Contractual Services Leadership Program job with GE. The CSLP is a 4 rotations- 1 year leadership program. The CLSP will support CPMs in deliveringcustomer solutions, new products, outage planning, parts & repair delivery while learning aboutthe Power Generation Services business through various trainings. When the training rotations arenot in effect you will act as a full time CPM at an assigned site(s). You will be measured oncustomer relationship & the ability to produce financial & operating results for the Contractual. Service business. Essential Responsibilities. The CSLP will demonstrates leadership in communicating business goals, programs, andprocesses for an area or business segment. In this role you will utilize your experience orexpertise to solve problems, develop and execute objectives for self and others, and have theability to effect short- term and some long- term business goals. GE Jobs Where city, state, country. Lead Project Management Quality Specialist. Graduate Engineering Training Program.Why leadership- development programs fail . US companies alone spend almost $1. Colleges and universities offer hundreds of degree courses on leadership, and the cost of customized leadership- development offerings from a top business school can reach $1. Almost two- thirds of the respondents identified leadership development as their number- one concern. Only 7 percent of senior managers polled by a UK business school think that their companies develop global leaders effectively,3 and around 3. US companies admit that they have failed to exploit their international business opportunities fully because they lack enough leaders with the right capabilities. We’ve talked with hundreds of chief executives about the struggle, observing both successful initiatives and ones that run into the sand. In the process, we’ve identified four of the most common mistakes. Here we explain some tips to overcome them. Together, they suggest ways for companies to get more from their leadership- development efforts—and ultimately their leaders—as these organizations face challenges ranging from the next demanding phase of globalization to disruptive technological change and continued macroeconomic uncertainty. Overlooking context. Context is a critical component of successful leadership. A brilliant leader in one situation does not necessarily perform well in another. Academic studies have shown this, and our experience bears it out. The CEO of a large European services business we know had an outstanding record when markets were growing quickly, but he failed to provide clear direction or to impose financial discipline on the group’s business units during the most recent economic downturn. Instead, he continued to encourage innovation and new thinking—hallmarks of the culture that had previously brought success—until he was finally replaced for underperformance. If the answer is to support an acquisition- led growth strategy, for example, the company will probably need leaders brimming with ideas and capable of devising winning strategies for new or newly expanded business units. If the answer is to grow by capturing organic opportunities, the company will probably want people at the top who are good at nurturing internal talent. Instead, what we often find is a long list of leadership standards, a complex web of dozens of competencies, and corporate- values statements. Each is usually summarized in a seemingly easy- to- remember way (such as the three Rs), and each on its own terms makes sense. In practice, however, what managers and employees often see is an “alphabet soup” of recommendations. We have found that when a company cuts through the noise to identify a small number of leadership capabilities essential for success in its business—such as high- quality decision making or stronger coaching skills—it achieves far better outcomes. This art of influencing others outside formal reporting lines runs counter to the rigid structures of many organizations. In this company, it was critical for the sales managers to persuade the IT department to change systems and working approaches that were burdening the sales organization’s managers, whose time was desperately needed to introduce important sales- acceleration measures. When managers were able to focus on changing the systems and working approaches, the bank’s productivity rose by 1. An Asian engineering and construction company, for example, was anticipating the need for a new cadre of skilled managers to run complex multiyear projects of $1 billion or more. To meet this challenge, it established a leadership factory to train 1,0. The first took experts at tendering (then reactive and focused on meeting budget targets) and sought to turn them into business builders who proactively hunted out customers and thought more strategically about markets. The second took project executors who spent the bulk of their time on site dealing with day- to- day problems and turned them into project directors who could manage relationships with governments, joint- venture partners, and important customers. The third targeted support- function managers who narrowly focused on operational details and costs, and set out to transform them into leaders with a broader range of skills to identify—and deliver—more significant contributions to the business. Decoupling reflection from real work. When it comes to planning the program’s curriculum, companies face a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, there is value in off- site programs (many in university- like settings) that offer participants time to step back and escape the pressing demands of a day job. On the other hand, even