Vinay's HR Zone - HumanResourceOnLine

Blog is moved to www.vinayravindran.com

2012-04-11T04:12:00.001-07:00

This blog is been moved to www.vinayravindran.com

Do you think HR is the owner of CULTURE in the organization or HR is mere a AGENT of culture ? - PART-1

2012-03-15T02:22:00.001-07:00

Please Click this link to View the Article :

http://vinayravindran.com.cp-26.webhostbox.net/?p=68

CHARACTER PROFILING

2012-02-28T03:18:00.004-08:00

Please Read the Article at

http://vinayravindran.com.cp-26.webhostbox.net/?p=107

Organization Development Case Study

2012-02-22T03:49:00.002-08:00

Please check the link at

http://vinayravindran.com.cp-26.webhostbox.net/?p=113

How Idea's and Communication is translated

2012-02-18T20:16:00.002-08:00

A Story - Performance Management and HR

2012-02-18T11:09:00.000-08:00

Sapna, Ramesh, Aby , Poorinima, John, Vikas and so many others in the organization complained of work pressure, unachievable targets, peer pressure, time management and loss of work life balance. Despite working hard, their performance was going down and impacting organization’s bottom line.

Who is to blame for poor performance of employees and business? Ask line managers; they blame it on HR for poor hiring. Ask HR; they blame it on line managers for poor management skills. Ask me, I would say, the Axe???? Now you will ask what (the hell) an Axe has to do in performance management business? Let me tell you a small

Once upon a time, a very strong woodcutter asked for a job to a timber merchant, and he got it. The pay was good and so were the working conditions. For that reason, the woodcutter was determined to do his best. His boss gave him an axe and showed him the area where he was supposed to work. The first day, the woodcutter brought 18 trees “Congratulations,” the boss said. “Carry on that way!”.

Very motivated with the boss’s words, the woodcutter tried harder the next day, but he could bring only 15 trees. The third day he tried even harder, but could bring 10 trees only. Day after day he was bringing less and less trees. “I must be losing my strength”, the woodcutter thought.

He went to the boss and apologized, saying that he could not understand what was going on. “When was the last time you sharpened your Axe?” the boss asked. “Sharpen? I had no time to sharpen my Axe. I have been very busy trying to cut more trees for you.”

Yes, the ‘Axe’ has a lot to do in a performance management business. This “Axe” for better performance is an employee’s competencies and skills. In any organization the call to sharpen the Axe needs be taken by HR.
Ask yourself a question “Are employees working hard without proportionate results?”. If the answer is yes, then probably, it is time to examine your employee’s ‘Axe” and sharpen it. In highly competitive business environment, the gap between existing capabilities of employee and required capabilities to compete in the market place widens much faster. A business that cannot bridge these gaps gets wiped off (lot of examples are there).

What to do?

Step 1: Finding Blunt Areas
Like the supervisor in the story, you need to have an evaluation mechanism that can find the skill and competencies gaps in your workforce. This evaluation can be done by streamlining your performance management system so that it could provide better data on skill and competency gaps. These competency gaps extracted as output of Performance Management System should be used to design training and development programs.

Step 2: Sharpening Your Axe

Well-designed training programs (which are focused on developing skills and competencies necessary for a specific job) help you improve employees’ erformance significantly and relieve them from work pressure. You can be gin by identifying the training needs, managing course ware, co-coordinate with faculties, manage training facilities and obtain feed back from your trainees & their managers about the effectiveness of the program. For mid to large organizations, it is possible only if your HR is equipped with a Training Management tool that can keep the Axe sharpened all the while.

10 Great Ways to Make Bad Hiring Decisions

2012-02-16T22:43:00.000-08:00

The underlying purpose was to demonstrate the point that many important decisions, especially hiring decisions, are based on invalid assumptions, false impressions, personal beliefs, and lack of objective data. With this article as a starting point, let me offer some expert advice on how to make really bad hiring decisions:

1. Make Emotional Decisions and Justify them with Facts.
Most interviewers make quick judgments about a candidate based on the four “A’s”
– how attractive, articulate, assertive, and affable the candidate is. Candidates who pass the test are asked easier questions, with the interviewer looking for information to justify the positive impression. Contradictory and negative information is ignored.

