Book Review-Emotional Intelligence 2.0

There have been many references to Emotional Intelligence 2.0 in my world over the past several years, but they hadn’t managed to break through and cause me to read it. I had read Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence some years ago and it had stuck with me. In the intervening six years much of what I struggled to process became clearer. I added input from others, studied Buddhism, and worked on better understanding neurology. The problem wasn’t that Daniel Goleman didn’t have it right or that he didn’t understand it. The problem was that the content wasn’t very accessible.

Even in my review I commented that I could not fully process all of the content. This is probably the biggest difference between Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence 2.0. The former is focused on depth and accuracy where the latter is more focused on clarity and understanding.

The EI Model

The fundamentals of emotional intelligence are two dimensions:

  • Self and Other
  • Awareness and Management

These form a 2×2 matrix of self-awareness, self-management, other awareness (called “social awareness”), and other management (called “relationship management,” since you don’t really manage others, you manage your relationship with them). The model is the same one is used in Emotional Intelligence.

The Strategies

Much of Emotional Intelligence 2.0 is spent providing specific strategies to enhance your emotional intelligence in one way or another. There are 15 strategies for self-awareness, and 17 each for the remaining three categories. The 66 strategies move emotional intelligence from something that’s interesting to something that can be tried. One could argue whether the use of a strategy artificially inflates the perception of emotional intelligence or changes it, but the goal is to make it a habit. With continual use, it can become one.

Individually, the strategies are not particularly profound. Most of the strategies we’ve heard before and have implemented at some level. However, what is profound is having a catalog of things to try when you’re trying to get better.

The Test

Much like Strengths Finder 2.0, Emotional Intelligence 2.0 comes with a code, so you can take a free test to evaluate your emotional intelligence. The test has 28 questions, in which you’re asked to rate each statement for whether it happens never, rarely, sometimes, usually, almost always, or always. From this, scores are created in each of the four categories as well as an overall score. Unlike Strengths Finder 2.0, the scoring is relatively trivial to see. There are a handful of reverse-scored items (where never is the best answer), but, mostly, the idea is you would pick always to get your perfect score.

This is a problem for me, since, once you reach a level of self-awareness and maturity, you’ll not rate things as always or never. In my review of Dialogue (speaking of The Inner Game of Dialogue), I recounted a quote from Richard Moon, an aikido master. “It’s not that the great masters of Aikido don’t lose their center, it’s that they discover it sooner and recover it faster than novices.” Even the Dalai Lama admits in his writings and conversations with others that he’s not perfect at his emotional intelligence. His work to be more connected with himself and others is something that most of us couldn’t do – and yet he remains a student and a practitioner. (Practitioner in the sense that he’s still practicing.)

So, while the test may be able to provide you some direction on what strategies you could employ if you find that you struggle with a particular aspect of emotional intelligence, I was frustrated with the lack of precision on the high end of the scale.

Why Emotional Intelligence 2.0?

Why would someone want to read Emotional Intelligence 2.0 instead of the classic Emotional Intelligence? Simply, it’s easier. It’s a simpler, less-nuanced, and biologically-connected view of the need for humans to understand themselves and others. My suggestion is that, if you’re new to emotional intelligence, or you want something with practical tips to get you started with emotional intelligence, start with Emotional Intelligence 2.0. If you’re looking for something deeper, Emotional Intelligence is a great – but difficult – read.

Uploading Document Templates to Content Types on Office 365

We’ve had the ability to upload document templates to content types in SharePoint since SharePoint 2007. It’s been the way organizations that want to manage the forms used by employees would publish them. However, recent changes in Office 365 have broken this capability by default. There are a few workarounds to the problem – but none of them are particularly desirable.

Changes and Scripts

For some time, Office 365 has treated uploading a document template to a content type as “custom script.” In the tenant admin settings page, there’s a section for custom scripts:

We’ve had to tell customers to set this to “Allow” because of the impact it has on blocking document templates. However, a more recent change requires an action for every site collection that’s created.

There’s a new site collection level flag called DenyAddAndCustomizePages. When it’s set, you can’t upload custom documents to content types. If you’re still using the classic SharePoint administration, this flag isn’t set, and you’re fine. However, if you are using the new SharePoint administration, site collections you create get this flag set. To resolve it, you must connect to your tenant and then do a set-sposite <url> -DenyAddAndCustomizePages 0. This releases the flag and allows you to upload the document template. This works as long as you are a tenant administrator or you can get the administrator to run the command for you – but for many people, this will prevent them from being able to do the best practice for managing document templates.

Workarounds

In addition to manually resetting the flag to zero, there are two workarounds. First, use the Content Type Hub (/sites/contenttypehub), which is still created without this flag. This works if you have access to this site collection. You can create and then publish the content type, which will get it into every site. That’s fine if you want to publish a content type to every site – but that may not be ideal for everyone.

The second approach is to fall back to SharePoint classic administration, because it doesn’t set this flag.

Path forward

If you want Microsoft to fix this, can I suggest that you up vote the suggestion at https://office365.uservoice.com/forums/264636-general/suggestions/33296125-cannot-upload-content-template-with-scripting-disa.

Book Review-Daring to Trust: Opening Ourselves to Real Love and Intimacy

Trust isn’t earned. Trust is given. Trust is us daring to be vulnerable so that we can enrich our lives and the lives of others. David Richo explores trust and its necessity in Daring to Trust: Opening Ourselves to Real Love and Intimacy. I’m familiar with Richo’s work through How to Be an Adult in Relationships – a book that I still heartily recommend. (Occasionally, the title gets me in trouble with folks, but it’s worth it if they read it.) He definitely has a deep understanding of human nature and what it takes to help us find our own path to healthy happiness.

I’ve also got a long history with trust. I just recently revisited an old post with Trust => Vulnerability => Intimacy, Revisited. The original post and the revision tie together the work of numerous authors to explain how trust leads to safety, which leads to vulnerability and, ultimately, intimacy. Richo connects trust to intimacy and our need to be connected to one another, so I resonated with the points he was making about our need for trust and how it moves us forward.

Time to Trust

Richo says, “Trust happens in the present and connects past experience with future probability.” In one sentence, he explains how trust is a bridge across time. It’s how we gather up our past experiences and use them in the present to make a bet for a better future for ourselves and others. Trust is a decision to take a risk that someone will betray us, because, if they do not, the rewards are so much greater.

Our past experiences greatly influence our ability to trust ourselves and, ultimately, others.

Learning Trust

We learn to trust just like everything else in life. Our first teaching comes from our parents and their ability to provide for our needs. We arrive on the planet totally dependent upon our parents for their support. We need clothing to keep us warm, food to allow us to grow, grooming to keep us clean, and protection from the many evils that lurk behind every corner. It’s during these early formative times that we begin to develop a sense for how the universe operates. Through our parents’ actions, we extrapolate about how the world at large works.

If parents are attentive to our needs, we believe that the universe wants good things for us. If we’re neglected or abused, it becomes hard to trust in the goodness of the universe. Our focus will be on survival and how we must protect ourselves, since no one else seems to be willing – or able – to do it.

Mary Ainsworth observed the way parents and children interacted and came up with three basic attachment patterns. The patterns she observed are:

  • Secure – The child is comfortable whether with or away from their parents. As adults, they’re self-confident and appropriately independent.
  • Anxious-avoidant – These children need constant affirmation and support from those around them. As adults, they’re demanding of their partners and peers.
  • Anxious-ambivalent – As children, they’re compulsively independent. As adults, they may become victims.

Ainsworth discovered that parents who were attuned to their child’s needs – but not enmeshed with the child’s feelings – produced children whom she would describe as secure. Others have estimated that only 50-60% of adults are securely attached.

Trusting Ourselves

Some of us won the parental lottery. Our parents gave us a belief that the world was good and helpful. Our worldviews are shaped by opportunity, relative safety, and trust. This worldview often translates into our capacity to trust ourselves.

We see and celebrate our successes realizing that we can do anything we set our minds to. We’re not afraid of hard work, and we’ve seen many successes as a result. (See Peak and Mindset for more about the role of hard work.) The successes and our recognition of them creates an experience that leads us towards trusting ourselves.

Others aren’t as lucky. Their parents didn’t respond to them well, and they’ve developed a mistrust for the universe. The result is someone who is closed down. They don’t take risks, because they expect something bad will happen. And because they’ve taken few, if any, risks, it’s hard to find good things they’ve accomplished to celebrate. The net effect of this is a low degree of trust in oneself, because there is little or no experience to build that trust from.

The everyday slings and arrows that we must accept overwhelm the few things that could drive trust in ourselves. We forget a commitment. We fail on our New Year’s Resolution. All of that weighs on us and our ability to trust ourselves.

Trusting Others

It doesn’t take a specific betrayal to resist trusting others, though it certainly doesn’t help. Trusting others may be the hardest and most necessary thing that any human can do. Gone are the days when a person could stand alone. Those who think they’re independent now don’t know how to kill and prepare their own food, create electricity, build homes, purify water, or any of the thousands of things that we rely upon for our safe living. If we know how to do one or two of these things, that’s great. However, the reality of today’s modern living is that we don’t have any idea how to really survive on our own.

While our reliance on others is a matter of fact, our decision to trust others isn’t necessarily a forgone conclusion. We don’t have to trust others. We can decide that vaccines are evil and should be avoided. We don’t have to trust our doctor or the mountain of evidence that says vaccines have few harmful side effects and dramatically improve resistance to viruses by making our own immune system more capable of fighting it. This would, of course, be a bad decision, but we have the freedom to make it.

Love

Once, it may have been the only emotional force that showed us we were truly alive was fear. However, love has crept in as another way for our emotions to show us we’re alive. Certainly, when we’re in love, we often feel it with a mix of fear. In the initial stages, we are concerned the other person may not love us back. As love becomes more mature, we may fear we’ll lose our love for the other person, or they’ll lose their love for us.

From an evolutionary perspective, love coming after fear makes sense. We needed fear to allow us to avoid things that would be harmful to us. We discovered the first kind of love – infatuation or sexual love – to reproduce. The kind of love Richo’s talking about, a sustained commitment between a male and female, came later. It came, evolutionary biologists believe, when it became necessary for two parents to help with the rearing of children, as has certainly been the case for human development. Evolution taught us that we needed to have a commitment to one another to support our children.

When evolution needs something to happen for us to survive as a species, it has at its disposal powerful neurochemicals that can truly make us feel alive. Sometimes, that’s enough to commit to years of child-rearing – and sometimes it is not.

Performance-Based Love

When we speak of “love” in English, we have to detangle several different kinds of love. C.S. Lewis tries to do this in his book The Four Loves. Our global love for all is what the Greeks called agape. Our love of our brother was known as philos. Our sexual urges were known as eros. These are great, but none of them are really what we mean by the kind of committed love that Richo’s talking about.

Making things even more complicated is what some call “performance-based love,” which isn’t love at all. In fact, Richo acknowledges that our brain doesn’t even process it as love. Performance-based love says that I’ll love you as long as you’re performing. If I feel like you’re making me look better or enhancing my reputation, I’ll be “in love” with you. Of course, love is a choice, a decision, a commitment, so performance-based love isn’t love at all. (See Love, Acceptance, and Forgiveness for more on love as a commitment.)

Reality

The Buddha said that everything is impermanent. It is a central tenet of Buddhism that nothing is permanent, and when we try to make it so, we increase our suffering. Too often, we seek to maintain things the way they are, to expect that trust will continue the same way it always has. This is a fiction. It’s a failure to accept the impermanence of anything in this life.

Our wishes and desires, no matter how convicted, do not make reality. We must accept reality for what it is rather than what we desire it to be. When we allow our desires to prevent us from seeing the truth of reality, we’re harming ourselves. We cannot exist in relationships with others when we’re trying to be in our own little bubble of our reality rather than the one which we all share.

The Erosion of Trust

The reality is that trust isn’t always broken in one betrayal. Sometimes, trust fades slowly because of misses and delays. Parents sometimes struggle with children. They ask them to do something and later “remind” the child only to have them insist they were getting ready to do it. In these times, children need to be taught that a delay in responding or doing what was committed to or expected will erode trust.

As adults, it’s very normal to struggle to meet our commitments at times. That’s why renegotiating our commitments is a critical part of every adult’s tool bag for developing and maintaining trust.

Hurts and Harms

An interesting point that Richo makes is that being hurt and being harmed are not the same thing. One person can hurt another without harming them. Richo explains that a surgeon’s cut may hurt, but it doesn’t – in the end analysis – often harm the person. The hurt is necessary to be able to heal.

Recovering after surgery often means painful physical therapy. It’s hurt that enables healing. Those who want to build muscle must accept the pain that accompanies the muscles being torn down so that they can be rebuilt stronger.

When we trust, we’re exercising our trust muscles. Occasionally, we’re going to be hurt by betrayal. However, we strengthen our ability to trust by exercising it with more people and in more ways.

We often confuse pain as a warning of something to be avoided. The truth is that pain is a signal. It can indicate that there’s something to be avoided, but in other cases, it can encourage you to pay attention.

Learning to Be Porous

Our sense of ourselves is somewhat of a mystery. We believe our edges extend to our clothes unless we pick up a tool, and then the tool becomes a part of our self-image. If we get into a car or airplane – particularly if the car or airplane is small – we begin to perceive the car or airplane as a part of ourselves. Because we believe we have control over it, we extend our sense of self to accommodate it.

So, in this way, our sense of self is variable. We can sometimes feel as if we’re larger or smaller. However, our sense can become variable – or, as Richo explains, “porous” – by adopting different beliefs about ourselves.

The problem with extending ourselves to our cars is that, when someone scrapes our car, dents our doors, or gets into an accident with us, we believe that we’ve been harmed. In truth, most of us have insurance, and these “assaults” on our car will not really impact us. However, if you’ve seen people leap out of their cars after a minor fender bender with tempers flaring, you’ve seen the “assault” become a personal affront.

If we’re willing to accept that most things that happen don’t threaten ourselves – and we’re not defined by titles or external things – then we no longer need to defend the trappings of our identity. We can let go of the things – and pick them back up when it’s safe to do so. In doing this, we’re more able to feel safe and to trust others. We don’t have to protect as many things.

When Not to Trust

Trust is, in general, a good thing. However, there are cases – such as in the case of continued abuse – where it’s not a good idea to trust. The problem when we continue to trust others, and those who we trust abuse us, is that we necessarily lose trust in ourselves. We lose trust in our ability to protect ourselves by entering into relationships and situations that are unsafe.

As we face continued abuse and we fail to take action, we no longer trust ourselves to take action. This spreads into every aspect of trusting ourselves and others. The good news is that there’s a relatively simple and direct act that can begin the process of restoring our trust in ourselves and in humanity: to separate from the abuse.

Treading carefully to avoid offending anyone, there are three accepted reasons for divorce: adultery, abuse, and abandonment. (See Divorce for more.) You can – and should – divorce yourself from anyone who routinely or habitually abuses you. At the same time, relationships and friendships are necessarily fraught with imperfection. Only you can decide whether the abuse is an accidental and isolated incident that will not happen again. In these cases, there’s a decision to be made about whether it’s worth it to trust again and make the relationship work – or whether it isn’t safe enough.

So, there are times when it’s appropriate to not trust. Another way to view it is there are times to trust yourself in knowing the other person cannot be trustworthy and therefore shouldn’t be trusted.

Everything Can be Mended or Ended

There’s a peace in knowing that every relationship can either be mended or ended. It provides some definition to the vagaries of human relationships. There are only two outcomes, and it’s up to you to decide which of the two outcomes is the right one – and you can change your mind later if the situation changes.

I know a man who cheated on his wife years ago. Her decision was to end the relationship – but not the marriage. He continues to behave faithfully and supports her and the children while living separately. There’s no guarantee that she’ll change her mind and decide the relationship can be mended, but he’s doing everything in his power to demonstrate that it’s possible.

The Wisdom of Open and Closed

There’s a definite wisdom to understanding what experiences and feedback we allow into ourselves. We need feedback from others to calibrate our understanding of the world and learn how we should adapt or change to better align with the world. At the same time, much of the feedback that we’ll receive from will be wrong. It may be well-intended, but it will be wrong.

What would have happened if Edison listened to the people who said he’d already failed 500 times and was no closer to creating a lightbulb? What if the Wright brothers had listened to the folks who said they’d never be able to accomplish heavier-than-air flight? Clearly, we’d be worse off as a society. The problem is that we never know which feedback is right and which we should ignore.

That’s why the wise are open to what’s happening around them, including their experiences and the feedback, without accepting the feedback that would stop their success.

Grounded in Reality

A key to trusting others is realizing that we need to remain as grounded in reality as possible. Imagination is a wonderful asset but can be harmful when our imagination crowds out reality. (See my review of Incognito and the discussion of John Nash.) Our imagination allows us to create what doesn’t yet exist, but we shouldn’t confuse what is possible with what is.

Our imagination allows us to imagine a space where we’re reaping the rewards of trust. In short, it shows us the rewards we can get when we’re willing to be daring – Daring to Trust.

Microsoft Flow and Azure Logic Apps – Math and If Function Workarounds

Microsoft Flow is built on Azure Logic Apps and uses the same workflow language functions. However, there are some limitations of the math functions included in Logic Apps that need some creative workarounds, so here’s a few ways to work around issues. I mentioned in my Quick Formula Expression Guide that you can’t use the arithmetic operators you would expect. Instead, you must use functions to perform operations, but there are some quirks.

Int() Doesn’t Accept Floating Point Numbers

Everyone expects that the int() function should return an integer based on a floating point input. However, if you provide int() with a number that has a decimal component, it will throw an exception. There’s a solution to this. Instead of int(variable) use div(variable, 1). The div() math function returns an integer (not a float as you would expect – more on that in a moment). It’s the number of whole times the number can be divided. So, you can get an integer by dividing your floating point by 1.

Div() Returns an Integer

There are two kinds of division in math. Floating point division is what we normally expect. This is the kind of division we were taught in elementary school. There’s also a second kind of integer division that returns the whole number of times that the divisor goes into the dividend. The remainder is dropped (but can be fetched with the mod() function). In Logic Apps, the div() returns an integer division – not a floating point one. However, there’s another way to solve the problem of division resulting in a floating point number.

Every division can be accomplished with a multiplication. mul() returns a floating point. In the simple example, if you want to divide by 100, you can also multiply by 0.01. (I.e. div(variable, 100) becomes mul(variable, 0.01) after conversion.) So, you can convert your divisions into a multiplication of a fraction. Factors of 10 are obviously easy, but other numbers can be done as well. Simply use a calculator to divide 1 by the number in question, and you’ll have the factor you need to multiply by. (or enter the number you want to divide by and use the great 1/x key available on some calculators)

Truncating the Number of Decimals

When dealing with currency, it’s often important to truncate the number of decimal places in the calculation to two decimals. Given that there’s no round() function in Logic Apps, we have to settle for truncation. However, even this becomes a bit “interesting” due to the limitations. Take a look at this sequence:

mul(

div(

mul(variable, 100)

,1)

, 0.01)

It multiplies the variable by 100 to make two decimal places into whole numbers, then uses div() to eliminate the fractional component, and finally uses mul() to shift the number back two decimal places to the right.

