Posted on

Handling Resistance to Engagement

Resistance to Engagement in the August 2011 Training Journal

The August 2011 edition of Training Journal focuses on the topic of engagement.  One of the most challenging aspects for managers is when they want to generate employee engagement, but encounter resistance.  Luckily, there is a Pocketbook dedicated to handling resistance.

Handling Resistance

The Handling Resistance Pocketbook

Mike Clayton, author of The Handling Resistance Pocketbook, has written an article ‘Resistance to Engagement’ that builds on the onion model described in the book, to discuss why people sometimes resist such an obviously ‘good thing’.

.

The book contains three versions of the model, for contexts of resistance to ideas, resistance to change and sales objections. Mike has developed a new version for this article.

Training Journal is a subscription only magazine, and access to the full article archive on their website also requires a subscription.  It is an excellent journal and, if you are a trainer or you commission training, reading it will be a valuable part of your CPD.

However, the subscription model means that any people interested in my article won’t be able to access it, so Mike has put it onto his Handling Resistance blog, in two parts…

Resistance to Engagement

People want to be engaged. They want to be treated fairly, to be consulted about what is happening, and to feel valued and supported.  Yet employee engagement initiatives often meet with scepticism, resistance and even hostility.  Why is this?  Can we understand the source of the resistance and build on this understanding to create positive ways to handle it?

Read more…

Share this:
Posted on

Team Performance Beyond Tuckman

The Tuckman Model of group development is well-known and provides much insight into how a group of individuals evolves into a high performing team. It’s four/five stages form a mantra for many managers who have enjoyed learning about the model at a training event. They have the huge merit of being easy to remember – because they rhyme (perhaps a lesson to any model builder!

Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing – Mourning

Beyond Tuckman

But there are other models – not least because Tuckman’s model is not subject to copyright. One of the best is the Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance Model, which belongs to The Grove Consultants International. It is widely used in association with their Team Performance Inventory, and as a support to their Graphic Facilitation Pocess.

The Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance ModelThe illustration below is a simplified version. For the full version of the chart, you should refer to the Grove’s website, as it is a protected model.

The Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance Model

image

What I like about this model is firstly, that it identifies the team issues that are resolved at each stage, and also those that are left un-resolved. Secondly, I like the way that, what in Tuckman is a single stage – ‘Norming’ – is dissected into three components here: Goal clarification, commitment and implementation.

My interpretation is that Goal Clarification starts, for Tuckman, in the Storming phase, but only truly resolves in Norming. Likewise, the process of implementation starts in the Norming stage and continues in Performing. Drexler and Sibbet go beyond Tuckman’s term, ‘Performing’ and use the term ‘High Performance’.

An Historical Perspective

While researching this, I found an article by David Sibbet, in which he describes the genesis of the model. Here is an extract:

‘In early 1980 I began working with my colleague Allan Drexler on a formal model for teams called the Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance; System. Earlier research by Allan had generated a simple, four-step model that mirrored the first four stages in process theory. I argued that the model needed to be extended to explain not only the “creating” stages but also the “sustaining stages.” Allan was very experienced with business teams. I applied process theory and eight years, and as many versions later, our Drexler/Sibbet Team Performance™ Model (TPM) has become the standard in the field and used worldwide.’

Also on the same website is another interesting model that David Sibbet had a hand in, The Sibbet/Le Saget Stages of Organization model.

So here’s the deal

The Tuckman Model is excellent – it explains and predicts much. But it is not the only model of team development. We can learn much from the comparisons between different models of the same phenomena. Each will emphasise different aspects, and bring new insights.

Some Management Pocketbooks you Might enjoy

Share this:
Posted on

On Competition: Five Forces

On a high shelf in my study are the books I rarely refer to.  Some turned out to be a disappointment after I bought them, but some, however, are old friends.  It’s just that I no longer need to refer to them much.

Years ago, when I was asked to develop a seminar on business strategy, three of them were my constant companion as as I thought through and planned the session.  And the first model I thought of back then features at the start of Chapter 1 of one of those books, Michael Porter’s ‘On Competition’.  This is, by the way, a hefty hardback (lovely to use).

I’ve been re-reading parts of it in preparation for a new seminar: ‘the Three Hour MBA’.

Michael Porter

Michael PorterThe same model appears in the delightfully neat ‘Strategy Pocketbook’ by Neil Russell-Jones.  In it, Jones describes Porter as ‘one of the most influential strategic thinkers and writers’ and his classic book ‘Competitive Strategy’ is required reading on just about every MBA course.

 

Porter’s Five Forces

Not surprisingly, Michael Porter starts his book (which collects a dozen or so of his best articles) with the model that bears his name: Porter’s Five Forces.

Porter's Five Forces that govern competition

Porter analyses the basis of the power behind each of these five forces, and the barriers to entry of new players or substitute products.  The model forms a basis for developing a strategy that positions your company and influences the forces around it.

Three Strategies

Porter suggests three generic business strategies to position your company to take advantage of your competitive environment.

Porter's Three Generic Business Strategies

Systems Thinking

Perhaps Porter’s model is showing its age.  In the 1980s, the world seemed a simpler place.  Now, we understand far better, how inter-connected things are.  Suppliers are dealing directly with customers and business are making ever-more complex alliances.  How does access to capital (the last couple of years worth of headline news) affect competitive forces, and what about other resources, like people and energy?  And what are the affects the forces of social responsibility and regulation?

So here’s the deal

Porter’s Five Forces is an entry level strategy tool.  It is a valuable insight into the workings of a competitive market and a great starting place.  But do consider the lessons of Richard Rumelt, who argues that a good strategy starts from a robust understanding of the situation, with which this model can help, but needs much more in addition.

Some Management Pocketbooks you might like.

The Strategy Pocketbook

Neil Russell-Jones’ Strategy Pocketbook is stuffed full of handy tips and strategy planning tools, including Porter’s Five Forces and a ‘competitive intensity’ tool that is based on it.  It also has lots of other valuable tools and models.

 

Also take a look at:

Share this:
Posted on

R.I.P. Corporate Clone: Arise Insightful Executive

This is the third in my Triptych of blogs about the work of Peter Drucker.  The first two were about Drucker, himself, and about Management by Objectives.  This one is about another concept he started to develop in his 1954 book,The Practice of Management.

The Man who Invented Management

Management by Objectives

The Knowledge Worker

Drucker first coined this term in his 1959 book, Landmarks of Tomorrow, saying that:

‘management’s new role is to
make knowledge more productive’

In his earlier book, however, he had started to see the manager’s role as understanding, interpreting and making decisions about the information they can access.

But it was two later works that crystallised his thinking and made him the clear progenitor of how we now interpret the term.

The Effective Executive (1966)

In The Effective Executive, Drucker argues that knowledge workers are executive in that they use knowledge to effect (or execute) changes.  He identifies five habits of an effective executive and, in passing, I note that he used the chapter title ‘First things First’ 23 years before Stephen Covey did, when he used it as one of his seven habits.  Executives must:

  1. know how their time is being spent.
  2. on results rather than the work.
  3. build on strengths first, and then give attention to weaknesses.
  4. focus on the key areas where superior performance will produce outstanding results.
  5. make effective decisions.

The Age of Discontinuity (1969)

Peter F DruckerThe Age of Discontinuity’ is the book where Drucker really develops the concept of the knowledge worker, as a breed of thoughtful, intelligent executive, every bit as much a professional as a lawyer, engineer or teacher.  They are paid to acquire and apply knowledge, make informed judgements and take responsibility for leadership.

Dull, conforming corporate clones would thenceforth be no longer needed.  Instead, knowledge will be the source of economic power – all of which came 20 years before Sir Tim Berners-Lee made his first formal proposal for what is now the World-wide Web.

Subsequent Thinking

From the early 1990s, management thinkers and futurists seized upon the concept of the knowledge worker and have spun theories, models and predictions out of it.  Indeed, this coincided with the arrival of Generation X in the workplace.  Drucker too, continued writing about the phenomenon, notably in his 1992 book, ‘Managing for the Future’;

‘The world is becoming not labour intensive,
not materials intensive, not energy intensive,
but knowledge intensive.’

We may feel energy and materials intensive in a world that seems to be running out of each, but despite being far from running out of knowledge (take a look at the fantastic web info-graphic below) there is absolutely no doubt that the world is becoming more and more knowledge intensive.

State of the Internet 2011
Created by: OnlineSchools.org

Management Pocketbooks you might Enjoy

Share this:
Posted on

Peter Drucker: Management by Objectives

Last week, we looked at the profound influence Peter Drucker had on management.  This week, let’s look at one of his biggest contributions: Management by Objectives (MBO).

Drucker’s biographer asserts that he first heard the term while studying practices at General Motors, during the Second World War.  It certainly seems like a concept that an engineer like GM’s CEO, Alfred Sloane, would have favoured.  Indeed, in more modern times, MBO has been a main stay of corporations like the much-admired Hewlett Packard.  One of its founders, Bill Packard, said of MBO:

‘No operating policy has contributed more to Hewlett-Packard’s success ‘

He went on to describe it as ‘the antithesis of management by control. The latter refers to a tightly controlled system of management of the military type [while] Management by objectives, on the other hand, refers to a system in which overall objectives are clearly stated and agreed upon, and which gives people the flexibility to work toward those goals in ways they determine best for their own areas of responsibility.’

The MBO Cycle

image

Management by Objectives is often represented as a cycle with five stages:

  1. Review the organisational context.  This is often seen as the weak point of MBO, as this is sometimes poorly understood.  Drucker, himself, has said: ‘Management by objectives works if you know the objectives: 90% of the time you don’t.’
  2. Reflect the organisation’s objectives in those you set to your team members.  Within the context of the objectives they are set, staff become self-directing, hence Packard’s distinction between MBO and control.
  3. Monitor people’s performance against the objectives you have set, and give regular, effective feedback.  Ideally, provide rapid feedback mechanisms, so that each staff member can assess their performance constantly.
  4. Assess performance against objectives, and then be sure to…
  5. Recognise and reward good performance.

‘What gets Measured, gets Managed’

This is another critique of MBO: if you measure the wrong thing, people will manage their performance to achieve it.  Drucker, as ever, was more subtle than simple descriptions of his ideas suggest and so was ahead of us here.  He noted that employees need four powers to do their jobs well:

  1. the freedom to challenge everything
  2. regular training and development
  3. the ability to achieve the objectives they are set, and see the results
  4. understanding of their organisation’s real purpose
This last means that managers and employees can set objectives that lead to the right behaviours being measured – and hence managed and delivered.

The Practice of Management

In last week’s blog, I laudedThe Practice of Management’.  It was the visionary book that kick-started the management book industry.  In it, Peter Drucker identified seven tasks for the manager of tomorrow (writing in 1954).  They all seem very much of the now, except, perhaps, one, which seems a little… pedestrian: ‘manage by objectives’.

Despite its critiques and detractors, maybe we should listen to the man who also advocated, over 50 years ago, in the same book, that we:

  • devolve risk-taking and decision-making down our organisations
  • prioritise strategic thinking
  • integrate teams of diverse members
  • motivate employees, gain their commitment and participation (‘engage’ them) with quick, clear communication
  • see your organisation as a whole
  • see your organisation and its activities in a wide perspective of society

Not a Management Pocketbook

Peter Drucker, 1909-2005I have found Robert Heller’s book on Peter Drucker to be excellent and recommend it to all Pocketblog readers.

For an introduction to Drucker’s thinking, how about The Essential Drucker, and for daily inspiration, how about The Daily Drucker?

Share this:
Posted on

Peter Drucker: The Man who Invented Management

image

Peter F Drucker is a towering figure among management thinkers.

His thinking, consulting, teaching and writing won him many accolades and his ideas have become so mainstream, that some are considered to be purely ‘received wisdom’.

.

Drucker is also paradoxical in many way, and perhaps this is why his work is so good: it remains pleasingly simple, whilst it refuses to be simplistic.

Corporate or Individual

Drucker is primarily known for his ideas about how individual managers can work best, but he made his first big mark studying a huge corporation, General Motors.  In 1942, he was invited into the company to study it and report on findings, by the Board.  His observations are captured in a business classic: ‘Concept of the Corporation’.  Ironically, the Board and its CEO, Alfred P Sloane repudiated just about all of Drucker’s findings.

Management as a Science or an Art

Drucker was influenced in his earliest thinking by ideas of ‘scientific management’, but rejected them as too rigid.  Instead, he saw management as an art – and continued to do so for all of his life.  People who met him often commented on his erudition and love of the liberal arts – he was foremost a thinker and intellectual, and a management thinker second.  It was his rejection of scientific approaches to management that caused GM to reject his findings and, many years later, in 1956, Sloane’s own book, ‘My Years with General Motors’ provided a riposte to Drucker’s.

Invention of Management

As the 1950s began, there was almost nothing written explicitly about the practice of management: what a manager should do, day-to-day, to manage. That changed in 1954, when Drucker wrote ‘The Practice of Management.’  Drucker claimed, in 1982, that, with this book, he had invented management.  Perhaps this was hyperbole, but it is fair to suggest that he did invent the management book.  Arguably, without Drucker, no Management Pocketbooks.

To the response, without Drucker, someone else would have come along, the only answer is to acknowledge the truth of this but note that we still revere other innovators like Newton, Darwin, Edison – even though each had competitors doing much the same, at around the same time.

What is in ‘The Practice of Management’?

Using case studies from organisations like IBM, Sears and Ford, Drucker lays out the basics of a fundamental management curriculum:

  • What is management?
  • How to manage staff
  • How to manage a business
  • How to manage managers
  • How to structure management

It is hard to believe that some of his themes are over 50 years old – they remain fresh and relevant today.  the need for managers to:

  • make strategic decisions
  • take risks
  • build integrated teams
  • communicate information effectively
  • see their business in the context of its ecosystem

Drucker’s Influence

Drucker’s influence is huge: ‘The Practice of Management’ sets out for the first time, Management by Objectives, and not as a fluffy catch phrase, but as a robustly developed set of ideas and processes – perhaps his last nod to scientific management.  Since the 50’s he has been the originator of much business thinking that has endured, and predicting the rise of the knowledge worker (that’s me) as early as 1959.

Drucker gave his name to Claremont University’s business school, where he taught for thirty years.  The Drucker Institute’s website has a lot of biographical information about Peter Drucker, and a link to an interesting blog, the Drucker Exchange.

More on Drucker…

in our companion articles:

Management Pocketbooks you Might Enjoy

Drucker’s work has infused so much management thinking, you’ll find it in many of our Pocketbooks.  Here are some you might like:

Share this:
Posted on

What makes good business strategy?

The world of company strategy development is fertile ground for those of us who like management models.  The options range from simple – nay simplistic, to byzantine complexity.

However, I would argue that few of these strategic tools can ever determine a strategy for your business – what the best tools can do is give you insights into the strategic context, or help you explore the potential consequences of a possible strategic decision.

Good Strategy / Bad Strategy

In a new book, Professor Richard Rumelt of the UCLA Anderson School of Management, describes what he terms ‘bad strategy’.  He has been articulating his ideas for several years now, and you can get a five minute introduction to his ideas from the short video interview from 2008, below.

.

Professor Rumelt’s ideas are simple and compelling – indeed, one of his key points is that a good strategy is, itself, simple and compelling.

A Good Strategy

In Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: The difference and why it matters, Rumelt argues that a good strategy:

  • is based on a robust diagnosis of the situation and the problem to be solved
  • offers a simple solution to a problem – ‘simple’ meaning no more complex than it needs to be: not simplistic
  • follows a clear policy framework that provides constraints for the strategy
  • allows participants to co-ordinate their actions and to create a focused outcome

A Bad Strategy

A bad strategy, on the other hand,

  • fails to address the real problem
  • sets goals but makes no attempt to articulate how to achieve them
  • has a vast array of objectives with little prioritisation
  • hides poor analysis inside jargon, buzzwords and superficial analysis

You can hear Professor Rumelt for yourself or read his article ‘The Perils of Bad Strategy’.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4QICxDvTjw]

Good Tools

With Professor Rumelt’s warnings ringing in our ears, we need to understand some of the tools we can use to inform our robust diagnosis and clear solutions.  We’ll start taking a look at these next week…

In the meantime,

Some Management Pocketbooks you might like.

The Strategy Pocketbook

Neil Russell-Jones’ Strategy Pocketbook is stuffed full of handy tips and strategy planning tools.

Also take a look at:

The Business Planning Pocketbook

The Nurturing Innovation Pocketbook

Share this:
Posted on

Through the Square Window… is me!

Are you:

able, accepting, adaptable, bold, brave, calm,
caring, cheerful, clever, complex, confident,
dependable, dignified, energetic, extroverted,
friendly, giving, happy, helpful, idealistic,
independent, ingenious, intelligent, introverted,
kind, knowledgeable, logical, loving, mature,
modest, nervous, observant, organized, patient,
powerful, proud, quiet, reflective, relaxed,
religious, responsive, searching, self-assertive,
self-conscious, sensible, sentimental, shy, silly,
smart, spontaneous, sympathetic, tense,
trustworthy, warm, wise, witty

If you had to pick five or six of these 56 adjectives, which would you pick?  Equally important, which would your friends or your colleagues pick?

Match and Mismatch

If the match were perfect, then your whole life would be an open book. But more likely, there will be some aspects of your personality that are hidden from other people – adjectives no one but you would pick.  Likewise, there are usually characteristics that people will see in you, that you are blind to.

Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham

This exercise was developed by Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham in 1955, to examine how to help us extend the area of shared understanding between ourselves and the people we communicate with.

imageThe model they produced is powerful; the Johari Window. Luft named it from a contraction of their first names, Joseph and Harry (Harrington); JoHari. The mid word capitalisation (a ‘camel’ word) was ahead of recent typographical fashion by 40 years, but it was soon dropped.

.

The Johari Window

The window has four panes, derived from the knowledge or lack of it that we have about ourselves, and that others have about us.

image

The Arena

The Open area represents what we and the people around us all know about ourselves.  These are the matched adjectives  This is shared knowledge and is the basis of effective communication. Luft and Ingham worked from the assumption that the more of our life that is in this quadrant, the better our relationships will be.

The Facade

In the Hidden area is the information we keep from the world. It is what I have not revealed to you about myself. It may be trivial facts about my hobbies, deeply personal feelings, or past history that I am embarrassed or secretive about.

The Blind Spot

In the Blind area, people around us can recognise traits, habits or characteristics, to which we, ourselves, are oblivious. These may be strengths or failings.

The Unknown Area

Finally, there is the Unknown zone, representing characteristics that neither we nor other people are aware of. Perhaps these things are repressed; perhaps simply un-expressed, like latent capabilities.

Uses of the Johari Window

imageThere is a wide range of uses for this model, in coaching, training, organisational development and therapy.  The latent capabilities in the blind spot represent a powerful opportunity for coaches, whilst supressed emotions may be the very focus of therapeutic interventions.  Unsurprisingly, this is a popular model among trainers, facilitators and coaches, but beware: if you do uncover repressed components, leave them be.  They should be addressed with great care, by qualified therapists.

Opening the windows

Some use the metaphor of windows into four rooms in our lives.  We can choose which to open and which rooms to expand.  Most commonly, we can enhance our knowledge of ourselves by seeking feedback, and making use of the insights others have. We can also increase our self-awareness by processes of self discovery, while a group discovery process can open up the Unknown area to both ourselves and the group.

When we want to be more open about ourselves, we can disclose information about ourselves to other people, removing it from the hidden area.

So here’s the deal

The Johari Window has multiple uses, but is most often used to help teams get to know each other better.

Some Management Pocketbooks you might Enjoy

Share this:
Posted on

Why–What–How–What if?

Bernice McCarthyThere are lots of models for how to improve learning and, in the management training arena, The Kolb learning cycle and the work of Peter Honey and Alan Mumford on learning styles are well known. Less so is the work of American educationalist, Dr Bernice McCarthy.

McCarthy taught at all grade levels, including special education, and went on to study for her doctorate at Northwestern University. There, she developed her model to help design instructional programmes for all types of learners. She drew on research by Carl Jung, Jean Paiget, Lev Vygotsky, John Dewey, Kurt Lewin and David Kolb to create a system that moves learners through the complete learning cycle using strategies that would appeal to all learners. Her business is called About Learning.

4MAT

McCarthy developed her system to format a lesson according to how the needs of learners changes as they go around the learning cycle, so she called it the 4MAT System (get-it?). The 4MAT System began in education but she quickly spread it into adult training in the corporate and government sectors.

Relationship to other models

4MAT shares with Kolb the idea of a learning cycle with distinct modes of learning at each stage. It also recognises, as the Honey and Mumford model does, that we each learn in a number of ways and that we may have preferences for one or more styles.

The 4MAT System

The 4MAT System is based on two continua: perceiving and processing. The processing continuum ranges from reflection to action; whilst perception runs from direct experience to abstract conceptualisation.

image

Why?

We want to understand meaning and purpose, and the instructor’s role is to make connections between the material and the learners, to engage their attention.

What?

Only when we are satisfied about relevance are we ready to know ‘What?’ At this stage, the trainer provides information and satisfies our desire for facts, structure and theory.

These first two phases represent instructor-led learning.  Now the learner takes over.

How?

Once we have the knowledge, we ask ‘How?’ and we want to understand how we can apply our new insights to the real world. We focus on problems and how we can use our learning to solve them.

What if?

Finally, we want to try it out, so we ask questions like ‘What if?’ ‘What else?’ or ‘What next?’ This is when we engage in active experimentation, trial and error, pushing at the boundaries – learning by doing.

QuestionMark

Why? (again)

Good instructional design challenges learners to reflect on the outcome of their trials and ask ‘Why?’ about the results.

    • Why did it not go as I expected?
    • Why did it seem harder than it should?

This is the entry into another cycle.

So here’s the deal

The 4MAT System is helpful in designing training, planning a coaching process, and influencing.

Management Pocketbooks you might enjoy

Share this:
Posted on

Does Management Performance Increase Profits?

The correlation between management performance and organisational performance is taken as an article of faith in many quarters – not least in the training and development industry.

Management Pocketbooks has a vested interest here, too.  If Pocketbook readers did not believe that reading the books and learning about management would improve their management skills and that this would improve their organisation’s performance, then Pocketbooks would become redundant.

Investors in People

Another organisation with a vested interest is the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES).  This is a non-departmental public body (NDPB) that describes its mission as being to ‘raise skill levels and drive investment, enterprise, jobs and growth.’

One of the tools they have to achieve this is the Investors in People (IiP) standard.  This is designed to improve business performance – but does it?  Like most external standards, achieving IiP accreditation is a costly and time-consuming process.

Research Evidence

Prof Mike Bourne
Prof Mike Bourne (LinkedIn)

So IiP commissioned Cranfield University Researcher Professor Mike Bourne to discover whether IiP accreditation really does return a value to businesses that invest.

To do this, Professor Bourne and his team considered two questions:

.

.

  1. The relationship between IiP accreditation and management performance
  2. The relationship between IiP accreditation and business performance

What the team found was this:

  1. IiP improves managerial performance
  2. IiP improves the financial performance of the sponsoring firm

You can review all of the evidence in the January 2010 paper, ‘Investors in People, Managerial Capabilities and Performance’ by Professor Mike Bourne and Dr Monica Franco-Santos.  Note that this academic paper is published by Cranfield University, and not in a peer-reviewed academic journal.  So too is an earlier – far more technical paper – ‘The Impact of Investors in People on People Management Practices and Firm Performance’ (2008).

image

The figure illustrates the relationships that Professor Bourne’s team report.  Notice that their research seems to show that managerial capabilities and performance do indeed drive reported performance – as measured by profits recorded in Companies House data.

So here’s the deal

One must always be sceptical about research that supports the agenda of the sponsoring organisation (IiP in this case) and where the results are not published in peer reviewed journals.  And I have not taken the time to thoroughly assess the research methodology, nor review the extensive statistical analysis.  The researchers are clear in their reports that, while they assessed IiP, it is simply one example of a ‘commitment based HR policy’.

This is to say that their research evidence shows that systematically committing to your staff improves their capabilities and performance and that these lead to measurable financial improvements in performance.

Kirkpatrick Level 4

Last week’s Pocketblog talked about Kirkpatrick’s four levels of learning.  Trainers have become adept at measuring and demonstrating levels 1 and 2: How do participants react, and what do they learn?  However, the value of training is in levels 3 and 4: How does training affect behaviour and what results can the organisation measure?

Professor Bourne’s work has shown that the linkage from level 2 to level 3 to level 4 is a genuine one, which he and his team have validated statistically.

image

This just leaves one problem:
Most trainers stop at Level 1: ‘Happy Sheets’.

Some Management Pocketbooks you might enjoy

Share this: