What Happens When NGOs Admit Failure?
This is a very insightful TED talk by David Damberger. Here’s the summary:
International aid groups make the same mistakes over and over again. At TEDxYYC David Damberger uses his own engineering failure in India to call for the development sector to publicly admit, analyze, and learn from their missteps.
One of the most significant points is a few minutes in when he talks about the out-of-sync power structure in much development work. With businesses, if a business doesn’t serve people well, customers go somewhere else. There is a self-correcting mechanism in place. With government there is as well (though it is much slower!): if those in power fail to uphold their responsibilities, the people can vote them out.
But with development agencies, the beneficiaries of the work do not have this type of influence. Rather, the donors do — and they cannot know directly whether things are working well, as customers do with a business and citizens do (more or less) with their government. Hence, ineffective methods can be perpetuated for a long time.
Hence, the importance of non-profits paying close attention to what works and what doesn’t, and sharing that information. The result is more innovation and better solutions.
Less For-Profits, More Non-Profits
When I was at ETS two weeks ago, one of the sessions I went to was on a biblical view of economics. Wayne Grudem argued for a largely capitalist framework (which I agree with) and Craig Blomberg argued for a “third alternative” between capitalism and socialism.
I think Blomberg was confused, not rightly understanding the definitions of capitalism and socialism, and thus not realizing that there is no “third alternative” here (though there are degrees). But, it was great to hear Blomberg, as he is a very solid NT exegete and theologian (his essay on the Sabbath in the recent Perspectives on the Sabbath: Four Views
In the question and answer session, one objection Blomberg made to capitalism was its tendency to create a proliferation of useless items, such as pet rocks and those really dumb singing fish you can put on the wall.
Now, the first point to make in response here was made by someone in the audience who had actually bought a pet rock during family night with his kids a few weeks ago, and it made for a memorable experience. I myself think pet rocks are pretty neat (though I don’t have any), though I think those singing fish really are quite atrocious. So much is in the eye of the beholder. Who gets to make the call? The point of capitalism is: you. You get to make that call, not the government. Amen.
The second point, though, is that there is nothing in capitalism itself which says people need to make pet rocks or annoying singing fish. The essence of capitalism is simply that people are able to pursue whatever endeavors are of interest to them. Capitalism does not say you have to make singing wall-mounted fish to make money; it does say that, if that’s what you want to do and you can (somehow!) get people to buy them, you are free to go for it.
So, I defend people’s right to make those singing fish that I hate so much. But, having recently been to Australia and overdosing (probably) on souvenirs for the kids, and right now feeling like my wife and I are starting to drown in the “stuff” that accumulates after 13 years of marriage and having 3 kids and so forth, I have a better proposal.
Even though we are in the midst of a quite severe (and long-lasting!) economic downturn, we are still a society of extreme abundance. An economist friend of mine recently pointed out that the US produces 1 billion units of clothing per year. The number could even be 100 billion; I can’t remember for sure. But it was simply massive.
I’m glad we produce a lot. I think that is a partial fulfillment of the creation mandate, and that it is good, not evil. However, I suggest that we could get by with producing less of some things in order to produce more of other things. We need more pastors. We need more missionaries. We need more people devoted to serving those in need. We need more people devoted to the causes of fighting large global problems, like extreme poverty and corrupt leadership. Many of these things cannot in themselves be done at a profit, but can and must be done.
When society reaches a point that we have a proliferation of trinkets and other such things, it’s not a sign that capitalism has gone bad. Rather, it’s a sign that we need to use the freedom that capitalism affords us to point our efforts more fully in another direction — namely, the social sectors. We need more non-profit organizations, more churches, and more people going in to ministry and non-profit work in general. We can afford it. It will mean less singing fish, and perhaps less pet rocks. More seriously, maybe we won’t be producing exactly the 1 billion articles of clothing per year (which I am fine with as long as Banana Republic doesn’t go out of business). The point of our prosperity is not simply or mainly to enable us to keep buying more stuff, though the desire to accumulate is not evil in itself. The point of our prosperity is, rather, to divert some of our ability to accumulate more to efforts that focus more directly on using our abundance to meet pressing global needs.
I know there is one important consideration and possible objection here, which is actually a point I’ve made for years and that I make in my book (if I don’t cut the chapter due to length). And the objection is that I may seem to be pitting business against social good, when in reality it is business, not charity, which is the long-term solution to global poverty.
