Mapping Classic to Modern Web Parts

One of the things we help people with is making the change from the way they used to do things to new ways of doing things. That’s why we created a mapping between classic web parts and modern web parts. The idea is that if you know how you used to do something, you’ll see how to do it today.

Community Support

In a few cases, there aren’t any out-of-the-box analogs to the classic web parts, but there are community contributions. We took the liberty of compiling them and making them available. If you’re looking for a script editor or a modern search web part, we’ve got them available for you. We ask that you complete a free transaction to get the web parts, so we can keep you updated whenever we update the compiled version on the site.

More to Come

As we get more modern web parts that are developed by the community – and new web parts out of the box in SharePoint – we’ll update the table, so you’ve got one place to go for a comprehensive reference for how to do in modern what you did in classic – and whether it’s available or not.

If you think we’re missing any, feel free to drop us a line.

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.

The Progression of Parental Alienation

I was recently in a conversation about the toxic effects of parental alienation and how it tears apart relationships and harms children. The folks I was discussing it with didn’t have answers either. They practiced family reconciliation therapy, but that didn’t always address the root of the problem. After the conversation, I sat to ponder what causes parental alienation and came up with this model for stages the parental alienation process follows. I don’t offer a solution. I offer up this framework, so that it may be better understood from the point of view of the parent who is doing the alienating.

Phase 1: Self-Justification

The parent who will ultimately be the alienating parent needs to justify their decision to divorce the other parent. Most of the social constructs don’t allow for a parent to divorce for their own needs/desires when children are involved. There’s the “we stayed in it for the children” expectation. So, if they split from their spouse, they must justify it somehow. They could use generally accepted reasons to divorce: adultery, abuse, or abandonment. Of course, if there’s no adultery to cite, and it doesn’t seem easy to manufacture, they can’t use that excuse. Similarly, when the other parent is actively seeking custody, trying to interact with the children, and even win custody, the abandonment story won’t play. They’re left with abuse as the only acceptable reason to divorce – one that’s hard to disprove.

After all, abuse can be emotional abuse. It can be threats. It can be anything. So, as their ego works to justify their decision, it progressively transforms normal memories into memories of alleged abuse. This is just stage one. My guess is that this actually happens pre-divorce filing, because, again, it’s the justification for the action.

Phase 2: Hypervigilance

OK, now you have a parent who has decided the other is abusive based on their recollection and no evidence. They become hypervigilant about abuse of the children, even with no previous evidence. In their mind, the other parent is now abusive – and the abuse had to include the children, because that only further justifies their decision. Now the parent isn’t telling the children the other parent is dangerous or abusive, but they behave as if they are. They’re unreasonably fearful of the other party. They become protective of the children. They ask the children about what happened with the other parent – and may even go to places where the other parent is likely to take the children, because they feel as if they’re protecting the children by watching out for them. By this time, the parent doing the alienating might reach levels of paranoia. They have a belief that’s ungrounded on facts. Therefore, it’s nothing for that belief to continue to unreasonable proportions. At this point, the parent doing the alienation may seek to engage the court system in a protective order (baseless or not) o,r they may seek counseling support for their position.

Phase 3: The Children Becomes Hypervigilant

Phase three is when the children pick up on this. Divorce for children is a traumatic and unsettling experience, so their defenses go up immediately. They become hyper-sensitive to their parents and their emotions. They seek to minimize the risk to themselves. When a parent acts like a victim and engages in behavior that leads them to believe they’re fearful, they’ll pick up on it and mimic it. They believe that the right and normal behavior is to fear the other parent. At this point, alienation has set in – and it may be that the parent causing the alienation never said a single word to that effect to the children. The children “caught it” from the environment.

Phase 4: Reinforcement

Stage four is reinforcement. The parent now sees the children acting defensive and fearful – at least in their presence. They expect that this is the behavior the parent expects, so they give it to them. After all, they just got rid of the other parent – what’s to stop them from getting rid of the children? (I’m not suggesting that any of this is conscious, just that it fits patterns of thought.) So now the parent has the justification they need. It’s not built on “facts” that are solid – it’s built on the echo chamber created between the children and the parent. The system is feeding itself at this point.

Rigidity and Reunification

While this process isn’t grounded by facts, it becomes sufficiently powerful that the parent who is doing the alienatingare unlikely to listen to reason. Professionals ask questions like: “Has the other parent ever done anything to give you cause for concern?” The alienating parent responds with vague answers – and sometimes completely fabricated answers that seem true to them. In the absence of evidence, it’s prudent for everyone involved – lawyers, counselors, judges, etc., to consider it. There’s no way to know if it’s real or imagined. It’s apparent that no amount of reality or logic is enough to dissuade the alienating parent from their perception. It is self-protecting. Anyone who doesn’t agree with their version of the facts is now out to get them.

Standard reunification therapy involves children having a good time with the alienated parent. It’s designed to create a progressively more positive environment – but, interestingly, this would necessarily create a discontinuity. They must behave one way with the parent doing the alienation – even if they’re OK with the parent that is being alienated. I think the therapy is right… but it’s interesting to me what it must cause.

A Possible Path

I think, in some cases, it might be possible to get the alienating parent to see the fact that they’re not remembering reality correctly. I think it would require interviews with their family (people they’d expect to be loyal to them) and get them to admit that they didn’t have serious concerns about the other parent – presuming that they’ve not joined in the justification process already. They have their own reputations to protect as a family after all. Maybe the parent doing the alienation could be asked for photographic or video evidence of the concerning behaviors. Even if you can get them to realize that it’s not true, it would cause the secondary problem of causing their justification to evaporate – and I’m not clear what they might do in that situation.

I don’t have answers. I was just trying to think through the systems to see what might be happening. I think that, for the mental health of the children, it’s necessary to break the cycle, and just working on their perception may not be enough.

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.