) Look at the history,
past was much more risk-taking.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
Yes, they have changed. Administrations (political parties) dictate the tone of society.
U.S. Presidents: Reagan was a risk-taker, Clinton - disaster with security, Bush, Jr. is
giving some structure. State and local levels have the same thing. The Directors of
agencies do the same thing. Some do push the envelope.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Practices are more conductive to risk-taking. NRO on the leading edge.
#26 is on the leading edge also. His project has the capability, if successful, to aid all
four services and interconnect them.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 76
Changed the SETA work (support) by reading all the rules and knowing them. (Then
going the way he wants to go with the project. Similar to Bruce, etc.)
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
Consistent.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Policies and norms aided and assisted #26.
#26 takes advantage of them. By knowing the policies, you can find the loopholes,
unite and put them together to meet the objectives. Ron does not like restrictive
policies since they impede risk-taking.
b. What are specific examples?
When #26 wanted to do something not in the FAR, his Contracting Officer would not
let him do it or only allowed him to do it if he wrote many memorandums. These
individuals are definitely risk averse.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Regulations are risk averse and they were formal and explicit. If you have too many,
it becomes very risk averse.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Impacted his project. #26 knows how to work the rules in order to assist and aid him
with his project.
Example - in one instance management would cut people if they talked to customers.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
#26 would make up rales to move the project forward.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
277
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
The organization did take risks because it had operational missions to meet. It has to
stay ahead and be state-of-the art because of national security. The NRO is better than
others and “It does cool stuff’.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
#26 does not know.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this cause
a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit.
#26 used these objectives as a starting point. Beyond this is overachieving according
to some individuals. This can cause a problem with risk adverse personalities.
Individuals can take advantage of opportunities.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
This type of structure helps the project. It has a management structure that allows
progress to be made with the projects.
It helps risk-taking. It allows you more than 1 path to reach the mission goal.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
#26 had some visibility and insight at the Staffer level. He was able to get key
support and some money to support certain aspects of his projects.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
No. Someone else sold his project. The program already was in existence. He
expanded the project to include all the services.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Yes, there were political overtones.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 7 8
The Army has a common architecture for all the military called the Distributed
Common Ground System (DCS). All the military is slugging it out on what does this
really mean. There is a national to tactical bridge concept that blurs the lines in order
to better the defenses of the country. (The national and tactical should blur together to
meet the mission. #26 likes this idea. There is a problem with one supervisor who
does not agree.)
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
So far there is no problems with risk-taking for most of the individuals. The problem
exists with individuals who fail to understand risk-taking.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number? And
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do?
For the most part.
“Desperation is the English way.” #26 likes to push people, think quickly, and be
creative. How do I take mediocre people and make them better?
#26’s flaw is that he can work with 1 or 2 individuals, but cannot work in a large
group. He feels that if too many know things, then problems occur.
Go beyond the minimum? Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Yes, they went beyond the minimum. There is a mix of both risk takers and risk
averters. YOU DO NEED BOTH TYPES TO SUCCEED.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Yes.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
#26 received money when he needed it for one project. At other times, it was a
struggle to obtain the finances.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 7 9
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
The needs of the group needed a lot of care and feeding. The contractor was a risk-
taking organization. The government was more of a mix.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
The government had more personality problems. High maintenance and not good
team players. This condition causes a problem and an issue.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
Most of the time.
Did not bypass the issue.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
#26 tries to balance time with his family. However, no project has suffered.
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #27
#27 has been in the government since he was 17 years old,; 71/2 years as a Navy pilot, 22 in
CIA, 22 in Naval Reserves, 9 years in Aerospace. First 7 years in DO/CIA.
MS from MIT.
“Where would we be today, if individuals had not taken risk?” - Thomas Paine paraphrase.
People cared for each other more, 15-20 years ago.
If you have mutual trust, we will have an increase in risk-taking actions.
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
#27 was a risk-taker in DOD as a pilot. This is a natural part of #27 and the job. #27 took
risks (challenges) with harder tasks. The expected/professional risks did not succeed and
were not considered important in the Navy.
In the DO/CLA, individuals who took risks were highly respected. In 1978, President Carter
tried to Christianize the whole nation. He stopped the Agency from doing the things that
Jerry was assigned to do. When Bob was D/OD&E, Bob was a risk-taker. The culture was
risk-taking. When #27 left the NRO, Pete Aldridge had united the 3 programs into the
NRO. Jerry left because of the friction. Now the NRO does not take risks. It is now a
bureaucracy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 8 0
a. There is no room for risk-taking in the NRO.
b. Too much oversight from Congress.
IMINT is not risk-taking at all.
When #27 left the Agency, he took another risk by leaving. “People do not take risks
because the bureaucracy will not let them. Top management does not expect individuals to
take risks.”
This lack of risk-taking pervades the Intelligence Community. The Frank Church
committee rises again. There is no place for bureaucracy in the IC. “You must be lean, fast,
continually moving, and risk-taking in order to be successful and to meet the challenges.”
Not recruit young people in the IC because of the risk adverse culture or young people that
are in the IC will not be able to take risks.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
People should take risks. It is good for them. An individual must understand success and
failure. Failure is not the end of their professional life and possible in their personal life.
Cannot be defeated by lack of success.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
#27 wanted to fly so he joined the Navy. Enrolled in aeronautical engineering. He
knew the risk of flying and the risk of carriers.
At MIT for 22 months and he obtained a masters. He was going into debt and had to
pay the bills. There were 4 job offers - 1 with the CIA. He was good at being an
engineer. In 1993, #27 left the Agency. This was not a risk at all since he would be
receiving 3 pensions.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
#27 wanted to have a challenge. The uncertainties about people, jobs, does not bother
him. Nothing in the business world bothers him. Things may be foolish, but this is a
personal judgment after all.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions? and
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
While in the Navy, individuals avoided him. Did not restrain him. In the Navy, #27
had no reason to be a risk-taker. When he was in the reserves (with armed
helicopters), there was no doctrine. #27 did his own.
1 . When he was in OD&E, individuals did not avoid or restrain him. He
helped changed the fuel capability in order to increase the payloads.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 8 1
2. #27 has never worked for anyone other than the government (interesting
point - not like private industry. Capitalism can be slimy contractors.)
3. At one point, Congress told him to descope 2 of 3 satellites. L-M put EXP
to keep these 2 satellites in. L-M wanted $257 M. #27 offered S167M. D
did not like this. He felt that it was bad for the contractor. L-M walked.
He said that it was bad for the taxpayers. Later on the government offered
$157M ($32M in uppers.)
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
See above.
d. How did they show you?
Upper management did not do anything. “Just be careful.” (Limits to the game since
L-M is the only 1 to build a particular satellite.)
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Risk-taking is beneficial and valuable.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
Vital for the organization, the mission, and the country. If #27 stayed within the box,
he would not make any progress whatsoever.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
#27 was never motivated by money or with promotions. He was motivated by
challenges, creativity, and innovation. Should have been an artist perhaps. (Likes to
build furniture, etc.) #27 loves change.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking? and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
282
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
All the things #27 has accomplished probably would not be considered risky. People
trusted his experience and judgment. In general, upper management has been on
board. For example, armed helicopters need an aggressive risk-taking individual. #27
has a conviction that this is your job. You have calculated risks. People trusted his
judgment. Individuals can talk to him about his judgments and where he is wrong.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
See #4,c. D not like what #27 was doing.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Most were risk-taking.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Some formally and some informally agreed with #27.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
NO, vested interests did not influence his proclivity for risk-taking. The reason why — #27
does not want to be a bus driver. He wanted to be on the leading edge-jets. He had
obligations to family. Got out of the Navy, went back to school to MIT for Masters degree.
Dealing with parents when he coached soccer was unbelievable. Not interested in the real
reasons and values for playing.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
No, he was his own person.
#27 did not think that far out of the box where he would have been restrained. He used his
judgment. #27 did take more than 1 step at a time.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Soccer, flying, furniture making, hunting and fishing. Took a canoe trip in Saschaswawan.
Canadian government not wants them (Best friend, his Dad, and #27) to do this. This trip
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 8 3
was the most fun that he ever had in his entire life. Wrote a book called TO LIVE IT BOLD
(not published). Likes to gamble.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Respected risk-taking in the past.
b. What about present practices?
Suppress risk-taking actions.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
Suppressed because of social cultures. The NRO is now forced to think alike. This
phenomenon is bad or good depending on who you are. There is no more room for
innovative/creative thinking. The question is “Do people know that risk-taking is
gone?”
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Risk aversion.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
#27 has not changed his level of risk-taking. He has “... not quit because it scares
him.” (If he did quit.)
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
These policies protect the individual, the corporation, and the management from
grievances and lawsuits. They aid and impede you both. If you are a wimp, the
institutional policies will constrain you. If you a risk-taker, you know how far you
can go and with your own judgment, policies and norms will assist you.
b. What are specific examples?
A customer wanted an Aerospace employee to travel to England. According to 1
manager, the CEO needs to approve this travel. Not really need to have CEO
approval. People are afraid to make decisions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 8 4
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
In the military, rules were formal and explicit.
In OD&E, the rules were informal except for the Travel regulations.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
No. You leam, assess, and use your judgment with the policies, practices, and
regulations, and then you work and change the regulations.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
#27 did not bend the rules. He changed the rules.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Aerospace does not take risks. FFRDCs are at the trough. (They want money to
continue.) FFRDCs are in a secure environment since they do not have to write
contracts, ECPs, etc. In the private sector, companies push the limits of fraud, waste,
and abuse.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
FFRDCs do not say.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit. FFRDCs are “trusted agents”. Congress
created FFRDCs to assist the country and aid in national security. Rand was for
political and economic issues. Aerospace was for space. They exist as checks and
balances. FFRDCs are the police force for taxpayers.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
OD&E and Aerospace is hierarchical and by matrixing.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 8 5
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
OD&E - the structure helped the progress of his projects because management knew
what he is doing.
The structure helped his risk taking.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Upper management sold the project.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
There are always political overtones with Intelligence systems specifically big buys.
Political overtones are political trivia (no one cares). These things are stupid. It is
part of the acquisition process from the government.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
NRO - the Director of FIA got the responsibility for FIA, but not the authority. The
IG and others are looking over his shoulder all of the time.
Aerospace does not have problem with risk taking.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Yes. Must hire best people for the projects.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Yes. Risk takers in OD&E.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Yes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 8 6
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Yes.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
The needs of the group did not impact the project. Individuals are prepared and they
like the work. They understand and realize that they are contributing and like the
projects. They are independent.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
None.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
#27 worked within the existing system. Would be stupid not to work with the liberal
society in which we live not to work this way.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected his personal needs.
INTERVIEW GUIDE- # 2 8
1. What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
In the 1960s and 70s, the Agency understood risk and was willing to play the game.
Richard Bisell, Deputy Director for Plans (Chief of Operations) under Allen Dulles,
encouraged everyone. The SR-71, U-2, satellites were being developed in parallel. Risk-
taking was a factor and was understood and the leadership promoted it. In the general
population, people would talk about risk but not conceive of doing it. In the DS&T. all were
young individuals. They would not accept failure. Progress was made due to risk-taking
and the leaders.
The reasons for risk-taking - the Agency’s mission, the amount of risk taken was due to
objectives of the Cold War (the big problem), the push from the top leaders, and the fact that
they were solving a critical and national problem for the good of the country.
Examples
The Bomber-missile gap question: Eisenhower understood the intelligence that Russia was
building bombs, etc. Ike called all the top scientists (July 1954) to a Technological
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 8 7
Capabilities Panel consisting of Dr. James Baker, Edwin Land (Polaroid), James Killian
(MIT), Edwin Purcell (Havard), and Guylord Stever (MIT) - the best brains in the country.
The Secretary of State Lewelyn Thomas forbids the Agency to put spies in Russia before
1961. Too risky. The Air force wanted a plane with two engines that was not too risky
according to them. (Actually riskier with 2 engines than 1 like the Agency wanted.) The U-
2 that was developed with 1 engine proved Russia not have the superiority that others
thought the country had.
1961 - Berlin Crisis: Kennedy called Krushchev’s bluff, not go into West Berlin. However,
with all the Agency’s successes, it caused not well thought out actions and taking too high
and great risks. Such as the following:
The Bay of Pigs, April 1961, was an unnecessary risk. Bissell misjudged and went ahead
with air cover. For Bissell it was a high risk for Kennedy it was a low risk. As a result of
the failure, Bissell lost his job, Dulles lost too. Dulles died a pauper eventually. This was
the first problem and failure for the Agency. Before the Agency had a great success with
Guatemala.
Why had the Agency succeeded?
1. The President understood and was a risk taker.
2. The criticality (importance) need for the country - national security. A possible
WWin probability existed.
3. The youth of the individuals at the Agency.
4. Innovation of the individuals who were in teams and all were willing to take risks.
5.
Examples
1 . Oxcart - the first stealth airplane before SR71 .
2. SR71 - Ike said couldn’t fly unless the Agency could prove that it could not be
seen. Gene had the job of proving this.
He used a mathematical approach - if you obtain 50% reliability, you need to
have lower elements need to be more accurate and reliable. Tells you how much
risk you can take. Ensures you how much risk you can take (see chart). Gene
thought and worked this way. (Charles Lindberg checked on all workers for his
plane that crossed the Atlantic.)
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
Changes have occurred in taking risks. Less and less risk-taking. The Government has lost
something.
When organizations are new, they take more risks and are more creative. Widespread risk
aversity now. The Government has turned over all work to contractors. This factor
influences whom the Government selects to do the work. (Big contractor has great
resources and money. These companies take advantage of this against the Contracting
Officer and the Government.)
At the agency, companies are more powerful than the Government because the Government
changes every 18 months. Bad for small companies. Win contracts by illegal activities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 8 8
Small companies do original work. They are cut off from doing the next steps. No
contracting flexibility exists.
#28 always went with the Security Officer, the Contracting Officer and the technical
individual as part of the Government team. Today this does not exist.
(The agency did do political overtones for Program J in Arizona. Try to buy talent.
A satellite by a paper outfit. Could not perform.) Risk not part of this program (Program J).
The specifications that Boeing got were from the Agency and ##28 (15 years of Agency
experiments). #28 and Bill.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
Risk-taking events
1 . nature of mission
2. important enough for the country
3. need to see the whole picture of mission - above and below.
4. Risk is an integral part of management, system engineering, etc. - all parts of
the program and the agency.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes. See above for the characteristics.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
No.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
His team is still proud of what they did in the past.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
Upper management agreed.
d. How did they show you?
The Agency is unique. Ideas percolated from the bottom to the top (not the other way
around). All were encouraged and supported. Passed the word down. At the lowest
level, get direct feedback. Received awards. Money was not a problem.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 8 9
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Risk-taking is the only way to go.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
When you win, you win big.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity. Gene completely agrees and feels very
strongly about this idea.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
See answers #1 and 2.
#28 was always on the outlook and the Agency was always looking for innovators.
A study in the Agency was “How do you find innovators?”
Result - Innovators are more interested in everything else (a broad view). They read
everything, interested in everything in general. As a result, the Agency could expand
into new areas and applications. Decrease the risks to the country, the existing
problems, and Congresses’ needs and requirements.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
The people had faith in what #28 was doing with his risk-taking actions and the
programs. He would find risk adverse individuals and put someone else into that
same position.
#28 and his group would play the “what - if’ game - like 21 questions. You could
decrease risk by playing the game. Everyone participated including the secretaries,
security officer, contracting officer, etc.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
290
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Upper management supported and liked his projects.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Both formally and informally agreed with his risk-taking actions.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Vested interests did not influence his proclivity for risk-taking or cause him to be risk
adverse. If his vested interests had influenced him, he would be much richer. #28 has had a
sense of principles since birth. Having more fun with what he was doing. #28 was dedicated
to his job. He had successes and promotions.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
No. The Agency trusted him. #28 was first person to go to the NRO from the Agency.
Wheelon (Deputy Director for Research) said to go and do and keep in touch.
#28 seldom had projects in mid-career since he was on his own most of the time. He felt
blessed by the Agency.
#28 had an unusual relationship with his bosses and 2 or 3 individuals above him. The
DS&T and the DCI would call him.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Flew airplanes. #28 was not interested in gambling. His stock portfolio is mixed - some are
high risk.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 9 1
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Risk-taking because of the people and Dr. Albert Wheelon, first DS&T.
b. What about present practices?
Just the opposite of risk-taking. The Agency wants to be incognito with all of its
actions.
Past
1 . Mission is strong enough you took the risks. Foster from top management if
technically feasible.
2. Engineers worked hand-in-glove with the contractors. Minimize risks by going
down to the lowest level. (See extra explanation/paper.) If you fail, it is due to
other factors and circumstances.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
1. Management is risk adverse.
2. Management turned over to contractors (not hand-in-glove).
3. Minimize risk.
a. By competition - more bang for the buck, decrease the risk.
b. Pay the contractor to bid on big projects.
c.
Example - Continuity of Government - cost $1.4B, not really cost this amount.
d. Allowing contractors to be involved who do not understand the
Intelligence Community.
4. Current practices seem to focus on security (biggest element).
5. Downside of competition is compromise. This can kill a project because the big
contractors tell everyone about it.
Example - Loser leaked something to press. Soviets picked it up, solved the problem
without building one machine. IC cannot keep up in today’s world. Contractors have
become drivers instead of IC. (IC can only tell what really the applications are of the
machines. Contractors do not really know what is needed in the future. Perhaps this
is not true, but it is an issue though.) Today, big contractors put the requirements on
the subcontractors.
e. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Risk aversion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
292
f. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
g. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
About the same throughout his career.
#28 noticed that the Agency was less risk-taking during the latter part of his career.
This caused him concern. Why the Agency changed? (Looking to the contractors for
new ideas instead of within the Agency.) The answer is due to a decrease in risk-
taking.
D/DS&T - not have risk-taking experience (Jim Hirsch)
Missed Agency heritage of risk-taking - lost. (Not have Intelligence background and
management oriented only.)
Example - Agency specifically ORD developed a math formula that is used
worldwide in airplanes. How to navigate by GPS, Lorrain, etc. (The original contract
was $50K, grew to $350K. Overrun came about. Accomplishment was
unbelievable.)
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
Assisted and aided Gene.
#28 doubts that he would have done these things without encouragement from upper
management.
b. What are specific examples?
See previous examples.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Informal and powerful.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
#28 was successful and the project had a successful conclusion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 9 3
#28 briefed the DCI (John McCone) and Admiral Rayburn on creative and innovative
projects. #28 told him 90% success chance, (if 50%, McCone would have said to go
ahead.)
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Yes, #28 bent the rules. Example - Could Russia sense the altitude changes in the
airplane on the Russian border? The answer is yes. #28 and pilot were not supposed
to try, but they did anyway.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Took risks. See previous #1.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
It varied due to the need and the mission.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit. It was valuable since everyone was well
informed.
15. Organizational stmcture
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
#28 was never constrained to the change of command. He could talk to anyone using
channels.
b. How did the stmcture help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the stmcture
help or hinder risk taking?
The stmcture helped the progress of his project. It caused his project to be successful.
The stmcture helped his risk taking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
294
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes. After the Church and Pike Committee hearings, the Agency became “a rogue
elephant”. This is the day that resulted:
1. Agency being defensive
2. No risk-taking
3. Always cover your ass
Ruth David, DD/DS&T. gave research and development to the National Labs.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
There were always political overtones to his projects.
The mission to all of his projects was a national security issue.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
No.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
#28 usually had what resources were necessary.
#28 could draw upon other agencies, military to help him with his project.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Did what they were assigned to do. Went beyond the minimum and were risk takers.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Yes. Contractors did not have too many money problems. The Agency and
contractors had flexibility.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 9 5
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
Pretty much. Later on in his career, #28 might have to resell the project each year due
to Carter’s Zero Based Budget and the budget process.
Past
Contractors were proud to work with the Agency. Had the budget and the
flexibility. Gave their own money to complete the project sometimes.
Present
Now the Agency has an adversial relationship with the contractors. Forced to do
things like DOD, which had adversial relationship. Costs you more to do business
this way versus what the Agency did before.
Addition to the Problem
American business managers are the highest paid managers in the world. Short-term
interests and corporate greed due to what the stockholders want.
