Long gone are the days of Apollo when NASA would attract the best and the brightest. It is, for the most part, a talent dead zone. One is surrounded by incompetence and yes-men. Layers of approval exist so that good ideas can be shot down at many turns. "No" and "not" is the most common reply, rather than, "why not?" or "how?" For a culture that prides itself on being innovative, I see very little brainstorming sessions that involve the key senior managers/decision-makers. White boards and post-it notes are used far less frequently here than at other Silicon Valley firms.
When they do attract the best engineers from top schools, they eventually leave and go to Google/Apple/Cisco/Facebook or innovative start-ups. Those that stay either float around in middle-management and create a very thick mud-layer in the organizational strata. The mud layer consists of people who are plagued by indecision, have thinly-masked feelings of inferiority, are at NASA because it gives them a 4-hour workday, and would simply never "cut it" in industry. Above the mud-layer are senior managers who, for the most part, are better than senior managers at other government agencies. And based on years of experience, they are far better than senior managers at most other NASA centers (like Marshall, Goddard, etc.), except for maybe JPL. That said, save for maybe 1% of senior management, the majority would never make it in the VP-to-C-level offices of industry. I guess their relative pay reflects that.
Managers flake on meetings all the time...especially when meetings are with non-NASA civil servants. NASA managers are NASA-centric. They get their funding from civil servants from HQ (via Congress) and therefore have no need to be professional to anyone but very feared HQ folk.
Rather than focus on one or a few things and do them really well, NASA does hundreds of things poorly.
Decisions are made based on careful analysis of the political ramifications rather than merit.
Organizations fight each for the same funding, thus creating a highly politicized environment that rewards backstabbing.
Most managers over-complicate and create their own solutions to problems (rather than looking for best practices/models/products from industry). Funding is often given to half baked ideas/programs that if were simply outsourced to industry or purchased "off the shelf" would save significant tax payer $$.
"Us" and "Them" dynamic exists between the civil servant workforce and the contractor workforce. Contractors are often disenfranchised from the decision making process, even if they are decision-makers of projects that they manage.
Tenure system creates disincentive for civil servants to work hard.
Many people fear questioning their managers. When I asked one person why they don't question their manager in a situation where the manager was wrong, the person threw up their hands and said it won't change anything. This sentiment is pervasive.
A not-invented here culture.
A risk adverse culture. If you are, like many in Silicon Valley, risk-embracing stay faaaaar away.
To be fair, there are some amazing people that navigate the bureaucracy gracefully, are quick to make decisions, ask the right questions. I can think of a few in Code T that are especially stellar -- but NASA is the sort of organization that would crush the spirits of the brave and talented...and force them to find a job around the corner that pays 3-5X as much.
If you are interested in joining NASA, go in with eyes-wide open and have an exit strategy. Also, understand that you will not change the culture - no matter how much people talk about a "groundswell" occurring at NASA and abuse words like "innovation."
And read Nasawatch and the comments to the articles to gain some insight in the mess that is our Space Agency.