So I want to say clearly that I am not doing that. I do believe that business is the only long-term solution to large global problems like global poverty. And I’m not saying that when a person opens a business and makes money that he is not contributing greatly to the welfare of society. They are. But business cannot do this alone, because not all needs can be met at a profit, and there is injustice blocking the way in many instances. We need to be a society of both excellent businesses and great non-profits.
This is not anti-capitalistic, but is precisely the freedom that capitalism upholds and champions. Start the organization you want to start, not looking to the government to keep you afloat but rather, under the grace of God, your own efforts and ability to produce things of value. Capitalism is about freedom, and starting non-profits is just as much in line with capitalism as starting for-profits.
What I’m saying is that we are at a point as a society where the enormous wealth we have created virtually demands that we give much more consideration to using that wealth not to buy more things and enhance our own positions, but rather to fund those who are meeting the types of essential needs that cannot be met at a profit.
Don’t stop buying better things altogether, or even to a huge degree necessarily, but do direct more of your money this year to your church, to missionaries that are raising support and, for some of you, to starting organizations devoted to meeting pressing needs on a global scale.
Nonprofits Are Worthy of Funding
Well said by Drucker in Managing the Nonprofit Organization:
Fund raising is going around with a begging blow and asking for money because the need is so great. Fund development is creating a constituency which supports the organization because it deserves it. It means developing a membership that participates through giving.
Nonprofits are not doing optional work. They deserve to be funded (excepting those that lack integrity and effectiveness).
When you give, don’t see yourself as spending discretionary money that you are using to do a favor for the organization. You are giving because the organization and cause are worthy of funding.
The Profit in Nonprofit
This is a good article on the story of Kiva from the Stanford Social Innovation Review. Here’s the summary:
Kiva, the first online peer-to-peer microcredit marketplace, is one of the fastest-growing nonprofits in history. But its nonprofit status was not inevitable. Here’s why Kiva chose to be a 501(c)(3), what this tax status buys the organization, and how being a nonprofit poses challenges.
Review Once or Twice a Year What You’ve Actually Done
Peter Drucker, from Managing the Nonprofit Organization:
All the people I’ve known who have grown review once or twice a year what they have actually done, which part of that work makes sense, and what they should concentrate on.
I’ve been in consulting for almost fifty years now and I’ve learned to sit down with myself for two weeks in August and review my work over the past year. First, where have I made an impact? Where do my clients need me–not just want me but need me? Then, where have I been wasting their time and mine? Where should I concentrate next year so as not only to give my best but also to get the most out of it?
I’m not saying that I always follow my own plan. Very often something comes in over the transom and I forget all my good intentions. But so far as I have become a better and more effective consultant and have gotten more and more personally out of consulting, it’s been because of this practice of focusing on where I can really make a difference.
Only by focusing effort in a thoughtful and organized way can a non-profit executive move to the big step in self-development: how to move beyond simply aligning his or her vision with that of the organization to making that personal vision productive.
Executives who make a really special contribution enable the organization to see itself as having a bigger mission than the one it has inherited. To expand both the organization and the people within it in this way, the top executive must ask the key questions of himself — the questions I ask myself each August. Indeed, each member of the staff must do it, and each volunteer. And the senior people must sit down regularly with each other and consider the questions together.
It’s the End of the Year: Give
My local Christian radio station was asking for money yesterday.
There are two ways to look at that. The first would be to say: “Stop asking. You just had your share-a-ton two months ago. You’ve received enough from the people of this city, and if it wasn’t not enough to make your budget, deal with it.”
This way looks at society as doing the radio station a favor to let it be on the air. Sure, we’ll help you a little bit when it’s convenient, but please don’t ask for too much. We have other things going on.
Looking at things in this way would be wrong. Very, very wrong.
The second way to look at this says: “This station is worthy of being supported. Giving to this cause is not simply a discretionary act; the station deserves it’s support. It ought to be the case that many people give.”
This second way to look at things is the right way. For it realizes that we are not the ones who are doing the radio station a favor by “letting it exist if we give,” but rather the radio station is doing us a favor.
It is doing us a favor in two senses. First, it is doing us a favor simply by operating and proclaiming it’s message — even if we ourselves are not the primary listeners. It’s existence serves the public good. Second, it is doing us a favor by not insisting on its rights.