If False, then True

Another quirk that exists in the Logic Apps language is that the true side of an if statement is always evaluated. Say we have the if statement:

if(false, div(0,0), 1)

This will throw an exception because the div(0,0) results in a division by zero error. You must convert the if statement so that the true side can always be executed:

if(true, 1, div(0,0))

In this case, the result will be 1 and no exception will be thrown.

While this isn’t the way other languages work – nor is it desirable – it is the way that it works today, and it might explain some odd exceptions your Microsoft Flows are throwing.

Book Review-HR On Purpose: Developing Deliberate People Passion

Why do professionals decide to go into human resources? For most, it isn’t a lifelong dream. I’ve met plenty of children who have said they wanted to be firemen or astronauts. I’ve never met someone who, at five, said they wanted to be a human resources manager. Somewhere along the line, people just ended up there – or they recognized their potential to help everyone become more effective. HR On Purpose is a book that can help you find your passion for people, whether HR was the destination or just where you ended up.

It’s All About the People

It’s easy to get confused. There are so many regulations and requirements. It’s easy to believe that the joy is about the implementation of policies and procedures. It’s easy to be deluded into thinking that it’s about the regulations and requirements. However, the job of human resources has always been – and always will be – about the people. Professionals can’t ignore the paperwork or the legal bodies; however, it’s not the point of the job. It’s like saying the freedom of driving a car is about the rules for getting the title.

If you can’t find a way to make the people the most important part, then you’re in the wrong spot. If people aren’t the most important thing, then you may need to look for other opportunities for yourself – inside or outside of the organization.

Dumping Grounds or Counselor

Counselors are paid to listen to other people’s problems. (There’s a myth that they’re paid to solve them as well – the reality is they’re paid to help people learn to solve them themselves.) It’s well known that bartenders and hairdressers often serve as informal counselors. Many churches have lay ministers that serve as counselors too. However, when they’re at work, employees are likely to come spill their problems at the door of the human resources professional.

Listening to other people’s problems all day is exhausting. That’s why psychologists and psychiatrists work so carefully to ensure that they’re doing the kind of self-care they need. That works well for them when their pay is higher and their only job is to listen. When the human resources professional is done listening to an employee vent, they’ve got to get back to that job requisition, health benefits plan, or one of the thousand other tasks that they have. The result is that, too often, human resources professionals don’t take the time to do the self-care they need to keep sane.

Sometimes, the result is, instead of feeling as if they can support the load of employee problems, they feel dumped on. It is possible to learn from counselors and their detachment from problems to ease the load. (See Creativity, Resilient, Burnout: The Cost of Caring, and The Happiness Hypothesis for conversations about detachment.) Whether or not we can find a way to detach from employees’ problems, we need to find ways to bear the load of them.

Confidentiality

If you’re alone in your position in HR – as most practitioners are – finding a way to seek input and maintain employee confidentiality is difficult. In addiction circles, they say, “You’re only as sick as your secrets.” Unfortunately, there are some jobs – HR being one of them – in which you must keep secrets. The good news is that they’re not secrets about you. Still, the need to maintain confidentiality can be a heavy load to bear. It’s coupled with the necessary uncertainty about whether you’re doing the right thing or giving the right advice.

Employees Are Not the Enemy

Sometimes corporate executives develop the perspective that employees are the problem. They’re defiant. If the employees would just do what they’re told, everything would be good. The plans that the corporation makes would work if only the employees would follow through. This perspective is not correct. While some organizations have some employees that are actively working against the organization, most employees want the organization to succeed and are doing their best to fulfil their roles.

How successful would it be to ask your five-year-old child to drive you to another state? Ignoring the legality of this question, there are numerous gaps that make such a request impossible. There’s the obvious fact that they can’t reach the pedals and the steering wheel and look over the dash at the same time. There’s the fact that they don’t know how to shift into gear. However, more than that, there’s the fact that they’ve never navigated before. They don’t understand maps. They can’t plan for gas. There are numerous reasons why such a plan might fail.

We sometimes do this to employees and then wonder why they fail. We ask them to drive and provide them with the blocks to be able to reach the pedals and the wheel but fail to realize all the other gaps in knowledge and capability that they have. In the end, rather than blaming ourselves for failing to support the employees properly, we blame the employees for failing to accomplish our request.

It’s natural. Calling it fundamental attribution error, as Kahneman does in Thinking, Fast and Slow, doesn’t change the fact that it happens, and it’s natural for executives and HR professionals. It’s our job, as HR professionals, to fight our natural urges and to continue to support management in understanding that a failure to follow doesn’t necessarily mean defiance. It can mean a lack of understanding or a lack of skill.

Communicating

Communication may be our greatest advance as a human society. It’s also one of our greatest challenges. Our ability to share our thinking allows us to work together in ways that even our closest primate cousins cannot. Despite this, we find ways to obscure our thinking and communicate in ways that make us feel superior, but we do so to the detriment of those that we are there to support.

We’re all familiar with legalese. We know it when we hear it – generally lower and faster at the end of the commercial. We see it in contracts. It’s a way that attorneys sometimes hide their true intention from one another in writing contracts. If you’ve ever had attorney friends, and you’ve asked them what something means, only to have them say, “I don’t know,” you’ve seen this in action.

When we communicate in corporate or HR speak, we’re intentionally making it more difficult for someone to understand us – and employees are necessarily suspicious. You are, too, when people adopt overly formal communication approaches with you. While the lexicon of a profession is important to use with other professionals, it’s not useful in communicating with non-professionals. (Lexicon is the specific vocabulary used by a profession to convey precise meaning.) When communicating, our goal should be to communicate, not demonstrate how smart we are.

Seat at the Table

In many organizations, HR isn’t strategic. There isn’t a seat at the executive table for the HR professional. Most HR professionals presume that this is because of their organization. Browne gently challenges the HR professional to start behaving in the right way and the seat will come. Rather than lamenting that you can’t be strategic or a part of the executive conversations, simply behave in a way that’s intentionally strategic and, eventually, the organization will notice.

In my experience, HR professionals are so caught up with the tactical execution that they fail to insist on the development and execution of a strategic plan. One of my technology clients in the long-term care industry has 120% turnover in their front-line workers every year. Admittedly, it’s a relatively thankless job, and the industry’s turnover rate is somewhere between 60-80% per year depending on which numbers you want to believe. Rather than working on the reasons why their turnover is so much higher than average, the professionals are focused on optimizing the onboarding process.

Optimizing the onboarding (and offboarding) process is important, but it’s not strategic. It’s operational excellence rather than strategic insight. Operational excellence doesn’t get you a seat at the executive table. Strategic insight to what must be done to stop the high turnover rate can.

The risk in sharing this is that someone will think strategically and perhaps even work on an execution plan for a few days or weeks and will wonder why the seat at the table isn’t coming. The problem is that the seat at the table isn’t a reward – it’s a natural outcome. When you’ve demonstrated strategic thinking for long enough, the executive team will want you at the table not to reward your efforts but because your perspective can help the team make better collective decisions.

Management by Wandering Around

Tom Peters in In Search of Excellence advocates management by wandering (or walking) around (MBWA). The idea is that, if you really want to know what is happening, you should go to the floor. If you really want to have a connection with people, you have to be willing to spend time to get to know them. Browne shares stories where his commitment to support the employees got him in trouble with the people in the office who felt his time was better spent doing other things.

At the heart of MBWA is a desire to “be with” people and to meet them where they are. That applies to the normal situations not just the crisis. It applies to how people want to be recognized for years of service. It applies to every aspect of working with people. Meeting them where they are at is an important aspect of demonstrating caring and one that few people overlook.

Self-Development

In my technology world, I heard a startling quote decades ago. Steve McConnell was speaking about the state of the industry and said that few developers had even a single book on their craft. I glanced over to my bookshelf and realized that I, thankfully, wasn’t in that category. While books may no longer be the only way to demonstrate that you’re staying up on your profession, they are still a way.

HR professionals rarely spend time investing in their personal development to get better at their craft. Too few professionals are certified. Those who are certified have continuing education requirements to help ensure that they continue to develop. Those who aren’t certified may – or, more often, may not – work towards ensuring that they’re developing as a professional.

The saying that sticks with me – perhaps because I travel too much – is “put your own mask on first before assisting others.” It’s a standard part of the safety briefing for a commercial airline flight. It’s an acknowledgement that, if you’re passed out due to the lack of oxygen, you can’t help others. If you’re always clear about ensuring that your needs are met, you’ll be able to give to others. If you don’t, you may find yourself burned out and unable to do anything to help the people you’re there to support. (See ExtinguishBurnout.com for more on how to protect yourself from burnout.)

Busy

We’re all busy. We’ve all filled our lives with stuff. It’s hard to find someone who couldn’t describe themselves as busy. Even retired friends report themselves as busy. In fact, many of them wonder how they had time to do a job given how busy they are in retirement. We must accept that we’re always going to be busy. The question isn’t busy or not busy. The question is whether our life is filled with the right or the wrong things.

If busy is getting in the way of your self-development, what can you do to remove things to give you space? There are some people for whom there is no margin left. They literally can’t take on one more thing. However, for most of us there are things that we do to waste time or enjoy ourselves that could be refocused on self-development or on more powerful opportunities to connect with our fellow human beings.

You may feel like you’re too busy to take something else on, but I’d encourage you to find space to do HR on Purpose.

The Impact of Clinical Nurse Specialist

In a world where health care is focused on improved outcomes and safety the Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS) is a light in the darkness. The role of the CNS is frequently one of the least understood of all advanced practice registered nurses (APRN). APRNs include nurse practitioners, nurse anesthetist, nurse midwifes and CNS. Of the approximately 350,000 APRN in the United States the CNS population in the United States is numbered at nearly 72,000.

The CNS specialist brings together three separate spheres: the patient, nursing, and the healthcare system. They practice within these spheres to create the best opportunities for patients to have optimal outcomes and for nurses to be supported to be able to provide the level of care they desire to give by working with systems to find better ways to support process that provide the best outcomes.

This week is national CNS week. I am proud and humbled to be among the amazing CNS’ that improve healthcare every day; not only for the patients but for everyone involved in their care.

Happy CNS week!

#NACNS #ANA

Is This SharePoint Page Published?

I was listening to my friend Sue Hanley speak on a user adoption panel, and she mentioned a problem. Users can’t easily see whether a page is published or not because of the way that versions work in SharePoint, and I realized there was a simple answer. In the process, I slammed into a defect, and it’s one that hasn’t been resolved. However, if you’re interested in a one-time snapshot of what’s published you can still use this trick. Skip down to the Calculating Published header if you don’t want the backstory.

Major and Minor Versioning

We’ve had major and minor versions in SharePoint since the beginning. Most document libraries have simple, major versioning enabled, which uses integers to differentiate one version from the next. The latest version is the version with the highest number. If you want to know what the users see by default, it will always be the highest numbered version.

Major and minor versioning is enabled for pages libraries, and it uses a floating-point number to represent the version. Everything to the left of the decimal (whole numbers) is the major version and everything to the right are the minor versions. The challenge comes in that users who have read access don’t get the highest numbered version. They get the highest version with no decimals (i.e. the largest version that ends in .0). This causes confusion, because anyone with editor status will see the highest number – including minor versions. So, a user calls and says they can’t see something that the editor or creator can see.

When a content manager publishes a page, it’s converted from a minor version to a major version and they can see it. However, it’s not easy to see whether pages have been published or not. You can display the version, but you must remember that only major versions are seen by users. If only there were a column that let you know whether the page was published or not.

Calculating Published

SharePoint’s support for calculated columns allows us to do simple operations, and we can take advantage of some Boolean logic to create a column named “Is Published” that will tell us if the item is published. We do this with a simple formula:

(Version-Int(Version))=0.0

We’re subtracting the integer portion of the version number from the rest of it, leaving us with only the remainder. If that is equal to 0, then the version is a major version and thus the page is published.

Here are the steps to add the column to your Pages library – and the default view:

  1. Navigate to the Pages (or Site pages) library of your site.

Figure 1: The Site Pages Library

  1. In the upper right-hand corner of the page, click the gear icon to open the Settings pane.
  2. Click Library settings. The library’s Settings page will open.

Figure 2: The Site Pages Settings Page

  1. In the Columns section, click Create column. The Create Column page will open.

Figure 3: The Create Column Page

  1. In the Column name field, give a name to your column, such as Is Published.
  2. For the column type, select Calculated (calculation based on other columns). The page will refresh to show additional options in the Additional Column Settings section.
  3. In the Formula box, type (Version-Int(Version))=0.0.
  4. For the data type returned from the formula, select Yes/No.

Figure 4: The Configured Formula and Selected Data Type

  1. Make sure Add to default view is checked, then at the bottom of the page, click OK. The column will be created, and you’ll be returned to the library’s Settings page.
  2. To return to the library, at the top of the page in the breadcrumb bar, click the name of your pages library. You’ll be returned to the default view, where you will see the new calculated column. (We’ve also included a Version column to indicate that drafts are listed as No and published pages are listed as Yes.)

Figure 5: The New Calculated Column in the Site Pages Library

  1. First, we’ll edit a draft page, but we’ll save it as a draft instead of publishing it. Click the name of the page to open the page in a new tab. In the command bar, click Edit, then make any changes as needed. When you’re finished making changes, in the command bar, click Save as Draft. The page will be saved as a draft, but not published.

Figure 6: The Save As Draft Button

  1. Return to the pages library. The calculated column should read No, because it isn’t published – but it doesn’t. This is the defect. The calculated column isn’t getting updated when the version is changing.

Figure 7: The Calculated Column

Value Today

For now, you can create the field when you need a snapshot. Hopefully, Microsoft will fix the defect soon, and we’ll be able to have a simple column that shows whether a page is published or not. If you want to support Microsoft fixing the issue, upvote the User Voice suggestion at https://office365.uservoice.com/forums/264636-general/suggestions/38413258-calculated-columns.

Book Review-Trustology: The Art and Science of Leading High-Trust Teams

Why does trust matter anyway? Trust in our teams and our organizations can make the difference between poor performance and stellar performance. Trust is essential to creating and leading high-performance teams. Trustology: The Art and Science of Leading High-Trust Teams is here to help us create and lead high-trust teams.

The impact of trust shows up in every aspect of our lives. Amy Edmonson speaks of the need for psychological safety in The Fearless Organization. Psychological safety is a trust in the organization that it’s safe to speak up. According to Trust: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order, trust and how it’s focused shapes how everything works in societies. In our personal relationships, The Science of Trust explains its profound effect on our ability to remain connected. Our ability to build and maintain trust isn’t confined to just our work lives. Our ability to build and maintain trust impacts us at nearly every level.

Why Trust?

Trust is a gift that we give other people, and it’s risky. No one can earn our trust. There are no guarantees that our trust will be well placed. There’s always the risk that we will be betrayed and we’ll need to cope with the consequences. Leaving our soft underbelly open to attack has its risks, but it also has its rewards.

Life is exhausting. The need to constantly defend ourselves from other people and unknown threats can wear us down. When we create sanctuaries, we can recharge. In a sanctuary, we can take the time to recharge without being on the lookout for the next threat. Sanctuaries are places that we trust to protect us against the evils of the outside world. People can be sanctuaries, too. You can have trust in people that is so powerful that you know you’ll be recharged every time you’re with them.

You can build and lead teams that feel like a joy to be a part of instead of always worrying about who is going to stab you in the back.

How to Build Trust?

I had the honor of spending time with some people in some of the darkest times of their lives, whether they were fighting their way back from addiction or standing in the middle of the wreck that once was their marriage. What I learned from these great people is that trust is hard to repair. Once the bond of trust has been broken, it takes a courageous person to trust again. Just as I explained in my review of The Fearless Organization that organizations can’t create total psychological safety but should create as much safety as possible, so, too, did these struggling individuals need to create as much safety as possible for the people in their lives.

It was during this time that I wrote a simple post, Building Trust: Meet, Renegotiate, Make. It’s a simple approach of making small commitments – that the other people in our lives will accept – and then meeting them or renegotiating them before they’re due to be completed. No doubt the author of Trustology would struggle with this approach given his insistence that trust can’t be earned. However, the point is not that you earn trust – after all, you can’t earn a gift, and trust is a gift. The point is that you create the conditions of perceived safety that allow people to give you the gift of trust again.

Trustology offers another approach to building trust, which can work in the context of larger teams and people that you don’t know well. People tend to trust people who are interested in them. If they ask about your children, your hobbies, your pets, then you believe they have your best interests at heart. As a result, you’ll be more likely to trust them. Therefore, the recommendation is that you be interested in other people’s lives.

The Three-Legged Stool

Trustology conceptualizes trust as a three-legged stool that is built upon integrity, competence, and compassion. Here, I struggle, because I don’t believe that the legs are quite right, and I’m afraid the stool will fall over.

Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace indicates that there are three kinds of trust: contractual (based on expectations), communications (based on authentic communications), and competence (based on skills or talents). There is obvious overlap in competence. However, contractual trust only loosely aligns to integrity, and compassion and communications don’t align at all.

Integrity is a big word. Not in terms of letters but in terms of its psychological weight. The morality and predictability of integrity are both challenging. As Jonathan Haidt explains in The Righteous Mind, what is moral for one isn’t moral for another. The foundations of morality are the same, but the way that one person prioritizes those foundations may be different than the next person, and that creates a difference of opinion about what is and isn’t moral.

Reiss, in speaking of the sixteen behavioral motivators in Who Am I?, acknowledges the challenges of predicting behavior when motivators are in conflict. At the end of the day, trust is our prediction about how someone will behave. We believe that our mental model for them is accurate enough to predict what will happen. (See Sources of Power for more on mental models.)

As a result, I can’t agree that integrity is the right word here. While contractual isn’t perfect either. because it implies a level of formality that isn’t right, its more accurately constrains the prediction of someone else’s behavior to something more manageable.

Compassion is a desirable virtue and one that I agree is critical to life. The ability to see others suffering and a desire to alleviate it is, I think, essential to our survival as a species. (See The Evolution of Cooperation and Spiritual Evolution for more on compassion and its importance in our evolution.) However, I’m not convinced that this is an essential component of trust.

Communication trust is admittedly on shaky ground, as it seems like a special case of commitment. It seems like it’s just that you’re agreeing to communicate on intervals or in the case of a problem. However, there’s a subtlety here. You expect the person you trust will communicate that there is a problem without having to be explicit. We’re more willing to delegate and trust others when we know that, if there’s a problem, they’ll come back and tell us that there’s a problem.

Ultimately, I feel like Trustology’s stool may be a little wobbly.

Cause, Participate, Allow

When we teach conflict resolution, we explain that everyone can have the role of participant, mediator, or observer. Problems, Trustology explains, can also place you in different roles:

  • Cause – You’re creating the problem
  • Participate – You’re a part of the problem (but you didn’t create it)
  • Allow – You’re allowing the problem to happen

When it comes to trust, it doesn’t matter what role you play in a problem. As long as you allow it, you can’t be trusted to prevent it.

Our Differences

In Trustology the authors assert that we go through four levels of social awareness:

  • Sandbox: Everyone thinks like me.
  • Awkward: No one thinks like me.
  • Enlightened: I think differently than others.
  • Wisdom: We all think differently, and that is good.

Young children aren’t capable of believing that others think differently than them. (See Mindreading for more.) This may transition to a belief that no one thinks like me and can be the source of great consternation – particularly in the teenage years. Our awareness – and perception – of others’ thinking can change two more times, from acknowledging the difference of thought to recognizing the value of different thinking.

I still struggle with balancing the good with how I think differently than others. My post Straddling Multiple Worlds exposes what I believe we all struggle with as we seek to keep our identities integrated. After all, we are all a part of multiple worlds that approach problems and think differently. I can acknowledge the value in thinking differently and, at the same time, yearn to have others who think more like me that I can connect with.

Maybe there’s an answer hidden in the pages of Trustology that will allow us all to think a bit more like one another – just enough to drive that connection – while remaining open to new opportunities. However, you’ll never know unless you read Trustology and see for yourself.

Mind the Gap: State of the Art vs. State of the Industry

If you’ve ever been on a subway, you’ve probably seen or heard “mind the gap.” It’s a reminder that there’s a gap between the train car and the platform – and you want to make sure you’re paying attention to it. It’s a reminder that there is supposed to be a gap. It exists for a reason, but, at the same time, there’s a risk to the gap that must be managed.

I’ve been an IT consultant for nearly three decades. A lot has changed, but there are some patterns that have remained the same. When I first started, it was the PC under someone’s desk that was the server for the entire organization and the Paradox database that kept the entire place running. Today, it’s the “green screen” application that hasn’t been updated. It’s the forms technology that hasn’t been updated yet. (See Using InfoPath Today (Not Just Say “No”) for more.)

There’s always a gap between the state of the art and state of the industry. The state of the art is the absolute best, while the state of the industry is where most people are. It may be state of the art to have responsive websites, but most internal corporate applications don’t meet this standard. Many corporate systems require a specific browser, because they were built with the quirks of that browser in mind. They don’t display well on a tablet, much less a phone.

The state of the art exists to pull people forward, so we build systems that are more effective. “More effective” may mean more secure, more accessible, more scalable, or some other desirable characteristic we expect will make things better in the future. We’re hearing a lot about artificial intelligence and how it will revolutionize the things we do.

It seems like many of the folks I meet are ashamed of the gap. They have the expectation that they must be at state of the art or they’re not doing their jobs. State of the art is necessarily supposed to be ahead of where everyone is. If it’s not, we’re not moving forward. Despite this reality, we somehow feel ashamed that our systems aren’t state of the art.

The truth of the matter is that state of the art is expensive. It’s expensive both because the costs are higher and because there are sometimes missteps, which you’ll never have to take if you’re not on the “bleeding edge.” The leading edge of state of the art has been nicknamed such because of the tendency to get cut up when there’s a rapid shift in where it’s going.

For instance, for a while, if you wanted to be cool doing web work, you were encouraged to use Silverlight. Then Microsoft announced that it was discontinuing support for Silverlight. If you had an investment in Silverlight, your investment was wasted. (There’s an argument to be made that the core XAML lives on – and it does, but it’s not the same.)

There are countless dead ends when you’re trying to remain state of the art. All those dead ends cost time and money – and it’s caused more than a few people to lose their jobs when they made the wrong bet.

Many wise people insist on staying behind the bleeding edge and only doing a technology when it’s proven effective. They may miss out on being case studies for vendors, but they typically enjoy lower overall costs and fewer sleepless nights.

The question then becomes how soon you should upgrade systems. Unfortunately, the answer gets murkier here. Consider the “green screen” application. If it’s on a mainframe, it’s running on 3270 terminal emulation. If you followed the trend, you would have bought a mini-computer and migrated to VT 100 (RISC) or 5250 (AS/400, now called iSeries) emulation. From there, you would have built a client-server architecture application that could have run on a local area network. More recently, you’d build responsive websites and applications that run on phones and tablets as well as desktop PCs.

To be sure, there’s a cost to maintaining an old system, from maintenance costs, to keeping expertise, productivity issues with users, and even the reputation of the organization. However, do these costs outweigh the cost to convert the system three times just for the sake of keeping up with the state of the art? It’s not that clear.

Car Replacement

Some people I know feel compelled to have a new car all the time. The true believers work in the automotive industry. They may sell software to dealerships. They may work at a dealership. They may work for the manufacturer. In any case, their involvement in the industry means they must have a new car.

The second tier of people who feel like a new car is a necessity are sales folks. Having a new car implies success to their prospects, or so the theory goes. I’ve literally had friends in sales told they needed to get a new car. Some of them get a stipend for their car – and some don’t.

If you’re not in either of these two categories, you get to choose how frequently you get a new car. Sure, everyone likes the thought of getting a new car – but not necessarily the cost. This awareness of the cost keeps them from buying a new car every year. Whether you choose to buy a new car after your loan for the previous car is paid off or you decide to keep the car until “the wheels fall off” is personal decision.

Some people don’t like having a car payment and are willing to put up with larger repair bills while the vehicle is relatively reliable. Others have car payments in their budgets and simply maintain a car payment perpetually. For those that run their cars until they fail, they know there are risks to the approach. They know, at any time, they may have to go out and get a new car with little notice – but that’s acceptable for the savings. They know they may have a problem with their car that will transition it from relatively reliable to unreliable, but that’s OK, because it’s not that hard to get a temporary solution for transportation.

Cost, Risk, and Reward

It all comes down to a math problem:

(Cost to operate existing system + risk to operate existing system) – (cost to operate new system + risk to operate new system) = savings

When the savings becomes larger than the transition cost, it’s time to make the change. The problem is that most of these variables aren’t well known. They must be estimated. Typically, the costs are estimated over a year so that there’s some stability in the numbers, and momentary concerns or costs are averaged out.

The cost to operate the existing system has components that are easy. Any maintenance fees, utilities, space, etc., can be estimated. However, the big cost to operating a legacy system is the productivity cost of the users. Over time, these numbers really add up, as labor is the most expensive cost in most organizations.

The risk of operating the existing system isn’t particularly hard to arrive at – but converting that into a number is often resisted. A simple way to approach this is to evaluate the probability (or frequency, if it occurs regularly) of a risk and then the estimated impact. These are multiplied together to establish the cost of a risk. You do this for each of the risks of operating the legacy system and then add them together. The result is the risk cost for operating the legacy system.

Similarly, the cost to operate the new system isn’t known but can be estimated. The risks for the new system are often like those of the legacy system. but the expected probabilities are lower. These are added and totaled.

The final step is the return on investment. That is, comparing the cost to change and seeing how many years (or months) it will take to recoup the investment in the transition. Organizations typically prioritize the projects that will require the least amount of capital to complete and have the shortest payback period and therefore the best return on investment.

There’s one exception to this math problem.

Must Have

Sometimes, replacement becomes mandatory not because the old system is no longer functioning but instead because it no longer meets the needs of the organization. Whether it’s new markets or new ways of operating the business, there are times when the business changes, and it drives the change in the technology systems that support the business.

Invariably, these cause a ripple effect that delay other projects from getting upgraded, but that’s a problem for after the must have changes are done.

Book Review-The JoyPowered™ Team

Sometimes, I get to know some truly amazing people. I get to spend time with other speakers and authors who have messages to share with the world. One of the people I’m privileged to know is JoDee Curtis and her team at Purple Ink. The latest book that she and her team wrote is The JoyPowered™ Team. Like the heroes of The Justice League, the team works best together – in this case, as they shared the work of writing the book.

A Team’s Personality

Everyone has a personality – obviously. What is less obvious, perhaps, is that a team has a personality. Surely, the organization it fits in has a personality, too. The team personality is formed not just through the individuals that make up the team but also in the way that the team members interact with one another and how they set their goals and fundamental values. Teams, it turns out, can have as rich of a personality as a person.

The amorphous nature of the team means that, invariably, new people will join, and a few people will leave. These changes will cause the personality of the team to shift – but, in most cases, not radically change. Perhaps the most iconic example of how a team can change and remain the same is found in the experience of the band Van Halen. A band is a team by every definition imaginable. (See Collaborative Intelligence for more on defining teams.)

Van Halen, over its very successful career, has had three different lead vocalists and three bassists. Despite this, the band is fundamentally the same band. Eddie Van Halen, who plays lead guitar and sometimes performs vocals, as well as the drummer, Alex Van Halen (Eddie’s brother), held the group together even as some members changed. This allowed fans to know (mostly) what they would get.

Knowing What You’re Getting Into

Everyone has had the experience of wondering what they’re getting themselves into. Every employer is looking for a good candidate, and every candidate is looking for a good employer. While employers look at candidate resumes and call references, candidates check out the company website and sites like GlassDoor.com. Even with all the information that candidates have available today, it’s sometimes hard to understand what the personality of the team is from the outside. The company itself can be fundamentally sound, but the team the candidate is joining may be led by a poor manager.

A truism of human resources is that candidates join companies and employees leave bosses. That’s even more reason for candidates to interview their new potential boss to understand how they work. It’s also why managers who want to excel in their career need to study how to develop employees. No one wants to be the manager that no one wants to work for, because eventually that will be discovered, and it may be enough reason to encourage them to find opportunities outside the organization.

Not all the reasons why managers and employees don’t get along can be chalked up to poor management. There’s also the issue of fit. Does the candidate have the right skills and temperament to be effective at the role they’re being asked to fulfil? In some cases, job descriptions are just placeholders. They’re something that HR requires – rather than a fully thought-out plan for how someone new can plug in and make a difference to the organization.

Healthy Conflict

I believe strongly in healthy conflict. Conflict isn’t good or bad. How conflict is handled can be good or bad. I’ve been a troublemaker my entire career. I’m conflict apathetic, and so the conflict avoidant personalities are concerned about me. I’m also capable of holding my own in a disagreement, so the conflict initiators are wary of me, because they’re not sure whether I’ll engage or not. It’s because I’m so open and apathetic to conflict that I rarely decide to keep thoughts to myself rather than finding a healthy way to express them.

However, many team members will have reasons to be fearful and that fear will prevent them from speaking up when they need to – for their sake and for the sake of the organization. (See The Fearless Organization.) It’s about getting into it – not about getting over it. We need to make it safe for people to express themselves in disagreements where possible, because it’s critical that we hear every voice.

Diversity

Diversity and inclusion are very important today. It should have been very important before now, because we’ve known that diversity can greatly improve the kinds of solutions that teams come up with. (See The Difference for more.) Erin Brothers makes a statement, “One person can’t be ‘diverse!'” But I disagree. Walt Whitman wrote, “Do I contradict myself? / Very well then I contradict myself, / (I am large, I contain multitudes).”

I think the rub is in the word “diversity.” Whitman is speaking of diversity of thought, and Brothers seems to be discussing diversity in the sense of race, religion, sexual preferences, etc. The creativity and innovation that organizations seek comes from diversity of thought not diversity of skin color.

In my post “Diversity and Inclusion Start with Acceptance and Appreciation,” I explain how I view the challenge of diversity and inclusion today. I explain how I’m rather pathologically incapable of seeing most differences – and I’m grateful for it.

I can’t leave the topic of diversity without repeating the quote from Verna Myers: “Diversity is being invited to the party; inclusion is being asked to dance.” We need different points of view fueled by different experiences. However, we need to find ways to engage and test those different points of view. It’s one thing to hear the crazy ideas. It’s quite another to do something to test them.

Strategy, Brand, and Culture

Jenn Lim, the CEO of Delivering Happiness says, “Strategy is the thinking, brand is the talking, and culture is the doing.” These are three important components to a successful organization. We need strategy like we need a rudder on a ship to steer us to the right port. We need a brand that communicates a core message about our value or our values. It’s what we print on the sail of the ship to inspire us and communicate our value. It’s in our culture that we make the decision to set sail and go somewhere.

The best strategy with the most articulate branding can fall short if the culture of the organization is unwilling or unable to go where these two lead.

Making of a Team

Teams are fundamentally built on trust. We must trust one another to be effective. (See Trust => Vulnerability => Intimacy, Revisited for more on trust.) Our incentives must be aligned so that the teams aren’t rewarded individually but are instead rewarded collectively. When we goal people, individually no matter how much desire they have to be a team, they’ll invariably revert to their individual goals over the team.

The rebel that I am is the exception. I was led a team of developers many years ago, and I had a personal utilization goal – I was within a whisper of reaching the goal. I had two members on my team that were close as well and that we made better margin on. I gave work to them that I could have easily done myself to get my bonus. Instead, they both got their utilization bonuses, and, as a team, we exceeded our profitability goals. The organization didn’t pay me my bonus, but that was OK.

Managing Expectations

Managing expectations in a team can be hard. You want to do everything and at some level realize that “everything” just isn’t realistic. In Extinguish Burnout, we speak about the gap between productivity and expectations and how this can drive burnout. Managing expectations on a team comes in two parts. The first part is an aspirational goal that everyone wants to hit. The second part is the minimum goal that must be hit. These two goals are powerful because they allow for expansion to the greatest capacity of the team and simultaneously protect the team from feeling like they are never able to meet their goals.

If you can’t meet your goals as a team even if you’re focused on strengths, it may be difficult to find your way to becoming The JoyPowered™ Team.