TALENT MANAGEMENT
BUILDING COHESION Communication and cohesion can be challenging for any group, much less an organization as large and complex as PEO EIS. With 37 program offices and 71 acquisition programs focused on communications, logistics, medical, finance, personnel, train- ing and procurement systems for all 10 combatant commands, “complex” is an understatement. “We have a very large and diverse portfolio,” Smith said, “but that is not an excuse for poor commu- nication or siloed programs. It means we have to prioritize clarity and be intentional about our messaging and team building.”
To build that sense of cohesion, Smith and her team have focused on developing organizational identity, clarifying priorities and enhancing information sharing. Recently, they decided to try a new approach. “It just so happened that we had several O-6 deputy positions open at the same time, through natural attri- tion and the timing of career moves. We seized that opportunity to create synergy among the incoming deputies,” she explained. PEO EIS leaders are deliberate about the way they train, develop and integrate those roles, and the deputies help define and imple- ment the EIS training program. “Tey proactively lead the talent management and training initiatives of the EIS workforce. Tey are given not just the responsibility, but real authority to make that happen.”
Smith said the result is improved communication and unity among members of the cohort, with a focus on information sharing and lessons learned. “Tat communication is key, in my mind,” Smith said. “We need to take advantage of the knowledge that already resides in our organization.”
In addition, the PEO EIS leadership team has taken a new approach to the Senior Rater Potential Evaluation. Tey use the tool to identify top technical experts in each relevant field (cyber, data, cloud computing, etc.), and tie that to relevant training opportunities to refresh their skills.
“If you’re at the top of your field in anything, whether it’s tech- nology, program management or finance, then you’re probably the last person anybody wants to see go away to training for 30 days,” explained Deputy PEO Brendan Burke. But Burke feels strongly that the organization has to make it possible for those top technical team members to attend more robust training, for the betterment of the workforce. “Letting them go to training should hurt, but we have to be willing to accept the pain of losing a good person for a while, because it’s the right thing to do in the long run.”
NOT ALL SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS Anyone who has worked in talent management knows it is more than just promotion and team building. “Talent management is hard work,” Burke said. “Managing the lower-performing members of the team isn’t something that’s fun to talk about, though. Promotions make up about 90 percent of the typical conversation about talent management. And that is important, but that’s only part—and it’s the easy part, at that. Te hard part is holding people accountable and identifying who to move.”
Smith agreed that talent management is sometimes difficult, and she feels that supervisors need to provide clear examples and metrics, to take as much emotion out of the discussion as possible. “If you can show metrics and you can give data, people may not like it, but they can’t argue data.” You can’t get stuck in the role
STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCE
Smith talks about leadership changes at the O-5 and O-6 levels during a PEO EIS town hall July 23, 2019. Among the organization’s distinctive features is a “squad” of deputy program executive officers. Together they form a sort of leadership cohort, with the close communication and unity that that suggests. (U.S. Army photo by Laura Edwards, PEO EIS)
https://asc.ar my.mil
27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