Example - Project J - Dr. Carter on the SSEB from Los Alamos and on the board of
Boeing. He knew what all the bids were going to be. (Boeing $100M below anyone
else.)
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
This was not a factor. The way that they were organized was a motivator.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
N/A. See #1.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
The culture was different. Not have to bypass an issue. #28 worked within the
existing system. Later on in his career he did bypass the issue. Maybe the culture
causes bureaucracy. {Ideas come from the bottom up. Support comes from the top
down. If you have this, can be successful and risk-taking.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
Project affected his personal needs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
296
INTERVIEW-2 9
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
Risk-taking is what needs to be understood. You need to realize (1) the tolerance of the
environment and (2) the ambiguity of the issue. Some individuals will not take risks -
period.
Example - digitized maps. Writing about the issue/program of digitizing maps was okay.
But when the group actually was trying to do it, how you explain the ambiguity and the
change to others was the key. You must be persistent in the face of resistance. You must be
able to be sufficiently clear and persistent with your definitions and explanations. If you are
most individuals will go along with the program.
#29 works from the future state backwards. She uses a time sequence methodology. She
will explain step by step. You need to use the step-by-step method and have all the
requirements in advance (if possible). The spiral development will allow you to take risks
and manage risks. This model risk adverse individuals do not like.
Risks are found in unplanned actions (not well-planned). She piece-meals work against the
resistant to change and their ambiguity. Then she mitigates risks. She forms a team and
decreases their ambiguity. Consensus building can be both positive and negative. You must
understand your own style of how to accomplish things. You need to build a coalition, not a
compromise. Compromise is a lose-lose situation according to her. What they have brought
to the table is positive. The team is powerful and the results are great.
Example - the reorganization ofNIMA and what has been occurring over the past five years
since NIMA was formed.
You need two elements.
Teams. You need to move individuals. Co-locate people. Build an integrated office with
employees and management. Effectively develop a new mission. Meet with the senior
board to talk about the core different issues - where the problems exist, how to build an
organization, and how to proceed and look for the future endeavors of the organization.
Sessions were heated arguments, but in the long run they needed to forge a new way to do
business. The new Director and Deputy Director within 3 weeks changed the organization,
not in the 3 years that was originally planned. 1 . (element) Now the organization can
manage and work with risks and are now ready to move ahead. This model can work in any
organization - future state. (2) The future state is not static. The closer to the objective, you
become smarter. DOD can’t do spiral development. NIMA is doing effectivities.
Effectivity one is the base, and 2,3, and 4 lie on top, but this is not spiral development. The
greatest obstacles to the reorganization are the individuals who want to follow the set path
originally determined. These individuals are the biggest risk.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 9 7
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
See #1.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
She is a risk-taking individual.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
She has a natural inclination to be risk-taking. From childhood on, she was allowed to
venture out and do things others might ask why was she doing it. She must test the
boundaries - environment, etc. When She was young she was not aware of the
environment. She found the environment a great place to learn. She understood that it
could be a failure. She feels that individuals should be ALLOWED versus trained to
take risks. You obtain better risk-takers.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions? And
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Others avoided being around her and at times restrained her risk-taking actions.
Example - stand-up of NIMA. When NIMA was formulated, there had to be a sense
of balance. All agencies or parts of agencies that were being incorporated into NIMA
had to appear to be balanced as to the other organizations. CIA, DMA, CIO, etc.
(The Director of the DO was CIO, the Director of Acquisition was CIA, etc.) Largest
part of NIMA was the Geospatial group. This did not satisfy the imagery intelligence
officers. There was a sense of resistance. The roles and responsibilities of the
geospatial analyst lost to the imagery analysis intelligence officers. She has tried to
solve this problem. She took the following steps: 1. put some of the 2 types together,
2. co-located these two groups. Individuals will discover they like one another. 3.
the final step was a prototype office, the Office of the Americas. This group
incorporated the best of the two worlds.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions? And
d. How did they show you?
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Risk-taking is beneficial and valuable.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 9 8
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
It is important so that the mission and the vision may be reached. The mission is the
minimal risk-taking. Vision is where the largest amount of risk-taking is needed to
accomplish the objectives of the project. No vision - no future. You need both.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
The environment where She has a natural bent to taking risks. See #3b for further
information. She enjoys ideas. Her BA degree is in philosophy and her MS is in
geodetic science degree with a strong emphasis in math. She likes bodies of training
and consistency and dealing in a world of ideas. She likes to “Make a difference.”
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking? and
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
The people that she has worked in past are analysts who are not risk-takers.
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
Upper management (General Clapper) seems to encourage risk-taking. General King
wanted all the details. He had an incredible thirst for information, a micro-manager.
He was a risk-taker and happy with those who took risks.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Risk-taking at the top. Others were a mixture of risk takers and risk averters.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
299
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Yes, vested interests influence her to be risk-taking. They are the drivers. They focus on
the important things that became her agenda. Increase her risk-taking in certain areas.
“Take out her soapbox” because of vested interests. She needs the passion that drives her to
be risk-taking.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
Yes it can. If you have a team with clear objectives, you might have a problem with the
methodology - how to do the project versus how to do the project better. This sometimes
causes constraints and reduces risk-taking.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Her mutual funds are mixed - conservative and risky. If she does not have a knowledge
base, she does not participate and will be conservative. One of challenges is how to grow
plants in shadows.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse?
Past practices allowed #29 to take incremental steps characterized as risk averse.
b. What about present practices?
Present practices are changed.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
Today is transformation. New organizational principles are different than the ones
General Clapper inherited. He has to accelerate the transformation. His presence has
changed and he has set the tone.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
More conductive to risk-taking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 0 0
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career?
No. #29 had six daughters and getting them through and grown-up. Tended to be
conservative because of this fact. Less risk-taking with health and safety.
As a result, She trades with things that she does.
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
Yes. #29 became a greater risk-taker as she went up in the management chain.
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
#29 would not let the institutional policies and norms bar and impede her.
How did #29 overcome or change them? Less of an obstacle with #29 because of her
natural inclination and philosophy about risk-taking and how she handles tolerance of
the environment and the ambiguity issue.
b. What are specific examples?
The reorganization of NIMA. See page 1 for information.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Both formal and informal.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Both negative and positive. Some confine your adventure, and rally support efforts.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Formal rules: #29 obtained waivers and how you get these to you (perhaps bend in
this case).
Informal rules: can be the worst obstacles. Have the same work to get through or
work them and the same bumps in these rules. However, there is no defined way to
deal with informal rules.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 0 1
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Not take risks too often. Only certain parts of the agency like SPO.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Don’t violate the law. Always accountable within authority and accountability (most
relevant) and responsibility that you have.
Think about what is worst possible action that can happen. Can she render an account
of what she thinks might happen? Is it okay as to the authority, accountability and
responsibility?
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
Open and explicit. Did not cause a problem.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
It depends where your are.
Lowest rung - individuals take a lot of risk.
Middle rung - risk-taking was harder to do the action, and to make progress with the
project. Very challenging to justify upward (to upper management) and downward (to
the workers).
The difference is the sequence of affirmation - is it up or down? (Or in other words,
do you seek concurrence first from upper management or from the workforce?)
Depends upon project.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
302
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project?
If so, what were they?
The project was changing maps from paper products to digital products. The digital
product and its improvements/uses were not evident to the customers.
First piece that #29 had to accomplish - sell the product to the customer.
The second piece - industry must help. The reality is finding enough money to have
industry involved.
The third piece - Congress must know that this is “The right thing to do.”
Sell the idea to others that it is really their ideas - pass the baton on that this their idea
(not #29’s).
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
Yes. Trying to determine what is the individual’s tolerance level and ambiguity
capacity in order to sell the project. You must be persistent in face of resistance. Be
sufficiently clear, most individuals will go along. See #1 for further information.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? And
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Some lack in areas. 1 . “Must cover all bases”
2. Capitalize on strengths and buildup weaknesses.
Created a whole new occupation and skills - Geospatial Analysis. A negative
backlash from cartographers occurred. Created a caste system. They were trying to
build a career path with an aura of professionalism, right things - beginners,
journeyman, experts levels. Mitigate risks.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum?
Were they risk takers or risk averters?
Yes. Most went beyond the minimum. Some were risk takers and some were risk
averters.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
303
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
No.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
It was a struggle to obtain finances and she is still struggling even though Congress
and others (customers, etc.) know that it is the right way to go.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
The levels of the group have different levels of tolerance. Need to answer the
question - How wide a range do you have on the team? A small group restrains the
projects.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
Levels of Resistance Concept - Richard Mauer (wrote book)
1 . Individuals not understand the idea. (Can solve this. Might not
spend enough time here and you may have to increase the time
element.)
2. Understand it, but not like it (emotional).
3. I heard it, perhaps not understand, not like it, more important not
like you, (lost opportunity to talk with the individual. One on
one.) Probably not get consensus. You might lose the good idea
- it is a casualty. This is 1 of the tougher things to plan a course
of action.
Important - must be seen as having minimal casualties, and those who not want to be
on board, have a process to get them off gracefully. Be able to find a round peg in a
round hole, and a round peg in a square hole.
Doing Now
There is a small group of people, disruptive because they feel bad things are done to
them, singled-out. The glass is half-empty. More issues because of crises that we are
in. Use her model - what is their tolerance and their ambiguity and how they work
with this.
One of her outstanding leaders had Level 1 resistance, but quickly got through as the
resistance process got through all the steps.
Big risks to the organization are made by big internal changes. Terry Vernier off DO
did a study for 18 months. Then 3-month prototype. Then tool the recommendations
(Lloyd Roland) and spent 1 year studying. Stood it up. A very measured approach.
Successful. Now not do this due to crises and new leader (Clapper).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 04
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the
issue?
Work within the existing system. Reorganization example, page 1 .
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your
personal needs?
Her model depends on investment of what she accomplishes.
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #30
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be useful
to share with others?
It is absolutely necessary to be successful, and make progress. She would prefer not to take
risks, but risk-taking is essential to accomplish what is necessary.
a. First, take reasonable risk. Do your homework. Have a good plan, get your
facts straight, and know where you are going. Present a well-reasoned
proposal. If you cannot do this, then you are not ready to take a risk.
b. Second, do not take a risk with people. Meaning people’s jobs or even your job.
Different Levels of Risk equate to an individual’s grade level.
1 . Junior person - take smaller risk
2. Senior person - takes a different type of risk. Not present ideas, but you
make the decisions regarding the risk.
- Grade 15 - make a big difference in programs
- SES - more dangerous decisions, for example, programs may live or
die, jobs continue or not, segments of agencies continue or not - the
riskier risks.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
She does not like to take risks. She only took risks when she felt it was necessary. “Only
take risks when an end result is very important.”
Example - The reorganization of the MASINT Community. There existed a risk to the
program and to careers. But the topic was very important for the country and the
Intelligence Community. The results could be positive progress. It was worth the risk and
the results could have been important enough to push the reorganization idea. Other
individuals did not want to because this idea would push into other people’s rice bowls.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 0 5
She always pushed to go into new technology. This was an uphill battle. Frankly not know
where the country would be if she had not done so.
Seems to be a phenomenon when the country is undergoing crises, then we invest in new
ideas and technology. Stop the crises; stop funding new ideas and new technology.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
The country’s security triggered her to be risk-taking. She knew that advances in
technology were important. If she could not make a difference, she would not take the
risk.
She feels that she is risk adverse and her nature is that of an introvert. She does not
like to take risks with her staff’s career or her career. She would weigh the risk
heavily.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
The events were different for different career levels. (See different levels at different
career points.):
Lower level - money
Mid-level - whole programs
Senior - organizational issues such as reorganization
The mechanisms are the same for all levels.
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Many may not enlist in the campaign for various reasons. Her peers did not avoid her
or restrain her risk-taking actions. Her staff gave her good support. They were happy
that someone would take the lead. (With the MASINT community, individuals, who
work in the area of expertise, have to work very hard to secure a place in this
community. They also must like it since this community is different than the other
community types.)
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Her own staff considered these actions necessary and vital.
a. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions? and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
306
b. How did they show you?
The Army agreed with the technological risks that she took. Her program started off
at $400K and expanded to $16M in the 1980s. Others in the Army called her program
General Odem’s Pet Rock.
OSD agreed and disagreed with her actions.
MASINT - take Central MASINT Office out of DIA and make it separate. (Give it
independence and more money.) This was a very controversial issue resulting in a big
argument. The DCI made the final decision to do this after a secret vote was taken by
all the members of the MASINT committee. She felt that the result and effort was
moderately successful.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
At certain times and circumstances, it is necessary to take some risks.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
If the outcome is important enough, you must take the risk. To be able to move
forward and develop a program. You cannot make large changes without risk-taking.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a necessary evil, but it is not necessary to actively avoid it.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
She felt that the risk taken resulted in something important.
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
The biggest risk of her career dealt with the placement of the MASINT committee.
Long discussions with the committee were held. A secret ballot vote was taken
because it was a major policy change. She was surprised with the amount of support
that was received from the IC, DOD, the State Department, etc.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 0 7
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
All were risk takers in the community and technical arena. These individuals were
15s and SESs. They were willing to step up to the plate. Once a decision was made,
the group agreed to follow what was decided (a consensus).
Making a decision is risk-taking. Decision- making is also a function of the
government (inherent).
c. How did upper management feel about the project?
She was told and pressured that she was part of DIA and could not even consider a
reorganization of the MASINT Committee. However, She was under the auspice of
the DCI and the SecDef. This was done so that no one would be a scapegoat within
DIA. She decided to have a secret vote herself. This was a major political issue.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Both risk-taking and risk averse.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
They formally agreed with your risk actions.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
No. She was already a SES and not under DIA authority for the MASINT reorganization.
She definitely thought that she was doing the right thing.
There are two things that you need to do and are vital if you are going to take risks. One -
do your homework.
Two - make a presentation that is understood by all and makes sense.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
None in the face of a threatening way. You must be careful of the staff and yourself. Not
give up. Don’t change the goals. Use your common sense.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 0 8
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
Sailing. Wrote a novel this past year and gave up assured income to do this. She always
will take a risk, but she needs to try and balance the situation before proceeding.
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse? And
b. What about present practices?
Not much has changed - very consistent - over the years. Have initiative, grow
things, and make things happen. Most government is conservative due to spending
money. New activities are a struggle to get started.
c. Have they changed, and if so, how?
No.
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
Same for both.
c. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
She took different levels of risk as she went up the ladder. She feels that she was
more risk-taking, as she grew older. “Call upon and she did it.”
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
The government is consistent and conservative. It is good that the government is a
bureaucracy for the government brings peaceful conclusions to issues and problems.
There is rigidity with bureaucracy, but you can do everything that you want to do.
b. What are specific examples?
It was a dumb decision to cancel the program that told when emergencies might
develop and where it would occur.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
309
Bureaucracy does not prohibit, but makes it difficult at times. This is both good and
bad.
The dampening force in government is the constraint of money.
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Both formal and informal.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
The rules were constraining (not terribly), but you can still work within them. There
are ways to work your new ideas. Just keep being persistent. Perhaps, you will need
to reeducate.
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Did not bend the rules. It was not warranted.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
Plenty of room — for national security.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
See answer #1.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
Open and explicit and continually revising. The government is not a cookbook. The
debate goes on continually. “Always changing.” This does not cause a problem. Just
not do change (major changes) too often.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 1 0
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
The structure hindered the progress of the MASINT program. The MASINT
Committee was supposed to be just like the CIO structure. Put the organization some
place where it was fostered and not reduce it to nothing like DIA was doing.
There was no clear successful way to make a decision and a solution to the
problem/program that was inexpensive enough. It was a complex questions and no
clear gospel on how to solve the issues. Just that it was not working in DIA.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Some projects did and some did not.
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
Constantly have political overtones to the projects. There is nothing in government
that isn’t political because of the money issue.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
Yes, personally.
Some individuals allowed her to move forward. Some individuals took She’s risk
taking actions personally and professionally. She had to persuade almost everyone
that her actions were correct.
“The business of business is to make a profit.” The business of the government is to
make a compromise, (consensus building)”
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work?
Most, not all.
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number?
Not enough individuals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 1 1
There are good people in government. The government seems to accept poor
performance at the lower levels more than the private sector. Most are mediocre - the
median.
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do? Go beyond the minimum
Yes. Yes. Both risk-takers and risk averters.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
Mixed - some programs did and some did not.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
She usually received it. Always a struggle to obtain finances.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project?
The needs of the government drive the project.
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
Not apply. See letter a.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
The existing system has the latitude to do what is necessary.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project did affect her personal needs.
Personal needs: individual can drive a project like education. Need to balance
personal needs and program needs for the government.
INTERVIEW GUIDE - #31
1 . What have you learned about risk-taking in government that you think would be
useful to share with others?
Not a lot of people actually perform risk-taking in government. There are some
individuals who are experienced in industry and are now in the government who do it.
He thinks he is a risk-taker and is willing to do it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 1 2
You must modify the energies if you are a risk-taker.
Steering the bureaucracy is the key.
If you understand well enough you can steer the bureaucracy. If not, you jeopardize
yourself and the program.
2. Developed a sort of philosophy about risk-taking in government?
Look for changes, new creative ideas, things that make a real difference in a program,
and/or regarding a problem in today’s world or in the country’s future. You must keep your
mind open.
You need a godfather in government to make a change/idea happen. Grab a new idea and
sell it to the bureaucracy and your management. Gain acceptance for this new idea. When
you skip people and not go through the echelon of management, etc., this is where you take
risks.
Example
Look at airborne reconnaissance. Perhaps a new way to do things. Unmanned spacecraft.
Went to the Assistant Secretary, Undersecretary, Deputy. He sold to upper management.
Upper management forced it downward to the rest of the bureaucracy. This was the
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO). John Deutch was the cornerstone of this
project. Bill Perry was a visionary.
You must find a risk-taker above you to get something done. Must not be afraid of an
impact on your career.
3. Events
a. What events triggered you to be risk-taking and/or risk averse?
He is a confident (certain of, full of conviction) of risk-taking in the government.
More adept at working the group to obtain consensus and support in the Army
Inscom. Increased the program from $350K to $13M. (Learn the system and how to
manipulate the group rapidly.)
People in government want to do something worthwhile. If you can convey this, you
can sell anything.
Optimism breeds confidence.
b. Were these similar in nature all of the time?
Yes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
313
4. People
a. Did others avoid being around you or possibly restrain your risk-taking actions?
Some people did avoid being around He. They avoided him because they were afraid
of the conflict that would occur and the degree of technical difficulty.
b. Or did they consider these actions necessary and vital for the mission?
Some people considered these actions necessary and vital for the mission. These are
the visionaries and those with an enthusiastic role in government.
The others are those who are left alone and like the government to move at a steady
state. They are unhappy with their jobs and want him to go away.
c. Did upper management agree or disagree with your risk-taking actions?
They agree and are very supportive as long as you stay in their process methodology.
You could even bend the rules if you want.
d. How did they show you?
Verbal support, promotions, and monetary rewards.
5. Values
a. Do you consider risk-taking beneficial and valuable?
Yes, risk-taking is beneficial and valuable.
b. If so, how was this trait important vital for the mission?
For the national security of the nation - poor state of the country. It is important for
the war fighter. We must do something different technically in order for our country
to survive.
6. Desires
a. Did you find risk-taking a challenge and an opportunity or did you find it a problem
and an issue to avoid?
Risk-taking is a challenge and an opportunity. Love taking risks.
b. What drove you to take risks, for example, your spirit to succeed when others were
afraid to try?
For national security.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 1 4
7. Attitudes of People
a. How did the people you worked with on the project feel about your propensity or
aversion to risk-taking?
Most liked his propensity to risk-taking.
b. Were they risk-taking or risk averse?
Most were risk-taking.
c. How did upper management feel about the proj ect?
Upper management liked it. As long as you stay in their process, they were very
supportive.
d. Did they appear to be risk-taking or risk averse?
Most were risk-taking.
e. Did they formally or informally agree with your risk actions?
Both formally and informally agreed with his risk actions.
8. Vested Interests
Did vested interests influence your proclivity for risk-taking or cause you to be risk averse?
If so, cite examples.
Vested interests caused him to be risk averse earlier in his career and in his advancement.
With the Special Operations, he failed because he did not get the right people aboard. He
did not win everyone’s hearts and minds.
9. Relationships
Did any relationships within the project’s group or organization preclude you from risk-
taking? If so, how?
No.
10. Other Activities
Did you participate in or did other activities propel or restrain your risk-taking?
He likes to gamble, sail, golf, and mutual funds in stock market - some risky.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 1 5
11. Present or Past Practices
a. Did past practices of the organization allow you to be risk-taking or did they espouse
being risk averse? and
b. What about present practices? and
c. Have they changed, and if so, how? and
d. Are the practices more conductive to risk-taking or risk aversion?
He does not think there is much difference (nothing major is different) in past and
present day practices. If an individual understands the organization and its policies,
you can manipulate the system to what you want and need. Research and
development is conductive to risk-taking.
e. Did you as an individual take more risks in the past when you were younger and
starting your career? And
f. Or did you become more risk-taking, as you were further along in your career?
He was and is a consistent risk-taker. The only difference is that his actions are
“better thought through now than earlier in his career.”
12. Institutional Policies or Norms
a. Did the institutional policies and norms bar and impede your risk-taking actions or
assist and aid you? If so, how?
There are some restrictions, but nothing stifling. You are performing “a mission”. No
one can fault you.
The policies and norms do not aid you unless you understand them completely.
You must work with these policies and norms. He has never been afraid of them.
b. What are specific examples?
None mentioned
13. Regulations
a. Were the rules formal and explicit or informal and powerful regarding risk-taking
(obeying top management commands)?
Most of the rules were informal. He would look for loose rules and guidelines.
b. Did these rules impact your project? How?
Yes, these rules impact his projects. They restricted what you can do. Must figure out
another way to do the action.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 1 6
c. Did you bend the rules in order to be risk-taking and to move your project forward?
Yes, He bent the rules, but did not break them.
14. Social and organizational trends
a. Why did your organization take risks or not take risks?
His organization (NRO) did take and is taking risks. It was very careful and very
educated (technically competent). When it took risk, see success and not failure.
Bend, but not break the rules.
b. What does the organization think is reasonable risk?
Senior people have the characteristic and are willing to take risks. There is no defined
or formal explanation of what is reasonable risk. All they want to do is to find a better
way for a technical problem.
c. Were the objectives of your organization open and explicit or unstated? Did this
cause a problem?
The objectives were open and explicit.
No, it did not cause a problem.
15. Organizational structure
a. What type of organizational structure did you work in?
Hierarchical.
b. How did the structure help or hinder the progress of your project? Did the structure
help or hinder risk taking?
Helped the progress of He’s projects.
Helped with risk taking.
When you are at the level of making policy, you can bend the rules. Significant, the
higher up you go, you take more risks.
16. Political Aspect
a. Did the project have the necessary visibility, for example, with Congress?
Yes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 1 7
b. Did you have to sell your project?
Yes.
c. Were there any political overtones to your project? If so, what were they?
You must sell to Congress as well as the top executives. In the end, He was
successful.
DRSP program had political overtones. Significant projects under certain committees
with different jurisdictional areas.
DARO - He had his first political talk. With Congressman Norman Dix.
d. Did you have problems within your agency especially with risk taking? If so, what
were they?
No.
17. Resources (Human and financial)
a. Did the people on your team have the necessary qualifications to perform and
complete the work? and
b. Experience, education, maturity level, interpersonal skills, and the right number? and
c. Did the individuals do what they were assigned to do?
The people varied. The only failure was due to the fact that He did not have the right
people.
Go beyond the minimum? Were they risk takers or risk averters? See above.
Individuals were risk takers.
d. Did the project receive a realistic amount of money to complete it?
He always needs money. Had to get money. Must build new programs and different
types of programs.
e. Did you receive the money when you needed it or was it a struggle to obtain the
finances?
A struggle.
18. Group and personal needs
a. Did the needs of the group impact the project? Restrain or drive the project? and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 1 8
b. What were these specific needs, if any?
No.
c. If a problem occurred, did you work within the existing system or bypass the issue?
Both. He most of the time worked within the existing system.
d. Did your personal needs impact the project or did the project affect your personal
needs?
The project affected his personal needs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
319
APPENDIX 3 - LIKERT SCALE FORM
The Likert Scale format is the first of three separate methodologies that was used to
analyze the interview data. This application obtains individuals’ feelings and position on
specific risk-taking elements. The Likert Scale Form lists each of the 50 sub-questions
and the main issue of the question. IfN/A appears under the Question column, for
example Question 1 and 2, the question is an unstructured question and the answer was
analyzed by the other two methodologies. The answer categories range from strongly
agree to strongly disagree.
The column titles are:
SA = STRONGLY AGREE
A = AGREE
N = NEUTRAL
D = DISAGREE
SD = STRONGLY DISAGREE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
QUESTION NO. SA A N D SD
N/A 1
N/A 2
N/A 3.a
EVENTS - SIMILAR 3.b
AVOID YOU 4.a
EVENTS - NECESSARY/VITAL 4.b
UPPER MANAGEMENT - AGREE 4.c
N/A 4.d
RISK TAKING VALUABLE 5.a
N/A 5.b
RISK TAKING - CHALLENGE 6.a-l
RISK TAKING - PROBLEM 6.a-2
N/A 6.b
COWORKERS FEEL - RISK
TAKE 7.a-l
COWORKERS FEEL - AVERSION 7.a-2
N/A 7.b
MANAGEMENT FEELINGS -
PROJ 7.c
N/A 7.d
N/A 7.e
VESTED INTERESTS -
PROCLIVITY 8.a
N/A 8.b
GROUP RELATIONSHIPS
PRECLUDE 9.a
N/A 9.b
N/A 10
PAST PRACTICES - ALLOW ll.a-1
PAST PRACTICES - PRECLUDE ll.a-2
N/A ll.b
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
321
PRESENT PRACTICES -
CHANGED ll.c-1
N/A ll.c-2
PRACTICES CONDUCTIVE -
RISK ll.d-1
PRACTICES NONCONDUCTIVE -
RISK ll.d-2
RISK TAKER @ EARLIER AGE ll.e
RISK TAKER @ LATER AGE ll.f
POLICIES IMPEDE RISK
TAKING 12.a-l
POLICIES ASIST/AID RISK
TAKING 12.a-2
N/A 12.b
N/A 13.a
RULES IMPACT PROJECTS 13.b-l
N/A 13.b-2
BEND RULES 13.c
N/A 14.a
N/A 14.b
ORG. OBJECTIVES
OPEN/EXPLICIT 14.C-1
ORG. OBJECTIVES UNSTATED 14.C-2
ORG. OBJ. - CAUSE PROBLEMS 14.C-3
N/A 15.a
ORG. STRUCTURE - HELP
PROJECT 15.b-l
ORG STRUCTURE - HINDER
PROJECT 15.b-2
ORG. STRUCTURE - HELP RISK
TAKE 15.b-3
ORG. STRUCTURE - HINDER
RISK TAKE 15.b-4
PROJECT HAVE VISIBILITY 16.a
HAD TO SELL PROJECT 16.b
POLITICAL OVERTONES ON
PROJECT 16.C-1
N/A 16.C-2
AGENCY PROB IN YOUR
AGENCY 16.d-l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
322
N/A
PROJECT STAFF QUALIFIED
STAFF
EXPERIENCED/EDUCATED
STAFF COMPLETED
ASSIGNMENTS
STAFF DID MORE THAN
MINIMUM
STAFF RISK TAKERS
STAFF RISK AVERTERS
PROJECT FUNDS ADEQUATE
PROEJCT FUNDING ON TIME
PROJECT FUNDING -
STRUGGLE
GROUP NEEDS IMPACT
PROJECT
GROUP NEEDS RESTRAIN
PROJECT
GROUP NEEDS DRIVE PROJECT
N/A
PROBLEM SOLVING W /M
SYSTEM
PROBLEM SOLVING OUTSIDE
SYSTEM
PERSONAL NEEDS - IMPACT
PROJECT
PROJECT AFFECT - PERSONAL
NEEDS
16.d-2
17.a
17.b
17.C-1
17.C-2
17.C-3
17.C-4
17.d
e-1
e-2
18.a-l
18.a-2
18.a-3
18.b
18.C-1
18.C-2
18.d-l
18.d-2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
323
APPENDIX 4 - FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
Each of the questions from the Interview Guide was grouped into one of four force
areas. The Force Field analysis Form is the second of the three methodologies that
examines the data obtained from the interviews. This form places the four Force
Groups (Individual, Group, Organization, and Institution) into the far left column
of the form. These force areas can drive (change momentum) or restrain (inhibit
momentum) the management of any R&D program depending upon how an
individual feels and acts about the specific force.
The horizontal columns allow the placement of information into a Driving or
Restraining category. If the individual’s answer indicates that he/she regard the
question as driving and assisting the program, then the number of the question is
placed under the Driving Section of the form. If an individual considers the
question as hindering and impeding the program, the number of the question would
be under the Restraining Section.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
324
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
INDIVIDUAL
GROUP
ORGANIZATION
INSTITUTION
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DRIVING RESTRAINING
# # #
# # #
# # #
# #
#
#
# #
# #
# #
# #
#
#
#
# # #
# # #
# # #
# #
# #
# #
#
#
# #
# #
# #
NOTE: # REFERS TO THE INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS GROUPED
UNDER EACH BOX
325
APPENDIX 5 - QUALITATIVE STATEMENT FORM
The Qualitative Format is the third and final methodology. This method
synopsizes specific questions that are either not analyzed or only partially
considered by the other two procedures. The application of the Qualitative
Statement Form allows an examination of each individual’s thoughts and ideas
about various aspects of risk.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
QUALITATIVE STATEMENTS
1
a 1
2
3
Learned
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
3
a 1
2
3
Events
3
b 1
2
3
Events
4
a 1
2
3
People
4
b 1
2
3
People
4
c 1
2
3
People
4
d 1
2
3
People
5
a 1
2
3
Values
5 Values
b 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
3
6 Desires
a- 1 1
2
3
6 Desires
a- 2 1
2
3
6
b 1
2
3
Desires
7
a-1 1
2
3
Attitudes
7
a- 2 1
2
3
Attitudes
7
b 1
2
3
Attitudes
7
c 1
2
3
Attitudes
7
d 1
2
3
Attitudes
7
e
2
3
Attitudes
8
a
2
3
Vested Interests
8 Vested Interests
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
b 1
2
3
9 Relationships
a 1
2
3
9
b 1
2
3
Relationships
1 0
a 1
2
Other Activities
3
1 1
a- 1 1
2
3
Practices
1 1
a- 2 1
2
3
Practices
1 1
b 1
2
3
Practices
1 1
c- 1 1
2
3
Practices
1 1
c- 2
2
3
Practices
11
d-1
2
3
Practices
1 1
d- 2 1
Practices
2
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1 3ractices
e 1
2
3
1 1 Practices
f 1
2
3
1 2 Policies
a-1 1
2
3
1 2 Policies
a- 2 1
2
3
1 2 Policies
b 1
2
3
13 Regulations
a 1
2
3
13 Regulations
b-1 1
2
3
13 Regulations
b- 2
2
3
13 Regulations
c
2
3
14 Organization
a
2
3
14 Organization
b 1
r
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
14 Organization
C -1 1
2
3
14 Organization
c- 2 1
2
3
14 Organization
c-3 1
2
3
15 Structure
a 1
2
3
15 Structure
b-1 1
2
3
15 Structure
b- 2 1
2
3
15 Structure
b-3 1
2
3
15 Structure
b-4 1
2
3
16 Political
a 1
2
3
16 Political
b 1
2
3
16 Political
c-1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
331
2
3
16 Political
c- 2 1
2
3
16 Political
d- 1 1
2
3
16 Political
d- 2 1
2
3
17 Resources
a 1
2
3
17 Resources
b 1
2
3
17 Resources
c-1
2
3
17 Resources
c- 2 1
2
3
17 Resources
c-3 1
2
3
17 Resources
c-4 1
2
2
17 Resources
d 1
r
*
17 Resources
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
e-1 1
2
3
17
e- 2 1
2
3
Resources
18
a- 1 1
2
3
Needs
18 Needs
a- 2 1
2
3
18
a-3 1
2
3
Needs
18
b 1
2
3
Needs
18
c-1 1
2
3
Needs
18
c- 2 1
2
3
Needs
18
d-1 1
2
3
Needs
18
d- 2
Needs
2
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
333
APPENDIX 6 - QUALITATIVE STATEMENTS
The Qualitative Statements are synopsized answers from the interviews that
focuses, re-examines, and explores the data centering on risk. The results from the
Likert Scale and the Force Field Analysis methodologies are reinforced by the
interviewees’ discussions regarding the various aspects of risk and their
experiences. The results of Interviewee # 1’ s interview are incorporated into
Appendix 6 for a complete picture and range of the interviews. The other thirty
interviews indicate only information obtained and will omit blank cells for which
no data was collected.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
334
QUESTION 1A
1
a 1
2
Learned
"Freedom of Action" is needed to make choices for progress. Errors made are
ess serious than not taking risks. You might have to accept a penalty to be
successful.
Higher up in management you can take more risks. The "Law of Large
Numbers" saves you.
1
a 1
2
3
Learned
Can be efficient and be a success.
Passive risk-taker - challenges employees to try new methodology - state-of-
the-art. "Come up with ideas that stretch the system."
His methodology is a challenge and opportunity to move radically ahead
technically.
1
a 1
2
Learned
Need to be tough.
This prepares you to analyze the issues and/or project and take risks.
1
1
a
2
Learned
Most in the government are risk adverse (culture). Failure is not easily
tolerated.
FERS and .com companies are changing the culture. (FERS = to the ability
and power to move around & .com companies = to rapid technical changes &
movement to other companies.)
1
1
a
2
3
Learned
Bureaucracy inhibits risk-taking. Government should/could include risk-taking
as necessary and important factor. Risk adversity inhibits progress.
Risk-taking found in one level and not in another level.
People who are risk-takers are successful & valuable. "Cowboys" are those
who prefer risk-taking.
1
a 1
2
3
Learned
Minimize risk and avoid it.
Risk-taking significantly changed over past 5-10 years due to funding, how
one does business with uncertainty, and issues made by individuals
themselves. Constant changing of programs - major factor. R&D not
"blooming again" due to politics & money.
Neither career builders nor really duly awarded.
1
1
a
2
3
Learned
Cannot mitigate risk in many cases because of the personnel you have and
inherit. Try to obtain others by nibbling around. Try to fit or mold to what they
need.
Private sector not have the personnel issue, but litigation issue.
Question really is - "How much risk is there when one has to take the risk o
avoid a cadre of personnel that you don't want in your program?"
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
335
1
1
a
2
3
Learned
Take risk if it is the only alternative (like Corona program). Others like creative
& innovative approaches.
Most successful when you have to take it.
Key to risk is management by knowledge and experience. Can't avoid risk. It
is part of engineering & intelligence business.
1
1
a
2
Learned
Technology is required if you want society to progress & become better for all.
Risk does exist with progress & technology.
The Government has "not been shown the door" by its citizens regarding the
use of technology in this way. (Citizens agree to use this methodology for
society.)
3
M. experienced few failures. Hard to convince upper management to take
risks now. Government became reactive to problems. If you take risks,
government is either a passive resistor or actively damages you.
1
1
a
2
3
Learned
Risk-taking is good. Need to stretch & grow the projects & organization due to
today's world.
Need leaders who see risk-taking as beneficial, advantageous, important &
vital for program, not a punishable offense against the individual.
Leader "must create an environment that risk-taking is necessary &
important."
1
1
a
2
3
Learned
Very hard to be a risk-taker in government. If a tiny failure or project does not
work the first time, it is considered the end of the world - "stifling". (Not like the
Corona period.)
Problem is oversight structure that is everywhere.
Must prove risk is worth taking to everyone.
1
1
a
2
3
Learned
Use risk management & have a reserve. An individuals needs to "work by
pulling the threads" (dependencies) to make the program work.
No incentives to be a risk-taker.
The culture cannot support Only successes allowed.
1
a 1
2
3
Learned
Must take risk to advance in any endeavor.
Not take risk only obtain marginal progress. Wasting taxpayer's money.
To obtain "big results" must take risk. Can take risk & succeed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
336
1
1
a
Learned
Risk-taking is not rewarded. Present culture works only for engineering work
& focuses "on not allowing the bridges to fall down." Government does seem
to looking for creativity - basic problem with CIA, NRO & DOD.
2
Individuals enjoy their positions, but not working the problem-solving element
that is the basis of life. A consensus type of development for programs exists
where there is no creativity. Progress reached a plateau.
3
Organizations are not doing forecasting. Have to go outside of the public
sector. Private industry breaks a problem into pieces & loses risk-taking
because of their bottom line, etc. There is no one doing risk-taking now.
1
1
a
Learned
"Did not take a risk, not really." Decreased risk as much as possible: (1 )
alternatives, (2 ) preparing for opposition - know more about the people, what
and how they would affect the program.
2 Program C failed because of the following: (1) cannot use creative innovative
programs in a constructed Program Office & agency bound by rules &
regulations, (2) unable to obtain R&D funding from Congress even though
they were the ones who mandated the program, 93) "When the program is
advanced research, or may not have a requirement, (4) needed extremely
strong advocates, (5) required attachment to another program to move
forward & it could not obtain this, (6 ) the Director wanted consensus since he
was a consensus person, but the business case did not address one of the
consensus issues - what intelligence value should be forthcoming? - From the
program. ("Consensus does not allow SETA work or risk-taking.")
1
1
a
Learned
Risk-taking depends upon the group you are with, the technology you are
working with & the environment you are in.
2 Significant consequences of risk-taking: (1) put the government in a better
position in the global community & individual in a better position within the
agency, (2) sought after for opinions & knowledge, 93) show the products &
services that would assist the government, move the country forward, & keep
the country strong.
3
Risk-taking is limiting & the envelope is so narrow 7 small you don't realize
how limited you really are.
1
1
a
2
3
Learned
Only a compelling need is the basis for allowing risk. Risk-takers are very
confident (only pockets of them). Pockets are decreasing because of the
expense that is larger than the thresholds.
Congress expects complete success. Congress not allow program margins
(mitigate risk).
Not have resources & the authority to do the job. Program Management is not
program management anymore.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
337
1 Learned
1
a
2
3
Only time she grew & broadened in experienced was when she took a
calculated risk.
Risk is as good as you bind it. You need a cushion or a parachute.
Support structures 9like networks) increase risk propensity. Feel more
comfortable.
1
a 1
2
Learned
Acquisition system prevents risk-taking (takes too long).
Risk-taking only appears in emergencies.
1
a 1
Learned
Majority of government in senior level are risk adverse.
2
3
Risk-taking equates to risk management.
Change risk adversity need: (1) strong mangers, or (2) only when a crisis
occurs.
1
a 1
2
3
Learned
Must have the risk environment (organization & managementO.
Must have some successes to be allowed more risk-taking.
Develop technology that can be turned over to another organization.
1
1
a
2
Learned
Individuals avoid risks, move around risk - risk aversion, or assess risk & the
impact & then minimize the dangers (most important key) - risk management.
"You must have a book in place to work around risks."
1
a 1
2
3
Learned
Risk-taking is a person's attitude.
Risk-taker is secure in his opinions or ideas.
Willing to live with the consequences of his risk-taking actions.
1
1
a
2
Learned
Take the time component element into account before risk-taking. What is
the payoff & when will it occur? Use a cost-benefit analysis must also be
done.
Take risk with individuals that you trust, respect, & confidence be first rate.
1
1
a
2
3
Learned
For some, risk-taking depends upon the culture, environment & leader of the
organization.
He is a "wild horse" (not want to be bridled).
Considers a new direction as an "adventure". Guides others to follow. Go
outside the box with creative thinking, manipulating people, etc. in order to do
this.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
338
1
a 1
Learned
Where would we be today, if we had not taken risks - Paine paraphrase
2
3
If you have mutual trust, have an increase in risk-taking. In Navy, risk-taking
not considered important. IN CIA, risk-taking highly respected. When the
NRO was united, friction occurred. Risk-taking stopped. Became a
bureaucracy. "People do not take risks because the bureaucracy will not let
them. Top management does not expect individuals to take risks."
Rewards the IC. "You must be lean, fast, continually moving & risk-taking in
order to meet the challenges and be successful." Need to be risk-taking to
recruit individuals for the organizations.
1
1
a
Learned
1960-70s the Agency understood risk and was willing to play the game.
Programs with high risk were developed in parallel. Individuals in DS&T not
accept failure.
2
Reasons for risk-taking: (1) Agency mission, (2) objectives of the Cold War,
(3) the push from the top leaders, (4) the fact that individuals were solving a
critical and national problem for the good of the country.
3 Why succeeded? (1) The President understood and was a risk-taker, (2) the
critical need for the country - national security, (3) youth of the individuals at
the Agency, (4) innovation and creativity of individuals who were all risk-
takers.
1 Learned
1
a
Risk-taking needs to be understood. Need to realize (1) the tolerance of the
environment and (2) the ambiguity of the issue. Key of how you do something
new is how you explain the ambiguity and the change to others. Must be
persistent in the face of resistance. Must be sufficiently clear with definitions
and explanations. If you can accomplish this, most individuals will go along.
2
Risks are found in unplanned actions. Use her risk model. Risk adverse
individuals do not like it.
3
Risk model: (1) Work from the future state backwards using a time sequence
methodology (stp-by-step), (2) Piece-meal work against the resistance to
change and ambiguity, (3) Try to have all requirements in advance, (4) Form a
team. (Consensus building can be both positive and negative. Need to build
a coalition, not a compromise. Compromise is a lose-lose situation.)
1
1
a
2
3
Learned
"Prefer not take risks, but risk-taking is essential to accomplis what is
necessary."
Follow process: (1) Take a reasonable risk. Do your homework, have a good
plan, facts straight and know where you are going, (2) Don't take a risk with
people (jobs and her career).
Differnet levels of risk equate to different grade levels. Upper management
takes the risker risks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
339
1 Learned
a 1
2
Those experienced in industry and are now in government do risk-taking.
Key - steering the bureaucracy. You must understand to steer safely and
successfully.
QUESTION 2A
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Balance opportunities and restraints.
Concentrate on results, not the process.
Knoledge power is much more important than position power because it is the
reaon why and motivating element of risk-taking.
2
a 1
Philosophy
Stir the pot and come up with the answer.
2
3
Risk-taking is a judgment call. No checklist on what you have to do in order to
take risks.
Must use all your experience and intelligence to be a risk-taker.
2
a 1
Philosophy
"Do the right thing" and be tough (equates to perseverance, persistance, and
flexibility).
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
'To expose yourself to hazard or danger." Embrace risk (Warren Blank's
book).
"You don't have to be smarter than others, but you need to be goal oriented &
have a follow-through attitude."
Work - do the best you can. Attack big problems. "The rest will take care of
itself."
2
a 1
2
Philosophy
Use risk management.
Must design a framework of risk into the program.
2
a 1
Philosophy
Deal with risk and formulate an individual philosophy.
2
Acceptance of risk-taking increased called risk accommodation. Difference of
accommodation due to technical difficulties and funding. NASA tried this with
Better, Faster, Cheaper method. Stated not working.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
340
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Expand your resource pool by training, rotating for experience, & attracting by
rotation.
Create environment that work is fun & people are comfortable, personnel will
gravitate toward you. Reduce program's risks. You can pick & choose
individuals.
Example: Had the freedom to talk, little conflict & sense of family in NIMA at
the beginning of the agency.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Vlust "buy down" risk as much as possible by testing &/or developing
technology.
Risk reduction is in front.
Run parallel paths with a program to eliminate risks.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Important to take risks. Government should be taking risk especially in r&d.
Upper management not really understands the issues.
"Moved on if the government organization became stuck and was not
interested in and performed r&d."
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Important reason to work & complete risk-taking program - "for the good of the
country".
Made a difference.
Risk-taking in reality is a history of her work & career over the years.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Creates a risk-nurturing environment. Acts as a buffer for her staff.
You don't need to be smarter than others. Need logic & common sense to
succeed.
Don't find this type of behavior in operations.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Managers & leaders need to intuitively know which are risk-takers or risk-
averters. Know by gauging over time what a person has done & how he
reacted.
Use Meyers-Briggs.
Pioneer (risk-takers) - Planter theory (risk averters).
2
a 1
2
Philosophy
Must manage risk (risk management).
Technology must be ready.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
341
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Risk-taking equates to "how do people solve problems?" Want to develop
analytical methodology to move forward. Solving problems regardless of
regardless of rewards & distractions. Basis - define & solve the problem.
Using an analog already used for a new problem without reorienting the
problem can lead to disasters, not a solution. Need to characterize the
elements of the problem since multi-disciplinary issues exist. Risk-takers are
not necessary loved with the Agency or on the outside.
Mission of the group was to take quantum leaps where the payoff is large &
the probability to fail is high. Given authority to fail. Given more money for
problems, if you were successful. Worked with Nobel Laureates. Go
anywhere in the world for answers.
When you're out on a limb must have escape mechanism such as science &
measurement. Leave a way to others for others to carry on. Must not even
thing that you can fail.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
A big problem for R&D - "It takes two decades to do something new & different
as new technology." Individuals do not want to hear about new technology
because today’s processes are not in place for R&D program (Program C
equates to Graham Allison's Model III - government Politics.)
Let the Program Manager build the first increment of the new system without
interference. Need a documented requirement from the customer.
Obtain the decision. Implement the decision the way it should be done, not
the way another individual thinks it should be done.
2
a 1
Philosophy
Too many rules. Today risk adverse.
2
a 1
2
Philosophy
Could not have made the progress the country has or become the number one
nation in the world without risk-taking. Risk adverse behavior equates to a
consensus group. Must make new things happen by yourself.
Today, women are doing thins with groups of people, not as individuals.
Could not have accomplished what she did without risk-taking. Environment &
culture were against females working especially as a scientist & researcher.
Did her Master's dissertation with a computer - the first time done.
3
Wrote the first computer program on double precision mathematics - now in
the Smithsonian as a major stepping stone. One of ten individuals selected by
Admiral Rickover to work on the atomic submarine.
2
a 1
Philosophy
Risk-taking changes throughout life - "competing dimensions."
2
a 1
Philosophy
See #1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
342
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Do thing outside the charter or standards (rules & regulations).
Leaders are more risk-taking than managers.
Leaders must find more creative ways.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Manage risk, not be risk adverse.
Need a process in place to manage risk.
Actively train and hold individuals accountable.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Likes a big risk (high risk with big payoffs equates to success).
Do learn something with mistakes.
Mitigate risks by using a stage process (conservative approach - small amount
of money.
2
a 1
Philosophy
Risk management elements: (1) planning, (2) resources - besides people,
money, on schedule. Must build hooks in place to work around risks. (3)
empowerment, (4) flexibility.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
You cannot progress without risk-taking.
Needs to have intelligent thought-out risks. Take the risks & go forth. Majority
in government not take risks.
Government workers do not do anything regarding risk. While in the private
sector where the bottom line is money, individuals take risks.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Good planning & understand everything.
When you take a risk, there is both a benefit & a downside for the program.
Must have confidence for yourself.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Likes calculated risk-taking. The plan/scheme might vary due to situation,
personalities, technological problem, & new administration issues.
"Luck just doesn't happen, you must prepare for it."
Prepare by (1) listen 7 and learn, (2) pick-up patterns, (3) stake out a position,
(4) what-if theories, (5) wait for an opportunity, (6 ) turn up the heat, (7) watch
for indicators regarding problems, & (8 ) run his escape routine, if necessary.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
People should take risks. It is good for them.
Must understand success 7 failure. Failure is not the end of their professional
life or personal life.
Cannot be defeated by lack of success.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
343
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Government has lost its risk-taking ability. Turned over all work to contractors.
As a result influences whom the Government selects to do the work.
Companies more powerful than the Government (one agency in particular)
because the Government changes every 18 months.
Government teams consisting of the manager, security officer, contracting
officer and the technical individual no longer exists.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Must remember the future state is not static. You become smarter as you
become closer to the objective. Might have to change your method, for
example, with spiral development.
DOD cannot do spiral development.
The biggest risks to the organization are the individuals who want to follow the
original determined set path. It might not be the one that will work.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
"Only take risks when an end result is very important."
MAS I NT Community reorganization was important to the program and to
career, the country and IC.
Constantly push advancement of new technology. When a crisis occurs,
country invests in new ideas and technology.
2
a 1
2
3
Philosophy
Keep our mind open for new idea. Need a godfather in government to make a
change happen (sell it).
Not go through echelon of management and skip. This is where you take
risks.
Must not be afraid of impact on your career.
QUESTION 3A
3
a 1
Events
An insufferable arrogance due to his education level - personal attribute.
3
a 1
2
Events
Problems that others did not thing could be solved.
Problems that are interesting and a challenge.
3
a 1
2
Events
Saw a need for the programs ahead of others.
If the program's (national and international in scope) not formulated and
implemented, the country would be at risk (national security).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 44
3
a 1
2
3
Events
Learned to be self-reliant & self-supporting at early age.
Very competitive & goal-oriented behavior.
Can't separate risk & how we deal with risk from the person.
3
a 1
2
Events
"Chances that 90% of money spent on failures with a 10% success rate for
investment. Problem was so important had to attempt the program."
Need prudent risk-taking. (Sell your layout of the program & have alternative
solutions to the problem - key.)
3
a 1
Events
Came form risk averse culture and experiences as a youngster.
3
a 1
2
3
Events
"If they only realized, they could venture and not lose a thing. What are they
afraid of? They can't be fired.”
Last 10-20 years creative individuals not join the government.
Became task driven versus creative.
3
a 1
2
Events
Risk-taking for national security.
Only method to solve the problem was to take a risk. Historically, the only
proven way.
3
a 1
2
3
Events
Entered organization that were floundering & wanted to turn things around.
(Receptive to idea & risk-taking actions.)
Sensed an opportunity. Pursued it. Moved quickly when the time was right.
When M. started Project C in 1983-4, he could be creative & a free thinker.
This attitude & characteristics was encouraged to a very high degree.
3
a 1
2
3
Events
1960s pursued a career unheard of (female). Not in position of authority.
After 8 years, A set specific goals throughout her career.
Program K - volunteered to complete the troubled project. Must work with the
rest of DOD. Important for national security. Program L - started new group
that was unpopular. Central Imaging Office - defined USIGS architecture as
director. Pulled together all national imagery.
Critical aspect & goal of risk-taking action must be very important & have
major objectives for the country's security. Must have a degree of comfort that
you can do the job.
3
a 1
2
3
Events
When C ran Area X, had to make decisions with incomplete information.
How do individuals make decisions? (1) keep requiring information, (2) make
a judgment at some point.
Government decisions are risk-taking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
345
3 Events
a 1
2
3
:actors for risk-taking. (1) Depends on the schedule & the amount of time to
complete requirements for the customer. Not want to fail.
2) Took a risk if he could minimize the failure. (3) Shorter the schedule, the
greater the risk.
During the last 5% of the project a lot of effort occurs that is not really
necessary for the success of the project.
3
a 1
2
3
Events
Charterized as mission critical & compelling national need.
Developed a new revolutionary program - a pioneer effort (new materials,
communications & design). Congress gave money four times that was very
unusual. Worked 24/7. The contractor took large risks also. All three factors
- cost, schedule and performance - came together. People had fun working
on the program.
Program B involved revolutionary capabilities through new technology. Could
not be applied because it did not work. It did produce valuable results.
3
a 1
Events
Worked on cameras, infrared issues, night vision, paramilitary problems,
communication issues. Discovered problems regarding Russia during the
Cold War. Threats to national security.
3
a 1
Events
Making major steps & orders of magnitude in advancement.
3
a 1
2
Events
Need position where he had more power & authority.
Right environment.
3
a 1
2
3
Events
National needs.
Built first generators that utilized different technologies that decreased
pollution.
Started the synthetic fuel industry & companies.
3
a 1
2
3
Events
Part of OD&E culture and environment. Find a problem fix the problem. Risk
is a condition of a problem (first time he talked about risk in this question).
Risk-taking attribute must be analytical.
Leaders communicate a vision to do the project & fact risk (develop a new
generation of risk-takers).
3
a 1
2
3
Events
A conviction & a direction that you want to go.
Take incremental steps & ask if direction is correct.
Binding the risk.
3
a 1
Events
Learned from childhood (farmer) & by virtue of his jobs in the military
(environment).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
346
3
a 1
Events
Learned with lessons through observation of risk-taking.
3
a 1
Events
Back to childhood days. Looks for the problems to solve.
2
Three elements lead him to be risk-taking. (1 ) stubbornness (personality), (2)
scientific integrity, (3) his principles
3
a 1
2
Events
Utilize risk management.
Have flexible plans - 'The key is planning."
3
a 1
2
Events
Trust in your own judgment & you can take risks.
Had difficult with taking risks involving his judgment of people.
3
a 1
Events
Composed of a large upside potential factor and a minor downside element
(qualitative).
3
a 1
Events
Family always has been risk-taking.
3
a 1
Events
What he wanted to do with his life.
3
a 1
Events
Characteristics of risk-taking events: (1) nature of mission, (2) importance for
the country, (3) need to see the whole picture of the mission - above and
below, (4) risk is an integral part of all aspects and elements of the program
and agency.
3
a 1
Events
Digitizing maps, the reorganization of the agency.
2 She is a risk-taking individual.
3
a 1
Events
National security.
3
a 1
2
3
Events
Obtain consensus and support.
Optimism breeds confidence.
Want to do something worthwhile.
QUESTION 3B
3
b 1
Events
Always younger than the rest of the individuals. Wanted to prove himself -
very risk-taking.
3
b 1
Events
Not look for the easy way out ("the hard way").
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
347
3 Events
b 1
2
Risk-taking perhaps inherent in the nature of a person.
Leadership & risk are very similar.
3
: ear of failure. Perhaps indicate a tendency towards being risk averse, but it
has opposite effect. Try innovative approaches, never give up. More risk-
:aking.
3
b 1
2
3
Events
Structure inhibits positive actions & prudent risk-taking.
Design alternative solutions to the problems.
Need to be salesmen when laying out the program and the risk issues.
3
b 1
Events
"A hodge-podge" in nature. Similar - how organization formulated, issue of
minimal funding, & rapidly changing technology drives.
3
b 1
2
3
Events
How people perceive work in government?
Try Technology Integration center at DARPA. Broke a government mold.
Increase progress & advance programs farther.
Interprogram capability issue. Network & fuse senior people. Increase SETA.
3
b 1
2
Events
Avoid taking too many risks & being around risk-taking individuals. You'll end
up with a bad reputation.
Longer you work, you develop an instinct with contractors (and their risk
tolerance) & individuals in the Program Office.
3
b 1
2
3
Events
Void exists between near-term & strategic thinking & planning in Government.
Never consciously pursue his risk-taking actions.
3 Events
b 1
2
Inner sense - gut feeling - told her to go ahead and do project z.
R&D is making decision without all the information - risky.
3
b 1
Events
Always looked for different ways to work a program. New technology has the
best chance to transition you to a better position.
3
b 1
Events
Freedom to determine what a problem was with unlimited resources.
3 Events
b 1
2
Office pushes SETA.
National mission.
3
b 1
Events
Based on something that has never been done or steps taken before.
3
b 1
Events
Need to break a mold to move ahead.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
348
3
b 1
Events
if impact of failure would fail mission objectives, not take the risk.
3
b 1
2
Events
Work in a tightly controlled base (foundation).
How does it work?
3
b 1
Events
Wanted to have a challenge.
3
b 1
2
3
Events
Allowed from early childhood to venture out and try things - test the
boundaries.
Understood that it was okay to fail because you learn.
Individuals should be allowed versus trained to take risks. Obtain a better
risk-taker.
3
b 1
Events
Events different for different levels and career points. (1) lower - money, (2)
whole programs - mid-level, (3) senior - organizational issues. Mechanisms
are the same for all levels.
QUESTION 4A
4
a 1
People
Occasional tried to restrain. Gave individuals a bureaucratic administrative
job.
4
a 1
People
Felt the task was to avoid risk because the benefits were not obvious.
4
a 1
2
People
His supervisor did not want to take risks because of possible reprimands &
penalties.
Upper management had to sell in order to obtain a new program manager.
You couldn't fail because everyone thought that it was going bad anyway.
4
a 1
People
Integrity is a gray word like risk. Others are risk averse. Dennis viewed
himself as a conservative risk-taker.
4
a 1
People
Not avoided her but resented her because she was a woman & a risk-taker.
Others respected her, but not comfortable.
4
a 1
2
People
Difficult to get things done due to the oversight issue & the customers.
Inherent in the bureaucracy that allows restrainment of risk to happen.
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
349
4
a 1
People
I you could prove the concept operationally & test it, people would be
proactive and gain "full-commitment".
4
a 1
People
Picked people that had the same risk philosophy - team approach.
4
a 1
2
People
Individuals are too afraid of fall-out & failure.
NRO is risk adverse. Not know how to manage risk.
4
a 1
People
The MASINT community is different than the others - individuals have to work
to secure a place.
QUESTION 4B
4
b 1
People
Most individuals knew to be ahead of the curve, you need to be risk-taking.
4
b 1
People
ndividuals not push themselves and did not enter into new problem areas
perhaps due to the fact the agency had trouble covering issues mandated by
aw and Congress.
4
b 1
People
Made a decision in the middle of the night regarding a problem. Thought
through what other individuals would have asked, contributed or said about
the issue.
4
b 1
People
Considered him " a lightening rod 9where progress could be made) & a
breath of fresh air.”
4
b 1
People
Not a good fit with the organization according to her SES peers.
4
b 1
People
Obtain more respect when you make a risky decision.
4
b 1
People
The challenge is to develop followers & to mitigate apprehension.
4
b 1
People
Her actions had never been thought about since they were never done before.
Not know if risky or not.
2 People she worked with were comfortable with her risk-taking propensity.
4
b 1
2
People
Obtain energy from people below you (know what is right and are with you).
Know your reputation even if program is pooh-poohed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 50
4
b 1
2
People
Worked around rules (or aka as envelope of comfort).
Risk adverse individual become followers.
4
b 1
2
People
J. only worked for the public sector. Not like the private sector. Capitalism
can have slimy contractors.
Need a reason to be a risk-taker.
4
b 1
People
His team is still proud of what they did as a team.
4
b 1
2
People
Necessary and vital are visionaries in government.
Others afraid of conflict and technical difficulty.
QUESTION 4C
4
c 1
People
One who disagreed was briefed as little as possible.
4
c 1
People
Most disagree. More conservative because they were closer to the director
with his power and authority.
4
c 1
2
3
People
Adopted his style to be non-threatening to all (including those who were risk
adverse) so he could undertake risk-taking actions.
Learned to work people, actions, & specific organizations.
When upper management became stuck (risk adverse), moved on to another
opportunity.
4
C 1
2
People
Constantly had to justify her actions.
Successful history important for their analysis for whether she was wanted or
not.
4
C 1
People
Not a typical & normal upper management. Regarded as "patrons who had a
different set of attributes & arrangements.
4
c 1
2
People
Ignore or support you is fine.
When upper management stops you, they overtly oppose your program.
4 People
c 1 Developed work arounds with averse people.
4
c 1
People
Upper management supportive if you stay in their process methodology. Can
bend rules.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
QUESTION 4D
351
4 Peopie
d 1
More responsible riskier programs. Became Deputy Director of NRL at a very
young age.
4
d 1
2
3
People
Just told Jim "no".
Most of the time relationships were good.
Received promotions and bonuses.
4
d 1
People
Some acted jealous and had a hidden agenda. Some helped and assisted to
resolve the problems.
4
d 1
People
Chewed out numerous times, but at the end received Director's Award for
Excellence.
4
d 1
People
Upper management told everyone that the decision was valid and necessary.
4
d 1
People
Upper management agreed if individuals wanted to take risks and used a
logical argument.
4
d 1
People
No active or passive support. Too hard & painful.
4
d 1
People
Answered questions with detailed answers. Resolved potential
disagreements.
4
d 1
People
Became more bureaucratic and/or not allow to start new projects or continue
with projects.
4
d 1
People
Gave her harder & harder assignments.
4
d 1
2
People
The Director supported her decision with the DCI & the Joint Chiefs.
Nature of the job is risk and upper management needs to support you.
