There’s a lot of talk that women wouldn’t have taken the same risks if they had been running Wall Street. According to Betty Spence, president of the National Association for Female Executives, that’s because “women don’t tend to bet the farm because their children live there.”

Don’t be too sure.

Perhaps women just haven’t been in a position to bet it, but they’re getting there.

“As early as this week, though, an American start-up company, AltaRock Energy, will begin using nearly the same method [that caused earthquakes in Basel, Switzerland]  to drill deep into ground laced with fault lines in an area two hours’ drive north of San Francisco.”

Susan Petty, a veteran geothermal researcher, founded Alta Rock to do geo-thermal research.

“In a report on seismic impact that AltaRock was required to file, the company failed to mention that the Basel program was shut down because of the earthquake it caused. AltaRock claimed it was uncertain that the project had caused the quake, even though Swiss government seismologists and officials on the Basel project agreed that it did.”

Am I the only one who is reminded of the expert warnings that were disregarded from people such as Warren Buffet regarding derivatives 5 years before they blew up or Harry Markopolos warnings a decade before the lid blew off Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme?

Maybe Bella Abzug’s comment that “our struggle today…is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel” is finally coming true.

Image credit: doug88888 on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

A company culture to lust after created in an industry not known for powerful cultures by a guy who never let go of his values from the sixties.

Meet George Zimmer founder, Chairman and CEO of Men’s Warehouse, a nearly $2 billion retailer with 17,000 employees and no intention of slowing down, who believes that that success is a function of his company’s culture.

“Customer loyalty is harder to measure. As we are in this recession, one way to measure this is that I believe when the recession ends, Men’s Wearhouse will have a higher market share than when the recession began. That will be because of our corporate culture, which will be the glue that holds the customer and the employee and the organization, the shareholder, holds it all together.”

Zimmer has infused the culture with trust and authenticity based on 3 principles

1. Listen carefully and wait at least one second after the other person’s last syllable before responding.
2. Elevate the other person’s respect – by focusing on the positive before something that needs to improve.
3. Always ask the subordinate how a problem might be solved.

The willingness to listen proved its value when a lower-level employee presented Zimmer with the idea that the company rent formal wear, now a significant revenue producer.

Beyond these three principles, the culture provides an environment in which employees aren’t afraid to mention problems or own up to a mistake and Zimmer constantly reinforces his desire for feedback and responds to each email.

“I tell people I like primary information, as opposed to information sifted by various levels of management, but I only get five a day on average.” (Many employees have little confidence in their writing skills.)

You hear a lot about trust and authenticity these days, but I’m willing to bet that George Zimmer didn’t think in those terms 30 years ago when he founded Men’s Wearhouse; no matter the words, he built something that followed his own moral compass.

“I consider anything to do with employees or the stores to be my priority. That’s one of the other things, I guess, when it comes back to trust and authenticity. That is my priority. I don’t say that, I don’t pay lip service to that. That is how I run this business and how I live my life. So, I think the people that work in our stores, know that.”

That’s what founders do.

Sadly, when their compass changes so does the culture—think Angelo Mozilo.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Be sure to check out the great links at the June 7th, 2009 edition of the Leadership Development Carnival, including lots of great management expertise—in case you think that ‘leader’ doesn’t apply to you.

(I’ve finally gotten my act together to participate, which means I’ll know when they’re happening and that means I’ll have the link to share with you:)

Image credit: Men’s Wearhouse

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” –Judge Sotomayor, 2001

“I’m sure she would have restated it… But if you look in the entire sweep of the essay that she wrote, what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through — that will make her a good judge.” – President Obama, 2009

By now the political press has replayed Judge Sotomayor’s statement ad nauseum. Setting aside the political opinions, this quotation and President Obama’s interpretation of it dramatically illustrate the importance of perception, context, and diversity in human relations.

