The SharePoint Shepherd’s Ultimate Guide Updates Available – Now With Modern Pages

We’re pleased to announce that we’ve released the newest build of The SharePoint Shepherd’s Guide for End Users: Ultimate Edition with the ability to deploy the guide as modern pages.

Over the years, we’ve strived to listen to what our clients have been saying. Once we started working on Office 365 materials, one of the concerns we received had to do with modern pages. Starting with the 2016 Guide, we switched to deploying with publishing pages, since they have better content control capabilities. However, as modern Team and Communication sites became more prevalent, we started hearing concerns about users almost exclusively working in those modern sites, and though the content covers modern pages, they were still being delivered as classic publishing pages.

Now, when you go to install the materials, you’ll have the option to choose whether to deploy to publishing pages, as before, or modern pages. (Depending on which versions the SharePoint you are deploying to supports.)

We’ve also updated nearly every single existing task to account for user interface changes, and added a few new tasks regarding navigating the SharePoint start page and working with sharing links.

You can get The SharePoint Shepherd’s Ultimate Guide for End Users right now by going to our website: www.SharePointShepherd.com/guide.

Book Review-Ignite: Beat Burnout and Rekindle your Inner Fire

Imagine, for the moment, that you felt like India was the edge of the world. You had fought your way to what you felt like was the edge of civilization over eight grueling years – only to see more land before you than you could see the end of. Your expectations of going home and seeing your family again are dashed in a moment, and you confront the reality that you don’t know when your quest will end. This is one of the stories from Ignite: Beat Burnout and Rekindle your Inner Fire. It’s the story of Alexander the Great and his devoted army losing their hope and ultimately facing burnout at what was supposed to be the end of the world.

Missing the Point

Ignite focuses on the eight years of hardships. It proposes that, even though the army was fiercely loyal to their king, they had nothing left to give. However, I’m not convinced. In Extinguish Burnout, we point out that it’s the gap between expectations and reality that can create burnout. Things snap because the anticipated break or accomplishment doesn’t come when it’s expected.

While it’s true that the army had accomplished a great deal during its time and sustained heavy losses as they carved their way through the continent, that’s not the real problem. The real problem is they lost their way. Not they couldn’t read their compass, but they thought their leader – and they themselves – knew the truth about the end of the world. When it wasn’t there, their belief that they could reach it was dashed not by another army but by the expanse of land that still remained in front of them.

Burnout Bleeds

An important point that Ignite makes is that burnout in one area of your life will bleed into other areas. You’ll be affected in your work if you are burned out at home. And vice versa: when your work life is a train wreck, you’ll want to come home and “kick the dog.” Of course, that doesn’t help anyone, but the desire to take your frustrations out elsewhere are understandable.

The bathtub model that we use in Extinguish Burnout is filled with results, support, and self-care. What we don’t say is that you have different bathtubs for different areas of your life. When you’re feeling good at home, you’ll be more assertive at work and vice versa. You don’t have one bathtub of personal agency. You’ve got several connected bathtubs that cross-feed one another.

Inner Fire

Everyone with drive has a “fire in their belly.” This drive keeps us going, and it’s the thing we lose when we encounter burnout. Instead of being willing to take on any challenge, we stop at the first sign of difficulty. It isn’t worth it, we’ll think. That’s when we know that burnout has taken hold.

Your inner fire is your passion. It’s what sustains you when there are barriers in your way. It’s the drive that allows you to look past the lack of results in your new business for six months, a year, or however long it takes, because you know it’s right. In Jim Collins’ words, it’s the Stockdale Paradox. (See Good to Great for more.)

Passion, Purpose, and Action

Ignite makes the point that passion needs both purpose and action. Purpose as a focusing force that keeps us moving in a direction, and action to get something done. I’m not convinced that either Drive or The Psychology of Hope would view sustaining passion this way. Start with Why would certainly recommend purpose as an ignitor for passion, but it gets muddier as we look to the way that action is defined.

The book is a more story-based and novel-like, but it’s not necessarily a clear path from burnout to reigniting your fire. Of course, you can take an action: read Ignite and see if it can rekindle your inner fire.

Data Driven Apps – Flattening the Object with PowerApps, Flow, and SharePoint

The scenario we started to explore in Data Driven Apps – Early and Late Binding with PowerApps, Flow, and SharePoint was one of a test engine: we had tests in which we didn’t want to have to code every question as its own form – or even two different tests with two different applications. We left the problem with a set of rows in the table that each represented a separate answer to a question.

The User Experience

The need for flattening these multiple rows into a single record is to make it easier for users to work with. It’s not easy in the user tools – like Excel – to collect a series of rows and to generate an aggregate score. It’s easier to score a single record that has columns for the individual questions and then score that one record.

That’s OK, but the question becomes how do we take something that’s in a series of rows and collapse it into a single record using PowerApps, Flow, and SharePoint? The answer turns out to be a bit of JSON and a SharePoint HTTP request.

JSON

JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a way of representing a complex object, much like we used to use XML to represent complex object graphs. Using JSON, we can get one large string that contains the information in multiple rows. From our PowerApp, we can emit one large and complex JSON that contains the information for the test taker and for all the questions they answered.

This creates one item – but it doesn’t make it any easier for the user to process the values. For that, we’ll need to use Flow to transform the data.

