An evening with Jeff Gothelf

Last night I had the pleasure to hear Jeff Gothelf, author of the wonderful book “Lean UX – Applying Lean Principles to Improve User Experience“, give a talk on the topic “How to build innovation teams”. I thought I’d give a brief report on what Jeff had to say and offer a few reflections of my own. I’m also very happy to report that Jeff’s thoughts that you’ll read below are basically all fully implemented in our shop. You can read more about that here.

You can also see the talk for yourself here, courtesy of Valtech. 

Jeff starts by setting the stage with a few powerful messages.

First, he wants us to understand that innovation is important, and provides a few examples of why this is so. I agree.

Second, he wants us to understand that everyone is in the software business. “Software is eating the world”, is a pretty powerful quote (quote is from Marc Andreessen)

He is right about that too I think.

Third, you cannot build software using industrial era management tactics. There are simply too many unknowns in the software game. You need to have a continuous conversation with the market place and use short feedback loops in order to manage the uncertainty. Here too we will agree.

Fourth, you cannot sprinkle innovation on top of your muffin, you have to include it in the dough, so to speak. Again, I agree with this.

Fifth, software is never finished. It’s continuos. Agreed.

The conclusion from Jeff is this important message:

In order to survive we need a culture of innovation and experimentation. 

Now, if you like me find yourself in agreement with the views expressed above and the powerful conclusion, this leads to a few questions. One, is a question of strategy:
Jeff describes how there seems to be two types of business strategy:

First, we have the deliberate strategy. This is old school, where the top executives decide on the way forward because they’re supposedly better at looking into the future.

Second, we have the emergent strategy, where we push as much as possible in terms of decision making down to the teams, and provide them with enough slack so they have time to experiment. The emergent strategy is for those who understand both the power and the risks of the unknowns in our industry, and grasps the intelligent way to address this reality.

This was only touched upon briefly, yet in my experience this is a core question. That which happens strategy wise at executive level can make the deployment of balanced cross functional teams a rather useless exercise. Without top management buy in and without the necessary change of mindset, any experiment with cross functional innovation teams is doomed from the get go. We are happy to have that support at my shop. Without it, we’d be completely unable to operate this way.

Moving on: Jeff says that at the centre of a culture of innovation we find the team. This is the business unit, so to speak, where the magic happens. This poses the question, the reason why we’re here: What then makes up an innovative team? To dive into this, Jeff turns to three fundamental points:

1. The anatomy of the team
2. How do we task the team?
3. How should the team work?

1. Anatomy of the team

To answer this Jeff starts with a few anti-patterns. This is how not to build innovative teams.

1. Work in silos
2. Treat the team as service providers (i.e code/design monkeys)
3. Make sure the team has no view of the whole and force people to make keyhole decisions.
4. Prevent collaboration

On a brighter note, what then should you do?

1. Keep the teams small (6, 7, 8 ppl)
2. Make sure the team is collocated (actually sitting next to each other)
3. Make sure the team is dedicated to ONE project
4. Make sure the team is self sufficient. That all the necessary competencies are represented.

2. How do we task the team?

Again, some anti-patterns: How not to go about this:

1. Write detailed roadmaps and commit to them – you’re fixing time and scope. Not good.
2. Have annual planning process – change happens a lot faster than you think.

Here Jeff pulls a wonderful quote from Kent Beck, well worth repeating:

“Product roadmaps should be a list of questions, not features”

Word!

But then, what to do?

1. Task teams to achieve business outcomes. Not incentive them for creating output, which risk leading to a bloated product impossible to love.
2. This means giving teams a problem to solve, not a solution to implement.
3. Let the team own the solution. Too detailed roadmaps leaves little room for this. Use caution.

3. How should the team work?

Again, some anti-patterns: How not to go about this:

1. No cross functional collaboration
2. Fixation on job titles (engineer, designer, project manager)
3. Fear of failure (learn to tell difference between actual bad failure and good failure which leads to valuable learning)
4. Use arbitrary deadlines
5. Destroy possibility of team ownership

What to do then:

1. Take smaller risks – work in small batches – move incrementally from uncertainty towards certainty
2. Have clear definitions of success – make it objectively measurable
3. Promote competencies over roles
4. Support self organisation

And that’s about it. It was a great evening and Jeff’s book is a good read for sure. My thank’s to Valtech for making this happen.