How you perceive or interpret Judge Sotomayor’s remark depends heavily upon the context you bring to it. President Obama believes that “she would have restated it” because it is inconsistent with his understanding of “entire sweep of the essay that she wrote…” In other words the context of his understanding overrode her words.

Perception and Context

Let’s extend that concept to the workplace, and the importance of your company’s relationship with your employees.

Employee perceptions can and often do override the actions of the company.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will affect the vast majority of growing companies. As discussed in the previous post, the proposed EFCA legislation enables unions to organize many more companies, and gives unions tools, access, and a simplified method—card check—to gain approval as the company bargaining unit.

Pat Lynch, Ph.D., an expert on union history and CEO of Business Alignment Strategies, points out that an employer should know its “employees’ perceptions of how their employer treats them on a daily basis.”

An employee may be comfortable with the supervisor, the compensation, and even the work content, but still have a poor perception of the organizational culture. In this case, the context will open the door to possible unionization of that workplace.

Conversely, in difficult economic times such as this, an employee may not be satisfied with the supervisor, the compensation or the work content; but if the employee perceives the organizational culture to be fair and to value the employees, then that context will discourage potential unionizing.

Last week Pat called me with a request to clarify the EFCA and correct information that was in the previous post and I’m happy to do so.

Key Provisions of the EFCA

1. Unions will be certified without a secret ballot election by employees if more than 50% of affected employees sign authorization cards.
2. If management and union do not reach agreement on a contract within 120 days, a two-year contract would be imposed by a panel of arbitrators.
3. The Act imposes treble damages on employers who retaliate against employees who are involved in union organizing efforts.

Additional Considerations Regarding EFCA

1. Specific employers are excluded from the EFCA, such as those in the public sector, those covered under the Railway Labor Act, agricultural workers, and independent consultants, to name a few. The company size limit for EFCA is covered in the existing National Labor Relations Act, which would be amended by the EFCA.
2. The EFCA does NOT expand the definition of “employee” to supervisors. This proposed expansion is addressed in a different bill before Congress called the Re-empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradesworkers (RESPECT) Act.
3. The EFCA does NOT give unions the right to access a company’s e-mail directory, although there is a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case that addresses this issue. The NLRB may change the existing ruling (which has the force of law) to enable unions to gain such access under certain conditions in the future.

Diversity

Back to my opening comments.

Our perceptions of diversity are often singular, as in the case of Judge Sotomayor, but in fact, diversity exists only within the context of a group. Any single individual is not diverse. Any single person makes decisions within the context of his or her individual experiences. The benefit of diversity is in its improvement of the collective decision-making of a diverse group–be it employees or the panel of judges on the Supreme Court.

But the power of diversity only works where each person has a perception of respect and value within the context of the workplace.

Perception, context and diversity—a powerful combination to improve employee relations and, not coincidentally, employee performance.

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Among the annual flood of business and economics books, two recent ones caught my attention.

Shaking the Globe: Courageous Decision-Making in a Changing World by Blythe McGarvie (230 pages, John Wiley & Sons, 2009) addresses the fragmented, multi-polar world of global business.

In this book, targeted to execs at mid-to-large businesses, Ms. McGarvie surveys the plethora of challenges and opportunities that companies face in the new century. She details the diversity in three major areas: cultures, nations, and generations.

Simply put, companies no longer have the luxury of ignoring any of these diverse constituencies. Even if a company is not competing internationally, then it is defending its domestic market against a multi-national competitor.

Likewise for multi-generational workforces and multi-generational customer bases. For the first time ever, many companies have up to four generations in their workforces, and possibly four or even five generations in their customer bases. Illustrating this trend, a recent survey identified the fastest growing age-group of employees in the US as people in their seventies.

The book amply documents the simultaneous interconnection and fragmentation of businesses, people and markets across the globe.  It identifies various segments and constituencies in each major area, providing a good overview for readers wanting an introduction to the topic. The book concludes with three key messages:

“First, we need to understand how the world is interconnected and that all people in it are interdependent… We need to transcend our nationality.

Second, we must face the financial realities that created this need for going global.

Third, we should become aware of the six forces shaping personal courage if we are to go global. Namely, we experience different cultural norms as evident through beliefs, family, and time horizons; communicate with youth in new ways; tap into the talents of women; understand shareholder interests; capture the entrepreneurial drive for innovation; and respect individuals’ value systems.”

Most interesting are the personal vignettes which Ms. McGarvie uses to illustrate particular topics.

As a reader, I look forward to another book by the author, possibly in a case study format, in which she explores specific situations in much more depth, based on her personal experience.

Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse by Tom Woods (194 pages, 2009, Regnery Publishing, Inc.) is a timely analysis of the underlying causes of the current recession. Although the style is light, the analysis is thorough and detailed. Mr. Woods explores and debunks a number of myths about the current recession.

“In both cases [the Great Depression and the current recession] an inflationary credit boom brought about by the Fed’s lowering of interest rates led to massive resource misallocation and a distorted capital structure. The Fed tried in vain to inflate each of these booms back into existence, and grew frustrated with banks that refused to lend out the new money it was pumping into the banking system. In both cases the federal government sought to prop up prices… rather than allowing them to fall to a level that made sense [in the market].”

Comparing this recession to the Great Depression and many other recessions in the 1800’s, the book identifies the common culprit in the boom/bust business cycles – government manipulation of the currency. Although this conclusion is no great surprise, the compelling analysis makes for good reading. He defends free markets, pointing out that the money supply is not a free market, but a government-controlled monopoly.

Mr. Woods makes a damning case against the Federal Reserve, condemning it for hidden dealings, a bias toward inflation, and backroom collusion with banks. His analysis demonstrates that government action not only causes the booms and busts, but that same government action significantly delays and cripples the eventual recovery.

As if on cue, in December the Fed strong-armed Bank of America to complete its acquisition of Merrill Lynch even when that purchase significantly weakened the bank and increased the risk to the economy. Of course these machinations occurred in secret, with no disclosure and no transparency for investors, customers, and employees of either company.

In his conclusion, Mr. Woods calls for the abolition of the Fed, proving that he is an incurable optimist. Failing that, Mr. Woods predicts significant inflation ahead, due to government debasement of the currency. Government tampering with money is not just a recent phenomenon, as the author illustrates with examples as early as the tenth century, of governments (then kings) cheating their subjects by debasing the currency.

Even in the age of the internet and electronic commerce, some things have not changed.

Image credit: Amazon

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

There are way too many stupid bosses out there, but now and then one of them goes to extremes.

This is the first of an occasional series based on finding or receiving examples of extreme managerial stupidity. If you have a good one please send it to me at miki@rampupsolutions.com, subject “extreme stupidity” (so it misses the filters).

In her annual goal-setting meeting with her boss a woman with a track record building relationships across departments said that one of her goals was to increase her knowledge so she could help the company juice innovation by breaking down silos.

Her boss said, “This place doesn’t work that way. No place does. I think you’re confusing knowledge with ability and I wouldn’t recommend that you build a career based on knowledge. Do yourself a favor, don’t set yourself up for failure.

Focus on something you can really do. Work on your Powerpoint skills. Learn to manage your time better so you don’t have to work so many hours.

Let me explain something to you with an example, I believe in taking care of the customer and the shareholder. I don’t give a sh** about the employee. So I’d never put into my goals ‘build stronger relationships with my team members’ because I don’t care about them. I’d hate doing it and I wouldn’t be any good at it because I don’t want to be any good at it. See what I mean?”

There are multiple stupidities in his comments, so I’ll take them individually.

