Google Ad #1 - desktop - 728x90

Google Ad #3 - desktop - 728x90

Google Ad #1 - mobile - 300x200

Google Ad #3 - mobile - 300x200

ATD_Half_Page

Googel Ad #1 - Side Bar - Content pages

ATD Footer Logo

Gene Pease is a globally recognized thinker, speaker, and educator in talent strategy and workforce optimization. He is author of three books on people predictive analytics, and he has more than 25 years of experience as a CEO and board member. Pease was the founder, CEO, and board member of Vestrics (formerly Capital Analytics) that was acquired by Ultimate Software in 2016.

Gene Pease

To tie learning to the organizational bottom line, you need to understand how your business makes money or what outcome you’re trying to achieve.

Answering the L&D Questions the C-Suite Wants Answered

December 2018 - TD Magazine

Answers for the C-Suite’s Questions

Fuel Business Strategies With L&D Analytics

How Analytics Drives Talent Development

June 2013 - TD Magazine

Big Data Analysis Drives Not-for-Profit Performance

January 2011 - TD Magazine

How Does Social Learning Measure Up?

 In my last post, I explored how certain personality differences--described by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) assessment—give rise to an approach to work that is often confused with procrastination. MBTI preferences for either Perceiving (P) or Judging (J) describe how we organize the world, and at what point we want to make a final decision. The tendency of those preferring P to usually wait to make a final decision until close to the deadline—and thus begin the actual production portion of a project later—is often mistakenly labeled as procrastination. This behavior stems from the need to gather as much information as possible before closing off any options, not from a lackadaisical approach to work. Although often misunderstood, their most effective and efficient energy actually comes close to the deadline or end of the project. Those preferring Judging, on the other hand, are most efficient at the beginning of the project, and naturally employ a work style that incorporates making decisions and going into production mode much earlier in the process--a characteristic that our culture more frequently associates with productivity and efficiency. Within teams, simply knowing that these differences exist can pave the way toward a less stressful, more productive work environment that enables individuals to more fully leverage their natural talents. However, intellectualizing J/P differences is one thing, but actually implementing changes that allow team members to deploy both work styles within the same project is quite another issue. Individuals can achieve top-notch results employing either approach, but teams can also encounter major problems if these radically different work styles aren’t effectively integrated. Making Team Tradeoffs That Don’t Sacrifice Individual Effectiveness Often in teambuilding we talk about “flexing” one’s preferences to work more effectively with someone with an opposite preference, which involves operating outside one’s preferred style. For most of us this is a growing experience and a necessary part of career development. However, while flexing works quite well when bridging Introversion/Extraversion differences, for example, it is actually quite difficult to flex your work style between Judging and Perceiving without diminishing your effectiveness. Those preferring J who try to operate within a P work style will perform below their abilities, and vice versa. Rather than expecting individuals to flex their natural styles, teams need to make structural trade-offs that will allow every member of the team to work within his or her own preferences. Agreeing on Deadlines The most immediate area where this can be applied involves deadlines and milestones. Both J and P preferences find deadlines to be a helpful tool in accomplishing goals. Yet the way that those preferring P approach deadlines may be confusing to J-preferring colleagues, and vice versa. Those who prefer P are averse to the kind of arbitrary or fake deadlines which are sometimes imposed by those with J preferences for the purpose of motivating their P colleagues going into production mode earlier in the process. Meanwhile, those who prefer J might use deadlines as a tool to keep a project on track and are usually motivated to complete projects significantly before the deadline to avoid the last minute rush. Those preferring P tend to view deadlines as markers indicating the point at which something truly must be completed. This also helps them determine when they need to start working on the project in order to maximize their productivity—which for them is closer to the deadline. Consequently, if J-preferring team members try to impose arbitrary deadlines on P-preferring colleagues as markers or motivators to keep a project on pace, they’ll know they really have more time, and will view these as “fake” and often won’t take them seriously. Furthermore, this creates a situation that likely forces those with P preferences to complete tasks early in the project, when they’re less productive because they haven’t had sufficient time to explore all the possibilities for the projects direction. You can get better results from P-preferring colleagues by setting deadlines that accurately reflect a project’s realities, allowing them to plan their work in such a way that lets them get most of the project done at the end, when they’re most productive. When negotiating milestone dates, be sure that they are visibly tied to the real-life consequences of not meeting that deadline. If, for example, a client needs a set of blueprints by a certain date, the milestones should reflect the actual steps that need to be taken in order to make that happen--not just the J-preferences need to complete a project significantly before the actual deadline to allow time for revision. Accepting a Larger View of What Constitutes “Reality” On the flip side, those preferring P must appreciate that their J-preferring colleagues operate most efficiently on a more scheduled timeline. What’s more, they must respect the fact that some J preference team members may not do their best work when handed a project at the last minute. So, if you must deliver a set of blueprints to a J-preferring colleague for review or iteration, understand that they really need to do this earlier in the process in order to offer their best, most efficient work. Adopt the point of view that this is not an arbitrarily early deadline, but rather one that is necessary to ensure the quality of the project. Be willing to set and adhere to milestones that accommodate the J’s need for more structure, and earlier project completion. Bottom Line: Don’t Ask a Pea Factory to Produce Carrots Furthermore, a P-preferring manager working with a predominantly J-preferring team must take into account that last minute changes to a project may have a profoundly negative effect on the group’s ability to deliver excellent results. J-preferring individuals tend to work along a more even pace, accomplishing a great deal of a project’s tasks near the beginning of the process. Throwing a last-minute curve ball at a team that primarily prefers P might be okay, because they don’t go fully into production mode until the end of a project. In other words, they’ve been spending their time getting their ducks in a row, and in manufacturing parlance, the “factory” hasn’t yet opened. A predominantly J-preferring team, on the other hand, will have likely gone into production mode much earlier, so significant changes in direction can’t occur late in a project. It’s like asking a factory to produce canned carrots when it’s already started producing peas. If you want carrots, ask for them before the factory turns on its conveyor belts.