4
d 1
People
Approves & disapproves programs.
4
d 1
People
People were conservative in the beginning because the ideas were new &
extremely risky. Bill was successful & received kudos & promotions.
4
d 1
People
Give more money for finding & solving new problems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
352
4 People
d 1
2
The Director of the agency agreed while J's management disagreed.
Eventually the program was cancelled.
4
d 1
2
People
Not have to ask permission first.
Bonuses, promotions, more authority.
4 People
d 1
n one example, the Secretary of Energy & Congress supported her. Asked
or $3B & received $30B.
4
d 1
People
By promotions, etc.
4
d 1
People
Formally told her timing was not right to push forward with her program.
4
d 1
People
Moved technology to other venues - become "national asset"- not just for the
Air Force.
4
d 1
People
J told him to take smaller steps.
4
d 1
2
People
Go to others if he didn't receive support.
Find other projects that paralleled his main project.
4
d 1
People
Backed up his actions, etc. If they didn't, S would have moved to another job.
4
d 1
People
Bonuses, promotions, bigger projects with more responsibilities.
4
d 1
People
Showed by informal statements at a required weekly group meeting about not
risk-taking.
4
d 1
2
3
People
Modify or terminate a risk if a problem occurred.
Those that agreed became partners in crime, worked as a team, maximize
efforts, get synergy.
Those that disagreed R would fight, argue & go into a tug of war.
4
d 1
People
Upper management just wanted him to be careful.
4
d 1
2
3
People
Agency is unique. Ideas percolated from the bottom to the top.
All encouraged and supported. Get direct feedback at the lowest level.
Receive awards. Money was not an issue.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
353
4
d 1
2
People
Promote and received major awards from DOD.
More responsibilities.
4
d 1
People
Verbal support, promotions, and monetary rewards.
QUESTION 5A
5 Values
a 1 Pick and choose instinctively (by gut feeling).
5 Values
a 1 "The new generation must utilize and study risk" for progress.
5 Values
a 1 For government & society to progress & become better for all its citizens.
5 Values
a 1 This definition is relative based on a decision to be made.
5 Values
a 1
"Nothing ventured, nothing gained." If risk-taking is worth doing & the
benefit/gains warrants the risk.
5 Values
a 1 "Yes, absolutely.' May complete the project and/or program.
5 Values
a 1 Outcome must be important enough.
5 Values
a 1 National security.
QUESTION SB
5
b 1
2
Values
Gave young educated individuals more risk-taking projects.
Result - successful. Win for customer, NRL, young individuals, and for the
money flow.
5
b 1
2
Values
Many problems would not have been solved.
The welfare of the nation is in a more advantageous position.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
354
5
b 1
2
Values
Discovered new problems. Solutions important to national security.
Results included a primer written on about a national problem and the first
oint liaison group with a foreign country.
5
b 1
Values
Very critical since NIMA is in its formative stages with budget fluctuations &
rapidly changing technology.
5
b 1
2
Values
For progress and increasing the capabilities of the country.
Some organizations or areas in the organization take more risks than others.
5
b 1
2
Values
Manage risk to progress.
Success rate is how one manages risk and uncertainties.
5 Values
b 1
2
3
Need for employees to be proactive e & react to problems as challenges &
issues to be solved, not a roadblock (environment).
DARPA: high risk, high payoff environment. Not afraid to fail. Congress &
Pentagon agree that the agency's mission is to take risks.
Agencies & individuals afraid of failure & being labeled. Also problems with
peer pressure.
5
b 1
2
Values
Risk is doing something that you are not sure of regarding technology,
scheduling, & finances.
Need to do risk-taking actions so that the mission is completed.
5
b 1
2
3
Values
Mission inherently needs risk-taking actions to be completed.
A risk mitigator would take a lesser way where trades were programmatic
rather than technical.
Never gave up perfection or SETA gadgets & software.
5
b 1
2
3
Values
If you don't utilize risk-taking, will not have a successful completion.
Feels tremendous satisfaction & a rush when she pulls the program off.
"It is fun to take risks."
5
b 1
2
3
Values
To complete the program.
National security is at stake.
Risk-taking is fundamental in R&D and space.
5
b 1
2
Values
Cannot make progress.
Characteristic of an effective leader.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
355
5
b 1
2
Values
To make leaps in progress.
Must be innovative in process & technology.
5
b 1
2
Values
Can't complete missions that must be completed successfully. The burden is
that you will lose people.
To create & solve a problem & be successful, you might have to use
philosophical concepts 1 , 0 0 0 years old or math theory 1 0 0 years old.
5
b 1
Values
Allowed Program C to progress technically & prepared the Program Manager
for resistance & opposition.
5
b 1
Values
Gain time - savings, possible financial savings & better capabilities.
5
b 1
2
Values
Important personally & with whomever she worked with. Worked with
agencies or in jobs that had not existed before - helped originate DIA.
Agency should only have 10% risk-taking individuals, 90% of risk averse or
other types.
3
90% will continue to improve the processes & to keep the steady 9stable)
state going.
5
b 1
Values
Obtain objectives of the mission.
5
b 1
2
Values
"If you don't take a risk, you are not living." (In here Bible)
It is rational, directional & objective.
5
b 1
2
Values
Risk-taking is progress.
Without it, progress is stymied.
5
b 1
2
3
Values
Success of mission depends on how you deal with risk.
Formulate the proper balance between risk-taking & risk adverse actions.
Key in program management is risk management.
5
b 1
2
3
Values
Obtain goal had to be risk-taking.
Persevere even if mistakes are made. See the problem; find the smartest
people and go.
Dedicated, disciplined, focused & principled.
5
b 1
2
3
Values
Key - risk exists.
Risk is the price you pay to progress.
Risk management is the tool to maximize benefits from a program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
356
5
b 1
2
3
Values
f you don't take risks, cannot get the job done.
Some risk-taking will pan out; some will not.
"Risk is essential."
5
b 1
Values
What the upside will do for the mission & the program.
5
b 1
Values
Brings direction, synergy, break or build the situations.
5
b 1
Values
If J stayed within the box, not make any progress whatsoever.
5
b 1
Values
When you win, you win big.
5
b 1
2
Values
Enables the mission (the now) and the vision (the futureO of the organization
to be reached. (Mission incorporates minimal risk-taking. Vision is where the
largest risk-taking is needed to accomplish the objectives of the project.)
Need both mission and vision for the organization.
5
b 1
Values
Must take risks, if you want large changes.
5 Values
b 1 Do something technically different.
QUESTION 6A-1
6
a-1 1
Desires
NIMA sees risk-taking as a problem & an issue.
6
a-1 1
Desires
Risk-taking is a challenge (not necessarily an opportunity) since you must
have risk mitigation plans before you act.
6 Desires
a-1 1 Risk-taking is necessary and a necessity.
6 Desires
a-1 1 Risk-taking is intellectual stimulation.
QUESTION 6 A-2
6 Desires
a- 2 1 New world necessitates a clear diametrically opposite viewpoint, not to avoid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
357
QUESTION 6B
6
b 1
2
3
Desires
Solve government problems and increase the health of the nation. Forced the
issues in order for the nation to be in a better position.
Advocates an underdog philosophy - better than the rest of the world.
Wanted his agency to be superior especially with state-of-the-art programs.
6
b 1
2
Desires
To help the country and the Federal Government.
Three basic elements are needed to succeed in a program - a mission,
enough money, and internal management who know what to do with the
finished results/information.
6
b 1
Desires
National security and a national interest at stake.
6
b 1
2
Desires
Knew it was the right thing to do and had the ability to make a difference.
Loyalty to his country.
6
b 1
Desires
Could do more for the mission (increased productivity and better efficiency).
6 Desires
b 1 He is a cavalier & a maverick. Hates bureaucracy.
6
b 1
2
Desires
If you want to be success, take risks.
Circumstances dictated that he had to take risks.
6
b 1
2
Desires
Saw opportunities when others did not see them.
For some even his language was too risky.
6
b 1
2
Desires
Driven for the country's safety.
Once had to work at a faster pace to make up for time lost due to two
problems ("the big creep issue and the big band theory").
6
b 1
2
Desires
Differences between individuals - Where is the threshold that makes
individuals happy & allows them to make a decision or How large is the delta?
(Sufficient delta information to make a decision).
A risk-taker has a smaller delta than others (larger risk-taking actions occur).
6
b 1
Desires
Wanted to move forward & an opportunity to excel.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
358
6
b 1
2
Desires
Fascinating & fun to take risks.
Can find different ways & methods to manage risk.
6
b 1
2
Desires
Wanted to make quantum leaps, be creative & innovative for national security.
Must take risks to complete the mission.
6
b 1
Desires
Wanted to make quantum leaps forward for the agency & the country.
6
b 1
2
3
Desires
To succeed.
A clear imperative - national security.
Makes the job more interesting.
6
b 1
2
3
Desires
Need for government. Exciting to do. To accomplish the mission. Possible
government need for the project's outcome(s)) at a future date. Today,
government does not have risk-taking assets.
Reasons for going into the government: (1) jobs are interesting, (2) if
government does not have assets, could be hanging out on a clothesline.
Risk adversity is cultivated by the inability to reward in normal ways (awardsO
& it feeds upon itself.
6
b 1
Desires
If there were sufficient gains to warrant the risk, J would take the risk. (The
problem is what is the definition for what are sufficient gains.)
6
b 1
Desires
Felt compelled. "Get off your butt & do it."
6
b 1
Desires
See something positive in a situation instead of "throwing up his hands &
driving away."
6
b 1
Desires
Has a good risk management process & mitigation strategy - no surprises.
6
b 1
Desires
Mission of the program - for his country.
6
b 1
2
Desires
Need for information is the reason for risk-taking/
Must manage risk-taking & risk takers.
6
b 1
Desires
"Risk-taking is one way to have fun & do interesting things. You also learn
new things."
6
b 1
Desires
Focused on the benefits for the program & national security.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
359
6
b 1
Desires
Spirit to succeed broke new ground, outside the box thinking, & the challenge.
6
b 1
Desires
Motivated by challenges, creativity, and innovation - loves change, not money
or promotions.
6
b 1
2
Desires
Always looking for innovators. Study at the Agency - "How do you find
innovators?"
Results - innovator are interested in a broad view of everything. Agency
expanded into new areas and applications. Decreased risks, existing
problems, and Congresses' needs and requirement.
6
b 1
2
Desires
A natural bent for risk-taking in the right environment.
Enjoys ideas.
3 Likes "to make a difference."
6
b 1
2
3
Desires
Risks taken resulted in something important.
Risk-taking is a necessary evil, but it is not necessary to actively avoid it."
6
b 1
2
Desires
National security.
Love to take risks.
QUESTION 7A-1
7
a-1 1
Attitudes
Worked extremely hard to make the projects successful.
2
Removed risk averse individuals and/or solved the problem by doing deep
selects (chose people like him to promote to leadership positions.)
7
a-1 1
Attitudes
Acted as a "conductor". Chose people who he felt could go in the right
direction.
7
a- 1 1
2
Attitudes
"A turtle must stick his head out in order to progress."
Became a taker-taker due to his education (MPA) and his family culture.
7
a-1 1
Attitudes
Mixed propensity and adversity.
7
a-1 1
Attitudes
You are leading the organization. D. worked with and through the individual's
issues regarding his rationale behind his decisions. Made a comfort level.
7
a-1 1
Attitudes
Chose 1/2 risk-taking individuals. !/2 were risk adverse.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
360
7 Attitudes
a-1 1
2
3
Program K team specially selected for doing new & different things on a dally
basis.
With Program L took three years to become a stable organization (obtaining
same type of people who were risk-takers).
Brought 60% of population into the organization. Organization was in a stable
state. Need to inspire organization into risk-taking. A leader must
communicate the mission to the people - critical.
7
a-1 1
Attitudes
Felt secure & safe. C was the contributing factor to good morale.
7
a-1 1
2
Attitudes
Need to have a diverse workforce of risk-taking & risk adverse individuals.
Effective leaders need a diverse workforce because they will bring other ideas
up.
7
a-1 1
2
Attitudes
People asked, "What is he going to do next?"
His mission in his life was his career & risk-taking was a major portion &
important element.
7
a- 1 1
2
Attitudes
Met with resistance by some. When a change in the business methodology,
would result due to a new program, people become risk adverse. People like
incremental change.
If a customer wanted a program, then the results would be different.
7
a-1 1
Attitudes
Negative feedback occurred only for learning.
7
a-1 1
2
Attitudes
Comfortable since she was taking the risks.
Received benefits from her work.
7
a-1 1
Attitudes
Provides an environment that focuses on certain qualities & out-of-the-box
thinkers.
7
a-1 1
2
Attitudes
Find the best people within the organization & in the world.
Benefit the country & an interesting problem.
7
a-1 1
2
Attitudes
Had faith with him. If risk adverse, put someone else into that same position.
Everyone (SO, CO, secretaries) would play the "what-if" game. Decreased
risks of the program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
361
QUESTION 7A-2
7
a- 2 1
Attitudes
Risk adverse individuals drove others nuts.
7
a- 2 1
Attitudes
Most individuals who worked for J and upper management stated that he was
an extremely risk adverse individual.
QUESTION 7B
7 Attitudes
b 1 All risk-takers. Had to succeed.
7 Attitudes
b t iRisk-taking.________________
7
b 1
Attitudes
Too conservative about not taking risks.
7
b 1
Attitudes
People are looking for someone that they can trust & a good environment.
"Follow you almost over the cliff." Be protective of the leader.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Both types.
7
b 1
Attitudes
1 / 2 and 1 / 2 (retired in place).
7
b 1
Attitudes
Risk-takers.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Most were risk-takers.
7 Attitudes
b 1 Risk-taking.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Risk averse.
7
b 1
2
Attitudes
Past - risk-taking.
Today, many are risk averse.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Not a world for risk-taking. Not think of themselves as risk adverse.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
362
7
b 1
Attitudes
Both types.
7
b 1
2
Attitudes
Peers shun her.
Risk adverse.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Risk-takers.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Both types based on their personalities & levels of experience (professional
maturity level). Over time they will get positive reinforcement & learn.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Risk-taking.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Risk-taking.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Both types.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Depended on the individuals understanding of the technical problems.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Risk averse.
7
b 1
2
Attitudes
All the things he accomplished probably would not be considered risks.
People trusted his experience & judgment.
Conviction that this is your job. You have calculated risks.
7
b 1
Attitudes
People that she worked with in the past are analysts, not risk-takers.
7
b 1
2
Attitudes
Risk-takers.
Making a decision is risk-taking. Decision-making is a function of government.
7
b 1
Attitudes
Most were risk-taking.
QUESTION 7C
7
c 1
2
Attitudes
In one case, B wanted to do state-of-the-art, not normal deployment as the
Vice-President wanted.
Extremely nervous about a possible battle with competitors (political) in
another case.
7
c 1
Attitudes
Assistant Director wanted him to do Project Y (had to be under deep cover).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
363
7
c 1
Attitudes
Formally said no because they couldn't explain the issues.
7
c 1
Attitudes
Important for national interests and security.
7
c 1
Attitudes
Told him to be careful.
7
c 1
Attitudes
No sure. Put his reputation on the line.
7
c 1
Attitudes
Both formally & informally agreed.
7
c 1
2
3
Attitudes
Manage risk too tightly.
Consequences are too high.
Need to consider upper management when exploring possible risk-taking
actions.
7
c 1
Attitudes
Encouraged risk-takers only if they were not responsible for the end product.
Not want anything bad to happen on their watch.
7
c 1
Attitudes
Risk-taking and risk adverse.
7
c 1
Attitudes
Shun her until they see how the project is coming.
7
c 1
Attitudes
Higher up you go in management, more risk adverse.
QUESTION 7D
7
d 1
Attitudes
Both types.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Appeared to be risk-takers, but really risk adverse. Risks came from within
the organization - "an internal bureaucratic minefield".
7
d 1
Attitudes
Were risk-takers because the worse case had happened.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Risk adverse.
7
d 1
Attitudes
"Avoiding risks in today’s world is not a safe path to walk."
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
364
7
d 1
Attitudes
Risk averse.
7
d 1
Attitudes
More risk-taking in earlier times compared to today.
7
d 1
2
Attitudes
Upper management in their hearts agreed with his actions, but they sold out.
The real reason - why - upper management wanted promotions, etc. This
issue bothered him not to tell the truth.
Five years before, upper management promoted risk-takers. He was ore
positive & proactive to make a successful program.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Risk-taking.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Formally & informally agree.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Encourage & promote risk-taking.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Risk-taking and risk adverse.
7
d 1
Attitudes
The Director of the agency agreed while J's management disagreed.
7
d 1
2
Attitudes
Past - risk-taking.
Today, many are risk averse.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Both types.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Both types. Important for national security & future endeavors. Find a
solution to the problem and complete the mission.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Risk adverse.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Adverse to the way the program occurs, but likes the innovation, the creation
and successes.
7 Attitudes
d 1
Upper management is just starting to informally agree with risk-taking if the
risk-takers adequately explain the whys.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Both risk-taking & risk averse.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Risk-taking when he was there.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
365
7
d 1
Attitudes
Mostly risk-taking.
7
d 1
2
Attitudes
Upper management, if risk averse, can increase the probability of failure.
"Cost of not taking a risk can far exceed the downside of not taking the risk."
7
d 1
Attitudes
Risk averse.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Most were risk-taking.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Risk-taking.
7
d 1
2
Attitudes
Risk-takers are the top.
Others were a mixture of risk-takers and risk averters.
7
d 1
Attitudes
Both risk-taking and risk averse.
QUESTION 7E
7 Attitudes
e 1 Most of the time formally and informally agreed.
7
e 1
Attitudes
Informally agreed. Utilized "rock management" (what is reasonable risk, but
cannot define it).
7
e 1
2
Attitudes
Both formal and informal. Depends upon the activities.
Informal allowed him to do the job and not ask how he was going to do it.
Very goal-oriented.
7
e 1
Attitudes
Formally agreed.
7
e 1
2
Attitudes
When upper management heard the reasoning behind proposed risk-taking
actions, they usually agreed formally.
Essential for national interests.
7
e 1
Attitudes
Prevailing attitude is that 80% solution to a technical problem is good enough.
7
e 1
2
Attitudes
Informally and passively agree.
Formally - may abandon you in a minute. Not see a formal agreement very
often. "Lack of responsibility" to back their managers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
366
7 Attitudes
e 1 Formally & informally agree.
2 Developed a personal relationship with them.
3 Had to show & prove that he was a "prudent risk-taker."
7 Attitudes
e 1 Informally agreed, formally disagreed. Before they formally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Both formally & informally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1
Both formally & informally. Discourage use of new technology unless it makes
a real difference in cost & reliability (similar to the commercial sector like the
recall on tires. Technology was not mature).
7 Attitudes
e 1 Both formal and informally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Informally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Informally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Both formally & informally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Informally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Informally agree.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Formally & informally agree.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Informally.
7 Attitudes
e 1
2
Formally agreed, informally afraid for themselves (not want to be burned).
Risk-taking must not sit back, but be in front educating & obtaining the right
individual.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Informally agreed with S. by empowering him.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Both formally & informally agreed with taking-taking actions.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Both formally & informally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Both formally & informally.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
367
7 Attitudes
e 1 Formally & informally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Both formally and informally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Both formally and informally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Formally agreed.
7 Attitudes
e 1 Both formally and informally.
QUESTION 8A
8
a 1
Vested Interests
Risk-taking and in one case risk averse.
8
a 1
Vested Interests
Only when protecting his position.
QUESTION 8B
8
b 1
2
3
Vested Interests
Risk-taking even though his organization did not have the designated lead for
the communications area. Wanted to be the better organization in the Navy.
Risk adverse when Deputy Director of agency. Matter of agency survival.
Took a hands off approach. Still not sure if he did the right thing.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Worked jointly with a contractor to find a solution to the scientific problem.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
When his men were in danger of death during the Vietnam War.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Two of his divisions were on the firing line. Needed to fix the problem.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Gave a junior officer an opportunity and he excelled.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Tried to introduce a successful model for an agency's infrastructure. Preferred
to build to behaviors rather than requirements. Agency does not know how to
do the engineering work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
368
8
b 1
2
Vested Interests
Must be able to ride the roller coaster & commit to the ride.
People below you will follow you.
8
b 1
2
Vested Interests
Task-taking tolerance has been greatly reduced.
Upper management told by higher ups there would be no more systems if D
was not successful with his present endeavor.
8
b 1
2
3
Vested Interests
Helped his career & his heart.
Saw opportunities to make significant progress with risk-taking.
The constant in his career was risk-taking.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Important for the country to remain strong & safe. Nothing else mattered.
8
b 1
2
3
Vested Interests
C discussed the idea of women in the R&D world. Must be a reasoned risk-
taker (not flighty). Her reputation & all other females now and in the future
could be ruined. Act within the line of all male & female individuals.
Impact - bad for other women. Increased pressure on her. There is a
perception factor at all times.
Need a balance between too many risk & making progress.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Bad for the office, NIMA, and ripples out into the outside world.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Gave him the freedom to do what he wanted to do & he enjoyed it.
8
b 1
2
Vested Interests
Today have insufficient resources across the IC that might have caused him to
be risk averse if he was a GS-13.
Wanted to make Program F completely different than what DOD & CMS
wanted. They want a low risk approach for this program.
8
b 1
2
Vested Interests
As you go up the ladder, less risk-taking due to vested interests. You become
comfortable with the environment, etc. Not want to change.
Work is not as self-satisfying without risk-taking actions.
3
Individual changes course during your life due to vested interests. Not the
same risk-taker or risk-averter.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Not take risk due to family obligations.
8
b 1
2
Vested Interests
Risk-taking is a necessity personally & programmatically.
More strategic, well thought out & convincing.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
369
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Your project can only do so much. A replacement mi9ght be better.
8
b 1
2
3
Vested Interests
Care about what you are doing.
Few things that do not have a vested interest. Make sure all are properly
managed.
If you see an individual doing something that is not well thought out & the
consequences would not stop the mission, allow the individual to go forward.
Learn many new details & lessons.
8
b 1
2
3
Vested Interests
Has a bias toward certain programs because it is his baby & he will do
anything to make it successful.
Have to declare victory
Be pragmatic & dynamic - can't ride one pony forever.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
A step behind the goal of the program's mission.
8
b 1
2
Vested Interests
Strong personal beliefs & opinions about risk-taking.
With Program J, he is a cattle herder working with other agencies & countries.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Did not take a risk at times due to the downside.
2
3
Downside included: bad for his reputation, how people viewed him, & could
destroy his career.
"He cannot be crazy & you must be careful."
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Only involved unless he believes in the risk-taking action.
8
b 1
2
Vested Interests
He wanted to be on the leading edge, not driving buses.
He still had an obligation to his family.
8
b 1
2
Vested Interests
Had a sense of principles since birth.
Having more fun with his job.
8
b 1
2
3
Vested Interests
Vested interests are the drivers for her passion.
Focus on important things and increases risk-taking.
Takes out her soapbox because of these interests.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Felt that she was doing the right thing.
8
b 1
Vested Interests
Failure - not get the right people aboard. 'Not win everyone’s hearts and minds
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
370
QUESTION 9A
9 Relationships
a 1
3
Only with a Contracting Officer who was very risk adverse.
QUESTION 9B
9 Relationships
b 1 When B was afraid for the survival of his organization.
9 Relationships
b 1
Forced by a supervisor not to take risks. Potential punishment by a
performance appraisal report.
9 Relationships
b 1 An 80% solution is all right or do nothing. Inept managers in organization.
2
Problems from past are beginning to surface - spy, laboratory (QA/QC) issues,
and missing documentation.
9 Relationships
b 1
Slowed down the process, Needed to discuss and negotiate with the
individual.
9 Relationships
b 1 Upper management states that the customer is always right (has the funds).
9 Relationships
b 1
Want to be recognized & an image stuck in their minds that puts you outside
the bound. "Risk will not cause harm to the individual.'
2
Briefed upper management when he was a GS-12 in order to create a niche
and a name for himself - "a big threshold to cross."
9 Relationships
b 1 People below you are more comfortable with a lower level of risk-taking.
9 Relationships
b 1 Admired his risk-taking actions.
9 Relationships
b 1
Explained her proposed plans by proving the point with evidence of why these
actions were correct. (Even to the DC I & Vice-Chair of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.)
2 "Bind yourself to some great objective."
9 Relationships
b 1 Individual trying to prove her wrong because he wanted her job.
9 Relationships
b 1
Because another agency does not have a policy in place, the program cannot
go forward.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
371
9 Relationships
b 1
Become conditioned, trained & educated to handle risk & not be afraid. There
are "natural risk-takers in the NRO."
9
b 1
Relationships
Ignored these types of individuals & worked around them.
9
b 1
Relationships
The Chief of his group did everything in his power to stop the project -
"stabbed in the back."
9
b 1
Relationships
Today must ask 100 people to get 1 yes to progress.
9
b 1
2
Relationships
Change the makeup of the project or what you are doing.
Just moved 7 went up to another level.
9
b 1
Relationships
His family precluded him from risk-taking.
9
b 1
Relationships
Figuring out how to get around problems that slow you down.
9
b 1
Relationships
If problem people pop up, ignore them & press on.
9
b 1
Relationships
Find out what organizational processes & regulations are.
2 Figure out the lay of the land, use & move forward.
9
b 1
2
Relationships
If he could not take risk, he "would lead with his feet" - leave the job.
Feels that this is the reason why he never received a SIS at the NRO.
9
b 1
Relationships
As a DISL, you can push more than lower in the organization.
9
b 1
Relationships
Upper management not trust people, lack interpersonal skills, & was afraid of
failures.
9
b 1
2
Relationships
Did not think that far out of the box where he would have been restrained.
Did not take more than one step at a time.
9
b 1
2
Relationships
Agency trusted him. Told him to "go and do and keep in touch."
Felt blest. Unique relationships with his bosses and upper management.
9
b 1
2
Relationships
You might have a problem with the methodology of a project.
Can cause constraints and reduce risk-taking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
372
9 Relationships
b 1 Don't give up.
2 Don't change the goals.
3 Use your common sense.
QUESTION 10A
10
D 1
2
Other Activities
Does not fear for his life.
Invests in risky stocks.
10
a 1
2
3
Other Activities
Went to schools and practiced limiting risk. Places boundaries on risks.
Use this technique and tools for other risk-taking actions.
Sport activities and motorcycling.
10
a 1
Other Activities
Sports.
10
a 1
Other Activities
Fly airplanes. Similar to program management in the technical field.
10
a 1
Other Activities
NO.
10
a 1
2
Other Activities
Race cars - part of his self-image.
External & internal pursuits are related. External pursuits can further a cause
internally within the agency (identifier in the workplace).
10
a 1
2
Other Activities
Conservative with finances.
Likes to gamble.
10
a 1
Other Activities
Founded a mutual fund to be more risk-taking. Others have asked to join.
10 Other Activities
a 1
2
Conservative with stock portfolio - leave to the experts.
Aggressive hiking.
10
a 1
Other Activities
Sports and high yield stock.
10
a 1
2
Other Activities
Diversified investments.
Given up motorcycles & playing football because he works too many hours.
'Time is so precious."
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
373
10 Other Activities
a 1 Gamble with limits.
2 Parasail
3 Snow ski
10 Other Activities
a 1 Have mutual funds & high-risk stocks.
10 Other Activities
a 1 Gamble
2 Risky technology stocks.
10 Other Activities
a 1 Enjoy risk-taking sports.
2 Constrained stock portfolio due to ethics.
10 Other Activities
a 1 Sail, bird lister, tennis.
2 No gambling.
10 Other Activities
a 1 Conservative, safety & stability first.
2 Dimensions of risk include responsibility & accountability.
10 Other Activities
a 1 Sports.
2 Piano.
10 Other Activities
a 1 Diversified stocks. One small fund in aggressive growth.
10 Other Activities
a 1 Only likes to do things that he is in control & has confidence.
10 Other Activities
a 1 House remodeling.
10 Other Activities
a 1 Gamble with a set amount of money.
10 Other Activities
a 1 Must be in control to take risks.
2 Enjoys scuba diving, river-running.
3 Cautious with his own money.
10 Other Activities
a 1 Some risky stocks.
2 Individual activities, not rely on others.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
374
10
a 1
2
3
Other Activities
Likes to fly, some stocks.
"If not grounded in one area, cannot take risk in other areas." (Meaning the
he know where he is in one area of his life where he does not take risks or
only small risks. Feels confident of who he is & what he stands for & therefore
he can take risks in other areas of his life.)
With family doesn't take risks.
10
a 1
2
Other Activities
Did risky things as a child.
Likes to gamble.
10
a 1
2
Other Activities
Flew airplanes.
Mixed stock portfolio. No gambling.
10
a 1
2
Other Activities
Mixed mutual funds.
Not want to be risk-taking without a knowledge base.
10
a 1
2
Other Activities
Always will take a risk after balancing the situation before proceeding.
Wrote a novel and gave up assured income to do this.
10
a 1
Other Activities
Sail, gamble, some risky stocks.
QUESTION 11A-2
1 1 Practices
a-2 1 Allowed him to be risk adverse.
11
a-2 1
Practices
Risk-adverse.
11
a-2 1
Practices
Left when the Director was not a risk-taker.
QUESTION 11B
1 1 Practices
b 1
No risk-taking today. Few risk-takers are left. New employees are not risk-
takers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
375
11
b 1
2
Practices
Due to acts like the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act and Electronic
Surveillance Act became very disillusioned and frustrated with issues.
Promotions based on who you know, etc.
11
b 1
Practices
Put your best people and domain experts on the failing program.
11
b 1
Practices
More risk averse. Perhaps because the systems are more mature.
1 1
b 1
2
Practices
A "bow wave" of change regarding risk and uncertainty is taking place.
Future consideration of risk management including skills, attitudes, & cultures.
11 Practices
b 1 Risk-adverse.
1 1
b 1
Practices
More risk averse.
11
b 1
Practices
More risk adverse.
1 1
b 1
Practices
Today, the environment is different. More complex as far as leaders are
concerned.
1 1
b 1
Practices
Oversight issue. Must prove that the risk is worth taking to everyone else.
1 1
b 1
Practices
Uncontrolled & environment is lacking for risk-taking.
1 1
b 1
2
Practices
Not risk-taking.
FIA Program does not have the funds necessary to complete the project
successfully.
1 1
b 1
2
Practices
Risk-taking is not a rewarding career path.
Following the organization path is the way to go.
1 1
b 1
Practices
Now more risk adverse.
1 1
b 1
Practices
DOD and CMS are risk adverse.
11
b 1
Practices
No
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
376
11
b 1
Practices
NRO has too much oversight.
11
b 1
Practices
Now very restrictive & risk adverse.
11
b 1
Practices
Moved technology to other venues where individuals are more risk-taking and
where risk-taking would be increased.
1 1
b 1
Practices
Still risk averse.
1 1
b 1
Practices
Office does not do risk-taking.
11
b 1
2
3
Practices
NRO is now risk averse. "Brain dead between the ears. Afraid to do
anything."
Merged 2 1/2 cultures at the NRL
Leaders focus resources on only "break-through programs." What is a break
through program?"
1 1
b 1
Practices
Risk adverse.
11
b 1
Practices
Very much risk adverse.
1 1
b 1
Practices
Present not as much risk-taking as before.
1 1
b 1
2
Practices
Now suppress risk-taking actions because of social cultures..
"Do people know that risk-taking-taking is gone?" is the question at the NRO.
1 1
b 1
Practices
Agency want s to be incognito with all of its actions.
1 1 Practices
b 1 Present practices are changed.
1 1
b 1
2
3
Practices
Very consistent.
Conservative due to money constraint especially for new activities.
1 1
b 1
Practices
If you understand the organization and its policies, can manipulate the system.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
377
11
C-2 1
Practices
Specifying individuals to focus on particular areas of risk.
11
c-2 1
2
Practices
M ot see changes with the organization. Still risk adverse.
Organization follows a knee jerk reaction to events.
11
c-2 1
2
Practices
Appropriate rules put into effect - more prudent practices.
Need to explain everything.
1 1
c-2 1
Practices
More bureaucracy. Need more signatures, approvals & briefings to do the
same things done before.
11
c-2 1
Practices
There is no single leader, but a multiplicity of leaders.
11
c-2 1
11
c-2 1
Practices
Minimized risk-taking.
Practices
Not risk-taking. Congress removed the cost margin mechanism and flexibility
of Program Managers. No one else in the Federal Government had this
capability.
11
c-2 1
Practices
Today, technology allows a higher degree of diagnosis. Problems could be
solved sooner, but not have a better solution.
1 1
c-2 1
2
Practices
More structure within the organization.
An increase in processes that do not allow for new or radical changes.
11
c-2 1
2
3
Practices
When an organization is new, more risk-taking occurs.
When an organization becomes older, more important to keep established
identity.
Slitting of the organization is good because more risk-taking occurs.
11
c-2 1
2
Practices
Take an enormous amount of time to sell to Congress, etc.
Risk is external. What are the forcing functions & what do they allow us to do?
Not what is necessary technologically?
11
c-2 1
Practices
Need to be politically correct.
1 1
c-2 1
Practices
Increased risk-taking.
1 1
c-2 1
2
Practices
Only a few senior leaders take risks.
Outside the crisis area, present practices are still risk averse.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
378
11
c-2 1
2
3
3ractices
Too much bureaucracy.
No incentive to be an advocate for risk-taking from upper management.
Money does not exist for R&D. Government going to outside labs, private
sector.
11
C-2 1
Practices
Very risk adverse.
11
c-2 1
Practices
Since the NRO is now overt, much more oversight & an increase in risk
adversity occurred.
11
c-2 1
Practices
Presidential administrations dictate tone of society. Agency Directors do the
dame thing.
1 1
c-2 1
Practices
NRO is forced to think alike now. This phenomenon is good or bad depending
on who you are. There is no more room for innovative/creative thinking.
11
c-2 1
2
3
Practices
Now risk adverse. Management turned over to contractors.
Minimize risk by competition, by paying contractors to bid, allowing all
contractors to become involved (some not understand IC).
Focus more on security issues than technology. Compromise is occurring.
Can kill a program. IC cannot keep up since contractors are the drivers and
innovators of technology.
1 1
c-2 1
Practices
Transformation and new organizational principles exist - risk-taking.
11
c-2 1
Practices
Actions now are "better thought through than earlier in his career."
QUESTION 11D-1
11
d-1 1
2
3
Practices
Feels practices are still conducive to risk-taking & a high-level risk effort.
Use risk management and became smarter. Learn more from our mistakes.
Increased risk means that individuals are more cautious.
1 1
d-1 1
2
3
Practices
One failure today means you lose your funding, not before.
The bottom line is different. Very serious situation. Not necessarily receive
the support that you need.
Micromanaged from Congressional Staffs. Individuals are risk-takers because
they believe in security of the country & that R&D is absolutely necessary to
remain on top.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
QUESTION 11D-2
379
11 Practices
d-2 1 Programs must stay under a specific cost cap.
2
NASA used the faster, better, cheaper model. Many failures & a lot of bad
publicity about the model.
QUESTION H E
1 1
e 1
2
3
Practices
Only stipulation was not to embarrass the organization as you go up the
ladder.
Trick - put the briefing in the mail the day before the actual briefing so that the
reviewer was reviewing at the same time B was giving the briefing.
1 1
e 1
Practices
Opportunities have increased and are broader in nature as he became older.
1 1
e 1
2
Practices
More of a network - a support structure when younger.
You are more comfortable taking a risk.
1 1
e 1
Practices
Tended to be conservative because of her children. Needed to get them
through school and on their own.
QUESTION 11F
1 1 Practices
f 1
When B was lower down in the totem pole, he had more freedom to talk to
Assistant Secretaries, etc.
1 1 Practices
f 1
Increased risk-taking because his judging wherewithal increased as he became
older. Must manage risk (risk management).
1 1 Practices
f 1 More confidant as he has more experience.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
380
11
f 1
Practices
Factors that influenced him: the organization that he is in, his bosses, the
workers under him, the projects that he is working on, the outside events
impacting his life.
1 1
f 1
Practices
V Iore confident to take risks now.
1 1
f 1
Practices
Increased slightly - more familiar with her abilities & successes.
1 1
f 1
Practices
Manages risk better, but it is hard in a military environment.
1 1
f 1
Practices
Less risk-taking due to his career path.
1 1
f 1
2
Practices
Looks at problem solving, not risk.
Risk is which problem should you solve first.
1 1
f 1
Practices
More selective with the problems (formulates the problem & the necessary
steps).
1 1
f 1
Practices
Majority of time risk-taking increasing throughout his career.
1 1
f 1
Practices
Risk-taking changes for different reasons throughout his life due to
"competing dimensions".
1 1
f 1
2
3
Practices
Timing is a predominant factor.
Not take risks. Everything is politically motivated with upper management.
With upper management, politics are overwhelming.
1 1
f 1
2
Practices
Took different types of risks at different ages.
30s - technical risk. 40s-50s - political risk. Would find someone on the
political side to back him.
1 1
f 1
Practices
Type of risk has changed, but B. is a consistent risk-taker.
1 1
f 1
Practices
Not quit risk-taking because it scares him, if he did quit.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
381
1 1 Practices
f 1
Why has the Agency changed? Due to a decrease in risk-taking. Director of
S&T not have the risk-taking experience, the Intelligence background and
only management oriented.
QUESTION 12A-1
12
a-1 1
’olicies
Assist and aid.
12
a-1 1
2
Policies
At the same time, received a letter of commendation and a letter of censure.
Retired because the organization had changed and it was not his organization
anymore.
12
a-1 1
Policies
The agency threw out all the policies and norms so that the project could
succeed.
12
a-1 1
2
Policies
If you know the program & issues, you can find ways within the spirit and the
letter of rules and regulations.
Impact project by slowing it down.
12
a-1 1
Policies
Did not support the projects. These were unusual projects exempt from
bureaucracy.
12
a-1 1
Policies
Both bar & assisted her.
12
a-1 1
Policies
Did both types of actions.
12
a-1 1
Policies
Would not let policies impede or bar her. Less of an obstacle because of her
natural inclination and philosophy about risk-taking, and how she handles
tolerance of the environment and the ambiguity issue.
12 Policies
a-1 1
Some restrictions, but nothing stifling. You are performing "a mission". No
one can fault you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
QUESTION 12A-2
382
12
a-2 1
Policies
brings the customer to the truth and light of the organization. Successful
programs.
12
a-2 1
2
> olicies
The Agency considered itself creative, innovative, and a state-of-the-art
institution.
Allowed the employee to use his experience, intelligence and judgment.
12
a-2 1
Policies
Made sure that he had strong technical individuals to do the actual work.
12
a-2 1
2
Policies
Bar & impede his risk-taking actions.
Felt that he was "always climbing a wall of worry" & he would lose.
12
a-2 1
Policies
Stood behind her and actions.
12
a-2 1
Policies
Policies in lace can protect & cause issues that need to be corrected in order to
accomplish the work & the mission.
12
a-2 1
2
Policies
The Director specifically gives general encouragement to his troops to
increase risk-taking.
For without risk-taking, the NRO would not meet the goals of the agency &
country.
12
a-2 1
Policies
Allowed him to discover problems & solve them especially in
ORD/DS&T/CIA.
12
a-2 1
2
Policies
Exhausting because they used the processes to stop the program.
Must understand the processes as much as possible.
12
a-2 1
2
Policies
Under a special office, a process was in place to help you even for the
revolutionary programs.
Allows the program to go faster in a disciplined methodology.
12
a-2 1
Policies
Upper management encourages risk-taking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
383
12
a-2 1
Policies
15 years ago, the policies aided, him by giving him the power & latitude to go
forth and do his job.
12
a-2 1
Policies
Know the regulations, policies, norms so you can find loopholes, can unite and
put together to meet objectives.
12
a-2 1
2
3
Policies
Policies can both aid & impede.
If you're a wimp, constrain you.
If you're a risk-taker, know how far you go (assist & aid).
12
a-2 1
Policies
Doubts that he would have accomplished risk-taking programs without
encouragement from upper management.
12
a-2 1
2
Policies
Good that the government is a bureaucracy for the government brings peaceful
conclusions to issues and problems.
There is rigidity with bureaucracy, but can do everything you want.