Candidates who don’t meet the appropriate first impression standard are assumed incompetent, with the interviewer asking tougher questions and seeking only information to prove their initial emotional judgment. Why waste your valuable time? Instead, just conduct a five-minute interview and forget collecting any facts. It won’t make any difference in your final decision, anyway.

2. Do Not Seek Out Objective Data if it Contradicts
Your Beliefs Or Ignore it if You Find Some. I remember meeting a very attractive and seemingly quite competent candidate for a Sales Manager spot, who gave a superficial answer to an Sales strategy question. I had to fight with myself about whether to ask a challenging follow-up question which would prove he was unqualified on this important job criteria. After some soul searching, I asked the question, which he flubbed, and he was not presented. The point of this is that it’s very tough to eliminate a candidate you like, and even tougher to seek out positive information for candidates you don’t initially think would fit. So rather than get to the truth, go the easy route, and trust your gut feelings and first impressions.

3. Make Sure No One Knows the Real Job.
The purpose of the interview is to determine competency and motivation to do the actual work required. If you don’t know what work the candidate is actually going to be doing it’s impossible to assess motivation. Competency, on the other hand, is pretty easy to figure out with just a rough understanding of job needs. Unfortunately, when you look at the underperformers in your company, you’ll discover most of them are quite competent to do the work, they just don’t find the work they’re doing very satisfying. These are the people that need to be over-managed and pushed to achieve average results. So to make sure you hire more of these people, go out of your way to not tell the person you’re hiring anything about the job until the day she starts. What a surprise that will be.

4. Use Skills-Based Job Descriptions to Find, Screen, and Assess Candidates.
The best candidates tend to have a track record of achievement, comparable (but not identical) skills, and are quick-learners. This is how the best talent is promoted within an organization. Yet, when hiring from outside we use a criteria that eliminates these top performers from consideration, seeking only those candidates who have exactly the right skills doing exactly the same work. The only people who fit this criteria are average candidates. So keep up the average work. While you won’t get promoted, you will get hired.

5. Make Sure Your Ads are Hard to Find.
When top people begin the job-hunting process they tend to seek out former associates, Google for jobs (e.g., “software sales jobs Hyderabad”), use social networking sites, or conduct some top-down industry research looking for the best industries and companies that meet their needs. If your jobs can’t be easily found by candidates using these techniques, you’ll never see the best people. To continue not seeing any good people make sure you continue to post your ads on the major boards, where the best people look last.

6. Write Boring Ads that Start with the Req Number.
If your ads are found, make sure they’re so boring that they preclude a good person from even applying. You can do this by leading off with the req number, a dumb title, telling the person whether the job is full-time or not, and if you’ll pay for relocation. Then go into a boring description of the job. Then make sure you clearly state that the candidate must not apply unless the person possess a laundry list of skills and
experiences that was lifted from some job description written a few years ago.

7. Make Sure that Interviewers are Untrained and Can Ask Any Questions They Want.
Hiring mistakes are no big deal, so why not let anyone interview the candidate, ask any questions they want, and then ask them whether you should hire the person using whatever criteria they think appropriate. To make matters worse, only let untrained interviewers meet your candidates. This will certainly impress those top candidates you see regarding your company’s level of professionalism.

8. Add Up the Yes and No Votes.
Here’s a sure-fire way to get the hiring decision wrong…let each untrained, biased, emotional, and superficial interviewer have a full yes/no vote on who should get hired. Then to even out these errors, give a no vote more power than a yes vote, give unprepared interviewers the same voting rights as prepared interviewers, and then add up the votes. To make sure this process works as described, do not challenge anyone’s assessment, just in case the person might get offended. This is more important than the right answer.

9. Force Candidates to Formally Apply before You Can Even Chat With Them.
Top people, when they just enter into the job-hunting process, have lots of questions and are comparing different companies and situations. One good way to prevent seeing or hiring any of these people is to not let them just talk with a recruiter or hiring manager unless they formally apply first. Most won’t, but if you have some persistent person who still decides to apply anyway, make sure you have him complete a rigorous application process, submit a resume and a statement that everything stated is true. Of course, to make sure a good person doesn’t sneak through this bureaucratic blockade, be sure not to contact the person for a least a week. Collectively, this will show the person you mean business.