We can write this JSON into a staging area in SharePoint and attach a Flow to the list, so any time a row is changed, the Flow is triggered. The Flow can then process the item, create the properly formatted row, and delete the item that triggered the event.

The SharePoint HTTP Request

The power to do this transformation comes from the ability for Flow to call SharePoint’s HTTP endpoints to perform operations. While most of the time, Flows use the built-in actions, the “Send an HTTP request to SharePoint” can be used to send an arbitrary (therefore late-binding) request to SharePoint to take an action. In this case, we’ll use it to put an item into a list. This request looks something like this when completed:

You’ll notice a few things here. First, it requires the SharePoint site URL. (Which you can get by following the instructions in this post.) In this example, the value comes from the SharePointSiteURL variable.

The next thing you’ll notice is that we’re using the HTTP method POST, because we’re adding a new item. URI (the endpoint we want to call) is coming from the variable ListAPIURI, which is being set to:

_api/web/lists/GetByTitle(‘Evaluations’)/items

The title of the list we want to put the item into is ‘Evaluations’, thus the URL. It’s possible to refer to the endpoint a few different ways, including by the list’s GUID, but most of the time accessing the list by title works well, because it’s readable.

The next configuration is to set the headers, which are essential to making this work. You can see that odata-version is set to 3.0, and both accept and content-type are set to application/json;odata=verbose.

Finally, we have the JSON, which represents the item. This is largely a collection of the internal field names from SharePoint – but it has one challenging, additional field that’s required.

__metadata

In addition to the internal fields you want to set values to, you must also set an item “__metadata” to the collection of { “type”: “SP.Data.ListItem” } – unless you’re using SharePoint content types. In that case, you’ll have to figure out what the API is referring to the content type as. We’ll cover that in the next post.

Internal Names of Fields

For the most part, we don’t pay much attention to the internal name of the field. It’s noise that SharePoint uses to handle its business. However, when you create a field, an internal name is created as the name of the field you provide with special characters encoded. Mostly people use spaces when they’re creating names, so “My Field” creates an internal name of My_x0020_Field. You can determine the field’s internal name by looking in the URL when you’re editing the field. The name parameter will be the field’s internal name. (With one exception: if you used a period in the name, it won’t show as encoded in the URL but will be encoded in the name as _x002e_)

Processing the Questions

To get the JSON to send to SharePoint, we need to have three segments that we assemble. There’s the initial or starting point with the __metadata value, there’s a middle with our questions, and there’s an ending, which closes the JSON.

To make the construction easy, we’ll use the Compose data operation action to create a string and put it in a variable. The initial segment we’ll set and then assign to the variable (Set Variable). For the other two segments, we’ll use the Append to string variable action. The result will be a variable with the entire JSON we need.

So, the start looks something like:

After this, we can set a specific field that we want to set. Once this action is done, we use its output to set to our end variable, like this:

Now we get to the heart of the matter with JSON Parsing that we’ll use to do the flattening.

JSON Parsing

There’s a Data Operation called Parse JSON that allows us to parse JSON into records that we can process in a loop. We add this item, and then, generally, we click the ‘Use sample payload to generate schema’ to allow us to create a schema from the JSON. Flow uses this to parse the JSON into the values we can use. After pasting JSON in and allowing the action to create the schema, it should look something like:

Next, we can use a loop and use the questions variable from the parse operation as our looping variable and move directly into parsing the inner JSON for the question.

From here, we’ve got our answer, but it’s worth making one check. If, for some reason, they didn’t answer a question, we’ll create a problem, so we do a check with a condition:

length(body(‘ProcessQuestionJSON’)?[‘Answer’])

If this doesn’t make sense, you may want to check out my quick expression guide, but the short version is that it’s checking to make sure the answer has something in it.

If there is something in the answer, we create a fragment for the field with another compose. In our case, we prefixed numeric question numbers with an E. Because the questions also had periods in them, we had to replace the period with _x002e_. The fragment ends with a comma, getting us ready for the next item. The fragment is then appended to the JSON target.

The Closing

We’re almost done. We just need to add an end. Here, because we ended with a comma before, we need to just include at least one field and the closing for our JSON. In our case, we have an ObservationMasterID that we use – but it can literally be any field.

This just gets appended, and then we call our SharePoint HTTP that we started with, and we get an item in our list with all our questions flattened into the record.

Book Review-Breaking Out of Burnout: Overcoming Mid-Career Burnout and Coming Back Stronger

Sometimes you climb a mountain, and you realize it was the wrong mountain. That’s the sentiment you get when you’ve spoken to people who have reached the pinnacle of a career and then realized it wasn’t the career they wanted. It wasn’t right for them. It didn’t fit. Rex Baker is a former journalist who now runs a mission, and in Breaking Out of Burnout: Overcoming Mid-Career Burnout and Coming Back Stronger, he shares some of his experience and a lot of his perspective on burnout and how to break free.

The Truly Important

It’s important to note that Baker’s redirection allowed him to focus on how he wanted to leave the world rather than how he wanted to live in the world. Mid-career, or, more commonly, mid-life, crises have people reevaluating what they thought was important and making course corrections with their lives. It’s more than buying the sports car to try to regain some youthful vigor. It’s more than scuttling the life they have for something different. A mid-career reevaluation brings you face-to-face with the reality that wherever you planned to go – if you had a plan – isn’t where you ended up. Bob Pozen in Extreme Productivity admits that, while he had many plans, his path rarely followed them.

Sometimes the dream job – whether that’s in front of a camera or as the leader of a company – isn’t the right job for you long term. Somewhere along the way, we get distracted by something that seems desirable, and we lose track of what we long for most in our lives. When I started my career, I couldn’t have told you that I’d be working on burnout. I was enamored by the technology and figuring it out. However, my goal today isn’t to figure out technology (the challenge is gone in that). The goal today is to help people live better lives. Technology isn’t the problem. The problem is that we’ve not supported people into learning how to be happy and fulfilled.

Great Expectations

Generation X, as we’re called, had great expectations. We were raised to believe that we could do anything. We didn’t get participation awards and we expected that if we worked hard, we’d get rewarded with success. (See America’s Generations for more.) Most of us will have to accept that our lofty ambitions for ourselves didn’t end up happening. News flash for you, I’m not an astronaut.

Having great expectations can be a powerful driver that propels us forward into being more than we could be without any drive. I remember a single word that a teacher said about me while I was within earshot. “Potential,” she said. I remember that it was the best thing she could have said – and the thing I resented most for many years. If she had said I was great, then I could coast. If she had said that I didn’t have potential, I could coast. However, to say that I had potential set me up to strive and try to reach that potential. (She was a kung-fu master of Mindset before the thing existed.) She set up in me an expectation that I could do great things.

While great expectations are powerful forces for good, they leave us vulnerable to burnout. When we can’t connect our perception of reality to those great expectations, the rubber band pulling us forward can snap. That’s what burnout is: our expectations and results being so far out of alignment that we can’t sustain the gap any longer.

With today’s children expecting to do better than their parents, they’re set up for an expectation that will be difficult to meet – especially since their parents are the Gen Xers, and they were very productive. The other problem is that we set expectations that the world will reward you for just showing up. Participation awards, ribbons, and trophies taught our children that they deserve to be rewarded for gracing us with their presence rather than doing the hard work it takes to get the job done. We’ve set them up for the problem.

Master Caution

In twin engine airplanes – and larger – there’s generally a panel that illuminates cautions and warnings. Each caution and warning has a specific indication calling out a function of the aircraft that isn’t working as intended. Any time that any caution comes, on the master caution light comes on as well. It’s a bit redundant to ensure you can always see when there’s a problem, and it’s a way of focusing attention to something that may become a critical problem soon.

Baker views burnout as our emotional system’s master caution – or worse, master warning. It indicates that there’s something wrong. It may not be something that we fully understand yet, but it’s something that we need to pay attention to. It’s important, and if we don’t pay attention, we may crash and end up in burnout.

Burnout may be, as The Joy of Burnout also indicates, a way for us to wake up and pay attention to the things that are not right.

Short Term vs. Long Term

Baker posits that burnout can be either short-term or long-term. That is, we can experience episodes or periods of burnout driven temporarily by circumstances or long-term burnout that we can’t seem to shake. I think he may be articulating the difference between a momentary loss of hope, where we’re shaken so completely that our coping mechanisms take some time to catch up, and a loss of hope that we’re going to need help with or changes to recover from.

Short-term burnout simply needs relief of the pressures that are causing it. By simply giving enough space for our coping mechanisms to catch up, the burnout will eventually fade. That’s why some folks will recommend some time off work, a special event of self-care, or some other momentary solution that will seem like magic to help the person recover.

However, when I’m speaking of burnout, I mostly speak of the kind of feelings of inefficacy that loom over a person for weeks, months, or years. I’m talking about an exhaustion that doesn’t go away after a long weekend or even a week’s vacation. Something has done serious damage to the hope that things can get better – and that’s a problem to be solved. (See The Psychology of Hope for more about how hope works.)

Who is Responsible for Burnout?

Baker explains that he doesn’t agree that you can blame other people – or your job – for being burned out. The idea is that an individual must take responsibility for themselves. I agree with Baker that individuals need to be responsible for addressing their burnout but for slightly different reasons. Here’s the thing. If you break a bone, it doesn’t matter whose fault it is. The person whose bone is broken is ultimately responsible for healing. It’s that simple. Fault and blame just don’t matter. What matters is finding a path to health.

Much is made of a bad fit between an employee and an organization. That bad fit, they say, is why we have burnout. I’m closer aligned to Baker’s thinking that the problem isn’t fit – it’s expectations and the ability to feel like those expectations are being met.

Starting the Healing

If you’re in burnout, the key is to understand what you can do differently to change your results. Baker quotes Charlie Jones as saying, “You will be the same person in five years as you are today except for the people you meet and the books you read.” One might expect, given that I’ve read a book every single week for years now, that I’d recommend reading. Sure. However, how do you change the people that you meet? That requires getting out of your comfort zone and doing something different.

With burnout, it’s not that you need to make one connection to solve the problem. It’s more likely that you need to find people who you can connect with and who can shine a light on the results that you are getting and perhaps make your expectations a bit more reasonable. (By the way, loneness is a key challenge. Look at Loneliness for more – and try to increase your connections.)

Do the Work

As I mentioned in my review of Seeing David in the Stone, James McDonald says that many people wanted his success, but few people wanted to do the work. The thing is that whatever you want in life you must work for. It takes courage to get back on the horse. It makes winners to do it faster. (See Peak for more about becoming the best at something.)

If you’re interested in Breaking Out of Burnout, maybe it’s time to do the work of reading the book.

Data-Driven Apps – Early and Late Binding with PowerApps, Flow and SharePoint

Most of the time, if I say, “early and late binding,” the response I get is “huh?” It doesn’t matter whether I’m talking to users, developers, or even architects. It has a design impact, but we usually don’t see that it’s happening any more than a fish knows it’s in water. In this post, I’m going to lay out what early and late binding is, and I’m going to explain a problem with designing data-driven apps with PowerApps, Flow, and SharePoint. In another post, I’ll lay out the solution.

The Data-Driven Application

Every organization has a set of forms that are largely the same. The actual questions are different, but the way the questions are responded to is the same. One way to think about it is to think of quizzes or tests. Most test questions fit the form of pick one of four answers. They are this way, because those are the easiest kind of questions to psychometrically validate. The content of the questions changes, but the format doesn’t.

Imagine for a moment you’ve got a test for chemistry and a test for physics. Would you want to create two different apps for them? Do you want to hardcode every screen? Or would it be better to have it be data-driven, with a table for questions and the tests they belong to, and then an application that reads this data and allows you to enter data for each of the questions based on the same template? Obviously, the latter is better, but it does create a data structure problem. Instead of having everything in one row, there will be numerous rows of data for the same quiz.

That makes it hard for you to score the quiz and record all the answers into one row for the student. In fact, because of early binding, you can’t directly create a PowerApp that will write to fields that are added after the PowerApp is published. That is, let’s say you have five questions with individual fields in a row for the answers. If you add a new, sixth question and column, you’ll have to go in and refresh your Data Connection in PowerApps and then write code to write the value out into that column. That’s okay if you don’t make many changes, but if the questions change frequently, this isn’t practical.

Early Binding

Languages like C# and Java are type-binding languages. The type of the variable is determined by the developer before the execution begins. Integers, Booleans, floats, and so forth are set out in the code, and the variables used make sure the data matches the type of the variable.

Though both languages now offer type-flexible variables that can accommodate many actual types, and both have always supported arbitrary name-value pairings, they demonstrate a bias towards knowing what you’re going to get and the compiler validating it.

In contrast, JavaScript is a type-less language. Everything is basically just an arbitrary collection of objects. The good news is that you can readily expand or extend JavaScript. The negative is that simple typos or capitalization errors can create problems that are very difficult to debug. The compiler won’t help you identify when one part of a program sends data that another part of the program doesn’t know how to deal with.

In short, type binding and early binding helps us ensure that our programs are more reliable and reduces our cost to develop – most of the time.

Late Binding in an Early Binding Environment

If you’ve done much development with C# or Java, you realize that, even though the language fundamentally wants to do early binding, you can structure your code in a way that’s data-driven. You can use type-less variables (declared with var) and then use them however you would like. The compiler tries to infer what is going on based on method signatures and warns you when what you’re doing won’t work out well.

This is really a compiler-friendly way of doing something we could always do. We could always define our variables as object – so making sure that we’re managing how we use the variable is on us. This works fine for all sorts of objects but represents a challenge with primitive data types, because, fundamentally, they’re not processed as pointers like every other kind of object is.

Pointers

In the land before time, when dinosaurs first roamed the earth, we worked with languages that weren’t as friendly as the managed languages we deal with today. We had to manually allocate blocks of memory for our object and then keep track of pointers to that information. These pointers were how we got to the objects we needed. This is abstracted for us in managed languages, so that we don’t have to think about it – because it was easy to get wrong.

The net, however, is that every object we work with is really a pointer. (Or, even more technically, a pointer to a pointer.) So, whether I’m working with a string or a date, I’m most of the time really working with a pointer that points to the value. That’s fundamentally different than the way we work with integers, floats (including doubles), and Booleans. These are native types, and mostly we use them directly. This makes them more efficient for loops and control structures.

It’s technically possible to refer to an integer or Boolean through a pointer. .NET will handle this for you, but it’s called boxing and unboxing, and, relatively speaking, it’s slow. So, the idea of using an object (or var) for a variable works well when we’re dealing with objects, but not so much when we’re dealing with primitive data types. (To make things more efficient but more complicated, with var, the compiler will sometimes optimize this to the real type for us, saving us the performance hit.)

Arrays, Lists, and Collections

Another way that you can do late binding in an early binding language is to use arbitrary arrays, lists, or collections. These collections of objects aren’t explicitly referenced and are instead referenced by location. More flexibility happens when we have name value pairs, called dictionaries, allow for name identified items. In this case, you can look up an item by its name and set or retrieve values.

JavaScript transparently converts a period (.) into a lookup into the dictionary, because JavaScript only has arrays and dictionaries. So, while C# and Java look in a specific place inside the object for a value when you use a dotted notation, JavaScript is really looking up that value in the collection.

What in JavaScript is written like object.valuea in C# is something like dictionary.getValue(“valuea”).