1. Obviously this manager doesn’t read the business news. There isn’t a CEO out there who isn’t looking for ways to break down walls and reduce silo mentality; there’s too much proof that doing so sparks innovation and raises the bottom line.
2. Skills are knowledge in action; knowledge is transferable between industries; in the 21st Century there is nothing else on which to build a career except knowledge.
3. A company is like a three legged stool with investors, customers and employees being the legs. If one leg is longer or more robust than another the stool will tip over. This type MAP guarantees sky-high costs due to extremely low productivity and excessively high turnover, since employees vote for their bosses with their feet.
4. Managers are not the front line in most companies—especially those large enough to have silos. This manager’s customers are interfacing with the employees about which he doesn’t give a sh**, so there’s not much reason for them to give much of a sh** about the customers.
5. Managerial raises and promotions are based on the accomplishments of the manager’s team; there is nothing a manager can do as an individual that will offset a non-performing group. However, how long it takes him to fall on his ass depends on how many levels above him have the same MAP.

If you find yourself in a similar situation here are some ideas on what to do

If possible change jobs; set your own goals and pursue them as openly as is safe and covertly when it isn’t; continue to build both knowledge and associated skills.

And what not to do

Don’t bother reporting him—unless he’s a very recent hire HR and his manager already know; don’t try sabotage—it’s likely to backfire; put it out of your mind—don’t allow it to eat at you or gnaw on it like an old bone; make a screen saver, sign, etc. that says, “This To Shall Pass” and get on with your life.

Image credit: b0r1s on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Who’s innovating? Why is it important to stay focused on innovation? How are companies doing it in today’s economy? Check out Business Week’s story on the 50 Most Innovative Companies and don’t miss the side bar on the 25 most innovative companies you’ve probably never heard about.

A second innovation commentary comes from consultant Peter Bregman who offers up and interesting perspective on why It’s better to be David in this economy than Goliath.

What’s happening in compensation these days aside from Wall Street bankers with dubious bonuses? Here’s the information for those of you wondering what CEOs are earning or whether it’s worth going for MBA.

That’s it for this week. Have a wonderful weekend and keep your eye on the innovation ball—that’s really what pays.

Image credit: MykReeve on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Discrimination comes in many forms.

All of them are grounded in stupidity, but it’s age and appearance that I want to focus on today.

Layoffs are always a time when age is in the limelight, but this time it’s working in reverse.

“The share of older Americans who have jobs has risen during the recession, while the share of younger Americans with jobs has plunged.”

It seems that at least parts of corporate America have learned to see past the obvious.

“…employees whom companies have invested in most and who have “demonstrated track records…tend to be more experienced and are often older.”"

So some companies have discovered that years of experience have substantial value when it comes to the success of the company.

But what about appearance? How much is hearing influenced by how someone looks at first take?

What better venue in which to consider this than the original British version of American Idol where the contestants are mostly young, generally good-looking and always bust their tails to make an impression.

How well do you think a slightly frumpy-looking 47 year old woman would fare under the scathing tongue of Simon Fuller?

How much do you think talent would offset the obvious visual assumptions made by both the judges and the audience?

Watch the judges and audience reaction carefully before Susan Boyle performs and how quickly it changes when she starts singing (embedding is disabled on this video); check out some of the more than 50 thousand comments.

Think about what happens when a “Susan” comes to interview; how well do you hear past her (or his) appearance?

Then come back and share your thoughts with us.

PS For a fascinating look at Susan read this article in the NY Times.

Image credit: cwsillero on sxc.hu

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Last Friday I wrote that ‘right’ and wrong’ were moving targets.

With the large number of companies that have been destroyed or severely damaged by behavior ranging from stupid through unethical to downright illegal there is a call for more ethics to be taught at ever level.

Everywhere you turn you hear people saying that we need more ethics, but ‘ethics’ have never been clear cut.
Actually, I think they’ve always been situational, fluid and simultaneously contradictory. Look at the definitions from dictionary.com

1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

All of the descriptions use words with no absolute concrete meaning; sticking to my usual example, murder has always been considered wrong, but the definition of murder, even today, keeps changing and often isn’t agreed upon even within the same society, e.g., the pro-choice/anti-abortion war.

Now look at the first four definitions for moral, the usual synonym,

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

Same thing, there are no absolute terms with which to define it.

Perhaps, then, ethics should be defined by current law, but that certainly hasn’t worked. It’s far too easy to adhere to the letter of the law and totally ignore the spirit of it. That keeps you out of jail, but certainly doesn’t make you ethical.

As a friend said the other day, “An ethical man knows it’s wrong to cheat on his wife; a moral man doesn’t.”

Further, there can be conflicts between personal ethics and law, where adhering to one violates the other. Should law prevail or personal ethics? Whichever you choose, it’s because you agree on a subjective level.

People say that those decisions should be made for “the greater good.” Again, by whose definitions? I’m sure that Hitler believed his actions in “purifying the races” were for the greater good—as he saw it—however I, and a large number of other people, don’t agree.

But even though this example seems so black and white, you’ll find people who still agree with Hitler’s reasoning and work to carry it forward.

In 2007 research from Harvard Business School showed the wide gap between what we think/say and what we actually do.

In that light “more ethics” becomes somewhat problematical.

What do you think the answer to being “more ethical” is?

Image credit: flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

The Carrot Principle, AKA, How the Best Managers Use Recognition to Engage The People, Retain Talent and Accelerate Performance, by Adrian Gostick and Chester Elton was first published in 2007.

A new, updated, release this month with a new chapter and the results of an extensive 10 year study of 200,000 managers and employees that confirms what most workers have always known—recognition, not just money, is what draws them in, engages them and results in high performance.

But there’s a catch. (There’s always a catch.)

You can’t just start running around throwing recognition and carrots at your people.

There are four basics of good management you need embedded in your culture—but first they need to be embedded in your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™). They are

1. Goal Setting;
2. Communication;
3. Trust; and
4. Accountability.

The bad part is that if you don’t already believe in this stuff and have a culture that reflects it then the carrots of employee recognition will be tossed out by your people. Your people aren’t stupid; if you decide after reading the book that recognition is a better way than threats and screaming don’t expect to turn things round overnight. It’s going to take consistant effort over a period of time to convince your people that you’ve changed. How long depends on how bad you were and how sincere your changes are.

The good part is that you don’t have to work in a company or for a boss who thinks that way. Gostick and Elton give multiple examples of how “carrot culture” was implemented without support from either.

Carrot Principle walks you through the process and explains how recognition can be practiced in multiple moments without budget-busting amounts of money.

Recognition leads to extreme engagement and successful managers provide their people with frequent and effective recognition.

Image credit: Simon & Schuster

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Data: Salt for the Information Age

Roman soldiers were often paid in salt; this was so common that the Latin root for “salt” and “salary” is the same – sal.

As important as salt was in ancient ages, just so is data in the information age. Data is the raw material for information. Just as salt improves food, today data enhances the value of products and services.

In the two previous posts we explored how “the data is the business.” For many information age businesses, the collection, maintenance and distribution of data is, in fact, the primary revenue source.

But, based on questions from readers, I’m not getting through, so let me spell it out.

Every business collects, maintains, and distributes data.

The better businesses use data to enhance the value of their products and service.

The smartest businesses use it to generate revenue directly.

There are only two types of Databases…

At a high level, databases collect information about only two things – population identities or activity trails.

For instance, the company accounting system may be the original business database.

• The balance sheet is a database of population identities – how many dollars in cash, accounts receivable, inventory, accounts payable, bank debt, equipment, and owner’s equity.
• The income statement is a database of activity trails – what was the activity in sales, in collections, in payments.

The accounting system integrates these two databases into a unified view of the entire financial situation for the company.

The Census Bureau is the granddaddy of population identity databases; others include Monster.com (resumes), Dun & Bradstreet (small companies), Hoovers (public companies), MarketWatch.com (mutual funds), Google (websites and search words), to name just a few.

Databases of activity trails are just as common: stock price websites (stock price activity over time). FedEx, UPS and other shipping companies offer activity trail databases for every package they ship.

Of course, just like the accounting system integrates population identities and activity (audit) trails, the most powerful databases integrate population identities and activity trails. See if you can think of five or ten more.

There is really only one type of Database that really matters—yours

This is the key point. Your company already collects population data and activity trails for every product and service you sell. You have a database of all the products and services for sale (the sales catalog) and a number of databases that support those products—bills of material, inventories, historical demand, price histories, revisions, replacements, and a cluster of support products and services.

Your company also has a natural user and customer base for the data you collect. Customers, suppliers, service partners, and competitors all have a great interest in that data. So here already are the beginnings of a data business—a database and potential customers for that data.

A Few Small Bumps

Externalizing a database can be a significant challenge. It’s worth investing some time and even a few dollars in developing strategies for these key issues before rolling out your new business. A little planning and caution in building a good foundation will pay handsome rewards later.

Operational Concerns

Who owns the data? Does your organization have clear, unambiguous title to the data? For instance, are prices negotiated as confidential in certain supply and delivery contracts? If ownership is not clear, then how can you anonymize the data to honor the agreements? Can you change the agreements so that your ownership is clear?

How is the data refreshed? Data gets old. As the database grows data maintenance rapidly grows and soon exceeds data collection as the primary challenge. Some companies, such as D & B and Hoovers, use an army of employee agents to check and update the data.

Historically this approach worked, but the scale of modern databases has rendered the “internal data army” impractical. Consider two other approaches

• automation and a
• user community.

Automate the data collection and refresh. Google uses automation to refresh its database of websites. By some estimates Google has several million computers (really just CPU data blades) crawling the web to update its website database. Many other databases receive data feeds periodically from their sources. For instance, foreclosures.com gets feeds of foreclosure information from almost every county in the United States. The conversion and translation must be a nightmare, but the resulting database is incredibly powerful and a great business.

Motivate the user community to collect and refresh the data. With the emergence of web 2.0 and social networks, many companies are creating and using a user community to do data collection and refresh. YouTube.com, MySpace.com, Facebook.com, and LinkedIn.com are good examples of social network databases created and refreshed by user communities. Wikipedia.org, Jigsaw.com, and credit reporting agencies have created or adapted user communities specifically to provide business data. Travel websites such as Expedia.com use both automated data collection and business user communities to collect and present their databases of airline and hotel prices.

How do users access the data? Online access is rapidly emerging as the only method to sell data. Intermediated purchases, which require you to process the purchase request, are simply too expensive. Customers want instant access. Put the database online and develop search/selection capabilities that allow customers to find exactly what they want.

How do users pay for the data? A la carte or by subscription. Subscription is emerging as the preferred approach, both for data suppliers and data consumers. Tiered subscription access appears to be acceptable, so long as it is not too complicated.

Legal Concerns

The law on ownership and distribution of data is under construction. Quite simply, these are brand new businesses—often there are no regulations, limited historical precedents and even more limited applicable case law. And since the web is global, multiple national laws may apply. It’s complicated, so invest heavily in the two basic legal agreements—Purchaser Agreement and Contributor Agreement – to protect your company and your data. Limit your liability and do not compromise on your exclusive ownership. Others have found that shared ownership is simply an invitation to an ongoing dispute.

There is Wisdom in Metadata

If the data is the salt for the information age, then metadata is the spice. “Best selling, fastest growing, most popular, most expensive, Top Ten and cheapest” are all metadata lists generated from databases.  What trends are hidden in your databases? What trends do your customers and suppliers track?

Track the trends in database businesses to identify the best opportunities for your company.

Again, please feel free to call me at 925.858.9017 or email rbarrett@one-one.net for clarification on any points.

Hope to see you in the Top Ten New Database businesses soon!

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content