Getting personal(ity) Warning: INTP

photo 3I read a thought provoking question somewhere. The question read: “If you had a warning label, what would it say?”. A fine question. What would it say, indeed?

I gave the matter some thought and the answer came to me almost immediately. My warning label would simply state: Stand back: INTP.

For those of you who are unaware, INTP is a jungian personality type. INTP stands for Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving. INTPs are one of the rarest personality types, accounting for 1–5% of the U.S. population, some study shows.

There’s a multitude of personality tests out there, and the test that labeled me INTP was an updated version of the classic Myers-Briggs version, called JTI (Jung Type Indicator). I have some issues with personality tests, and I have even more issues with how they are used out there in the world. I do however find great value in them, and if nothing else they provide a great foundation for further and deeper discussion and reflection.

There are pages out there on the internet that attempt to explain in plain language what the various personality types are like. You can find a full description of me, the INTP here.

As always, descriptions such as these are likely to highlight how wonderful you are. Yet, what I’d like to focus on here are the potential problems associated with being of my particular personality type. So I did a bit of cut and paste. The big one in my personality type, the difference that really makes a difference, is the “I” as in introverted. When tested, you get scores that indicate how clearly you belong in one category or the other. I have what they call “a very clear preference towards introversion” (12, where 15 is max).

Anyways, these are things that I struggle with, and sometimes actually manage to master. On my good days.

Here goes:

- INTP’s are typically so strongly driven to turn problems into logical explanations, that they live much of their lives within their own heads, and may not place as much importance or value on the external world. They may seem “dreamy” and distant to others, because they spend a lot of time inside their minds musing over theories. INTP’s approach problems and theories with enthusiasm and skepticism, ignoring existing rules and opinions and defining their own approach to the resolution. The INTP has no understanding or value for decisions made on the basis of personal subjectivity or feelings. INTP’s are very tolerant and flexible in most situations, unless one of their firmly held beliefs has been violated or challenged, in which case they may take a very rigid stance.
The INTP may have a problem with self-aggrandizement and social rebellion, which will interfere with their creative potential.
The INTP is usually very independent, unconventional, and original. They are not likely to place much value on traditional goals such as popularity and security. They usually have complex characters, and may tend to be restless and temperamental.

There it is. With the issues in bold. Let’s make it personal and talk about this, in “I” form.

I live much of my life within my own head, and I place little importance or value on the external world.

Yes, the internal dialogue is constant. And if I am subjected to too much input from the world I immediately feel the need to go sit somewhere alone and sort out all the weird patterns that are starting to form in my head. There’s patterns everywhere for someone like me. It can be overwhelming. This is also something that gives me sleeping problems at times.

I tend to ignore existing rules and opinions and define my own approach.

I do have a hard time with rules that don’t make sense to me. I don’t like traffic lights telling me not to walk if there are no cars. I also have a hard time with rules at work, rules that just “are because they are”, such as office hours. Usually I can work within the rules by exploring the value, and then I can see the point of the rule, and follow it. It also helps turning it into a personal thing. For instance, “person X will be sad if I don’t follow the rules, I don’t want to make anyone sad”. There’s also an ever present feeling of skepticism towards just about anything that wasn’t invented in my head. This is annoying to most people. I realize this.

I have no understanding for decisions made on the basis of personal subjectivity or feelings.

Indeed. In any discussion I will challenge the logic behind the reasoning, not the opinions on the issue at hand. This means that I can agree with your conclusion, but I need to see a pattern of thought leading up to your conclusion that makes sense to me. This drives people crazy, I’ve noticed.

If one of my firmly held beliefs is violated or challenged, I take a very rigid stance.

This is true. I think this is because I don’t come to believe things lightly. There’s always a lot of thought effort behind any belief that I might embrace. And when these beliefs become a part of my core, I can get unreasonable if they are challenged.

I have a problem with self-aggrandizement and social rebellion. 

I struggle with a rather huge ego and I do have strong tendencies towards alternative thinking which can be challenging to people who never question the norms that underlie society. Alternative ways of looking at stuff makes me happy. It tickles my brain.

I am Independent, unconventional and original.

Very much so. To the extent that I sometimes feel like a freak that should stay clear of normal people. On a good day I take pride in being a bit freaky. On a bad day it can make me sad because I feel misunderstood and alone.

I don’t place much value on traditional goals such as popularity and security. 

Quite. And having untraditional values is not normal. See above. And not seeking popularity can make it difficult to attain popularity in certain circles. Since non-popularity seeking behavior is rather extreme to people who spend their lives trying to become popular.

I have a complex character, and I tend to be restless and temperamental.

I am very restless, and it feels like I crave a certain form of input, such as books or other stuff that challenges my thinking. If I don’t get that I can feel bored and restless.

So, what if you could read my INTP warning label? Why talk about these things? Why explore and discover our personalities? Well, I believe that understanding ourselves is also a way towards understanding others. And understanding others is a way towards empathy. And it’s through empathy that we create better work environments, communities and worlds.

Posts from SXSW Interactive 2014 – day 3 & 4

So I ran into some bad luck with choice of sessions and I also ended up not getting in to a few others. But here’s a brief summary of what I did manage to see.

What: Work Hacking away from business as usual
Who: Ayelet Baron, Rawn Shah

I listened in to this talk only just briefly, I’m afraid. Ayelet and Rawn focus on the question “How do we convince people to do things differently around the world?” They even mentioned the actual phrase “the future of work”, so I felt quite at home there. They both struck me as people of my own heart. Sympathetic, human and passionate. They talked a bit about the “new” workforce and how the young have different expectations on life and work, and how they want to make a difference in the world and in their communities, and how organisations better figure out pretty quick how they can meet that need. They also mentioned how they think that “change management” will go away in the future, as we have to change all the time and be adaptive.

I would heartily agree. Change is already a core skill. Not only driving change, that’s one thing. But just being able to live and thrive in an environment where things move rapidly and can appear chaotic. This is a necessary mindset shift that causes friction during the change process, and we’ll have to be ready for it. When one part of your organisation creates an environment of safe to fail experiments, trial and error and serious play, and another part of your organisation is Tayloristic, a lot of wheels has to be greased, and a lot of understanding and empathy will be required.

Ayelet and Rawn also believes that silos will completely disappear in the future, that we will complete the transition to “100% project based work” and finally understand that the competition is outside the organisation, not inside. Wouldn’t that be nice. In relation to this, they offered a pretty interesting theory of why the old structures will crumble and fall. They posit that the millennials’ heavy need for frequent feedback is the catalyst. In the old hierarchies, it’s the manager who has to offer that feedback, and that can be rather exhausting. As feedback has to flow in that one direction in the old structures, says Ayelt and Rawn, that need will be de-centralized as that is the only way to scale. So we’ll see more peer-to-peer feedback in our networked systems, and less top down feedback in our silos. I thought that was an interesting theory, that young people’s need for feedback, is what will tear down the old structures.

Then I had to leave for another session. Which I didn’t get in to. Then I ended up at a bad session, which I shall not mention as this serves no one’s need. A bit irked I finally ended up on a 6:th street bar crawl with lots of live music. That was about as fun as it gets.

What: Things I’ve learned from leading (UX designers)
Who: Russ Unger

I also listened in to Russ Unger talk about a few lessons learned re: leadership. Russ has been thinking about this stuff for over a decade now, and he was kind enough to share his insights. There weren’t much new stuff in his talk for me, but it’s always great to get a reminder. Russ talked around these five important points:

1. Team Charter
2. Facilitation
3. Collaboration
4. Critique
5. Time is worth your time

The team charter is a result of agreeing on the “how” our work should work. I usually call this a P.O.D (point of departure) and I do it a bit more lightweight than Russ suggests. And of course, Russ talks about a permanent team here, and I use the P.O.D in the beginning of new “theme work” when we assemble our x-team.

I really like how Russ underlines facilitation as a core leadership skill (I see now how this post will reek of confirmation bias). Yet, I cannot enough stress the importance of facilitation skills in your organisation. It’s key.

Onwards, Collaboration. Now that’s a given, and the leader’s job is to create an environment where self organized collaboration can take place. It’s what we do. Russ’ points on Critique concerned what I would call feedback, and making sure that feedback takes place in a healthy and structured way is indeed a core leadership skill.
Russ suggested an interesting solution to this challenge. He has started experimenting with what he calls “critique buddies” which is really a formalized system for peer-to-peer feedback. Interestingly, the peer-to-peer feedback is exactly what Ayelet and Rawn from earlier believe will be the lucifer spark that sets the world on fire. Fingers crossed everyone!

Final wisdom from Russ:

There’s no manual for leaders. No one know’s exactly how do do this stuff, so keep winging it. But do it with confidence.

Sorry for just agreeing with Russ. Not very exiting to read. Today is a new day in Austin. And the sun is shining. Finally.

 

Posts from SXSW Interactive 2014 – day 2

What: Workplace distractions: A new focus on focus
Who: Ben Waber (Sociometrics), Janet Pogue (architecture), Gloria Mark (informatics), Rachel Silver (moderator)

We are all pretty aware of the problems that task switching and context switching can cause. It’s one of the identified Lean “wastes” of knowledge work, and we who go to war on this know all too well how hard it is to get to the bottom of the problem. In this panel, we heard from people involved with understanding the effects of – and possible remedies to – work flow interruptions.

Gloria Mark kicked the whole thing off with an interesting talk, where she pointed out that we are monochronics in a polychromic world. Gloria’s research demonstrates that people spend on average three minutes in a focused state, on one separate task, before switching or being interrupted. Going up one level in the work break down structure, she notes that people on average switch between separate projects every 10,5 minutes. She also showed that the come back time, as in the time it takes to get back to the productive state on the original task after the interruption, is on average 23 minutes and 15 seconds. In Lean we would call that relearning, a waste for sure.

We also know that people get stressed by these interruptions, and surprisingly Gloria claims that people with many interruptions actually work faster when they do get their focus time, than people in an interruption free environment. And here I must add that in knowledge work, faster is rarely better. Quality of work and quality of thought matters. This is an important aspect of this topic, and I felt it deserved some attention. Or at least a mention. There is a fundamental difference between output and outcome. Productivity is a high risk metric just waiting to be gamed.

Interestingly, people are just as likely to self interrupt as being externally interrupted. Gloria wonders if we might be conditioned to be interrupted, but leaves the question unanswered. I was a tad surprised that no one in the panel brought up Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience) and his ideas at this point. I think that could have added another layer, or depth, rather, to the discussion. And I think Csikszentmihalyi proves quite well in his work that no, we are not conditioned towards interruption. Under the “right” circumstances we don’t self interrupt at all.

Next, Pogue talked about how the physical workplace impacts performance. Apparently, Pogue and team designed the new Facebook HQ, which looks a lot like any given Google or IDEO. I have always felt that the office design of the high tech super novas feels more like branding than anything else. I apologize for this blatant display of cynicism.

And surprisingly, the Hawthorne effect was never mentioned.

Next up Waber, who pointed out that we have become quite apt at using behavioral data to study and understand our customers, but we haven’t until just recently started to use the same behavioral data to look at work. Waber and team have what they call a sociometric badge, which collects data on various aspects of the work day. It can track who talks to who, speed of speech, changes in tone of voice and it can measure stress.

Waber taked about a case study: A company where workers are paid based on throughput. So if you are interrupted you are paid less. So what happens when people have a problem? In their research Waber and team can see who the workers turn to for answers. He demonstrated that there were four people (in a rather large company) that everyone turned to with their questions. Interestingly, these experts are statistically average when measured on throughput. But they make others look good and help people out, at their own detriment it seems. Great for the company, but bad for the experts. So when this became clear, the company started to incentivize these connections and rewarded that behavior with some sort of bonus. It is of course a good thing that people who add value are rewarded properly, yet here there were a few aspects that I found lacking.

First, why didn’t they experiment with the way people are compensated? Is being paid based on throughput really the best way to go?

Second: I’d venture a guess here and propose that the experts helped their team players for very good reasons. Because it feels good helping people out. And they felt important and valued. We might call this meeting people’s needs, and we might call it intrinsic motivation. I wonder if adding extrinsic motivation in the shape of bonuses to the mix risk doing more harm than good?

Third: These informal experts constitute a risk for the organisation. I would have paid them a high base salary for being available for the other team players. Answering questions, helping them out, coaching and teaching. This is knowledge sharing. It’s a good thing. It’s the way out of the experts trap, and I like to refer to this as staff liquidity.

Fourth: If you as a leader need sociometrics to figure out that people are stressed you’re really not doing your job right. The whole concept of sociometrics feels a bit like Tayloristic time and motion study, and that creeps me out a bit.

And then I saw a lot of other stuff, drank lot’s of beer and then it rained a lot.  It was a good day in Austin.

 

 

Posts from SXSW Interactive 2014 – day 1

Coherent with my interest in “the future of work”, I will try to attend as many sessions here at SXSW as possible (there’s free beer everywhere, you know) that deal with the “how” of product development, innovation and work.

I argue that these aspects of how we do what we do critically impact our capability to meet the demands of the future. To recruit and retain the best people, stay competitive and generally sing while we’re winning. These aspects are in my mind at the very centre of every prosperous and successful organisation.

So here goes: A post from SXSW day 1

What: Workplace redesign: The big shift from efficiency
Who: John Hagel from the Centre for the Edge

John opens with what he calls “The Dilbert paradox”, which basically states that if you ask executives what their top priorities are, you will hear them mention in their top three, that they’re in a war for talent. That the attracting and retaining of talent is extremely important to them. Yet then, how do we explain Dilbert, asks John. Is this popular comic’s portrait of how we experience work wrong? Sadly no. It’s all too accurate. Then are the executives not sincere when they explain their priorities? Well no, sure they are. Hence the paradox. We have contradictory data points.

When John in his research asks: “So, talent is important to you. That’s great. What are you doing about this whole talent thing then”? The answers John and his research team gets is typically:

1) We work towards attracting world class talent.
2) We work towards retaining the world class talent that we have.

Makes sense no? Yet, there’s a missing middle. You attract the talent, you retain the talent, but what do you do with the talent? What about talent development?

Typically, the bigwigs will start talking about their training programs at this point. John is of the opinion that training programs are increasingly becoming irrelevant for talent development. Rather, it’s in the day-to-day that we should be developing our talents. And I agree.

Some of us have successfully applied powerful methods such as Design Thinking with powerful results when it comes to our products and our value offer, but we have not applied Design Thinking to ourselves, says John. What about creating great work experiences? What about looking at the work environment holistically? This is still open territory, says John.

What we’re talking about here is about looking at the work environment as an integrated whole and ask ourselves “what should the work environment look like in order to support talent development?” A design thinking question, for sure.

John and his team have identified three design goals in order to answer that question:

1) Help people understand the performance challenges that have the highest impact for the company.  People don’t know usually, they are siloed and focus on their own subgoal. Teach them how they can contribute to the performance improvement of the organisation as a whole. Here I find myself in a bit of a disagreement with John, as systems thinking and experience tells me that it’s not primarily “workers” that need help seeing the whole and the part they play. It’s the executives that need help seeing the system. The very system they in many cases don’t even understand that they’re responsible for.

2) Facilitate hight impact connections: How do you connect with people in relation to your challenges and goals? Here Johns spots a trend, as we are moving towards a flow of knowledge, rather than stocks of knowledge. Knowledge stocks becomes obsolete at an accelerating rate. So the challenge is: If flow is what matters, how do you connect people and manage these flows? Here I am in full agreement with John.

3) Amplify impact of the challenges and the solutions to those challenges: Which in systems speak is basically creating a reinforcing feedback loop around the two goals mentioned above.

This here, says John, is rather different compared towards sending people on training. Focus on their performance improvement in the day to day work develops talent smarter, faster and better. And if you mean business about this, the key is people and their passion. If it’s not there, they will not learn as fast, or at all. Passion is key.

So John and his research team asked themselves: where can we find “sustained extreme performance improvement”. They chose to look into extreme sports, an area where the price to pay for not driving your performance to the next level can be actual, litteral death. I have historically asked myself the very same question and I ended up in a different area, but for similar reasons.

The common element in these areas of “sustained extreme performance improvement”, says John, is passion. So the research team looked into this “passion” thing, and stumbled upon something they call “the passion of the explorer”.

The passion of the explorer-concept have three components. Three attributes that define the people of this disposition.

1) Long term commitment to the domain: and making a contribution and difference to that domain.
2) A questing disposition: They actively seek out the next quest, in order to get to the next level.
3) A connecting disposition: Their instinct is to find someone who can teach or help.

These three attributes combined in one person creates rapid learning and performance improvement, says John. And he notes that research suggests that only about 11 percent of the US workforce are of this disposition.

John also makes the important distinction between worker engagement and worker passion. Engagement can be traced by asking questions such as:

“Do you like what you do?”
“Do you like the people you do it with?”
“Do you look forward to going to work in the morning?”

Now, let’s just assume that a “yes” to all those questions means that you’re an engaged worker. That’s cool. Yet, that might mean that you don’t want change. Because you like it right there. Where you are. It’s comfortable. See?

The passionate explorers, on the other hand, wants to get out of their comfort zone. They want to take it to the next level. So the explorers are usually rather frustrated people, as they see all of these opportunities, challenges, and of course, all of the obstacles. This suggests that “happiness” or “engagement” might not be the best metrics to understand the passionate explorer.

This resonates with me, and actually helps me understand myself a bit better. And in the Agile/Lean community, where I would place myself, there are a lot of frustrated passionate explorers who are all trying to fight against entropy and take this work thing to a new level. I know a few of them personally. And I feel rather proud to count myself as one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes from Stoos Stockholm

Word!

Word!

Last week I had the pleasure to attend the third physical Stockholm Stoos meet up. For those of you who don’t know what Stoos is, you can read up here.

The topic of the evening was AgileHR, which I have touched upon previously, and the insightful Peter Antman from Crisp talked around a selection of slides from his extensive deck about AgileHR. The slides can be found here.

The material can also be found in his work-in-progress book “Riv Pyramiderna – igen” (Tear down the pyramids – again), which is a play on the 1985 book “Riv pyramiderna” (Tear down the pyramids) by the former SAS CEO Jan Carlzon. Carlzon made a bit of a bang back in the roaring ’80′s with his suggestion that hierarchies ‘aint all that and customer focus is a good thing. A message that rings true to this day, I’d say.

It was a great evening with great people and good discussions. The major themes that were discussed are listed below, and I try to give my thoughts on each one.

Theme: From titles to roles

Why not titles, you may ask. Here I’d like to recycle one of my most worn out metaphors. Any word or concept is a just a sticker placed on a bucket, and it’s what you put into that bucket that we should be talking about. Disagreeing about the bucket stickers are for consultants selling similar stickers. So, a role will always be something that you do (value you deliver) not what you are (a title). Focusing on what value you bring means you can add new variants of value at any time without changing the sticker. The command and control folks are sticklers for stickers. We don’t need that, as titles risk killing the flexibility that we need in the complex adaptive systems that are our organisations.

In my shop, we care little for titles. We do have roles, though. Easy as that.

Theme: Shut down the yearly performance reviews

The beef with the yearly reviews is primarily that a year is a hell of a long feedback cycle. To those of us who work to reduce the length of just about every feedback cycle we see, the one year cycle is nothing short of ridiculous. Another problem with the yearly review is that underneath it all we usually find some weird metrics or targets that the chiefs try to measure against in order to adjust the salary in some direction. Those things usually don’t work that well, to tell the truth.

At our shop, we do have a look at the salary yearly, but the feedback cycle about how we’re doing is much shorter. Informally they happen daily or weekly, and “arranged” talks happen about monthly, or on demand.

And if you’re interested: Adobe stirred up some buzz with their recent decision to remove the yearly reviews, you might find that interesting.

Theme: Make salary a non-issue

Here we discussed various ways we can change how we think about salary. As I’m not in a position to decide on anyone’s salary, I don’t have much input. The basics concept here though, is the insight that salary is a bad case of extrinsic motivation, and we’re pretty aware that intrinsic motivation is far more powerful. No surprise there, for all you Daniel Pink readers out there.

Theme: Help the teams recruit

The discussion here was regarding the “how” of recruiting. As “agile” shops push a lot of “power” down to the team, and what is being recruited is a new team player, it makes perfect sense to have the team handle the recruiting themselves as much as possible. This is also a consequence of understanding the role the “boss” plays in knowledge work. The team has a better understanding of what kind of skills we need. So, pushing this down to team level and helping them out with it is a good idea.

In my shop, the most recent hire came about like this:

1. The boss finds suitable candidate using various networks
2. The boss and a team member interviews suitable candidate
3. The candidate is invited to spend a day with the team, working side by side with them, solving actual problems. This is basically a simulation of what it would (roughly) be like to work with the recruit, should s/he become one of us
4. The recruit does a personality assessment (facet5)
5. The boss does the salary thing, and if everyone’s happy we are a go.

So there we have it.