after very basic training sessions, adults typically retain just 1. Furthermore, burgeoning leaders, no matter how talented, often struggle to transfer even their most powerful off- site experiences into changed behavior on the front line. But it’s not easy to create opportunities that simultaneously address high- priority needs—say, accelerating a new- product launch, turning around a sales region, negotiating an external partnership, or developing a new digital- marketing strategy—and provide personal- development opportunities for the participants. When he presented his assessment to the board, he was told that a full- time team had been working on exactly this challenge and that the directors would never consider a solution that was a by- product of a leadership- development program. Given the demotivating effect of this message, the employee soon left the company. Each participant chose a separate project: one business- unit leader, for instance, committed his team to developing new orders with a key client and to working on a new contract that would span more than one of the group’s business lines. These projects were linked to specified changes in individual behavior—for instance, overcoming inhibitions in dealing with senior clients or providing better coaching for subordinates. By the end of the program, the business- unit head was in advanced negotiations on three new opportunities involving two of the group’s business lines. Feedback demonstrated that he was now behaving like a group representative rather than someone defending the narrow interest of his own business unit. There, the gap between urgent “must do” projects and the availability of capable leaders presents an enormous challenge. In such environments, companies should strive to make every major business project a leadership- development opportunity as well, and to integrate leadership- development components into the projects themselves. Underestimating mind- sets. Becoming a more effective leader often requires changing behavior. But although most companies recognize that this also means adjusting underlying mind- sets, too often these organizations are reluctant to address the root causes of why leaders act the way they do. Doing so can be uncomfortable for participants, program trainers, mentors, and bosses—but if there isn’t a significant degree of discomfort, the chances are that the behavior won’t change. Just as a coach would view an athlete’s muscle pain as a proper response to training, leaders who are stretching themselves should also feel some discomfort as they struggle to reach new levels of leadership performance. Promoting the virtues of delegation and empowerment, for example, is fine in theory, but successful adoption is unlikely if the program participants have a clear “controlling” mind- set (I can’t lose my grip on the business; I’m personally accountable and only I should make the decisions). It’s true that some personality traits (such as extroversion or introversion) are difficult to shift, but people can change the way they see the world and their values. Once the trainers looked below the surface, they discovered that these leaders, though highly successful in their fields, were instinctively uncomfortable and lacking in confidence when conversations moved beyond their narrow functional expertise. As soon as the leaders realized this, and went deeper to understand why, they were able to commit themselves to concrete steps that helped push them to change. Once the issues were put on the table, it became clear that the business- unit leaders were genuinely concerned that the new policy would add to the already severe pressures they faced, that they did not trust their subordinates, and that they resented the idea of relinquishing control. Only when they were convinced that the new approach would actually save time and serve as a great learning opportunity for more junior managers—and when more open- minded colleagues and mentors helped challenge the “heroic” leadership model—did the original barriers start to come down and decentralization start to be implemented. However, sending them on a routine finance course failed to prompt the necessary changes. The sales managers continued to enter into suboptimal and even uneconomic transactions because they had a deeply held mind- set that the only thing that mattered in their industry was market share, that revenue targets had to be met, and that failing to meet those targets would result in their losing face. This mind- set shifted only when the company set up a “control tower” for reflecting on the most critical deals, when peers who got the new message became involved in the coaching, and when the CEO offered direct feedback to participants (including personal calls to sales managers) applauding the new behavior. Failing to measure results. We frequently find that companies pay lip service to the importance of developing leadership skills but have no evidence to quantify the value of their investment. When businesses fail to track and measure changes in leadership performance over time, they increase the odds that improvement initiatives won’t be taken seriously. Yet targets can be set and their achievement monitored. The Operations Management Leadership Program. The program prepares candidates. Jean joined GE on the Operations Management Leadership Program at GE's. He was the first graduate of the Technical Leadership Program (TLP) of GE China and a. GE Healthcare IT Reference Program. I applied through college or university. The process took 3 weeks. I interviewed at GE Aviation (Cincinnati, OH) in November 2013.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |