Dashboard

Forms

Listening Meetup

Page banners

Plan landings

Main navigation

Gallery

Upload

Media library

Memberships

All tickets

Create ticket

Prepaid tickets

Users

ELE is a peer-powered community where people leaders don't just reframe challenges — they leave with decisions, next moves, and 30/60/90-day commitments to move real work forward.&nbsp;For 22 years, leaders from Fortune 1000 companies have brought their hardest problems here — and left sharper than they arrived.

UPCOMING CALENDAR

LATEST IDEA EXCHANGE

RECENT INSIGHTS

WHO WE ARE

Schedule a Meetup

Vote to Shape

This is where people leaders get sharper — and their teams get smarter.ELE is a peer-powered network of people leaders who accelerate business results through shared intelligence and real-work collaboration. Learn more below about why ELE has been the trusted choice for leaders building high-performing teams for over 20 years.

About ELE

Schedule a Local Meetup

Bring a real talent challenge. Name what's at stake, what you've tried, and why it matters now.

Community-Powered Calendar

Signal what matters most. Your vote shapes what your peers tackle next.

Companies In Our Network

Contact ELE

Find the peer conversation that moves your work forward.The right exchange builds better leaders, closes capability gaps, and cuts through what internal meetings can't.

Figure out if ELE is for you. Straight answers on what ELE is, who it’s built for, and how contributing members actually work together. Still have a question? Contact us.

Get answers about how Executive Learning Exchange (ELE) works — peer-powered leadership development that fixes real work issues, reverses burnout, and accelerates business value. No programs. No vendors. In the flow of work.

Where people leaders share what's working, ask what's hard, and learn from peers navigating the same talent challenges right now. Search before you post. When referencing a resource, paste the key insight directly into your response with a link to the source.

Real conversations from people leaders tackling today's toughest talent challenges -- captured live, ready to apply with your teams when it fits your schedule, and connected to what's happening right now.

Insights on Talent Challenges | Captured Peer Conversations | ELE

Pick your path — each plan reflects a different commitment to accelerating business value.

ELE Plans — Find your place.

Want ELE to come to you? Propose a local gathering — the community decides what gets scheduled.

Lurie Children's

Marquette University

<div style="font-family: 'Calibri', 'Candara', 'Segoe UI', 'Optima', Arial, sans-serif; color: #333; line-height: 1.6; max-width: 800px; margin: auto; font-size: 1.1rem;">
<blockquote style="border-left: 4px solid #990000; margin: 20px 0; padding: 10px 20px; background-color: #f8f9fa; font-style: italic; color: #555; font-family: 'Calibri', sans-serif; font-size: 1.1rem;">"The interesting pattern was that nobody talked about technical skills, technology, or tools." — <a href="https://www.ele.llc/people/deepa-kartha" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Deepa Kartha</a>, Journyz</blockquote>
People leaders at the Milwaukee Talent Development Conference came into this working exchange with a shared pressure most haven't named cleanly yet: how do you anticipate the capabilities your workforce will need before the gap becomes visible — and expensive? The real work wasn't about AI adoption. It was about avoiding the trap of overbuilding formal programs around skills that are still shifting, while quietly missing the quieter signals that prove a team's core capabilities are already falling behind. That tension — move too fast and you waste resources, move too slow and you're exposed — ran through every table in the room.
This was a live, in-person working exchange. No virtual components. All dialogue drawn from the spoken transcript.
Who helped move the work forward
Cecilia Lillegard, Jim Orheim, and Amanda Baker brought this working exchange to life at the Milwaukee Talent Development Conference. Cecilia and Jim co-facilitated the design charrette, keeping the sprint moving while drawing out voices from across the room. Amanda Baker was listed on the agenda and contributed to the collaborative arc of the discussion. The practitioners who filled the tables — people leaders and talent development professionals from across the Milwaukee area — drove the real output: generating, clustering, prioritizing, and stress-testing skill priorities against what they're actually navigating in their organizations today.

<h3 style="font-family: 'Montserrat', sans-serif; font-weight: bold; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 1.3rem; margin-top: 30px; margin-bottom: 10px; border-bottom: 1px solid #eee; padding-bottom: 5px;">Catching the weak signals</h3>
The charrette opened with a provocation: imagine it's 2028. Some people are thriving with AI embedded in their daily work. Others are struggling. What's the skill gap between them?
What surfaced wasn't what most expected.
Every table independently prioritized human and cognitive capabilities — adaptability, critical thinking, emotional intelligence, business acumen, coaching. Nobody's top three touched tool proficiency or technical training. That convergence, unrehearsed and uncoordinated, is itself a weak signal worth paying attention to.

<blockquote style="border-left: 4px solid #990000; margin: 15px 0; padding: 5px 20px; font-style: italic; color: #555; font-family: 'Calibri', sans-serif; font-size: 1.1rem;">"These are the human skills that are going to always keep you ahead of AI." — <a href="https://www.ele.llc/people/jim-orheim" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jim Orheim</a>, Marquette University</blockquote>
The signal isn't that technical skills don't matter. It's that a room of experienced talent leaders, asked to look two to three years out, reached past the obvious answer and landed on something harder to build and easier to neglect. If your current workforce readiness investment is weighted toward tool training, that gap deserves a harder look.

<h3 style="font-family: 'Montserrat', sans-serif; font-weight: bold; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 1.3rem; margin-top: 25px; margin-bottom: 10px; border-bottom: 1px solid #eee; padding-bottom: 5px;">Designing just-in-time readiness</h3>
One of the sharpest tensions in the discussion wasn't about what skills to build. It was about when and how.
The room named a real implementation problem: in-the-flow-of-work learning — long considered the gold standard — breaks down when the tool itself slows performance during the learning curve. Workers under delivery pressure can't also be building new AI capabilities on the same clock.

<blockquote style="border-left: 4px solid #990000; margin: 15px 0; padding: 5px 20px; font-style: italic; color: #555; font-family: 'Calibri', sans-serif; font-size: 1.1rem;">"The only way to get better is to block time specifically to improve your AI skills." — Participant</blockquote>
That's not a personal productivity tip. It's an organizational design decision. Protected practice time, separated from delivery pressure, is the structural condition that makes just-in-time readiness actually work. Without it, adoption becomes performance theater — high token use, low quality output, and a workforce that looks like it's moving forward while the underlying capability stays flat.
The pre/post mortem framework surfaced as a lightweight intervention worth testing: before any AI-assisted workflow goes live, force the team to name what could go wrong. After, debrief what worked and what didn't. It's low-cost, builds judgment, and creates the feedback loops that formal training programs rarely do.

<h3 style="font-family: 'Montserrat', sans-serif; font-weight: bold; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 1.3rem; margin-top: 25px; margin-bottom: 10px; border-bottom: 1px solid #eee; padding-bottom: 5px;">Balancing risk tradeoffs</h3>
The most honest moment in the room came when a participant named what many talent leaders are quietly sitting with but not saying out loud.

<blockquote style="border-left: 4px solid #990000; margin: 15px 0; padding: 5px 20px; font-style: italic; color: #555; font-family: 'Calibri', sans-serif; font-size: 1.1rem;">"Are we pushing everyone to use AI? Or are we going to be more strategic?" — <a href="https://www.ele.llc/people/nick-allen" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nick Allen</a>, CNA Insurance.</blockquote>
The context mattered. Nick raised the concern alongside evidence that doctors lose diagnostic accuracy when over-reliant on AI-assisted tools — and that workers who outsource core tasks to AI risk losing the underlying skill entirely. The question wasn't anti-AI. It was a leadership judgment call: which skills require active human practice to stay sharp, and are we protecting space for that practice — or optimizing it away?
The room didn't have a clean answer. But the practitioners who sat with the question longest arrived at a useful frame: not everyone in the organization needs to experiment with AI simultaneously. Structured pilots with deliberate feedback loops produce better capability outcomes than organization-wide rollouts that ask everyone to learn in public, under pressure, without guardrails.
The risk of inertia is real. So is the risk of building a workforce that's technically capable of using AI tools but has lost the judgment to know when not to.


<hr style="border: 0; border-top: 1px solid #eee; margin: 40px 0;" />

<h3 style="font-family: 'Montserrat', sans-serif; font-weight: bold; color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 1.3rem; margin-bottom: 15px;">What to try next</h3>
Three moves people leaders in the room identified as testable quickly — with early evidence signals:

<ol style="padding-left: 25px; font-family: 'Calibri', sans-serif; font-size: 1.1rem;">
 	<li style="margin-bottom: 15px;">Map your capability exposure before you build anything. Pull your top five roles. For each one, ask: what does this person need to be able to do well in 18 months that they can't do today? If the answer is primarily technical, pressure-test that assumption against what surfaced in this room. The weak signal may be somewhere else.</li>
 	<li style="margin-bottom: 15px;">Run a pre-mortem on your next AI workflow decision. Before any new tool, process, or AI-assisted workflow goes live, block 30 minutes with your team to name what could go wrong. Not as a risk log — as a judgment-building practice. It develops the critical thinking and discernment the room identified as non-negotiable for 2028 readiness.</li>
 	<li style="margin-bottom: 15px;">Protect deliberate practice time at the team level. Don't wait for an L&amp;D program. Identify one hour per week — team-wide, not individually opted-in — where people practice AI skills without delivery pressure attached. Track quality of output, not volume of usage. Slop going in produces slop coming out, and that pattern is already more widespread than most organizations are measuring.</li>
</ol>
<div style="background-color: #f1f4f9; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-top: 40px; font-family: 'Calibri', sans-serif; font-size: 1.1rem;">
Bring the work forward
If your organization is sitting with any version of this — unsure which capabilities to build now, caught between tool adoption pressure and program overbuilding, or trying to close a readiness gap before it becomes a performance gap — bring it into the ELE community.
Share the challenge, compare signals with trusted peers, and leave with practical next moves you can use.
Submit My Challenge Now: <a style="color: #0056b3; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;" href="https://www.ele.llc/faqs/share-top-of-mind-talent-challenges">https://www.ele.llc/faqs/share-top-of-mind-talent-challenges</a>

</div>
</div>

Design Charrette | Anticipating Skills Shift

Login