Brokering Peace in the War Over Deadlines

Martin Luther King Jr. was many things, but few would see him as a great model for business leaders.King exemplifies two types of organizational leadership vital to today’s business environment, according to Christopher Neck, associate professor of management at Arizona State University’s W. P. Carey School of Business, and his colleague Jeffrey Godwin of Saint Vincent College. They argue that King was a transformational and servant leader, and enterprises today would benefit greatly from adopting his techniques.When Neck and Godwin started using King as an example of leadership in class, their categorizations differed—Neck saw him as a servant leader, and Godwin saw him as a transformational leader.Transformational leaders articulate a vision, while servant leaders believe in empowering and developing people on an individual level. Both types of leaders aim to empower employees and improve performance, but the transformational leader focuses more on the organization as a whole, while the servant leader focuses more on individuals. Both paths lead to the same goal, and in the end, the two types have more commonalities than differences, Neck says. “If you care about employees first, they will work harder, and their performance will improve. At the end of the day, it’s all about the organization.”In his research on King, Neck found examples of both types of leadership. King had a vision and set a model for followers to emulate. His expectations were high, and he challenged people about their assumptions. But he was also patient, advocating nonviolence and cooperation. He promoted equality and fairness and helped individuals believe in themselves, realizing that personal motivation was the key to social change.In research published in the Journal of Leadership and Management, Neck and Godwin examined a particular phase of King’s career: the “Chicago Campaign” of 1966. To end housing discrimination in the area, King moved into an apartment in the city’s west-side slums and began working with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Coordinating Council of Community Organizations (CCCO).In August 1966, King led about 700 people in a protest march through all-white neighborhoods in Chicago. Angry residents gathered, but King was not deterred. Working with the SCLC and the CCCO, he planned another march, this time in the white, middle-class suburb of Cicero. Worried town leaders met with King and other civil rights leaders to discuss the march. The civil rights groups agreed to cancel the march, and in exchange, the city promised to guarantee accessible housing to African Americans.City leaders, for the most part, failed to follow through on the pact. King, though bitterly disappointed and angry, was not a short-term thinker.“It was one cog in his strategy to bring attention to his vision,” Neck says. “Even if the organizational outcome failed, he didn’t fail from a servant leader perspective. He helped people believe in themselves. He brought people together and brought attention to achieving equal education and facilities.”Though the business world has changed tremendously since King’s day, his leadership style is more relevant than ever.In the past, workers often stayed with a company for 20 or 30 years, and authoritarian leadership was the norm. In today’s fast-paced business environment, “it would be hard for an autocratic, top-down leader to survive,” Neck says. The pension carrot is gone. Frequent job change is the norm, and employers have a tough time finding and retaining skilled workers. Routine tasks are automated, and high-performance expectations are the norm. Employees accept the pressure, but only if they feel their work is valued and has meaning.A transformational leader provides a vision that inspires workers to come together and rise to challenges. A servant leader empowers them to use their best skills and make independent decisions that ultimately benefit the entire company.

Martin Luther King Jr.: A Leader to Inspire Businesses

The winter 2011 issue of The Public Manager kicks off with a 3-article forum on homeless in the U.S. and what government can do to make a difference. Having had first-hand experience on these matters during my long government career - including assignments with the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) during the early years of the 'war on poverty" and the US Department of Health, Education & Welfare/Health & Human Services (HEW/HHS) - I was interested to learn what 's different in 2012! Well, these articles indicate that today's solutions are largely built around a combination of: 1) sustained, creative intra- and inter-governmental collaboration, 2) vigilant performance measurement (at all levels) and 3) smarter governance.The first article, contributed by U.S Department of Housing & Urban development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan, is "Ending Homelessness in Our Time: Why Smart Government is Key," offers a very promising overview - particularly the "teasers" about actual case illustrations across the country. One would like to learn more about the innovative efforts already showing results in Cleveland, Chicago, NYC, Greater KC, Nashville and the State of Utah and such related apporaches as "HUDstat" and the varied HUD partnerhsips with HHS, the US Departments of Labor (DOL), Education (EDUC) and Veterans Affairs (VA). Are there Web sites where we can learn more about these innovations AND their measurable performance outcomes? I guess for that, we'll have to dig further at HUD's Web site - which I will do and report back in my next post.The second article, Interagency Collaboration Moves the U.S. Closer to Ending Homelessness authored by Barbara Poppe, executive director of the US Interagency Council on Homelessness, drills down more deeply into the strategic planning, goals, roadmap building AND numerical measures of success that have gone into these efforts. The key to all these multi-farious investments and undertakings at different levels of government and the private sector is Opening Doors Across America, "the nation's first (integrated) strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness" which has four goals: 1) ending chronic homelessness by 2015; 2) preventing & ending homelessness among veterans by 2015; 3) preveneting & ending homelssness for families, youth & children by 2020; and 4) setting a path to end all types of homelessness.Finally, in the third article, Homes Wiped Away by Natural Disasters, Frances Edwards, former emergency preparedness director for San Jose CA, shares poignant lessons from several natural disaster-devestated communities that demonstrate what kind of mitigation steps can be put in place to reduce the extent of homelessness. Some of these measure include: risk-based zoning, strict building codes, limitations on building in flood zones and along fault lines, further requirements in wild land and urban interface zones, etc. Again, further probing needs to be done to share links to sites that provide readers with more details on the rich case illustrations Ms. Edwards refers to (including the Whittier Narrows earthquake of 1987, the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, the Oakland-Berkely Hilss firestorm of 1991 and Hurricane Katrina less than six years ago.Please feel free to share more thoghts and details (including links) on these and related matters. I will do likewise.

Confronting the Challenge of American Homelessness in the 21st Century

categories.lvl0

Search results for 'Gene Pease'

Categories

Refine By