10. Focus On Compensation and Skills Rather than Career Opportunities.
Since the best people are more concerned with career growth, the opportunity to make an impact and want to know the broad details about the job before getting serious, we don’t want to give them any of this information. Who knows, somebody good might actually be interested in and qualified for one of our open jobs. Instead, to prevent this from happening, don’t discuss the job at all, first screen candidates only on their skills and then tell them what your comp range is. If there isn’t a fit here, don’t waste your time, just go on to another candidate. You certainly wouldn’t want to ask candidates about some of their major achievements first and see if any of your other openings better match their needs. They actually might be interested in one of these jobs, despite the comp range. Wouldn’t that mess things up.

You are requested to post your comments. if you like it then please share it with your friends, colleagues and boss.

*Source not Known

Techniques to Practice

2012-02-13T21:12:00.000-08:00

Watch out my presentation on "How to Motivate People" -Shortly.

The Challenge of OD

2012-01-30T03:51:00.000-08:00

Traditionally, OD has been recognized as a discipline which emerged from social psychology. However, as a discipline develops, it needs to lengthen its branches and absorb from different fields which can add value to it and further its objectives. Furthermore, as a discipline is applied, new issues are thrown up and new learning happens resulting in the discipline’s transcending of traditional boundaries.

This is what is happening with OD. It is breaking away from its traditional moorings in the social psychological area and is beginning to develop a new and more valuable place for itself in an organizational setting.

Let’s examine the transitions of this field on the basis of its success and failure pattern in its endeavor to add value to organizations.

A Government organization entered the field of OD by hiring an OD consultant for doing survey feedback. The consultant followed a text book approach. He collected data from all members of the senior management team and also through focuses group interviews. He also deployed a questionnaire to collect individual response data from a cross section of organizational personnel.

The consultant diligently analyzed the data and presented it to the senior management team members.

Dissatisfaction of decades of lack of upward communication and an ivory tower attitude emerged in cascades of negativism towards the organization and its leaders.

The organizational personnel spoke out in strength against bureaucratic processes and the hijacking of HR policies by senior management personnel.

The consultant did the job of analyzing, synthesizing and categorizing data.

As the consultant was presenting the data, there was strong resistance from the senior management team members.

The “Survey Feedback Report” became a political document to downgrade the leaders. The “Performers” as well as the “Initiators” of the OD exercise suffered while the “Non-performers” became the aggressors.

The “Survey Feedback Report” did not yield any positive organization development outcome. It only had negative political fallouts. Thus, a lot of effort was put in with no impact.

Such OD failures become important steps on the learning ladder. They yield important learning points.

Some of the key learning points that emerge are:
1. The data collected should be evenly balanced between qualitative and quantitative data.
Both these kinds of data have their weaknesses. It is only in combination that they become potent especially when they throw up patterns about performance parameters.

2. There needs to be briefing of all senior management team members when the OD intervention is initiated. The buy in of all the Sr.Management Team members is important for the success of the OD intervention.
This reduces the forces of resistance to the OD interventions. It also creates alignment among senior management members regarding the objectives and the process of the OD intervention.

3. The framework of the OD intervention should focus the intervention on enhancing organizational performance. If it is focused on only social-psychological change, it is not only inadequate, it also raises questions about the OD intervention’s relevance to a business organization.
An often repeated statement against OD intervention is that they are good to do things but impractical and would not impact the organization’s effectiveness in any manner.

In order to make the OD intervention relevant, it needs to identify and assess the organization on performance parameters, key organization processes, competencies, SMT activities as well as mindsets.

After incorporating the framework, an organization deployed it to enhance the performance of its sales personnel.

This was an interesting application of the OD framework since it was not focused on the entire organization but to one set of organizational personnel.

When the collected data was presented to the national sales management team, there was a remarkable level of seriousness in the air.

The National sales manager took immediate action with respect to an inadequacy in the incentives system of the sales personnel.

A comprehensive system of diagnostics makes the data difficult to ignore.

The process gaps and competency gaps which emerged got addressed and the process innovations which got generated were examined for application.

The successful practices adopted in our part of the working were replicated in other regions.

These actions had a direct impact on the functioning and performance of the sales force.

That is the hallmark of a potent OD intervention. It impacts organizational functioning and performance.

When OD is practiced in such a manner, the relevance can be judged by the lack of rude comments and the seriousness of action planning and execution that results.

Which leader does not want to enhance performance?

If an OD intervention can enable the leader to influence performance, there is no shortage of time for it.

OD: An honorable target

What is it about OD that makes it a desirable activity? Every trainer also wants to be an OD Practitioner. Perhaps, it has something to do with the name itself. Developing the organization is a worthy goal. I am reminded of the statement of a Japanese U-boat captain in a hilarious film says, “we will target Hollywood, because it is an honorable target.

OD has a similar attraction for HR professionals. It is an honorable target. An inherent disadvantage of the HR profession is the intangible outcome of HR effort. Thus, there is a latent desire in every HR professional’s heart to make a lasting and visible impact on an organization, which can not be questioned. It is quite tiresome to be the favorite punching bag of anybody who has a grudge with the organization.

Desiring to add value to the organization through OD is one thing, actually catalyzing an enhancement in the organization’s effectiveness is another. In OD, one cannot get away because of the inadequacies of the system as in the measurement of training effectiveness. The barometer of the success or failure of an OD intervention is there for everybody to see and feel.

One major block in the implementation of OD is the lack of understanding of what it is all about. It is confused with training. The prevalent mental pattern related to training is useful for reducing resistance to training but it creates a blind spot for OD.

The inadequacies of the training mindset cascade into OD. Participants of training programs have got used to the “passive” role which is predominant in different training scenarios. The trainer has to do all the work. The participants can sit back and evaluate the program. This predominant mindset results in their being a little surprised when an OD intervention is initiated. All of a sudden, there is serious work going on in the workshop. Real issues are being discussed and real solutions are being found. This can lead to them becoming a little disconcerted unless they are briefed properly.

This is exemplified by the failure of an ambitious OD intervention in a Technology company. This company ventured to roll out an OD intervention in 3 phases. The participants were not briefed about the objectives, the process to be followed and their role in the OD Intervention. The atmosphere during the initiation of the OD Intervention was non serious. The participants were approaching it as just another training program. The result was that the HR department did not put into place the structures and systems that trigger the conversion of the learning in the first phase of the OD intervention into action.

The result was that the OD intervention got truncated after the first phase.

What do we learn from this experience?

The HR department as well as the participants needs to approach an OD intervention with a completely different mindset as compared to training.

The participants have to be active elements of the OD intervention rather than the passive role that they tend to adopt in training programs.

Moreover, the HR department needs to play a facilitative and persistent role in the implementation of the OD action plan. Thus, the HR department needs to make a transition from an observer’s role during regular training programs to an active facilitator’s role. Without this participation, the OD Intervention is bound to fail.

Let’s examine another OD failure that highlights this. An organization wanted to generate Innovations in different functional areas. This required an OD intervention which involved competence development as well as competence application.

The organization deployed a highly effective competence development system taking into consideration each stage in the competence development process.

However, not enough attention was given to ,”Application of Innovation competencies’ to generate innovations in Key result areas. No structures were created to support the Prototype development process.

The impact was that in spite of having potent Innovation ideas, no innovations ensued. After 6 months of the OD initiation, the potent innovation ideas were still languishing. They had not been converted into prototypes.

Hence, a lot of potential got wasted.

The key learning that emerges is that multiple initiatives need to be taken in order to make an OD intervention successful.

This leads to the obvious question, “Is OD really worth it?” The power of OD lies in its ability to trigger self organizing as well as planned change.

The diagnostic data collected in most OD interventions makes the intervention valid thereby making it difficult to oppose.

Nobody wants to be told that there is something wrong with them. If any diagnosis is not backed up by data, it is bound to be opposed.

The diagnostic data reduces opposition and creates openness to change.

During the action planning stage of an OD intervention in a large public Ltd Company, the consultant was facing staff resistance regarding the need for a change in the upward communication process.

“There is no need for any change. We are getting all the suggestions or grievances”” was the quote.

It was only when the quantitative data, regarding the ineffectiveness of upward communication was highlighted that the resistance to a “Communication Process change” declined.

The diagnostic data by itself acts as “feedback” to the organization and its key personnel. Even, if no planned change is initiated, self organizing change tends to set in.

This is highlighted by the experience of a consultant who had done a diagnostic exercise. A key competency gap among senior management functionaries emerged in the data. The impact of this data was that suddenly all senior management members had queries about the competency and the search behavior which is associated with exploration was evident.

Thus, it is not surprising that HR professionals also want to be OD practitioners.

OD in name and not in deed

Riding the OD Horse: Easier said than done

Organization development is an exciting field from the perspective of the brand that it carries. When, you hear or utter the term, “O.D”, ears pick up and fellow professionals look at you with new respect in their eyes.

The few initiatives that have been taken have either resulted in failure or minimal success. The amount of effort required to make OD initiatives successful has not been realized. Everybody wants to eat the cake but nobody wants to put in the effort to make it sweet and value adding.

Triggering any change is easier said than done. The entire system rebels against new initiatives. Most of the time, it is not even rebellion, it is plain inertia. Newton’s law of motion is applicable even in the context of Organization change, “Everything continues in its state of rest or motion until some force acts on it.”

For organizational change, enormous force and persistence in application is required.

Let’s examine the experience of an OD initiative which resulted in minimal success..

A leading software organization wanted to surface and address organizational issues. A questionnaire was prepared for the purpose. It consisted of statements which utilized the Likert scale(strongly agree to strongly disagree) & open ended questions related to organization strength, weaknesses and issues that needed to be addressed.

The questionnaire was filled up quite enthusiastically by everybody. The analysis was done and the conclusions were presented to the entire group on an LCD screen.

Then the problems began………

Small groups of personnel stated, “we do not agree with those findings”.

Anothmr group said, “The statements in the questionnaire were unclear”. This threw up doubts regarding the efficacy and validity of the questionnaire.

The OD exercise would have ended right there, had it not been for the data in the open ended questions.

The validity of the responses to the open ended questions, could not be doubted because the responses were consolidated without any changes.

The issues that needed to be addresses and the opportunities for improvement were given to the groups to address. Each group presented its solution to the organization issues taken up.

The organization leader gave his feedback to the solutions presented and selected the ones to be implemented.

Everybody was very happy that organization issues had finally surfaced and were being addressed.

The implementation was not worked out in detail and the responsibilities were not fixed.

The result was that the entire effort got wasted except for some perception expansion of organizational personnel, which may have impacted their day to day managerial actions.

In fact, the intervention could have had an opposite impact to the one intended. Rather than solving organization problems, it could have triggered an additional problem of a negative mindset against OD interventions in the organization.

What do we learn from this experience?

If an organization wants to do an OD intervention, it needs to be mentally ready to put in an enormous amount of energy. An OD intervention should not be considered to be a one shot, quit fix activity.

A fundamental understanding of OD and what it entails among the organization personnel is fundamental to its success. A lock- in into the training paradigm is a sure recipe for failure. Utilizing the training mindset for an OD intervention will not work. The OD intervention does not end after the analysis has been done .That is where it starts. However in most cases the training program ends after the class-room experience. Therefore the entire focus as well as the quantum of effort required is fundamentally different in an OD intervention as compared to a training program.

The implementation plan without a responsibility matrix will never take off.

Subsequently, what happens is that nobody wants to discuss whether anything was implemented. When implementation comes up for discussions, everyone is little embarrassed and somehow the implementation plan gets pushed off the agenda. This is because everyone subconsciously realizes that the effort required is huge.

Thus, it slowly shifts to the bottom of the pile of files. Thus, after a couple years, a brave soul opens the file. By that time, the team leader has changed and the brave soul is told, “This is outdated data, it can not be used anymore”.

The OD intervention disappears without a whimper “What is the use of going through all that effort, if this is going to be the outcome?”

Even if implementation occurs, it requires regular follow up and reviews. The OD intervention needs to be undertaken as a project. Thus, everything that is entailed in project planning and execution needs to be an integral part of the OD intervention.

Another key learning from this experience is the danger of using internationally accepted research scales such as the Likert scale in the diagnosing instrument. These scales may be considered valid in organizational and action research circles but to those personnel, who are not exposed to these instruments, they may not be perceived as reliable.

source : http://www.innovativetraining4u.com/protected_odart3.html

Cast your Vote Now

2012-01-28T20:58:00.001-08:00

Talent Management - Webinar

2012-01-26T05:52:00.000-08:00

Talent Management Best Practices: Identifying and Developing High Potential Leaders

2012-01-26T04:21:00.000-08:00

Thought

2012-01-23T04:30:00.000-08:00

“ A manager who makes strategic decisions based on income statement metrics is like the captain of a boat who steers it by assessing the wake. ”

Common VIRUSES that prevent Change in Organization

2012-01-08T22:34:00.000-08:00

1.Over inform:
Tell everyone then have a meeting. We make sure everyone has been informed,
then have a meeting which slows things down.

2. Have it my way.
We don’t learn from each other; “not invented here” syndrome.

3. Saturday morning quarterback.
We criticize everything, even before things happen.

4. False positive.
We do “nice-talk” … overly kind even if we disagree. This leads to false positive.

5. Concealed consensus.
We confuse participation with consensus. We think that everyone has to
agree before we act, so people say they agree when they don’t.

6. Forward to our past:
Look in the rearview mirror. We are so afraid of losing our heritage that we
don’t change our culture; we are locked into our habits.

7. Caste:
Value by grade. We judge people by their title and rank rather than performance
or competence.

8. Turfism:
My business vs. “our” business. We defend our turf sometimes to the detriment
of the overall organization.

9. Command and control.
We like to make sure that senior managers run the company and
delegate responsibility; this keeps us from feeling a personal obligation to change.

10. Activity mania.
We like to be busy; our badge of honor is full calendars, even if it
excludes thinking and results. We hide behind our “busy-ness”.

11. Narcissistic competitiveness.
We like to win as individuals not as teams.

12. Show me the results:
Results rule. We like results – anyway, anytime, anyhow – we don’t instill
a process.

13. Crisis jumping.
When in a crisis, we act decisively; then we wait for the next crisis to act again.

14. Customer antipathy.
We don’t include customer criteria in our thinking; we are internally focused.

15. Authority ambiguity:
Not clear on accountability. In our matrix, we are not sure who is responsible
or accountable, so no one is.

16. All things to all people.
We have too many priorities; each good idea gets energy and attention;
we don’t say no; we are not focused on the critical few.

17. Flavor of the month.
We jump from program to program; we don’t have integrated initiatives;
and there is cynicism about “new” programs; we end up with concept clutter.

18. Over-changed (full sponge).
We have a capacity problem with too many changes going on at once;
we are burned out and stressed out on change; we cannot let things go.

19. Misalignment: Disjointed
actions. We don’t see the big picture and see how our work fits with the
strategy; we tend to get lost in the details.

20. Compliant deflector:
Over-obedient. We wait to do what we are told and delegate
responsibility upward.

21. Process mania.
We are so consumed by process that we don’t focus on results and outcomes.

22. Kill the messenger.
We don’t share bad news even to a fault.

23. Glacial response:
Whose decision is it? We cannot get decisions made quickly.

24. Perfectionism:
Right way or no way. We have to have the perfect answer before we do anything.

25. What have you done for me yesterday? After a successful change, we only
want more.

26. Over measure.
We measure everything, even to a fault. Our dashboards are way too complex.

27. Under measure.
We don’t have indicators that track the important stuff; we measure what is
easy not what is right.

28. Sustainability. We do not sustain the changes we start.

29. Going for the big win. We look for the mega change that will solve
all problems vs. starting small.

30. Skills or aptitude. We don’t have the skills required for the future.

31. Event vs. pattern.
Change is an event (do the checklist, attend the meeting), not a sustained pattern.

32. Fire hydrant.
Everyone has to “mark” every initiative or project before it can be moved on.

* Source : RBL Publications

Executing on Innovation

2011-12-29T23:33:00.000-08:00

Microfinance - A Sectoral Appreciation Paper (only Pointers) by Vinay Ravindran

2011-12-24T09:25:00.000-08:00

Microfinance sectoral appreciation paper by vinay ravindran

View more documents from Vinay Ravindran

Lean Manufacturing

2011-12-22T09:45:00.000-08:00

Lean Manufacturing Tour

Talent Management and Leadership Development Model

2011-12-20T12:53:00.000-08:00

4 Kinds of Motivation

2011-12-19T12:43:00.000-08:00

HR Renewal Model

2011-12-18T12:38:00.000-08:00

Ulrich Model

2011-12-17T12:41:00.000-08:00

Motivation

2011-12-16T19:19:00.000-08:00

" Motivation is about cultivating your human Capital.
The challenge lies not in the work itself , but in you , the person who creates and manages the work environment".

HR Value Creation

2011-12-16T00:36:00.000-08:00

Kolbs Learning Style

2011-12-15T12:25:00.000-08:00

Cone of Experience

2011-12-14T12:27:00.000-08:00