What This Means

In most cases, we don’t think about early or late binding, because it’s just a part of the environment. However, it becomes important in the scenarios like the above, where we want to create one test engine or one form engine that can be data-driven. We don’t know the names of the questions when we start. We only know the names after we’ve begun. It’s still not an issue if we can store the data in the database as a set of records for each question – but that isn’t the way that people want to see the data to do analysis. To do analysis, users want to see one record for the entire test. To do that, we need a way to convert late binding into early binding. In short, we need to flatten the abstract questions into a concrete test.

Book Review-Seeing Systems: Unlocking the Mysteries of Organizational Life

Sometimes the people I speak with look at me funny. They tilt their head just a bit and wonder how I’m looking at problems. I know that I see things differently, but it’s normal to me. Seeing Systems: Unlocking the Mysteries of Organizational Life seeks to help everyone see things a bit differently. Instead of blaming people for the problems we encounter, the goal is to expose that many of the problems we see are natural outcomes of the systems we create.

Thinking in Systems

One of the reasons I see things differently than others is because I see things in systems. It’s stocks and flows. It’s things that happen as a natural result of other places in the system. It’s also seeing bottlenecks and areas where the system itself can’t adapt. It’s less about the answer today, and it’s more about the process that led to the answer, so I can see if the answer will be the same tomorrow.

When you learn to think in (or see) systems, you learn to wonder what’s next. You begin to look for the situations where the results you’re seeing no longer apply. While it’s doubtful you’ll ever be able to predict every outcome because the systems are too complex, you can often begin to see what might come next – and ways that you can break the chain and cause the system to stop behaving in a bad way. (See Thinking in Systems for much more about systems thinking.)

Good or Bad

We tend to think about both people and systems as being good or bad. However, it’s more about whether the system is a good fit for the need or not. A battleship is a great solution to a sea-to-sea conflict but poor at a sea-to-land attack. Battleships are big ships, and they can’t get close enough to the shore to attack targets that are inland. Aircraft carriers and the planes they support are good for sea-to-land attacks (through the intermediary step of air-to-land) but are vulnerable due to their size and inability to protect themselves from attack at sea. It’s not that one is better than the other, it’s that one is more suited to the task than another.

We need to step away from the idea that something is good or bad and instead look for fit and interactions. Systems – including organizations – can be good for society, good for customers, and good for employees – or good at only some of these.

As a quick aside, Nassim Taleb argues in The Black Swan and Antifragile that we optimize redundancy out of systems so we can enhance our gains but leave ourselves susceptible to naturally occurring forces that can take the system out of balance. It’s important to realize that short-term productivity of a system isn’t the only measure we should be watching. Resilience and the ability to cope with stress is important too. (See Collaborative Intelligence for more on different kinds of measures of productivity.)

The Blame Game

It’s natural. We have a natural bias – called the fundamental attribution error – to see negative outcomes as the result of people rather than as a natural result of the system they’re in. (See Thinking, Fast and Slow for more on fundamental attribution error.) Kurt Lewin said that all behavior is a function of both person and environment. When we’re speaking of our own poor behaviors, we attribute them to the environment. When we’re speaking of others’, we tend to attribute them to their character. While this is natural, that doesn’t make it desirable.

When we’re trapped in corporate systems, we tend to blame others for our chronic frustrations. Instead of looking at the system and seeing the situation as a natural outcome, we perceive that someone must be doing something wrong. Consider walking into an emergency room and finding out that the wait to see a doctor is four hours. You might, quite naturally, be frustrated because of the wait – particularly when you’re feeling bad enough that you’ve decided to go to the emergency room. The problem is that this is – occasionally – the natural result of the system that seeks to optimize the utilization of resources, including doctors and nurses.

In an unconstrained system, there would be a doctor available immediately for every need. However, this is entirely impractical. In an ideal situation, there would be room for everyone to stay in a city for the big game. But to build such capacity would require that it’s unused most of the time, and that would not be financially viable. The point is that every system has a set of constraints that allow it to continue to operate – even if those constraints are occasionally personally painful.

We blame the power-hungry CEOs who don’t allow enough capacity while simultaneously investing in healthcare stocks and demanding an above average return. The truth is that the CEO may be power-hungry, but it doesn’t mean there wouldn’t still be a four-hour wait if they weren’t. We can, if we choose, attribute the negative circumstances in a system to a person, but often there’s no person who should receive the blame.

The Blind Reflex

Giving in to our natural biases and failing to recognize that the system we’re operating in leads us to bad results is our blind reflex. It’s the default settings for us as humans. When we’re faced with a situation that has us feeling misunderstood and with a lack of control, we’ll feel as if the management is out to get us. The view from the CEO’s desk is one of failures and non-compliance rather than an understanding of the complexity of the system and the inevitability of details and challenges.

To be able to change the system, to make the outcomes better, we need to be able to see the systems we’re operating in and how those systems don’t always work the way we want them to work. In short, we need to find a way to stand outside of the system long enough to see what’s happening inside the system.

Standing Outside the System

It sure would be easier to see the forest if there weren’t so many trees in the way. When you stand too close to a problem, you simply can’t become detached or take a step back far enough to see the bigger picture. That’s the fundamental problem with most organizations. We can’t get enough distance or safety to really evaluate it. (See The Fearless Organization for more about the role of safety in organizations.)

In the workshops that Barry Oshry and those certified through his company Power and Systems runs, this distance is explicitly created for everyone through “time out of time” portions of the program (called “toots”). This when everyone is encouraged to share their experience of the workshop, particularly their role in the fictious organization they’re a part of. This is purposeful reflection that is designed to give the members of the system the space they need to see what’s happening.

In fact, the workshop itself is designed to be a microcosm of what happens in a real organization, and therefore make the patterns more observable, just like we would run a small-scale experiment to confirm something we think we’re seeing in the world at large. When the workshops are run at full scale, there are ethnographers. They’re people whose role it is to document what happens and the background behind each decision. While ethnography is most commonly associated with anthropology and the understanding of different societies, it’s strangely appropriate to the micro-society that’s created in the small organization. (See The Ethnographic Interview for more about the ethnographic process.)

The ethnography serves to provide the context and history across the organization. Ethnographers are silent while the system is running but provide a method of storytelling during the after-action review that helps to understand why and how the system became so dysfunctional. (All systems become dysfunctional.)

Predictable Outcomes

It’s entirely predictable. The C-suite is going to feel burdened and overwhelmed. The middle managers (including VPs, directors, managers, and supervisors) are going to feel torn. They feel powerless to influence the C-suite or protect their workers. The workers are going to feel oppressed. Why? Because that’s the pressure the system puts on them.

The workers can not see the reason behind the rules. They don’t understand what value others are adding – particularly when they are doing all the work. (See The E Myth: Revisited if you’d like to see the natural outcome for bottom level workers who aren’t risk adverse.)

Managers feel like the C-suite doesn’t understand the work being done or the needs of the workers, nor do they feel the workers understand their plight. The C-suite wonders why people just can’t do what they ask. If everyone would just do what the C-suite says, then everything would be good. Instead, they feel like they’re spending all their time dealing with the problems when workers or managers aren’t doing their job.

The Amazing Unpredictable

Of course, the best possible answer is to move past these predictable responses to more enlightened responses, which accept individualization and integration (see How to Be an Adult in Relationships for more about acceptance). Instead of seeing one extreme or the other as the only approach, the enlightened view is to see that it’s a continuum, and both extremes are needed at different times and in different amounts. It’s a perspective of wholeness that acknowledges all is needed – not just some.

Amazing things happen when people accept responsibility for their role in a system and either amplify or dampen the natural effects. The system reaches dynamic stability or harmony more easily when the culture encourages personal responsibility. It’s easier for humans to forgive when the other humans in the system apologize. When, instead, people dig into their position of righteousness, the system destabilizes and creates pain more quickly.

To get to the amazing, unpredictable result, we must be able to step beyond the invisible walls that confine us to our preconceived roles and behaviors. It’s hard to step out in courage into new spaces, to adapt the system to be a better fit to the conditions and reduce the suffering of everyone in the system, but it’s worth it.

If we get really good at Seeing Systems, we don’t need the workshops to find our path to the amazing, unpredictable future.

Book Review-The Joy of Burnout: How the End of the World Can Be a New Beginning

I’ve heard burnout called a lot of things. Never once have I heard someone say that it was a joyful experience. However, Dina Glouberman’s book, The Joy of Burnout: How the End of the World Can Be a New Beginning, seeks to turn the thinking about burnout around and make it a gift instead of a burden.

The characteristics of burnout are exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy. That’s not exactly the recipe for joy. However, Glouberman’s point isn’t that burnout itself is joy but rather that it can be a wakeup call that leads you to greater joy. While I wasn’t sold on the idea, I took the journey to see where Glouberman was leading.

Messages from Beyond

A long time ago, I heard that someone was seeking to use the word “signal” instead of “pain.” They felt like pain had developed a negative connotation. (You think?) Their reasoning was that pain was just a signal. It’s a signal that what we’re doing is causing damage. Athletes know it as a signal of muscles breaking down. When partnered with rest, it leaves our muscles stronger than they used to be. Instead of pain being bad, the idea was to think about it as a signal for us to interpret and use. That’s a fine sentiment until you’re in intense pain.

In essence, Glouberman’s message is that. Burnout is a signal. So, the question is, what’s it telling you? Her assertion is that you’re not doing what you should be doing. You’re not leveraging your unique talents in the way that was intended (by the universe, higher power, or God – whichever you choose). Said differently, our soul has a desire for our lives, and we’re not living it. As a result, our soul withdraws its energy from our lives.

Coherence

A little less mystical explanation has to do with the coherence of our thoughts, emotions, and energy. Coherence is the idea that everything is consistent or aligned. When our thoughts, feelings, and actions are aligned, there’s no wasted energy. To make this make more sense, let’s look at a practical example.

Consider the light output by a regular bulb – even an LED version. It creates the light we need to see. At roughly 20 watts, an LED version doesn’t consume much energy by historical standards – however, the same amount of power applied to a laser – which is just coherent light – can cut through metal.

The inner conflict in our world is like friction. It converts the motion we have towards our objectives and converts it to heat, robbing our efforts. The more we can eliminate the friction in our worlds, the further we can get. In the case of burnout, Glouberman says that the inner conflict is the gap between what our soul wants for us and what our mind propels us towards. If we can get our heart, soul, and mind in alignment, then there will be less friction – and less of a tendency to enter burnout.

Choices, Expectations, and Commitment

Glouberman explains that we’ve got more choices and opportunities than our parents did. We have more doors open to us. We expect that we’ll do greater things than our parents were able to accomplish. At the same time, our choices have made us less prone to commitment to anything. This shift in dynamics has an important role to play in burnout.

I agree, but it’s important to separate two factors. First, and most directly, high expectations create the opportunity for a huge gap between our expectations and reality. I believe the awareness of this gap causes burnout, like a rubber band breaking after being stretched too far. (There’s plenty more about this idea on the Extinguish Burnout site.) Second, our lack of commitment robs us of the opportunity to become truly great at anything, there by keeping us from having an area of our lives to be proud of.

Our choices and lack of commitment does have an impact on our susceptibility to burnout, but it comes back through our expectations. We grew up with the Norman Rockwell view of the past. We’ve idealized the world of our parents and their parents, when communities banded together against the wilderness to conquer the frontier or to maintain the sanctity of the city. The bonds that were forged in these fires were strong and would never dissolve under the weight of a move, job change, or change of the times.

The problem with this view is that it’s not an honest reflection of reality. On average, our parents did have deeper connections than we have. (See Bowling Alone, Our Kids, and Alone Together for more on this topic.) However, just because our parents had greater community connections doesn’t mean that they had substantially more confidants. According to research cited in Loneliness, the number of confidants fell from an average of three to none in the 19 years between 1985 to 2004.

Our view of the past has us longing for the connections that our parents seemed to have. We want the confidants and the community. While we need to maintain people with whom we can confide in, the days of banding together as a community may regrettably be behind us as a society. When we expect this – but can’t get it – we necessarily see the gap between our expectations and our results.

Illusions and Delusions

One of the largest problems that we have as humans is our belief that we understand. As Incognito explains, we don’t understand the world, we perceive it – and our brain is willing to lie to us to make the perception be consistent. Thus, everything we think we know is an illusion. We have the illusion that we knew how things were just as truly as we believe we know how things are. We delude ourselves into believing that was can go back to places that never existed, because we’ve so distorted our perceptions of the past.

You see, our memory isn’t a tape recorder, it’s a set of fragments that are reconstructed. Every time we reconstruct them, we change them slightly. Every time we recall our childhood fondly, it becomes a little bit better. (See Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) for more on the malleability of our memory.)

Sometimes, we learn lessons through our delusions that aren’t real. We believe that we’ll only be loved if we’re good. (See The Road Less Traveled and The Four Loves for more on performance based love.) We learn that under the sink is dangerous. For me, I was taught that under the sink was bad, because that’s where my mom kept the cleaning chemicals. I can remember that, until quite recently, I didn’t like going under the sink, because it was somehow bad. It often takes a great deal of work to free ourselves from the things that we learned in our childhood – even if what we learned wasn’t right.

Loving Ourselves Differently

If we were different, we could love ourselves. When you say it that way, it sounds funny. I’d like myself if I weren’t myself is a common undertone that permeates some of our lives. In our striving to become better, we forget that we’re good – and enough today. Burnout, from Glouberman’s perspective, is in part caused by our lack of acceptance of ourselves for who we are.

Certainly, the lack of acceptance of who we are is draining to anyone. Resolving this discrepancy will free up more energy and personal power to fight burnout and accomplish our life’s desires.

Detachment – Waiting without Hope

Sometimes, the language we use obscures as great idea. Such is the case when Glouberman explains that we should wait without hope. As I read carefully, I began to realize that she wasn’t focused on the need for a lack of hope – which would be bad. (See The Psychology of Hope for more on hope.) Instead, the intent was to convey a lack of attachment to the outcomes. That is, we can become so attached to the outcomes that, when things don’t happen exactly as we had planned (or hoped), we become dejected and burned out. Instead of being attached to the outcomes, we should be detached and accepting of whatever comes to minimize the risk for burnout. (See Resilient for more on detachment.)

To find The Joy of Burnout may be too much to ask, but to learn how to consider the growth from burnout as joy is something that we can aspire to.

Buzzword Buzzkill

It seems like using buzzwords and acronyms can spice up your communications. But, more often than not, your audience will just get confused. We’ve got some tips to avoid being a buzzword buzzkill in this video.

If you want to share this video, you can get it ad-free. Just click here to sign up, and we’ll send all our communications tips to you via email.

Now Available: The Road Ahead White Paper

Knowledge management and records management can seem like they’re on opposite sides of the table. One side argues to create and retain more information, because then it becomes more findable. The other side wants to be able to properly dispose of documents to reduce the costs of maintaining them. In truth, they often have the same need for organization, and they face the same discoverability challenges, the same barriers to effective labeling and tagging, and the same questions of where to store things. 

To bring the parties together and lay out a roadmap for success, we’ve developed a whitepaper that discusses what happens when these two seemingly opposing forces meet: “The Road Ahead: Knowledge Management and Records Management Converge with Office 365.” We teamed up with Colligo, HELUX Systems, and Vana Solutions to bring you a comprehensive discussion on how to achieve information governance that satisfies both the knowledge management and records management needs. Whether you’re a well-versed veteran looking to the future of information governance or just starting out on your journey, this paper will guide you on the road ahead. 

Get The Road Ahead white paper

Book Review-Integrity: The Courage to Meet the Demands of Reality

What does being “a person of integrity” mean? Though most people would immediately think of moral, ethical, or right, there is a deeper meaning to integrity. It’s about wholeness. It’s about being one person and not different people in the same body depending on context. Henry Cloud explains in Integrity: The Courage to Meet the Demands of Reality how integrity is much more than simply ethics and morals – though that’s not a bad place to start.

Context

Before diving into the details of the kind of character that Cloud describes with “integrity,” it’s important to share that I’ve been a fan of his work for years now. Boundaries, which he co-wrote with John Townsend, is a cornerstone of my recommendations for people struggling to find ways to go through life. His books Safe People (also co-written with Townsend) and Changes that Heal, Cloud connects the kinds of people we need to be in relationships to the need for boundaries. His more recent book, The Power of the Other, helps us to understand how others impact us – often without our knowledge.

Integrity isn’t the latest book that Cloud has written (The Power of the Other holds that distinction), so this was a chance for me to go back into the foundations of Cloud’s thinking and writing and look at more basic components of how we get along with one another.

Wholeness

At the heart of Integrity is the understanding that we need wholeness. We need to have what I’ve described as an integrated self-image (see my reviews of Braving the Wilderness, Happiness, Beyond Boundaries, and many more), which circumscribes all that we are instead of carving out only the parts of our identity we want to allow others to see. Many authors have hammered away at this topic, as they’ve sought to capture and relate the sense of completeness that philosophers have struggled to share for ages.

The fundamental problem with wholeness is that it is difficult to explain. It’s like trying to explain a plane to a tribe that has never met modern civilization. Until you’ve seen a plane, it’s hard to make sense of them in your brain. Even after seeing an airplane, that doesn’t mean you can build it. As you’ve stumbled across people who appear to be wholly integrated, you may think to yourself that they’re interesting. But, for the most part, there are barely clues to how they became so whole, complete, and integrated.

Feedback

One of the ways that people become more whole is to see their blind spots, and that comes through feedback from others. There’s a simple truth that you cannot see everything. From the blind spots in our eyes where our optic nerves connect to the fact that we can’t see the soles of our feet when we’re standing, there are limitations to our own perception. (See Incognito for more.) We need others to help us develop a more complete picture of the world and ourselves.

Feedback is often difficult to take. It often highlights an aspect of ourselves that may be true but we conveniently ignore or gloss over. It’s often painful to adjust our self-perceptions to include our limitations and opportunities for improvement.

However, truly whole people invite feedback and seek to better understand themselves and their worlds – even if it’s difficult at times. They’ve figured out how to recognize the value that it brings to them more than the immediate sting, much like the athlete who pushes through their pain in exercise to gain stronger muscles and better endurance.

Connection

Feedback can drive us apart – or it can bring us together. We’re all wired for connection. It’s a fundamental part of the way that we live. Our togetherness has been woven into our very survival since well before our written language. (See Mindreading, The Righteous Mind, and The Evolution of Cooperation for more.) Books (The Dance of Connection, for instance) and entire careers have been made on our need for connection with one another.

A wholly integrated person isn’t incomplete in one sense. They understand who they are and don’t rely on others to complete parts of themselves. Simultaneously, they’re aware of their fundamental need to be connected with others. This paradox of being complete and at the same time acknowledging the need for other people is what makes wholehearted people interesting.

Grace

Whenever there are two people involved in a relationship, there must be some level of grace. Grace is a gift, an unmitigated favor, bestowed upon another person to accept and redeem their faults. Done well, grace is given with the humility of acknowledging that we give grace because we need grace ourselves. We will make mistakes, we’ll be blind to our limitations, and we’ll struggle.

Because we need grace ourselves, others must need it. Though we all suffer from a fundamental attribution error – attributing our setbacks to situations and others’ to their character – we at some level know that we’re not perfect. (See Thinking, Fast and Slow for more on fundamental attribution error.) It would be disingenuous to expect grace from others and offer it to ourselves but then not offer it to others in return.

Trust

Cloud is a bit fuzzy with his use of the word “trust,” sometimes using it to mean trustworthy and other times meaning the giving of trust. I’d offer that I’ve spent a great deal of time learning about trust. While you must be trustworthy and learn to appropriately trust others to be a whole person, I’m not sure that this well understood. (My most recent capstone on trust is at Trust=>Vulnerability=>Intimacy, Revisited if you want a longer explanation about trust and how it works.)

Cloud appropriately flags person of integrity as trustworthy because they are worthy of trust. Persons of integrity also have a greater capacity to give the gift of trust to others. They can see where and how people can be trusted and can extend trust in more situations and to a greater degree than people of lesser integrity.

The Work

While being a person of integrity is a good thing with a host of benefits to yourself and those around you, it’s not easy. Just knowing what needs to happen doesn’t make it happen. People of integrity have typically worked long and hard to become the person of integrity they want to be. It’s hard work, and it take determination and grit. (See Grit for more.) It’s more than the willpower to pass up the chocolate cake. It’s an enduring commitment to seek to become more than they are today.

In the end, a person of integrity is willing to accept the feedback and accept the assignment to make themselves better. Perhaps they’re even willing to take a nudge to read Integrity.