ATD Footer Logo

Catherine Zhou

ATD Links Archive - ATD Links

Human Capital Strategy for Social Media

The science behind how we learn and perform has taken center stage recently and with good reason. Understanding how we function and what motivates us as learners and as human beings is fascinating, but ultimately, training and development professionals just want the hard facts that support the best practices. To help provide some of these answers, ASTD presents the "Science of Learning" track—a new fixture at the ASTD 2014 Conference & EXPO. This webinar will give you an unrivaled sneak peek into some of the sessions, and expert analysis driving the next phase of learning and organizational development.
Join thought leaders Christine Cox*, Catherine Lombardozzi, Shawn Andrews, and Ruth Clark, covering topics including

the neuroscience of coaching
research-based social learning
cutting-edge data on emotional intelligence and leadership
evidence-based approches on using games, learning styles, and more.

Join us for this fast-paced, information-packed webinar with some of the best and brightest in the industry, and get in on the conversation leading up to a very exciting ASTD 2014 in Washington, D.C.
*UPDATE: David Rock will be represented by Dr. Christine Cox, NYU professor and cognitive neuroscience expert. Thanks to Dr. Cox for stepping in!

Science of Learning: ASTD 2014 Conference Preview

Privacy after hours

ComputerAssisted Instruction For 35 An Hour

Catherine Lamoureux designs and delivers learning experiences that include all, transform behaviors, and inspire action. With over twenty years of experience in teaching and training, she has coached colleagues in the language learning, educational technology, and train-the-trainer worlds. She is an avid believer that rather than relying on what we have always done, heard, or even thought, we should advocate for communication solutions that are based on research and proven practice.

Catherine Lamoureux

With almost 20 years of management experience in fields including banking, associations and retail, Catherine Wemette (she/her/hers) has a unique perspective on how to get the best out of people. She started Good for the Soul LLC in 2014 to help organizations cultivate their talent and get results through coaching, facilitation, training and project management. As the chief goodness officer, she is responsible for helping others achieve their success and celebrating wins along the way. Most recently, she worked with the American Institute of Architects as their first Director of Employee Learning and Engagement, overseeing five years of continued growth in their employee engagement as measured by Gallup’s Q12 survey.Prior to taking an association hiatus to work for her favorite shoe designer, John Fluevog, Catherine served as the membership director for the Licensing Executives Society (USA & Canada). Additional association experience includes the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) and the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) in chapter relations, membership and education departments.Catherine is a life-long learner and an avid West Wing fan. In the theme of “what’s next?” she most recently earned her Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) certification from the HR Certification Institute in 2020. She earned her executive certificate in Leadership Coaching from Georgetown and received her Associate Certified Coach (ACC) credential in 2020. She also received her Certified Association Executive (CAE) credential in 2009 and is a member of both the International Coaching Federation and ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership. She completed her Master of Public Administration with a concentration in nonprofit management from The George Washington University and graduated from Hope College in Holland, Michigan with a BA in communications and political science. In her spare time, she tries to figure out how a Minnesota girl ended up in Virginia with no snow for any sort of regular skiing (though she is a fan of the Virginia wineries, so it’s not all bad news).

Catherine Wemette

 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

Procrastination is probably on most managers’ “Seven Deadly Sins” lists. But don’t be too quick to assign the moniker of “procrastinator.” According to personality type theory, as described by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) instrument, certain work style and cognitive preferences, which look an awful lot like procrastination on the surface, indicate anything but laziness.The MBTI instrument categorizes personality type along four categories, including Judging/Perceiving, which describes how people make decisions. Those with preferences for Judging (J)—whose work style dominates the corporate world currently—tend to make decisions quickly, and work more efficiently and are more energized at the beginning of a project. Conversely, those who prefer Perceiving (P) tend to make decisions later, and work more efficiently and are more energized toward the end of a project. It’s easy to see how an outsider, who can’t see what’s going on “under the hood,” might easily dismiss this tendency as procrastination, which usually entails delaying something because you simply don’t want to deal with it. However, for someone with a preference for Perceiving, quite the opposite is occurring. Instead, these workers are likely taking more time to gather all the information possible in order to make the most-informed decision. While those preferring J feel unsettled waiting to commit to a course of action and like to do it early on, those preferring P feel unsettled if they close off options before they’ve fully vetted them. Both approaches are valid and offer unique benefits. But it doesn’t take much vision to understand why—in a business climate riddled with the consequences of rushed decisions—the P approach might provide balance to an “I need it yesterday” culture. Yet, this particular cognitive and behavioral orientation, while common in the population at large, is marginalized in business, education, and society—often from childhood. **You’re a Slacker, and So Was Your Old Man!(No McFly Will Amount to Anything!)** From early in life, those with a preference for P receive messages that negate the value of their natural approach—and praise when they make more immediate decisions. This carries on into college, where you’re expected to choose a major before you even crack open a textbook (never mind that many of tomorrow’s most critical jobs probably don’t even exist yet). In fact, you could say that P preferences are programmed to self-identify as procrastinators and, as a result, learn to fake the J approach to school and work. How many times have you heard someone joke about the fact that they procrastinate, but can’t help it because they work better at the last minute? If that person is successful, chances are low that they truly procrastinate. More likely, they prefer P but have stereotyped themselves, because of a negative perception of what a preference for Perceiving really entails. In organizations, we don’t like when people delay making decisions. It’s unnerving because the merits of this work style are not understood in our J-biased corporate work culture—and we can’t necessarily discern what’s going on inside a person’s head. We can’t see that they’re actually gathering facts and weighing options; we don’t know that this process is so important to them that they’re willing to take all of the time that they possibly can before committing to a course of action. Efficiency Kicks in at the Project’s End As the deadline approaches, however, P preferences will quickly commit to a course of action and become efficiency machines, operating just as efficiently as those that prefer J tend to at the beginning of a project. This isn’t necessarily because they perform any better under pressure than anyone else, but rather that they work more effectively if they’ve had time to assemble the puzzle pieces in their head. On the other hand, if they’re required to operate in a Judging-oriented manner, focusing on the production end at the beginning of a project, they tend to work less efficiently. To put it in laymen’s terms, they may “doddle” a bit. This has nothing to do with their work ethic—they simply haven’t had sufficient time to formulate what they want to produce. And they’ll often change courses midstream, because along the way they’ve discovered a better approach. The Pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow Admittedly, for someone with a Judging-oriented outlook, the idea of allowing someone who prefers P to follow their natural work style within a modern business setting probably sounds like following a rainbow to its end in search of a pot of gold. However, in this case, there is a substantial pot of gold in terms of value to the organization. First, this approach provides a critical counter-balance to the J-driven propensity to make decisions and act on them quickly. To be sure, the Judging-oriented approach offers tremendous value, particularly in projects that require milestones. But sometimes decisions are made too soon—and organizations are locked into a course of action that turns out to be less desirable than one that materializes later. If both Judging and Perceiving perspectives are respected, however, teams can achieve ongoing, yet tempered momentum. Second, understand that those that prefer P really aren’t at their best when they have to conform to J-driven processes. If they’re allowed to operate within their natural work style, they produce higher quality work. To put it simply, you’re getting more value out of them by giving them the flexibility to do things their own way, and positioning them for greater career success by allowing them to make best use of their talents. Finding Common Ground We’ve established that P frequently conforms to a J world. But should it be the other way around? The reality is that it’s probably unrealistic—and perhaps equally unbeneficial—for either side to completely flex its behavior to the expectations of the other side. Those preferring Perceiving have to understand what things look like to a manager or co-worker with a J preference, and provide assurances that things are indeed progressing toward a desirable outcome. This may involve agreeing on certain markers that indicate progress. A Word to the Wise… If you prefer P, understand that when your J-preferring colleagues flex their own work preferences to your style, you’ve got to deliver the goods. If you don’t, you may not get another chance to prove the value of your approach. The good news: As you consistently deliver quality results, your J colleagues will become increasingly supportive of your work style.