It is not insisting on its rights because it doesn’t require payment, but instead humbly asks for support, without creating a sense of obligation. I realize that there wouldn’t be a practical way to require payment to listen to a radio station. But to focus on that would be to miss my point.
What I mean is this: If you go to Target, you have to pay for what you get. So also if you go to Applebee’s or Amazon. They have a right to charge, and they do.
But when you benefit from a non-profit (either directly, in the case of a radio station, or indirectly, because it is an avenue through which we can help make the world a better place), you often don’t have to pay for what you get. This can have the side effect of making it look like what they do is not as worthy of payment as what Target or Amazon or Applebee’s does. It makes it look like they exist simply by virtue of the sheer grace of our society and a few generous donors, whereas for-profits deserve to exist (assuming people are willing to purchase their goods at a profit).
But, as is often the case, the appearances here are upside down.
It is not that “payment optional” means “less worthy to exist” and “payment required” means “we are the greatest thing since sliced bread — people pay for what we offer.”
“Payment optional” may in fact be a humble indication, in God’s design, that says: “The work this organization is doing is so important that people aren’t charged for it. The fact that the organization has to depend upon gifts is not a sign that it is less important, but is actually an indication that what they are doing is even more worthy of existing than many of the things that you pay for every day.”
This is not to diminish the great work that business accomplishes. Business serves society and is a high calling. It is a fundamental component not only of how society operates, but also for how we need to address many long-term societal problems (such as poverty in the developing world).
My point here is simply this: don’t conclude from the humble, simple requests that so many non-profits are making this time of year into thinking that non-profits are merely “nice-to-haves” that we do the favor of keeping in existence. Instead, realize that the fact that they are dependent upon gifts is, perhaps, precisely the mark that they are doing great work, perhaps some of the most important in the world.
Which means: your opportunity to give is an opportunity to be a part of something great. Take this opportunity at the end of the year to give.
And, since it’s also the end of the decade, maybe even give a little more.
Recommended Books for Non-Profit Leaders
I’ll be doing some posts this week and next recommending some of the top books I’ve read on various subjects. First off are books on managing non-profit organizations.
Here I have three primary recommendations:
1. Managing the Nonprofit Organization, by Peter Drucker
2. Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits by Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant
3. Good to Great and the Social Sectors: A Monograph to Accompany Good to Great by Jim Collins
My Interview with Tim Challies
I recently did an interview for Tim Challies’ blog on Desiring God, where my role is senior director of strategy.
I talk about how DG began, our core purpose, our philosophy of being here to serve rather than for how we can benefit, why we post everything online for free, and some thoughts on organizational effectiveness.
In regards to the latter, one of the things I talk about is how an organization should navigate the future in light of the fact that it cannot be known with clarity — and therefore detailed strategic blueprints become outdated almost right away. I discuss three ways that we do this:
- Evolutionary progress, which happens incrementally and organically (rather than according to a predetermined plan) through the principle of “try a lot of stuff and keep what works.”
- Building on the strengths of the staff.
- Intentional and planned progress, through the concept of BHAGs (big hairy audacious goals) that paint in broad strokes the envisioned future.
The core idea here is to combine incremental progress, which progresses organically in response to the environment and needs as you experience them, with intentional and bold goals (BHAGs) that paint in broad strokes but do not blueprint things out in detail. This provides intentionality about the future without attempting to script everything out, so that the organization can remain flexible according to reality as it actually is while still progressing toward a bold envisioned future.
There is a great quote in Built to Last on how Jack Welch utilized both of these concepts effectively at GE, which I think explains the concept very well:
Instead of directing a business according to a detailed … strategic plan, Welch believed in setting only a few clear, overarching goals. Then, on an ad hoc basis, his people were free to seize any opportunities they saw to further those goals. This crystallized in his mind after reading Johannes von Moltke, a nineteenth century Prussian general influenced by the renowned military theorist Karl von Clausewitz, who argued that detailed plans usually fail, because circumstances inevitably change.
How Do You Assess Performance that Defies Measurement?
Yesterday we saw that a great organization is one that delivers superior performance and makes a distinctive impact over a long period of time.
But how do you measure “superior performance” and “impact”? — especially in the social sectors, where they are hard to quantify and thus largely defy measurement?
