CATALYST
Recently I’ve engaged in a number of discussions centered on the definition of a “catalyst.” The principle of these discussions hinges on the idea that we are in a state of “change” and that this change is a factor of the many fluctuations in governmental personnel and policies.
Many look to the new Obama-Biden administration as a sign of significant change. Though it can be argued whether this change is projected to be good or bad, everyone seems to agree that there will be some change and many believe it will be drastic. I’ve embarked on the question of what it means to be an “agent of change,” what qualifies one to be an “agent of change,” and how the world around us is affected by these “agents of change.”
I’ve focused on discussions with the educationally inclined that work within NASA as well as the everyday American citizen. Now, as a disclaimer, Houston Texas and specifically Clear Lake Texas (where Johnson Space Center is located) is comprised of relatively intelligent and educationally inclined individuals who live and work as everyday American citizens not within NASA or the aerospace community so there may be little divergence between the two. To simplify initiation of my discussions I’ve focused on the question of “What is a Catalyst?” Per the dictionary definitions, a catalyst is a person or thing that precipitates change, but what does the rest of society consider when they think of “a person or thing that precipitates change” and how is that applied to our society?
The answer that overwhelmingly came up within my conversations centered around the concept that certain individuals have experience and knowledge that provides them a better view of the current circumstances and allows them to make informed decisions on how to improve a given situation. So I followed up with the questions of “What experience is necessary?”, “Knowledge in what subject is necessary?”, and does motivation or drive compensate for deficiencies within these two categories?
Throughout these follow on discussions, I’ve given examples of presidents, agency heads, center directors, and chief executive officers of innovative companies. I’ve pointed out that many of these individuals did not personally possess the knowledge and experience required to make the important decisions they would be expected to make. The key point is that they had the knowledge and understanding of their own limitations and therefore surrounded themselves with people who had the knowledge and experience to advise them in the areas they lacked. This discussion then led into the principles of drive and motivation.
It has come to light that many believe our society’s and mostly the world’s limitations lie within the personnel which comprise them. It was identified in an overwhelming nature that many believe any president, agency head, or chief executive officer is as much, if not more, interested in their own success than they are of the societal advancement they promote. It was on this principle that I revisited the definition of a “Catalyst” and came to the conclusion that perhaps “a person or thing that precipitates change without being changed by they consequences” is more appropriate to a true catalyst.
Why, we might ask. Many people, of all walks of life, believe that although people who can initiate and successfully cause change are very successful, they are often derailed by the very nature of change itself. They get stifled by success and it is noted that much of what is capable becomes consumed by those personal desires of each “catalyst.” So the discussion develops a common denominator that it relies on a persons motivation and drive for change that allows the change to occur. Very interestingly, many individuals I engaged in this discussion with provided examples of personnel they knew in their life who provided as a great “catalyst” to the world they know. In almost all cases, it was identified that these individuals poured into their work all they could under the premise of enacting the very change they believed in and each individual identified that the “catalyst” often took no materialistic or characteristic reward for the accomplishment. Instead, these “catalysts” focused all their energy and might into ensuring the required improvement succeeded.
So the question still exists, does an individual or group have to be whole-heartedly interested in the success of the end result that they themselves are not changed by the incremental consequences (whether success or failure) in order to be a true “catalyst” or “agent of change”? Through my personal experiences, I find that it is imperative to be flexible and make the necessary incremental modifications in my direction as appropriate with the changing of the environment in order to successfully achieve the desired change. I believe this to be the case as we must consistently modify our desired change in order to be relevant to the future we possess. Without these incremental changes, we will often achieve what is no longer relevant to where we currently are. With that being said, however, I do believe and through the many discussions I’ve had to date, feel that we must be agents of change for the sake of the change and not for the sake of our own personal advancement. If “agents of change” are focused on their own personal achievement, they will often thrive on success and then plateau where they reach their own personal goals while they lose interest in times of struggle and tend to bounce from one bandwagon to the next.
Therefore, what do you believe our future holds? In key positions of NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator all the way down to Center Directors of the 10 NASA Centers, who do you want at the helm? I’m not looking for names; I’m looking for characteristics and principles. I’m looking for personality traits and backgrounds that you’ve identified as likely to supply true catalysts for NASA’s future. Does a certain level or area of knowledge indicate ability as a catalyst for NASA to be the cutting edge science and technology body you want? Does a certain level of experience indicate ability as a catalyst? Does being an astronaut, a flight director, or an engineer indicate one’s ability as a catalyst? Lastly, do you think that a given individual who possesses the desire, drive, and motivation to move NASA into the next phase of it’s history also requires the cookie-cutter resume of past agency heads to lead this agency?
2 Responses to “CATALYST”
Leave a Reply
Natacha on December 7th, 2008
In biology, enzymatic catalysts are defined just as you describe—they speed up reactions without themselves being affected by the reaction at hand. But on an evolutionary scale, these catalysts DID have to change in order to achieve the efficiency they currently possess. Catalysts have been shaped and adjusted for specific purposes. Therefore, whoever will lead NASA should indeed possess some experience that has given them the trait of adaptability.
Personally, the night before deploying for two years of service in the Peace Corps, I wondered about many of these same points regarding the process of enacting change. The potential for what I could achieve with my community was exciting, but also frightening. I wondered how it would change me in the process. I feared my passions would change; namely, that I would return no longer interested in pursuing a career in the space program (clearly, that wasn’t the case). My JPL supervisor at the time left me with words I still recall: “You’ll still be you; you’ll just be you with a greater perspective on life.” She was right.
In the long run, I don’t see how one could not be changed by a process you’re inherently involved in, particularly if you’re genuinely invested in the outcome (by “changed” here, I mean for the better, not changed as in corrupted by egoism secondary to success). It can be difficult to separate what are someone’s personal motivations versus altruistic desires for the greater good, and I don’t have a solution for that. Obviously, we want someone who cares about space to lead the agency, but there is also some benefit in choosing a leader from the periphery in order to get a different perspective, as was the case w/ O’Keefe (and as is the case with Peace Corps Volunteers). In other words, we don’t necessarily need someone who has adored all things astrophysics since age two, but rather someone who’s willing to be an advocate for all of us who did. Thus, while I think it is important for an administrator to have had work experience similar to that of those they lead, they must also be an effective communicator in both internal affairs and with the public, a good listener, organized, approachable, personable, engaging, care about the people who make up the agency as much as the projects, motivated for the right reasons, and of course, willing to lead…and good at it.
These characteristics may be found in someone within NASA, but they don’t have to be. Ed Weiler often poses the question of whether you can teach someone to lead, or whether some people are just natural leaders. Having participated in and worked with several classes of the NASA Academy (advertised as the Agency’s leadership internship), and given that the majority of world leaders are first-born or only children, I tend to believe in the natural leader theory. One can be taught what makes a good leader, but you can’t teach someone to care or to motivate and lead others if they don’t inherently have that drive. Some people just have it, and you know it when you see it.
I don’t know that I necessarily want the next Administrator to have the same type of resume as prior administrators, particularly because as far as the public is concerned, nothing much has happened with NASA since Apollo besides shuttle and ISS. Yes, other factors contributed to this public mindset, but how do we know certain decisions wouldn’t have been made differently had they just been presented with an alternative spin by someone with a more radical thought process, a more passionate advocacy for a particular project, or even a different personality?
Recall that in the original definition of enzymatic catalyst, the reaction theoretically can still happen without the catalyst, or with a poor catalyst—it will just happen slower. Therefore, as Ghandi is so famously quoted as saying, “You must BE the change you wish to see in the world.”
rquintanilla on December 9th, 2008
If you want to be a “change agent” the cause must always be greater than oneself. A person who is driven by personal success will always be concerned by politics (what other people think) which will limit the amount of leverage they impose as a catalyst. Now I am not saying a good “change agent” does not listen. In contrary they should also be great listeners, but their actions should be motivated by something greater than themselves and not by what would cause the individual least grief.
In organizations as large as ours it is the people that follow the crowd that get promoted. That is dangerous and it enforces the “think inside the box” mentality that we have to overcome.