Why You Might Want to Give Procrastinators a Chance

Often when we’re frustrated at work, it’s not so much because of the company we work for, but rather the specific role we’re in. Personality type, as described by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® instrument (MBTI®), offers insight into certain preferences—particularly for how we take in information and make decisions,  which heavily contribute to on-the-job satisfaction. The more we work within our preferences, the more energized and less drained we’ll feel. As discussed in my previous post, your current job may not map well to your preferences. However, if the broader company culture is more in line with who you are and your personality, pursuing a new role within the organization might be preferable to looking elsewhere for employment. Just as personality types describe human beings, you can in fact “type” a company, department, or role by observing how information is gathered and decisions are made.. Use personality type as a guide for determining a better fitting role—looking at what is not only required of an individual, but also what skills and attributes are most sought after in various departments. Identifying What You Really Want to Do Children are often asked: “What do you want to be when you grow up?” In seeking a new role within your company, a better question to ask yourself is: “What do you want to do?” By discovering the kinds of tasks and responsibilities that line up with your core motivators, you can more accurately identify a more satisfying role within your current company. According Allen L. Hammer in “Introduction to Type® and Careers,” you can begin by asking yourself:What do I want to do on a day-to-day basis?Where do I want to be in one, five or ten years?What kind of people do I want to work with?What kind of working environment do I find most comfortable?What kind of working environment allows me to be most productive?What motivates me to do my best? Regarding this last point, while preferences for Thinking (T) or Feeling (F) describe how we make decisions, Sensing (S) and Intuition (N) describe the types of information that we base those decisions on, and the combination of these indicates what will most motivate us at work:ST:  achieving bottom line resultsSF: offering practical serviceNF: making a meaningful differenceNT: improving the system. Research shows that people actually self-select into occupations that coincide with these middle letter preferences. For example, if you have an F preference, you may experience great satisfaction in a role where you get to help or support other people. This can manifest itself in a number of ways—helping customers, mentoring, serving on an advisory board, improving society, or making the world a better place. Additionally, for those with a preference for Feeling, keep in mind that the overall result of your work can also affect your ultimate level of job satisfaction. For instance, you may find that even though you’re not spending as much time performing “helping-type” tasks in your day-to-day activities, you could still be energized by a job that ultimately contributes to a greater good for people. If you work for Habitat for Humanity or at a university, even though your day-to-day activities might not involve direct “helping” activities, knowing you’re a cog in the wheel that makes a difference in peoples’ lives may be enough to keep you energized. Molding Your Own Role If you have a preference for Sensing and Thinking, yet find yourself in a position that requires a lot of one-on-one counseling, you may want to seek out a position that allows you to conduct data analysis with an emphasis on the here and now, or even seek out these types of responsibilities within your current job. For example, I often work with career counselors who have preferences for ST, but their profession requires them to frequently use their non-preferred Intuition and Feeling functions. Although they usually report that they like their jobs overall, they also say their jobs are very draining and frustrating when they spend too many hours in a direct helping role. However, if they’re able to seek out activities that allow them to work within their natural preferences, such as analyzing career assessments, critiquing resumes, running the office operations or managing departmental technology, they can achieve a renewed enthusiasm for their roles. In general, if you can cherry pick enough activities that match your own preferences and integrate them into your daily role, you will be much more satisfied and energized in your current position.  Having the Patience to Work Your Way Up Sometimes there’s not an immediate solution because developing the skills and expertise to operate in certain roles takes time. If you have a preference for Thinking, for example, you may enjoy logical objective decision making, and like to look for what is wrong with the system so you can fix it. The question is, are you far along enough in your career to initiate and implement change? Let’s face it, most teams don’t take well to junior-level employees telling them what’s wrong with what they’re doing, regardless of how on-point their advice may be. In some cases, you may have to stick it out for a while, building your level of expertise and influence before you are able to take on more of a “fixer” role. You may experience frustration along the way, as you’ll likely witness incompetence in both leaders and peers that you would like to “fix,” but don’t have the power to do anything about it, yet. Instead, use your current position to gain the expertise and, eventually, the level of authority to implement change, so you can grow into a role that you’ll find very satisfying and allows you to do what comes most naturally.

Search results for 'Catherine Zhou'

Categories

Refine By

Search results for 'Catherine Zhou'

Categories

Refine By

Role

Topic

Industry