Jim Collins answers in Good to Great and the Social Sectors:
For a business, financial returns are a perfectly legitimate measure of performance. For a social sector organization, however, performance must be assessed relative to mission, not financial returns. In the social sectors, the critical question is not “How much money do we make per dollar of invested capital?” but “How effectively do we deliver on our mission and make a distinctive impact, relative to our resources?”
Now, you may be thinking, “OK, but collegiate sports programs and police departments have one giant advantage: you can measure win records and crime rates. What if your outputs are inherently not measurable?
The basic idea is still the same: separate inputs from outputs, and hold yourself accountable for progress in outputs, even if those outputs defy measurement.
Here’s the key point:
It doesn’t really matter whether you can quantify your results. What matters is that you rigorously assemble evidence – quantitative or qualitative — to track your progress.
If the evidence is primarily qualitative, think like a trial lawyer assembling the combined body of evidence. If the evidence is primarily quantitative, then think of yourself as a laboratory scientist assembling and assessing the data.
To throw our hands up and say, “But we cannot measure performance in the social sectors the way you can in a business” is simply lack of discipline.
All indicators are flawed, whether qualitative or quantitative. Test scores are flawed, mammograms are flawed, crime data are flawed, customer service data are flawed, patient-outcome data are flawed.
What matters is not finding the perfect indicator, but settling upon a consistent and intelligent method of assessing your output results, and then tracking your trajectory with rigor.
So when there are aspects of your performance that seem to defy measurement, you aren’t stuck. You just need to think in terms of assembling evidence.
Much of that evidence may be qualitative. But that’s fine — in that case you are just thinking like a trial lawyer rather than a laboratory scientist. Therefore, lack of easily quantifiable performance outputs does not need to preclude your ability to give intelligent thought to identifying a consistent method for assessing results, and tracking them with rigor.
What Does a Nonprofit Do?
Defining the mission and primary outcome of a non-profit can be difficult. For there is no universal, specifically measurable bottom-line such as profit.
In his Managing the Nonprofit Organization, Peter Drucker actually provides a good measure of clarity to help overcome this challenge:
[The distinguishing feature common to nonprofits] is not that these institutions are “non-profit,” that is, that they are not businesses. It is also not that they are “non-governmental.” It is that they do something very different from either business or government. Business supplies, either goods or services. Government controls.
A business has has discharged its task when the customer buys the product, pays for it, and is satisfied with it. Government has discharged its function when its policies are effective. The “non-profit” institution neither supplies goods or services or controls. Its “product” is neither a pair of shoes nor an effective regulation. Its product is a changed human being. The non-profit institutions are human-change agents. Their “product” is a cured patient, a child that learns, a young man or woman grown into a self-respecting adult; a changed human life altogether.
The First Job of a Leader
From Peter Drucker’s Managing the Nonprofit Organization:
The most common question asked me by non-profit executives is: What are the qualities of a leader? The question seems to assume that leadership is something you learn in charm school. But it also assumes that leadership by itself is enough, that it’s an end. And that’s misleadership.
The leader who basically focuses on himself or herself is going to mislead. The three most charismatic leaders in this century inflicted more suffering on the human race than almost any other trio in history: Hitler, Stalin, Mao. What matters is not the leaders charisma. What matters is the leader’s mission.
Therefore, the first job of the leader is to think through and define the mission of the institution.
Overhead: The Misguided Metric of the Non-Profit World
Nancy Lublin, CEO of the non-profit Do Something, has a good column on overhead in the latest Fast Company. I’ve turned the article into the following series of questions and answers.
Why are people so concerned about overhead?
The first question many people ask me, truly, is, “How much do you spend on overhead?” That means expenses not directly related to a group’s programs, including office rent and the electric bill. Givers want to know that we’re not spending much money on this stuff, that most of their donations go to “program-related activity.”
The assumption is that when 99% of your expenses go to programs, you are fantastic. Not-for-profits proudly proclaim, “95% of our expenses go to programs fighting poverty!” as if they’re a gazillion times more effective than those that spend a pathetic 85%. Web sites that track not-for-profit financials perpetuate the “overhead is evil” myth by lauding groups that curtail it. Perhaps they think overhead is an espresso machine. Or a new jet. Or art on our walls. (Whoops! Then we’d be a bank.)
Why does overhead taken by itself lead to a distorted picture?
Low overhead doesn’t necessarily mean an organization is awesome at fighting poverty, or that its turnover is low and its people productive. And it certainly doesn’t guarantee that the group is spending wisely.
What are examples of good overhead expenditures?
Let’s take an example from the for-profit world, which isn’t so squeamish about overhead. According to Apple’s Q4 2008 report, 78% of its expenses were sales, general, and administrative — the corporate equivalent of overhead. Seventy-eight percent! Yet nobody flinches. Keep spending, Steve Jobs! Your products rock!
….
Here’s a case study from my own organization. Last year, we spent nearly $200,000 overhauling our Web site, from the content-management system to the architecture to the design. No one likes such expenses on the books: They smell like overhead. But our site no longer crashes, traffic has doubled, and we even won a Webby Award.
But some overhead is bad, right?
Obviously, not all overhead is good. I know one not-for-profit executive who flies only first class, stays in suites at the W, and has a car service schlep him around New York whenever he’s there. This guy has an overhead problem.
So what’s your main point? What should we be concerned about more than overhead?
My point: Stop obsessing about overhead. You can’t assess an organization on one statistic. Instead, focus on effectiveness. That’s a harder story to tell and a trickier thing to measure. But that effort is what everyone ultimately wants — a good investment.
In sum: There is indeed such a thing as bad overhead, and organizations should be as efficient as possible. But efficiency does not equal effectiveness. We should be concerned first and foremost about effectiveness. Focusing too much on “overhead expense” too easily rewards behaviors which may appear efficient on the surface but in actuality decrease effectiveness because they undermine the engines of growth and bold action.
What’s Not Best: Fake Real Handwriting
I received a mailing from a fundraising consulting company today advertising a new “cutting edge technology” that they can offer to their non–profit clients: a font that looks like real handwriting but in fact is not. In other words, fake real handwriting.
This is appalling. Why would a non-profit want to use this service? Plain and simple, the thinking behind this seems to be: “We can make your donors think that they are reading real handwriting so that they will feel that the message is more personal. Then, they might give more.”
If you could read the fake-real handwriting in the image above, you’d see this perspective come out as well. But you don’t have to read that to see it. What can the value be in fake-genuine handwriting (they are calling it “genuinely penned handwriting”) if the person knows that it was created by a machine?
If you know that a machine created it, then it no longer seems personal. So the purpose of this “genuinely penned” stuff seems to depend upon the person thinking it is real. But if you think that it is real, then your assessment of the “personal nature” of the writing is not based on reality. In which case, in a very real sense, you’ve been tricked.
Why do certain direct marketing companies — and, in turn, the non-profits who use and follow their consulting services — reduce themselves to such tactics?
This company is being added to my list of things that should not exist.
A New View on Non-Profits
Patrick Lencioni is one of the authors that I consistently find most helpful. His latest article [not yet online, but copied below] does an excellent job pointing out the false dichotomy that we often make between non-profits and for-profits.
We often think of non-profits as accepting “lower levels of accountability and productivity and rigor” than for-profits. On the other hand, we often see work at for-profits as failing to give people a sense of mission and failing to tap into their passion and idealism.
We need to reject this false dichotomy. Although it may often be this way, it doesn’t have to be.
I think that a new era has begun for non-profits. More and more people are realizing that a non-profit can be a place driven by an incredible mission while at the same time accomplishing that mission with excellence, discipline, and remarkable innovation. As a result, more and more talented people are realizing that they can go into the non-profit sector to make an impact on the world without sacrificing excellence in their work. And as a result of that, the work of non-profits is becoming even more innovative and excellent — thus resulting in an even greater impact for good.
In fact, Jim Collins writes in his monograph Good to Great and the Social Sectors, “Social sector organizations increasingly look to business for leadership models and talent, yet I suspect we will find more true leadership in the social sectors than the business sector” (p. 12). Why? Because “the practice of leadership is not the same as the exercise of power.” Social sector executives have to rely more on influence than power to get things done, and therefore the social sector environment provides a significant catalyst to the development of leadership.
So a new day has dawned for non-profits — an era where they are seen as a place that satisfies a person’s desire for both mission and excellence. And the result is that great things are being done and will be done.
When it comes to for-profits, we also need to reject the idea that their work is productive but not meaningful. For-profits, also, need to affirm and tap into their employee’s sense of purpose and mission.
This is happening more and more — and, interestingly, can happen in part through partnerships with innovative non-profit initiatives. But that’s not the only way it can happen. It is possible to see the work itself as meaningful and purposeful in its own right, and then also as connected to wider purposes for the good of the world.
As a result, whether in the for-profit sector or the social sector, we can and should have both a sense of mission and an outcome of excellence in our work.
Well, time to get to Lencioni’s article. Since it doesn’t look like it’s on his website yet, I’m copying it here in full:
Playing it Safe is a Trap
Michael Gilbert had a helpful article last spring in Nonprofit Online News called Playing it Safe is a Trap: Five Syndromes in Online Marketing.
That’s a great title, and I’d say the concept applies to much of work and life — not just nonprofits and online marketing.
His five points in the article are:
- Seeking safety in best practices
- Seeking safety in the wrong metrics
- Seeking safety in self-promotion
- Seeking safety in cautious language
- Seeking safety in control
Here are a few helpful excerpts:
When it comes to communicating with their current and prospective stakeholders online, nonprofits will often choose the path that feels the safest to them. They do this in regard to their methods, their metrics, their language, their content, and their management practices. I argue that such a choice is anything but safe and indeed is responsible for some of the most serious and common mistakes that a nonprofit can make.
….
Ultimately, we seek to control things that needn’t be controlled, in our desire to avoid the uncertainties that come with the kind of communication practices that truly light a fire in people. Indeed, we are simply afraid to light that fire because at some point it will no longer be in our control. We set up time consuming approval processes, elaborate branding requirements, and many other mechanisms to ensure that the communication of our staff and our stakeholders all remains firmly managed. Even our notion of “viral marketing” tends to involve setting things up to encourage our stakeholders to do exactly what we tell them to do.
This is not the place to describe the alternatives to these fear avoidance tactics. (Indeed, I sometimes feel like all our other work is about such alternatives.) But it’s important to note that the alternative isn’t just random risk taking. That’s a straw man that we set up to justify our actions. The overarching alternative is simply to practice letting go, a bit at a time. The more we allow anxiety and fear to guide our decisions, the more power we give them and the harder it is to break free. Breaking these five patterns is a good place to start.
It is a Good Thing for Non-Profits to Raise Money
There is a great post on Seth Godin’s blog today by Sasha Dichter called In Defense of Raising Money: A Manifesto for NonProfit CEOs. Sasha makes the point that the actual act of raising awareness and funding for a non-profit’s cause does good for that cause and is a worthy endeavor:
Do you really believe that the “real work” is JUST the “programs” you operate? (the school you run; the meals you serve; the vaccines you develop; the patients you treat?) Do you really believe that it ends there? Do you really believe that in today’s world, where change can come from anyone and anywhere, that convincing people and building momentum and excitement and a movement really doesn’t matter?
And I love how he makes the point that has been on my mind for a long time: Non-profits do a service to those who give by providing a way for them to invest their money not for financial return, but for the good of others. This is as worthy an investment as anything you put in the stock market. More so. Both for-profits and and non-profits serve critical roles in society. Jim Collins has said this really well: “If all our society had was effective businesses, we would not be a great nation. We must have great social sector organizations, too.” Here is how Sasha Dichter puts it in the post:
Our society has done a spectacular job of creating enormous amounts of wealth. At the same time, wealth is associated with power, and not having wealth can feel like not having power. So going to someone who has money and saying, “You have the resources, please give some of them to me” doesn’t feel like a conversation between equals.
How about this instead: “You are incredibly good at making money. I’m incredibly good at making change. The change I want to make in the world, unfortunately, does not itself generate much money. But man oh man does it make change. It’s a hugely important change. And what I know about making this change is as good and as important as what you know about making money. So let’s divide and conquer – you keep on making money, I’ll keep on making change. And if you can lend some of your smarts to the change I’m trying to make, well that’s even better. But most of the time, we both keep on doing what we’re best at, and if we keep on working together the world will be a better place.
About Matt Perman
Follower of Christ. Husband of one, father of three. Former director of strategy at Desiring God. This blog exists to help equip Christians in good works, because that's what productivity is really about.
Learn more Contact me Friend me on Facebook Follow me on Twitter
Keep Updated
Subscribe by email