QUESTION I2B
12
b 1
Policies
If you aim too low technically, you risk that a competitor will sell something
better.
2
A large number of agencies feel that they cannot aim too high technically and
as a result they give up or do not try.
12
b 1
Policies
Talked a contractor into trying a new and innovative idea.
2
Exceeded his authority and took a very high intellectual risk regarding the
specifications of a new and innovative product that met the requirements
operationally. No scientific method invented to measure the specification.
Told the contractor to go ahead and complete the project.
12
b 1
Policies
Organization did not believe a problem existed, but the locals did. As a result,
B wrote a primer now in use by his organization.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
384
12
b 1
Policies
Due to the 2000-year change, problems occurred with a product that the
President and others utilize.
12
b 1
2
Policies
Program A too important for national security to stop.
Congress overruled the upper management. Program went forward.
12
b 1
Policies
Allowed an expert in risk to give a talk at the Risk Management 2000 Seminar
who does not do well in speaking. Was successful and outstanding.
12
b 1
Policies
Policies can impede or assist depending upon the organization & the
environment that he was in.
12
b 1
2
3
Policies
Actions must be well-thought out & prudent risk-taking.
Program X - had to take a risk if you want a result.
President lost his will to do over-flights of Russia. Kept trying until US was
successful. (Had 12 failures.)
12
b 1
Policies
Another agency asked his lab to develop a project. Management spent the
money on another project. He objected & was reassigned.
12
b 1
Policies
See Project L & Project K.
12
b 1
2
3
Policies
Can fail with smaller amounts of money.
Failures are important because of lessons learned.
Lessons learned are perhaps more important than successes.
12
b 1
Policies
Program X needed policy changes. Had to work day & night to accomplish
the mission. Y2K problem had to be solved. A policy in place that caused
issues that needed to be corrected.
12
b 1
2
3
Policies
Can find hidden problems. Costs more, but is a terrific risk reduction element.
Collaboration also reduces risk. Use multiple contracts in this case to get to
the end goal.
Nature of risks that you have to take are always changing.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
385
12
b 1
Jolicies
1972 - Landsat Programs. Economic problems.
12
b 1
2
5 olicies
hogram C started in 1993 and failed in June 2001. The issued was risk, but
you couldn't find any risk in the maturity of technology.
"When it is advanced research, you nay not have a requirement."
12
b 1
2
Policies
See opportunities to take risks.
Striving to obtain CCM Level 1 for NJMA.
12
b 1
Policies
On of five individuals who started DIA.
12
b 1
2
Policies
The Corona program only used six slides to obtain billions.
Not talk about his work however.
12
b 1
2
3
Policies
When you are on the fringe of the business group, the environment & situation
will impede you.
As a result, you need to be properly organized which allows you to put the
right things in the right place.
Program will progress & conclusion will be successful.
12
b 1
Policies
In pockets of the organization, individuals are discouraged from risk-taking.
12
b 1
Policies
Need right environment, lessons from leaders with visions.
12
b 1
Policies
Backed with empowerment, resources & the opportunity to make a difference.
12
b 1
Policies
Director did not give financial or mid-management support to the project
managers.
12
b 1
Policies
Today, not given power & authority.
12
b 1
Policies
Restrictive policies impede risk-taking.
2
Do something not in the FAR, the Contracting Officer would not let him do it.
Definitely risk averse.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
386
12 Policies
b 1
People are afraid to make a decision. Not really need to have upper
management approval to travel overseas if the customer wants it.
12
b 1
Policies
Was not suppose to try and find out the answer, but he went ahead and did
anyway.
12
b 1
Policies
Developed a new mission with the reorganization ofNIMA as well as
changing the way the organization does business.
12
b 1
Policies
It was a dumb decision to cancel the program that told when emergencies
might develop and where it would occur. Cancelled due to money constraint.
12
b 1
Policies
Failed with DARO.
QUESTION 13A
13 Regulations
a 1
B knew the formal rules better than anyone else so he could be more risk-
taking.
13 Regulations
a 1 Informal and powerful.
13 Regulations
a 1 Informal. If you took a risk, you had to make sure that you would succeed.
13 Regulations
a 1 Formal and explicit.
13 Regulations
a 1 Both formal and informal.
13 Regulations
a 1 Informal and cautionary.
13 Regulations
a 1 Both formal and informal.
13 Regulations
a 1 Both formal & informal.
13 Regulations
a 1 Informal & powerful.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
387
13
a 1
Regulations
Both formal & semi-formal.
13
a 1
Regulations
V Iore rules reduce risk-taking.
13
a 1
Regulations
Formal, informal, military and IC policies.
13
a 1
2
Regulations
nformal - talk about risk-taking in Town Meetings, not in the books.
7 ormal - Director's Innovative Initiative where real "skunk-works" projects
occur. Acts as motivator for the private sector to money in on the front-end of
an idea.
13
a 1
Regulations
Informal.
13
a 1
Regulations
Informal & formal.
13
a 1
2
3
Regulations
No mles about risk-taking. He bent the rules to move ahead.
Risk management regulations are formal & explicit.
Need the five factors in order to succeed when risk-taking actions occur.
13
a 1
Regulations
Rules did not exist about risk-taking.
13
a 1
Regulations
Formal & explicit.
12
b 1
2
3
Policies
When you are on the fringe of the business group, the environment & situation
will impede you.
As a result, you need to be properly organized which allows you to put the
right things in the right place.
Program will progress & conclusion will be successful.
13
a 1
Regulations
Both types.
13
a 1
Regulations
There are no mles in NIMA. In the process of writing rules through the risk
management process.
13
a 1
Regulations
Both formal & informal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
388
13
a 1
2
Regulations
Regulations were informal & powerful.
Moved the project forward.
13
a 1
Regulations
Only informal rules existed.
13
a 1
Regulations
Today, the rules are formal & "masked". (What does the rules really say?)
13
a 1
Regulations
If there are too many formal rules, becomes very risk adverse/
13
a 1
Regulations
Informal except for travel at the NRO previously.
13
a 1
Regulations
Informal.
13
a 1
Regulations
Formal and informal.
13
a 1
Regulations
Formal and informal.
13
a 1
Regulations
Most were informal - loose rules and guidelines.
QUESTION 13B-1
13 Regulations
b-1 1 No.
13 Regulations
b-1 1
K. actions impacted the project, not the regulations.
13 Regulations
b-1 1 Could help the project.
QUESTION 13B-2
13 Regulations
b-2 1 Management did not want to be misled.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
389
13
b-2 1
2
Regulations
Caused delays in the schedule and changed the methodology for the solution.
Some subverted his projects.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
His team had to work 14 hour days; someone there 24/7 for three months with
no time off.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
At times slowed down the program.
13
b-2 1
2
Regulations
In DARPA, move the projects forward.
DMA/NIMA - risk-taking is a no-no.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Slowed the progress of the project while detailed explanations were given.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Slowed down or stopped progress of the project.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Set different control with reporting guidelines. Who is accountable? What is
being done to complete the project?
13
b-2 1
2
Regulations
Allowed the project to be better.
Others translated problems into more easily understood issues that others
might have had experience with.
13
b-2 1
2
Regulations
IC cant keep up with private industry due to policy restraints &
compartmentalism.
Need to start a new rogue group to get things done.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Helps to motivate.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Had to talk to upper management & obtain approval.
13
b-2 1
2
Regulations
Existing processes need a radical change - do to work for accommodating for
new & revolutionary ideas.
Must have significant customer backing.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
390
13
b-2 1
Regulations
N/A.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
You need to have a strategy & process with risk.
13
b-2 1
2
Regulations
Must have a risk mitigation plan.
Cannot deviate.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Rules not matter since she does not follow them.
13
b-2 1
2
Regulations
Slowed the process, labor intensive & expensive.
Important for national security.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Made certain enough time in the acquisition cycle for everything.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Slowing and/or stopping the progress of the project.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Limits what a contractor may obtain & decreases the success of a project
within cost, schedule, & technology.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
In one instance, management would cut people if they talked to the customers.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
You learn the rules and then work and change them.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Briefed the DCI & DDCI. Asked what the chances were of success. If 50%,
McCone would have said to go ahead.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Impacted both positive and negative ways. Some confine your adventure
while others rally support efforts.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Rules are constraining (not terribly), but you can still work within them. Be
persistent. Reeducate people.
13
b-2 1
Regulations
Restricted. Must figure out another way to do actions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
391
QUESTION 13C
13
c 1
Regulations
Took perverse pleasure in bending rules so that he could meet his objectives.
13
c 1
Regulations
Do what was necessary for the project (bend the rules) and then ask for
forgiveness afterwards (a judgment call).
13
c 1
2
Regulations
Obtained any individual he needed when he wanted them.
Vlade new rules within the organization.
13
c 1
2
3
Regulations
Bent the rules. Tried to solve problem without bending, but it did not work.
(Pay the price at a later date, if necessary.)
Depends upon the agency's mission.
DARPA's focus high risk, high payoff program. "Risk is the name of the
game."
13
c 1
Regulations
At times D had to bend the rules, for example, school full-time issue.
13
c 1
2
Regulations
Bent informal rules.
M would get people to use Rule B rather than Rule A.
13
c 1
Regulations
Found creative solutions to solve problems (kitchen sessions & using CIA
processes).
13
c 1
Regulations
Bend the rules, beg forgiveness & then ask for permission.
13
c 1
Regulations
"Rules are meant to be broken." Then you fix them.
13
c 1
Regulations
Not have to bend the mles.
13
c 1
2
Regulations
Not believe that there were any "mles".
What he was doing was not a game.
13
c 1
Regulations
Not bend the mles.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
392
13
c 1
Regulations
Might have to bend the rules to move the project forward.
13
c 1
Regulations
NO. The rules were there for a reason.
13
c 1
Regulations
Bent the rules.
13
c 1
2
Regulations
Had to bend the rules occasionally.
Knew the rules better than anyone else.
13
c 1
Regulations
Make up rules to move the project forward.
13
c 1
2
Regulations
Formal rules - obtained waivers.
Informal - can be the worst obstacles since there is no defined way to deal
with them.
13
c 1
Regulations
Bend, but not break them.
QUESTION 14A
14 Organization
a 1 Took risk to survive and be the best.
14 Organization
a 1
Risk-taking is a vital part of the organization's mission and the country's
future.
14 Organization
"Don't embarrass the Bureau. You better be successful, if not, then don't try
a 1 it."
14 Organization
a 1 Mission.
2 National security.
3 Continued life of the agency.
14 Organization
a 1 Assumed major risks because of inherent risks to the projects.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
393
14 Organization
a 1
Upper management should look only at the risk management plan, not
technical issues and should become an expert in this endeavor. (Program
Vlanager handles this aspect.)
14 Organization
a 1 Mission of the agency.
14 Organization
a 1
An opportunity to be successful and the only way to do so in order to produce
intelligence.
14 Organization
a 1 Its mission.
14 Organization
a 1 National security.
14 Organization
a 1 Mission of the organization is to do R&D programs.
14 Organization
a 1 Because of customers and their needs, mission and objectives.
14 Organization
a 1 To meet the goals of the agency and the country.
14 Organization
a 1 National security.
2 No definition.
14 Organization
a 1 For national security.
14 Organization
a 1 Took risks to meet mission.
14 Organization
a 1
Organization did not think her actions were risky. (Increase scope, change
objective, emergence of software, for example, to change the satellites
remotely.)
14 Organization
a 1 For national security & to meet the requirements of the project.
14 Organization
a 1 Politics 7 timing must be correct or nothing is accomplished.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
394
14
a 1
2
Organization
iis group is a leading edge for risk-taking.
Question is "What drives the policy or the front end of the cycle?"
14
a 1
2
Organization
Different parts use risk management methodology.
lisk averse parts are concerned with potential consequences. Not take risks.
14
a 1
Organization
Upper management decided whether to take risk.
14
a 1
Organization
To satisfy the organization's mission.
14
a 1
2
Organization
China Lake - certain individual types pushed risk-taking.
At NIMA, trends caused by interests & being too cautious about utilizing
SETA technology.
14
a 1
Organization
Will take some risks with special programs since the political downside is low.
14
a 1
Organization
To meet operational missions & national security.
14
a 1
Organization
National security.
14
a 1
Organization
See #1.
14
a 1
Organization
Only certain parts of the agency took risks.
14
a 1
Organization
National security.
14
a 1
2
3
Organization
Very careful and very educated (technically competent).
When it took risk, see success and not failure.
Bend, but not break the rules.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
395
QUESTION 14B
14
b 1
Organization
Sfeed to know your agency. How it works, what makes it tick, and what are its
policies and norms?
14
b 1
Organization
Reasonable risk is rock management (recognize reasonable risk, but cannot
express or define it).
14
b 1
Organization
"Don't embarrass the Bureau. You better be successful, if not, then don’ t try
it."
14
b 1
Organization
Whatever it takes to get the mission accomplished and the job done.
14
b 1
2
Organization
Agency designed and customized a course in program management to train
both the COTR and the contractor.
Known to accomplish state-of-the-art research and development.
14
b 1
Organization
Depends on what is the implication. Espouses the 80% solution concept. This
is reasonable risk.
14
b 1
2
3
Organization
USD A, USGS and COMEREX (operations) -none. Specific program in DMA
was risk-taking. (Up to individual to figure out his niche & what his program
was suppose to do and how to do it.)
CIO - how you represent your organization & your knowledge when to take
risks. NIMA - in the beginning was risk-taking.
DARPA - risks were expected.
14
b 1
2
Organization
"Not getting caught." Cannot cause an embarrassment to the US Government.
Example - Bay of Pigs. Did not think about alternates.
14
b 1
Organization
Depended on where you were placed in the organization.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
396
14
b 1
2
3
Organization
Considered what is reasonable risk different with the 3 different organizations
X, L, M). Organization K = risk-taking on a dally basis, do new & different
things.
Organization L + constantly looking for risk-takers, new organization.
Organization M = influenced other groups, leader must inspire risk-taking.
14
b 1
Organization
Use a well-thought out risk mitigation plan & trust your program manager to
do their best.
14
b 1
Organization
Obtain data that is accurate and timely.
14
b 1
2
3
Organization
Reasonable risk is different as to what you are doing and where it is in the
timeline.
Conservative with NIMA & customers (operations).
New - different & experimental.
14
b 1
2
Organization
Reasonable risk must meet objectives & have successful performance. Then
the risk was supported.
Today, no definition exists.
14
b 1
2
Organization
Risks are equivalent to making a change.
Now made risks from making a great leap forward to minutia mentality. How
much will it cost the government?
14
b 1
Organization
Not defined.
14
b 1
2
Organization
Change is risk.
Two elements that dominate & influence risk are: (1) status quo has a
constituency. New ideas do not. If you piss people off, they will fight you.
Once person cannot say yes when you need to progress today, (2) culture of
the organization.
14
b 1
2
Organization
No definition.
Considers high risk IR&D.
14
b 1
Organization
Cost, schedule or performance consequences are not too negative & the stride
forward in R&D is good then this is reasonable risk.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
397
14 Organization
b 1 ^ook at the dynamics of large-scale R&D projects. Complex problems.
2
"If you have one ranger, one riot will occur.' (Texas Rangers could & would
landle risk-taking to the extreme.)
14 Organization
b 1 leasonable risk is what felt right at the time the decision was made.
14 Organization
b 1 leasonable risk equates to very small steps & proven technology.
2
The world is changing too fast for this definition. Must be willing to push
things more.
14 Organization
b 1 Does not exist.
14 Organization
b 1
Mission objectives are a starting point. But if you go beyond this, then you're
overachieving and taking advantage of opportunities (risk adverse).
14 Organization
b 1 Does not say.
14 Organization
b 1 Varied due to the need and the mission.
14 Organization
b 1 Don't violate the law.
2
Can she render an account of what might happen and is it okay as to authority,
accountability (most relevant) and responsibility?
14 Organization
b 1 Dont do major changes too often.
14 Organization
b 1 National security and for warfighter.
2 Find a better way for a technical problem.
3
No defined or formal explanation of reasonable risk. Senior people have the
characteristic and are willing to take risks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
398
QUESTION 14C-1
14
c-1 1
2
3
Organization
Up front, the objectives were very rational & exact. Could stop as the
program progressed with increased costs.
People's career and promotions were on the line.
Rational and irrational objectives existed at the same time.
14
c-1 1
Organization
"The price of failure was so great - the worth off risk is so much - national
security."
14
c-1 1
Organization
Today, the objectives are open & explicit for the top 3 to 5 objectives.
QUESTION 14C-2
14 Organization
He thinks of ideas that are in the gray area (not in can do not do areasO. New
c-2 1 ideas.
c-2 1 Today the objectives were made to all. Before the objectives were not clear.
QUESTION 14C-3
14 Organization
c-3 1 Open and explicit was valuable since everyone was well informed.
QUESTION 15A
15 Structure
a 1 A line organization.
15 Structure
a 1 Various types.
15 Structure
a 1 Hierarchical.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
399
15
a 1
2
Structure
dierarchical.
With the problem program, it was thrown out due to the critical needs of the
program.
15
a 1
Structure
Hierarchical.
15
a 1
Structure
Matrix and hierarchical - not rigid. Talk to anyone.
15
a 1
2
Structure
Very bureaucratic, very structured - no risk-taking.
Flattened hierarch incorporated greater risk-taking.
15
a 1
Structure
Hierarchical.
15
a 1
Structure
Called a matrix, but operated hierarchical (schizophrenic - two types).
15
a 1
Structure
Hierarchical flattened.
15
a 1
Structure
Horizontal structure.
15
a 1
Structure
Flatter on the top, but hierarchical.
15
a 1
Structure
Hierarchical.
15
a 1
Structure
Ignored the organization structure (hierarchical).
15
a 1
Structure
Hierarchical.
15
a 1
2
Structure
Hierarchical - agency.
Special risk-taking office was flat.
15
a 1
Structure
Hierarchical.
15
a 1
Structure
Hierarchical.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
400
15 Structure
a 1 lierarchical.
15 Structure
a 1 50% hierarchical & 50% matrixed.
15 Structure
a 1 lierarchical.
15 Structure
a 1 Hierarchical.
15 Structure
a 1 Hierarchical.
15 Structure
a 1 Hierarchical.
15 Structure
a 1 Hierarchical.
15 Structure
a 1 Hierarchical.
15 Structure
a 1 Hierarchical and matrix.
15 Structure
a 1 Hierarchical.
15 Structure
a 1 Hierarchical.
15 Structure
a 1 Hierarchical.
15 Structure
a 1 Hierarchical.
QUESTION 15B-1
15
b-1 1
2
Structure
Allowed managers to nurture personnel for development.
Downside - managers cannot move individuals elsewhere when they are
needed.
15
b-1 1
Structure
Neither helped or hindered the project.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
401
15
b-1 1
2
Structure
hindered the progress of his project - closed power elites and positional
authority.
Jttle charismatic leaders.
15
b-1 1
Structure
Allowing him carte blanche with his actions in order to obtain the program's
success.
15
b-1 1
Structure
Can create new ideas, but do not leave dead bodies behind or lying around.
15
b-1 1
2
Structure
Need the flattened hierarchical type for successes. Talk to people & walk the
floor.
Vitally important that layers need to disappear.
15
b-1 1
Structure
Direct reports to the Director & her staff can report directly to her.
15
b-1 1
Structure
Lost the quicker, faster, cheaper programs.
15
b-1 1
Structure
Knew how to handle a person like him. Surrounded him with handlers.
15
b-1 1
2
3
Structure
Less than 150 people in the office. Informal culture. Access to upper
management.
All resources were in one place.
Main focus was to obtain the best progress for the program.
15
b-1 1
Structure
Better at making decisions.
2
If it is flatter, you must make interpersonal friendships for decisions to be
made & increase the progress of the project.
15
b-1 1
Structure
You become better focused & use risk management techniques.
15
b-1 1
Structure
Helps the progress of projects.
15
b-1 1
Structure
Helped.
15
b-1 1
Structure
Helped & hindered the progress of project.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
402
15
b-1 1
Structure
Allows more than one path to reach mission goal.
15
b-1 1
2
Structure
When you're making policy, can bend the rules.
The higher up you go, take more risks.
QUESTION 15B-2
15 Structure
b-2 1 Can hinder the progress of the project with delays.
15 Structure
b-2 1
People caused the problem, not the organization. Institutional flexibility
existed, if the people wanted to use it.
15 Structure
b-2 1 Hindered the progress of the project & his risk-taking.
15 Structure
b-2 1
The processes that run the organization are not well honed and do nothing for
program clarity or progress.
2
3
"The politics' (who is getting things done & what they are accomplishing) is
where the program progress is being made.
This method is chaotic & impedes progress unless you have "conviction".
QUESTION 15B-3
15
b-3 1
Structure
Structure helps & hinders risk-taking.
15
b-3 1
Structure
Helped. The key is the program manager in the structure.
15 Structure
b-3 1 Program managers can take risks & get the work completed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
403
15 Structure
b-3 1
Depends upon where you are in the organization. Lowest rung - major risks.
Middle rung - harder to do the action and make progress. Need to justify
upward and downward. (Do you seek concurrence first from upper
management or from the workforce? Depends upon the project.)
QUESTION15B-4
15
b-4 1
Structure
Can hinder risk-taking. Looks at all the consequences of all the alternates.
15
b-4 1
Structure
Tenant & Rumsfield issue is very frustrating.
QUESTION 16A
16
a 1
Political
Not receive appropriations from Congress.
16
a 1
Political
Depended upon the agency and the program.
16
a 1
Political
Communication is key for success.
16
a 1
Political
New ideas & projects did not have visibility, but did go to the Hill quite a bit.
16 Political
a 1
After the Church and Pike Committee hearings, the Agency became 'a rogue
elephant." Now always defensive, no risk-taking, and cover your ass
mentality.
QUESTION 16B
16 Political
b 1
Yes. In one case, B did not have the skills to sell the idea. As a result, the
Navy had more than one computer type and not unified communications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
404
16
b 1
2
Political
Did not have a chance to market his risk-taking philosophy.
Upper management was jealous of his Congressional, etc. contacts.
16
b 1
2
3
Political
Growing understanding that a national defense issue exists because of
terrorism. (Conservation occurred before 9/11.) this understanding is not
political in context.
A growing factor in Congress on "How to build & run a satellite" - skepticism,
scrutiny and oversight Media is influencing Congress..
Need to constantly & continuously justify to everyone about your actions.
16
b 1
Political
Today, certain projects have to be continually sold.
16
b 1
Political
Had to resell project due to the changing faces within the organization.
QUESTION 16C-1
16
c-1 1
Political
Yes.
16
c-1 1
Political
Yes.
QUESTION 16C-2
16
c-2 1
Political
In the 1970s, NRL became more visible to Congress and the agency had to
change direction.
16
c-2 1
Political
The maxim was to go forth and accomplish the job.
16
c-2 1
2
3
Political
Political jouncing for position between two organizations.
Not have the network and apparatus to solve problems.
Couldn't go as far as Congressmen wanted.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
405
16
c-2 1
2
Political
f the program failed, the Director of the agency would lose his credibility
with DOD and the IC.
The agency might not continue & the country negatively affected.
16
c-2 1
2
Political
Had to go before the Director of Science and Technology and the Comptroller
to explain the importance of the program.
They couldn't stop the program due to political fallout and questions by
Congress.
16
c-2 1
Political
If failed, could ripple into other programs and in future considerations.
16
c-2 1
Political
A "turf fight" with the agency was a "nightmare".
16
c-2 1
Political
Have different ideals as what the project hopes to accomplish.
16
c-2 1
Political
Buried down in the noise. Other organizations had much more visibility &
more political overtones.
16
c-2 1
Political
No.
16
c-2 1
2
Political
Congressmen want to give new business to their home districts.
Hill Staffers want to make a name for themselves.
16
c-2 1
2
Political
Had to go constantly to testify about issues because of poor money &
constituent areas.
Program needs to go out to commercial sector, but it is not allowed to go.
16
c-2 1
Political
None.
16
c-2 1
2
Political
A lot of risk-takers are not politically astute. Need to be to successfully
complete your project.
Dr. Land of Polaroid was very successful.
16
c-2 1
Political
Had to answer many Congressional questions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
406
16
c-2 1
Jolitical
Slone other than the importance for national security.
16
c-2 1
2
Jolitical
Most of the time she had to go to the Hill.
"or example, the computer security issue at NIST. Wise "Never confront the
issue directly." Show what is needed perhaps.
16
c-2 1
Political
S lot talk about them.
16
c-2 1
> olitical
The timing was not right or the risk-taking people were not available to work
the program issues.
16
c-2 1
Political
No.
16
c-2 1
2
Political
Major political overtones with the agency's major program.
Believe where the contractors are located in the country.
16
c-2 1
Political
National security only.
16
c-2 1
Political
Congress & the staffers pushed ahead & jumped the gun before the team &
technology were ready.
16
c-2 1
2
Political
Congress did not want the NRO to wait and wanted an acceleration in the
program.
Problems with fencing the money from other organizations & coming up with
an approach other agencies would agree to. This increased the risks.
16
c-2 1
Political
All the military is slugging out what does the Distributed common Ground
system really mean. This is a national to tactical bridge concept that blurs the
lines in order to better the defenses of the country.
16
c-2 1
2
Political
Three are always political overtones with Intelligence Systems specifically big
buys.
Political overtones are political trivia (no one cares). Part of the acquisition
process for government.
16
c-2 1
Political
Always overtones. Mission to all projects was national security.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
407
16
c-2 1
2
3
Political
First, had to sell the product to the customer.
Second, industry must become involved and help. Need to find enough money
for this to happen.
Third, Congress must know that this program is "The right thing to do."
16
c-2 1
Political
There is nothing in government that isn't political because of money issue.
16
c-2 1
2
Political
With DARO, he had his first political talk with congressmen.
DRSP had different jurisdictional areas.
QUESTION 16D-1
16 Political
d-1 1 Once with his PAR.
16 Political
d-1 1 Yes.
16 Political
d-1 1 Yes. Individuals are promoted by technical skills, not management skills.
16 Political
d-1 1 Yes & no.
QUESTION 16 D-2
16
d-2 1
Political
Involved in a series of projects that tested concentration - many risk-taking
actions.
16
d-2 1
Political
Do whatever it takes to make sure the program succeeded.
16
d-2 1
Political
See c-2.
16
d-2 1
2
Political
Organization must develop management skills.
Big risk not possessing the necessary people skills to manage people.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
408
16
d-2 1
Political
Depends upon the view of risk-taking within the agency.
16
d-2 1
Political
Upper management agreed in their hearts, but they wanted promotions, etc.
Five hears before, M was considered a hero. Not today.
16
d-2 1
Political
Director did not like risk-taking.
16
d-2 1
Political
Individual who was not a team player or cooperate with others. Not help risk-
taking environment.
16
d-2 1
Political
Risk-taking is not necessarily near term, which is what the military needs.
16
d-2 1
Political
Need to be with a team of handlers to succeed.
16
d-2 1
Political
See #1.
16
d-2 1
2
Political
Today must sell the project continuously. It is a very intensive activity.
Others are "advising you all thought the process of your project development".
16
d-2 1
Political
An interpersonal issue developed with one of her bosses. He had his own
agenda & the program failed. She hurried the set up of the program.
16
d-2 1
Political
Taught to have a risk mitigation plan.
16
d-2 1
2
Political
How do you obtain senior management to strategically plan for the future?
The organization does not follow things through. Start too many new
programs.
16
d-2 1
2
Political
The Western part of the organization is more risk adverse.
Problem focus than technology focus.
16
d-2 1
Political
Risk-taking is just not done at NIMA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
409
16
d-2 1
2
3
Political
With large amount of risks, conservative in his steps.
Program takes longer to sell than risky technological problems.
The question (issue) is really - Ho do I get to the advocates/ - then you'll be
successful.
16
d-2 1
Political
Be able to brief as to how you would manage the risks & the cost, if you not
take the risk action.
16
d-2 1
Political
The financial element is definitely a major constraint. It is a fact of life.
16
d-2 1
Political
Look at whether the risk is too big and/or what is the political downside, if
any.
16
d-2 1
Political
Problems with individuals who fail to understand risk-taking.
16
d-2 1
Political
Received responsibility, but not the authority. The IG and others are looking
over his should all of the time.
16
d-2 1
Political
Trying to determine an individual's tolerance level and ambiguity capacity in
order to sell the project.
16
d-2 1
Political
Some individuals took her risk-taking actions personally and professionally
issues with risk-taking. Had to persuade almost al her actions were correct.
"The business of business is to make a profit. The business of the government
is to make a compromise (consensus building).
16
d-2 1
Political
No.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
410
QUESTION 17 A
17
a 1
2
3
Resources
Had to work at obtaining the right people.
Insisted on a positive education requirement (degree) and set up rules and
?rocedures for the institution.
Choose young individuals so he could mold them to be risk-takers.
17
a 1
Resources
Might have to narrow the focus of the program or descope the project if he
couldn't obtain the right team.
17
a 1
Resources
Had to find & hire the right individuals.
17
a 1
Resources
Need to aggressively recruit the talent necessary. Four or five key players can
make or break the program.
17
a 1
Resources
Perhaps too much outsourcing & contractors.
17
a 1
Resources
Spend a lot of money & people time explaining why the agency needs money -
"a game".
17
a 1
Resources
The Program Manager must tailor the individuals.
17
a 1
Resources
Grew the group from scratch.
17
a 1
2
3
Resources
Need to pick your own team.
When a science leader, need a different set of skills.
17
a 1
Resources
Pick the teams himself.
17
a 1
Resources
Lack of resources & focus from upper management cause people to leave.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
411
17 Resources
a 1 Jleavy hitters (expertsO are not in the program.
2
Not trust one another especially from other agencies. The team is made up of
several agencies.
17 Resources
a 1 How do I take mediocre people & make them better?
17 Resources
a 1 Must hire the best people for the projects.
17 Resources
a 1 Could draw upon other agencies or military to help.
17 Resources
a 1
Created a whole new occupation and skills to buildup the agency's
weaknesses.
17 Resources
a 1 He did not have the right people caused a failure.
QUESTION 17 6
17
b 1
Resources
Need to have proactive individuals.
17
b 1
Resources
Government seems to accept poor performance at lower levels more than the
private sector.
QUESTION 17 C-1
17
c-1 1
Resources
Handpicked to work the programs.
17
c-1 1
Resources
"You need both risk averse & risk-taking types to succeed in your project."
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
412
QUESTION 17 C-2
QUESTION 17 C-3
QUESTION 17 C-4
QUESTION 17 D
17 Resources
d 1 Today, certain projects do not even receive a realistic initial amount of money.
17 Resources
d 1 Took Congressional members for a demonstration to obtain financing.
17 Resources
d 1 Problem of obtaining money.
QUESTION 17 E -l
17
e-1 1
Resources
Received the money due to the critical need of the country.
17
d 1
Resources
Problem of obtaining money.
QUESTION 17 E-2
17
e-2 1
Resources
Always competing for money and had to plead his case.
17 Resources
e-2 1 Had to fight for the money for very dangerous work.
17
e-2 1
Resources
The drivers of a program are now cost, schedule, and performance. Not
performance, schedule, and cost.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
413
17
e-2 1
2
3
Resources
In the past, contractors were proud to work with the Agency. Had the budget
and flexibility to get the job done. Sometimes gave their own money to
complete the program.
Now has an adversial relationship like DOD. Cost more to do business this
way.
Adding to the problem are the American business managers who have short
term interests and corporate greed influencing them.
17
e-2 1
Resources
Still a struggle even if Congress, and everyone else knows that the program is
the right way to go.
QUESTION 18 A-l
18
a-1 1
Needs
N D V L A has no future. Industry receives 10% for R&D. NIMA receives 5% at
best.
18
a-1 1
Needs
"The program affects the needs of the group and the individuals."
QUESTION 18 A-2
18 Needs
a-2 1
Need to be able to answer the question - How wide a range of tolerance levels
do you have on the team? A small group can restrain the project.
QUESTION 18 A-3
18 Needs
a-3 1 Drove the project in the office.
QUESTION 18 B
18 Needs
b 1 Salary issue and the personnel ceiling rules that were the worst.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
414
18 M eeds
b 1
Did not know how to solve the issue. Had to develop a new methodology and
business model.
18 Needs
b 1 Specific needs were not considered due to the importance of the program.
18 Needs
b 1
Avoid burnout because individuals knew the ramifications and threats to
national security if they were not successful.
18 Needs
b 1
A visionary & board-focused group and an operational functional group
existed that had to communicate * cooperate to meet the war fighter's needs.
18 Needs
b 1 Project consumed the needs of the individuals.
18 Needs
b 1
Allowed the individuals to have more visible role for their promotions,
visibility in front of upper management, etc.
18 Needs
b 1 Need of the group were secondary compared to the project.
18 Needs
b 1 Work week increased that impacted the group.
18 Needs
b 1 No.
18 Needs
b 1 Not enough money.
18 Needs
b 1
Environment & support were there & were of good quality. Had a high
priority of obtaining individuals. Team was high performance & bonded well.
2
Worked long hours & were very cohesive. Shared a desire to succeed. Money
recognition was very good.
3 Informal & formal processes were well thought-out.
18 Needs
b 1 Did not discuss. Drove the project.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
415
18
b 1
2
3
M eeds
Need the right people, adequate supply of money & removing political
involvement.
18
b 1
2
Needs
Could not obtain money.
Not as successful as it could have been.
18
b 1
2
Needs
Need more qualified people.
Need guidance on how to do a process.
18
b 1
Needs
Restraints - money, strong advocacy, biases & different personalities, &
control issues.
18
b 1
Needs
S. had more impact on the group.
18
b 1
Needs
Lack of resources.
18
b 1
2
Needs
Not enough money planned.
Acquisition strategy based on what is popular, not correct.
18
b 1
Needs
More personality problems. High maintenance & not good team players.
18
b 1
Needs
None.
18
b 1
Needs
Discussed the Levels of Resistance concept by Richard Mauer. First level -
individual not understand idea. Need to explain. Second level - understand,
but not like the idea. Third - hear the idea, perhaps not understand nor like it,
but more importantly not like you.
Small group that are disruptive to the agency because they feel singled-out and
bad things are happening to them. The glass if half-empty. There are more
issues because of the crises that we are in at the present time. 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
416
18 Needs
b 1 Not apply.
QUESTION 18 C-1
18 Needs
c-1 1 Tried to work within, but, if necessary, he would bypass the issue.
18 Needs
c-1 1
Worked with the existing system using Tiger Teams that had access to experts
in U.S. (long-term consultants).
18 Needs
c-1 1
Assess the problem to see if he would work within or bypass the system - be
flexible.
2
Today, the agency not doing priority work or focusing properly. Tried to
rectify that problem by formulating an environment where the team was
together.
18 Needs
c-1 1 Works within the system & bypasses the system. Depends upon the problem.
18 Needs
c-1 1
Early in his career he worked within the system. Later he had to bypass
issues. A definite culture change occurred.
18 Needs
c-1 1 Most of the time within the existing system.
QUESTION 18 C-2
18
c-2 1
Needs
Became adept at evading the personnel ceiling rules by utilizing the
Presidential Intern Program and/or hiring part-time.
18
c-2 1
Needs
Bypass the issue to reach the program's goals.
18
c-2 1
Needs
Work with the existing system. Today, the problem is that certain individuals
guard the organization & position that they hold & there are others who solve
the problems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
417
QUESTION 18 D - l
QUESTION 18 D-2
18 Needs
d-2 1 Project affected his personal life - his divorce.
18 Needs
d-2 1
He "instantaneously suffered" with his own promotions due to his risk-taking
actions.
18
Personal life affected when she ran risk-taking programs. Didn't say in words,
but she did indicate indirectly that she never had an opportunity to marry due
to her work.
18 Needs
d-2 1 Physically exhausted when he retired, but not burned out.
18 Needs
d-2 1 Project is essentially his personal needs.
18 Needs
d-2 1 "You pay a price" for the program's success.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
418
APPENDIX 7 - FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
The Force Field Analysis Statistical Parameter appendix enumerates the
confidence intervals and the standard sample for each key question in the Force
Field Analysis data.
This appendix shows the calculated sample means and associated confidence
intervals (95%) for each of the four Force Variables.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
419
FORCE FIELD - INDIVIDUAL
QUESTION PARAMETER SAMPLE MEAN CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
1 D 82.3% (85.7 - 78.9)%
2 D 85.5 (93.5 - 77.5)
5 D 90.3 (97.3 - 83.4)
6 D 91.9 (98.4-85.4)
8 D 90.3 (97.3 - 83.4)
10 D 87.1 (90.5 - 83.7)
lie D 88.7 (96.1-81.3)
I l f D 96.8 (99.8 - 92.5)
18c D 88.7 (96.1-81.4)
18d D 95.2 (99.5 - 90.9)
D = Driving, R = Restraining
FORCE FIELD - GROUP
QUESTION PARAMETER SAMPLE MEAN CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
4a D 77.4% (86.2 - 68.7)%
4b D 82.3 (85.7-78.9)
7a D 83.9 (88.0 - 79.8)
7b D 80.6 (88.0-73.3)
9 R 74.2 (83.0 - 65.4)
17a D 85.4 (93.5 - 77.5)
17b D 83.9 (88.0 - 79.8)
17c D 90.3 (97.3 - 83.4)
18a D 77.4 (86.2 - 68.7)
18b D 77.42 (86.2 - 68.7)
D = Driving, R = Restraining
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
420
FORCE FIELD - ORGANIZATION
QUESTION PARAMETER SAMPLE MEAN CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
4c R 88.7% (96.1-81.3)%
4d R 75.8 (84.5 - 67.2)
7c D 79.0 (87.7 - 70.3)
7d D 75.8 (84.5 - 67.2)
7e R 88.7 (96.1-81.4)
11a D 87.1 (94.4 - 79.8)
lib R 88.7 (96.1-81.3)
11c R 87.1 (94.8 - 79.4)
lid R 91.9 (98.4 - 85.4)
14 D 87.1 (93.7 - 80.5)
15 D 79.0 (87.7 - 70.3)
16d R 87.1 (94.4 - 79.8)
17d R 80.6 (88.0-73.3)
17e R 87.1 (94.4 - 79.8)
D = Driving, R = Restraining
FORCE FIELD - INSTITUTION
QUESTION PARAMETER SAMPLE MEAN CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
3 D 93.6% (99.5 - 87.7)%
12 R 79.0 (87.7 - 70.4))
13 R 93.6 (99.5 - 87.7)
16a R 91.9 (98.4 - 85.4)
16b R 74.2 (83.0-65.4)
16c R 90.3 (97.3 - 83.7)
D = Driving, R = Restraining
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A configuration study of multiagency partnerships as practiced in Taipei City government
PDF
Determining acceptable seismic risk: A community participation-based approach
PDF
A financial audit model for entrepreneurial governments
PDF
Evaluation of professional services consultants in rural government
PDF
Care management for the uninsured: A force field analysis of the business case
PDF
Conversion of health care organizations from non -profit to for -profit status
PDF
Educational reform for private state -approved schools in California
PDF
Drug treatment providers' organizational responses to implementation of California's Proposition 36
PDF
Internal venturing in public agencies
PDF
Assessing United States information assurance *policy response to computer -based threats to national security
PDF
Charter schools' influence on public school administrators' innovative behaviors
PDF
Detecting the effects social and business pressures on small California trucking firm tax compliance
PDF
Bridled boldness: Reengineering the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Lessons learned
PDF
Banking on the commons: An institutional analysis of groundwater banking programs in California's Central Valley
PDF
Historical perspectives and future horizons of local government managers and the International City /County Management Association
PDF
Development of a family risk-factor measure that predicts imminent risk of placement and appropriateness for family-based, wrap -around services
PDF
Adapting and applying a mission-focused strategic framework for emergency management
PDF
Information overload: Exploring management of electronic mail
PDF
Do uses of human resource information technology (HRInT) tools in federal organizations improve their human resource management productivity?
PDF
Getting 'how' and 'why' straight: A critical discourse analysis of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government's ideological discourse on information and communication technologies
Asset Metadata
Creator
Marquitz, Jeanne Jeffery
(author)
Core Title
Determining risk propensity of government program managers for high risk /high payoff projects
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Public Administration
Degree Program
Public Administration
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration