Featured Article - February 2008
The Equally Important "Respect for People" Principle
By Bob Emiliani, The Center for Lean Business Management
Lean
community leaders have recently made two huge changes in how they
present Lean. The first change is Lean as a management system rather
than “Lean manufacturing.” Second, they are finally taking note of the
long-established “Respect for People” principle. Why now? In part
because there have been so few successful Lean transformations over the
last 20 years. Another reason is that most other aspects of the Lean
management system have been studied in detail, so this is the next
territory to explore. This batch-and-queue non-integrative approach has
severely increased the lead-time needed to properly educate people
about Lean management – particularly the “Respect for People” principle.
The
“Respect for People” principle is one of two pillars of The Toyota Way
[1]; the other is “Continuous Improvement.” The “Respect for People”
principle has existed for several decades within Toyota’s management
system, but has been almost entirely ignored by outsiders. In addition,
this principle extends back to the 1900s and was recognized as
essential by the creators of the Scientific Management system [2] – of
which Lean management is its direct descendent [3] in tandem with
Ford’s flow production system. In the old days, the “Respect for
People” principle was referred to more narrowly as “Cooperation,”
principally between management and labor [4, 5].
As many
people have found out first-hand, practicing only the “Continuous
Improvement” principle (called “Betterment” in the old days [2, 5])
leads to many problems. Foremost among them is management’s desire to
improve efficiency and productivity usually results in layoffs, which
slows down or halts improvement efforts. Root cause analyses of the
problems that arise when only the “Continuous Improvement” principle is
practiced indicates a countermeasure that today we call the “Respect
for People” principle [3]. This point is worth repeating: “Respect for
People” (Cooperation) is the primary countermeasure for bungled
continuous improvement (Betterment) efforts. That’s why it is a Toyota
Way principle.
Indeed, the failure of the Scientific
Management system to firmly establish itself in industry 60-100 years
ago was correctly attributed to management’s inability to establish
long-term patterns of cooperative and respectful behavior with labor,
in addition to other leadership shortcomings [6]. The same thing is
happening today. Lean management is struggling to replace conventional
management on a narrow basis, let alone across wide swaths of
manufacturing and service industries. It should be no surprise that
history is repeating itself.
The “Respect for People”
principle is deceptive in that it seems very easy to understand and
apply, but it is not. Most mid- and senior-level managers think they
know what “Respect for People” means, but it is clear from leadership
behaviors, common business performance metrics, company policies,
management’s decisions, and sometimes even corporate strategy, that
they do not.
Top managers typically possess superficial,
casual definitions of “Respect for People” such as fairness, civility,
or listening. And they think they do these things quite well. Further,
they think understanding the meaning of “Respect for People” is trivial
for well-educated persons in high positions. This is a severe
misjudgment. Far from being trivial, it is of great importance to the
long-term survival and prosperity of a business to understand what
“Respect for People” really means.
Toyota does not use one
simple, discrete definition to express the “Respect for People”
principle, whose context is better represented by the phrase “Respect
for Stakeholders” [1]. Rather, it is a more elaborate multi-layered
description that includes historical words from former Toyota
executives to better comprehend its meaning. Toyota’s top-level
representation of the “Respect for People” principle consists of two
parts: “Respect” and “Teamwork,” and is as follows [1, 7]:
“RESPECT:
We respect others, make every effort to understand each other, take
responsibility and do our best to build mutual trust.
TEAMWORK:
We stimulate personal and professional growth, share the opportunities
of development and maximize individual and team performance.”
These
words do not constitute the entire definition. A significant amount of
detail is missing and can be found only in the “The Toyota Way 2001”
document [1], which is not publicly available. But don’t fall into the
trap of hoping to obtain a copy of the document. Instead, please start
to think about what “Respect for People” means in the context of
stakeholders, corporate policies, metrics, business processes,
leadership behaviors, corporate strategy, etc.
While the
Toyota Way 2001 document does much to reduce variation in individual
perceptions of what the equally important “Continuous Improvement” and
“Respect for People” principles mean, words printed on paper are never
sufficient. The “Respect for People” principle is comprehended only
through daily thinking and practice on-the-job. It requires years of
thought and practice to understand it well, and can never be completely
comprehended.
James Womack, founder and Chairman of the Lean
Enterprise Institute, recently sent an e-mail note to the Lean
community titled “Respect for People” [8]. In it he spoke of this
principle in the context of the manager-associate dyad, which is what
most people think of when they hear about the “Respect for People”
principle. While this is a very important dyad, it is not the only
relationship that matters.
The “Respect for People” principle
encompasses all key stakeholders: employees, suppliers, customers,
investors, and communities [1, 9]. Thus, rather than representing a
single dyad, the “Respect for People” principle is a multi-lateral
expression of the need for balanced, mutually respectful relationships,
cooperation, and co-prosperity with these key stakeholders. So in the
context of Lean management, the “Respect for People” principle is
anything but trivial to understand.
It is worthwhile now to
briefly trace the origins and evolution of this principle to illustrate
that it has been around for many decades, but only rarely has it been
put into effective practice by senior managers. That’s because their
focus has long been the near-singular pursuit of productivity and
efficiency improvements to lower costs and increase profits, usually
culminating in layoffs – a zero-sum outcome for employees that violates
the “Respect for People” principle.
In the late 1800s,
leading business thinkers and doers began to press for improved
cooperation between labor and management to overcome systemic strife
between these two parties. They did this for practical reasons, not
theoretical ones. Poor cooperation increased costs, and these costs
could be avoided. Today we’d say: leadership behaviors that foment
conflict are waste because they add cost but do not add value and can
be eliminated [10].
R.W. Cooke-Taylor, the author of Modern Factory System [4] published in 1891, said:
“Among
reflections recently made was the disappointing one of the strained
relations often existing under the modern factory system between
employers and employed. Some grave dangers were pointed out which the
future may have in store for us in this connection, and the
inconveniences of the situation must be patent to everyone. The cure
most usually proposed… is that of co-operation.”
In
this quote, “co-operation” means a business is operated jointly by
labor and management, as “part proprietors,” with profit-sharing, to
“ameliorate the rivalries of capital and labor… [which] affects large
savings in the cost of production.” In other words, eliminating
wasteful labor-management rivalries reduces costs. However, we must not
forget that wasteful rivalries can exist among other stakeholders such
as suppliers, investors, and even customers, which also increase costs.
Soon thereafter “cooperation” took on a meaning in business
which we are more familiar with: that of working together to satisfy
common interests. In his 1903 paper titled “Shop Management,” Frederick
Taylor stressed the importance of cooperation and respect for people in
the following ways [5]:
“First, then, the men
must be brought to see that the new system changes their employers from
antagonists to friends who are working as hard as possible, side by
side with them, all pushing in the same direction…”
“In
making this decision [to reorganize], as in taking each subsequent
step, the most important consideration, which should always be first in
the mind of the reformer, is ‘what effect will this step have upon the
workman’?”
“The mistake that ninety-nine men [managers] out
of a hundred make is that they have attempted to influence a large body
of men at once [with major changes in the management system] instead of
taking one man at a time.”
The last quote is
interesting because most senior managers today, just as they did in the
early 1900s, impose change upon people in large batches, rather than
one at a time. The latter approach recognizes employees as individuals
whose concerns about changes in the management system are not uniform
and can only be addressed by personal contact.
Frederick
Taylor continued to stress the importance of cooperation and respect
for people in his 1911 book titled The Principles of Scientific
Management [2]:
“…almost every act of the
workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the
management which enable him to do his work better and quicker than he
otherwise could.”
“They [management] heartily cooperate
with the men so as to ensure all of the work is being done in
accordance with the principles of the science which has been
developed.”
Taylor’s most thorough explanation
of the need for cooperation and respect for people is found in his
testimony to Congress in 1912 [11].
That’s the early view of
cooperation and respect for people, which was seen as a practical
necessity to reduce conflict and help achieve higher productivity,
lower costs, and better quality.
So how could Lean
practitioners have become familiar with the “Respect for People”
principle prior to it coming to the forefront within the last few
years? Well, it turns out to have been hiding in plain view for
decades; they would have found it to be a consistent theme in the
writings and speeches of current and former Toyota executives, as well
as some who have closely studied Toyota’s management system. What
follows are a few brief examples of where the “Respect for People”
principle has appeared in various books and papers, arranged
chronologically.
Shotaro Kamiya (d. 1980) was a past Chairman
of Toyota Motor Sales. In his 1976 memoir My Life With Toyota, Kamiya
refers to the “Respect for People” principle in terms of how automobile
dealers are treated by automobile manufacturers [12] when he worked for
General Motors (before joining Toyota, circa 1935):
“Their
[General Motors] policy toward dealers was especially merciless, and
almost daily they cut ties with dealers in financial trouble. I
remember thinking that while such action might be accepted business
practice in the United States, where companies rely greatly on written
contracts, customs are different in Japan and GM officers should try to
understand the local situation more. I often complained to the American
staff and tried to persuade them to help dealers instead of dropping
them, especially since I visited dealers and knew firsthand their
predicament. But GM ignored my complaints. It was at this time that I
thought out one of my most important business principles, the necessity
for coexistence and co-prosperity with dealers… my emphasis on respect
for the dealer inspired many men from other companies to join Toyota.”
Fujio
Cho, the current Chairman of Toyota Motor Corporation, co-authored a
paper in 1977 titled: “Toyota Production System and Kanban System:
Materialization of Just-in-Time and Respect-for-Human System” [13]. The
“Respect for Human” system was characterized as follows:
“…the
‘respect-for-human’ system where the workers are allowed to display in
full their capabilities through active participation in running and
improving their own workshops… which is the most distinctive feature of
Toyota's respect for human system.”
“Toyota firmly believes
that making up a system where the capable Japanese workers can actively
participate in running and improving their workshops and be able to
fully display their capabilities would be [the] foundation of human
respect environment of the highest order.”
Toyota
has profit sharing and associates who participate in operating the
business. This sounds a lot like what R.W. Cook-Taylor said about
“co-operation” in his 1891 book Modern Factory System. Here is another
instructive quote from Mr. Cho’s paper:
“It
is not a conveyer that operates men, while it is men that operate a
conveyer, which is the first step to respect for human independence.”
One
could say today: “It is not a computer [e.g. SAP] that operates men,
while it is men that operate a computer, which is the first step to
respect for human independence.”
Seisi Kato, who followed
Shotaro Kamiya as Chairman of Toyota Motor Sales, said the following in
his 1981 memoir, My Years With Toyota [14], in relation to employees
and dealers:
“I adopted what I call the Three
C’s, standing for Communication, Consideration and Cooperation. What
they signify is both a method of personal communication and a method of
management. Handing down orders is not leadership, nor is issuing
policies enough to constitute business relationships. In my view
leadership is a process springing from dialogue that reaches the level
of true communication, followed by sincere efforts at cooperation based
upon mutual consideration and understanding of each other’s position.”
Professor Yasuhiro Monden’s 1983 book Toyota Production System: Practical Approach to Production Management, states [15]:
“…respect-for-humanity, [which allows] each worker to participate in the production process.”
“Respect
for humanity: Since quality control based on autonomation calls
immediate attention to defects or problems in the production process,
it stimulates improvement activities and thus increases respect for
humanity.”
Taiichi Ohno, former Executive Vice
President of Toyota Motor Corporation, said in the Preface of his 1988
book Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production [16]:
“The
most important objective of the Toyota System has been to increase
production efficiency by consistently and thoroughly eliminating waste.
This concept and the equally important respect for humanity that has
passed down from the venerable Toyoda Sakichi (1867-1930), founder of
the company and master of inventions, to his son Toyoda Kiichiro
(1894-1952), Toyota Motor Company’s first president and father of the
Japanese passenger car, are the foundations of the Toyota production
system.”
Note the words “equally important,”
which means the “Respect for People” principle is not optional, though
most mangers seem to think it is optional. And note that “eliminating
waste” (continuous improvement) and “respect for humanity” are “the
foundations” of Toyota’s production system – and Toyota’s overall
management system as well. Too bad many people don’t bother reading the
Preface of books, or when they do read these books they are too focused
on Lean tools to notice the foundational principles.
Masaaki
Imai, founder and Chairman of the Kaizen Institute, made significant
efforts to reinforce respect for people, cooperation, etc., in his 1987
book, Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success [17], and in his
popular late-1980s kaizen training seminars [18].
In 1991
Michael Husar, who was an assembly coordinator at NUMMI, the General
Motors-Toyota joint venture in Fremont, California, wrote an internal
company paper titled: “Corporate Culture: Toyota’s Secret, Competitive
Advantage” [19].
The paper presented in a very concise and
efficient way the differences between GM and Toyota corporate culture.
It was intended for GM management, who was Mr. Husar’s employer at the
joint venture, as a way to help promote needed changes in GM’s
corporate culture. The paper, based largely on Toyota internal training
(similar in many ways to “The Toyota Way 2001” document that would
appear ten years later), contained a section titled: “Respect for the
Value of People.” In it Husar says:
“Toyota
believes its growth as a business enterprise comes through the growth
of its people. This means to be successful, Toyota must utilize its
employees' abilities as effectively as possible, and help each person
develop the ability to think and execute the job more effectively.
Toyota
has plants, equipment, and capital resources, but these things do not
build cars. Its team members build the cars. Its team members also add
value to its products by suggesting ways to improve their work and the
production process. Toyota realizes that it is responsible for
providing its employees the opportunity to contribute their ideas, as
well as their labor.
Toyota also believes that to get the
best from its employees, it must respect their competence, and provide
them with jobs that use and challenge their abilities. Toyota realizes
the value of its people, and wants them to think of the company as a
place where everyone can learn from one another, and grow as
individuals, rather than just as a place to work.”
Another section titled “Mutual Trust Between Employees and Management” says:
“Mutual
trust means that management and the employees have confidence in one
another. Management and their employees have different jobs and
different responsibilities in the company. Mutual trust comes from the
belief that everyone is, however, striving for the same purpose…
Toyota
realizes this kind of mutual trust is not a given condition between
management and the employees. It must be earned through many mutual
efforts that create confidence.
Toyota values and tries to
maintain mutual trust, because it is the foundation for the growth of
the company and its employees.”
Yukiyasu Togo, another former Chairman of Toyota Motor Sales said in his 1997 memoir Yuki Togo’s Sell Like Hell!! [20]:
“For
two people to develop trustworthy and respectful relationships they
must meet each other face to face as often as possible. This makes
possible the very best opportunity for good communications. They must
also show consideration of one another’s situation, feelings, and
needs, and share a willingness to cooperate… Without good human
relations, you cannot really grow or prosper, so the ‘Three C’s’ are a
vital part of any success formula.”
In 1998
I wrote an award-winning paper titled “Lean Behaviors,” and coined the
terms “Lean behaviors” and “behavioral waste” [10]. In that paper I
identified value-added leadership behaviors (respect is one of them)
and leadership behaviors that are waste because they add cost but do
not value and can be eliminated. I said:
“The
concept of ‘lean’ behaviors is analogous to lean production. Lean
behaviors are defined simply as behaviors that add or create value. It
is the minimization of waste associated with arbitrary or contradictory
thoughts and actions that leads to defensive behavior, ineffective
relationships, poor cooperation, and negative attitudes.
In
contrast, behaviors that inhibit work flow are analogous to wasteful
batch and queue mass production methods. These behaviors are… defined
as behaviors that add no value and can be eliminated. They include the
display of irrational and confusing information that results in delays
or work stoppages, or the articulation of unsubstantiated subjective
thoughts and opinions.
It is not inconceivable that someday
investors, suppliers, customers, or employees will begin to question
the cost or ethics of ‘fat’ behaviors in a manner similar to recent
stakeholder concerns about a company’s environmental record or their
presence in countries that lack basic human rights. Critical
stakeholders such as investors or employees may precipitate improved
behaviors once they more fully comprehend its impact on financial
performance or quality of everyday life in the workplace. No
stakeholder, except for competitors, would be happy if they knew the
costs added to the goods or services that they purchase due to ‘fat’
behaviors.”
The paper showed the tremendous
amount of behavioral waste that leaders normally exhibit and how it
undercuts respect and other value-added behaviors, which are absolutely
required to make the Lean management system work. The “Respect for
People” principle is not optional.
In 2003, I wrote the
Shingo Prize winning book: Better Thinking, Better Results: A Case
Study of an Enterprise-Wide Lean Transformation. This book helped
answer the question: “How do you conduct a Lean transformation?” It was
a detailed case study and analysis of The Wiremold Company’s
enterprise-wide Lean transformation from 1991-2001. It presented Lean
as a management system and was the first book to describe the
application and integration of the “Continuous Improvement” and
“Respect for People” principles in a business not affiliated with
Toyota or its key suppliers.
Finally, the “Respect for
People” principle has long existed in Toyota Motor Corporation’s
relationship with its customers through its “customer-first” rule [1,
12]. The “Respect for People” principle also exists in Toyota’s
relationship with its key suppliers, where the focus since 1939 has
been joint problem solving and capability-building instead of
bargaining over prices, long-term relationships, and co-prosperity. The
results of this policy, introduced by Kiichiro Toyoda, the first
president of Toyota Motor Corporation, are truly remarkable and have
been extensively documented in recent years [21-25]. In addition,
investors and communities have long been treated with respect and
experienced mutual prosperity. This illustrates the broader intent and
meaning of the “Respect for People” principle, which should really be
understood as “Respect for Stakeholders” [1].
So there you
have it; a quick tour of the origins and evolution of the “Respect for
People” principle, and some of the books and papers in which it has
appeared over time. This principle has been a consistent theme in
Toyota’s management thinking and practice – and before that also in the
thinking and practice of Scientific Management.
Unfortunately,
not only have most senior managers have been unaware of or ignored the
“Respect for People” principles for decades, but almost the entire Lean
community outside of Toyota Motor Corporation has done so as well.
Ignoring or failing to apply this fundamental principle over that last
30 years has surely held back the sincere efforts of both Lean
advocates and Lean practitioners.
Jim Womack’s e-mail note closed with a challenge:
“The
challenge for those of us in the Lean community is to embrace and
explain the true nature of mutual respect for people – managers and
associates….”
I heartily agree, just as
other advocates of both Lean management and Scientific Management have
over the last 100 years. After all, it is the “Respect for People”
principle that makes Lean management work.
However, we must
enlarge the challenge. We must embrace and explain how the “Respect for
People” principle is a required part of the Lean management system, and
that it extends beyond the narrow manager-associate dyad to encompass
other people: customers, suppliers, investors, and communities. We must
help senior managers understand that the “Respect for People” principle
is inclusive of all key stakeholders, and how they can consistently
apply the principle both day-to-day and strategically and in
combination with the “Continuous Improvement” principle.
The
focus of my four books and over a dozen papers written in the last 10
years has been to present Lean as a management system, to illuminate
the “Respect for People” principle, and to describe the interplay
between the “Respect for People” and “Continuous Improvement”
principles [26-29].
Business leaders who want to know more
about how to bring the “Respect for People” principle to life will
benefit from reading my new workbook, Practical Lean Leadership: A Strategic Leadership Guide for Executives
[30]. But remember: words printed on paper can be very helpful but are
never sufficient. The “Respect for People” and “Continuous Improvement”
principles are comprehended only through daily thinking and practice
on-the-job. My workbook will help you do that.
In closing,
you will have a pretty good basic understanding of Lean management when
you can articulate how the “Respect for People” principle relates to
takt time, standardized work, 5 Whys, heijunka, jidoka, just-in-time,
set-up reduction, kanban, poka-yoke, kaizen, and visual controls, for
each of the following categories of people: employees, suppliers,
customers, investors, and communities – for all eleven items in all
five categories, not just for a couple of items in one or two
categories. The “Respect for People” principle is anything but trivial
to understand.
___________
M.L. “Bob” Emiliani is
a faculty member in the School of Engineering & Technology at
Central Connecticut State University in New Britain, Conn. and
President of The CLBM, LLC. Before joining CCSU, Bob worked for 20
years in manufacturing and service industries, and has implemented Lean
principles and practices on the manufacturing shop floor, in supply
networks, and in higher education. Bob has authored four books and over
30 papers on various aspects of Lean management. His latest book is Practical Lean Leadership: A Strategic Leadership Guide for Executives, published in 2008. Copyright © 2008 by M.L. “Bob” Emiliani.
___________
Notes
[1] "The Toyota Way 2001,” Toyota Motor Corporation, internal document, Toyota City, Japan, April 2001
[2] F.W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, NY, 1911
[3]
W. Tsutsui, Manufacturing Ideology: Scientific Management in
Twentieth-Century Japan, Princeton University press, Princeton New
Jersey, 1998
[4] R. Whatley Cooke-Taylor, Modern Factory System, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., London, 1891, p. 459-461
[5] F.W. Taylor, “Shop Management,” Transactions of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 25, 1903, pp. 1337-1480
[6]
H.S. Person, “Leadership in Scientific Management” in Scientific
Management in American Industry, The Taylor Society, Harper and
Brothers Publishers, New York, NY, 1929, pp. 427-439
[7]
Toyota Motor Corporation, “Sustainability Report 2007”, p. 57,
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/environmental_rep/07/download/index.html
[8] J.P. Womack, “Respect for People,” e-mail to the Lean community, 20 December 2007, www.lean.org
[9]
Toyota Motor Corporation, “Guiding Principles”
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/vision/philosophy/index.html and
“Contribution Towards Sustainable Development”
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/vision/sustainability/index.html
[10] M.L. Emiliani, "Lean Behaviors," Management Decision, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 615-631, 1998
[11]
F. W. Taylor, Scientific Management: Comprising Shop Management,
Principles of Scientific Management, Testimony Before the House
Committee, with foreword by Harlow S. Person, Harper & Brothers
Publishers, New York, NY, 1947
[12] S. Kamiya, My Life With Toyota, Toyota Motor Sales Co., Ltd., 1976, pp. 31, 48
[13]
Y. Sugimori, K. Kusunoki, F. Cho, and S. Uchikawa, “Toyota Production
System and Kanban System Materialization of Just-in-Time and
Respect-for-Human System,” International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 15, No. 6, 1977, pp. 553-564
[14] S. Kato, My Years with Toyota, Toyota Motor Sales Co., Ltd., 1981, p. 101
[15]
Y. Monden, Toyota Production System: Practical Approach to Production
Management, Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA,
1983, p. 11 and 141
[16] T. Ohno, Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, Productivity Press, Portland, OR, 1988, p. xiii
[17] M. Imai, Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1987
[18]
M. Imai, “Introduction to Kaizen,” Kaizen Institute of America seminar
at The Hartford Graduate Center, Hartford, Conn., May 9, 1988
[19]
M. Husar, “Corporate Culture: Toyota’s Secret, Competitive Advantage”,
General Motors internal paper, 16 May 1991, pp. 10-11
[20]. Y. Togo, Yuki Togo’s Sell Like Hell!!, self-published, 1997, pp. 141-142
[21] J. Womack, D. Jones, and D. Roos, The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson Associates, New York, NY, 1990, Chapter 6
[22] T. Nishiguchi, Strategic Industrial Sourcing, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1994
[23] T. Fujimoto, The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, NY, 1999
[24]
J. Dyer and K. Nobeoka, “Creating and Managing a High Performance
Knowledge-Sharing Network: The Toyota Case,” Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2000, pp. 345-367
[25] J. Liker and T. Choi, “Building Deep Supplier Relationships,” Harvard Business Review, December 2004, pp. 104-113
[26]
B. Emiliani, with D. Stec, L. Grasso, and J. Stodder, Better Thinking,
Better Results: Case Study and Analysis of an Enterprise-Wide Lean
Transformation, second edition, The CLBM, LLC, Kensington, Conn., 2007
[27] B. Emiliani, REAL LEAN: Understanding the Lean Management System, Volume One, The CLBM, LLC, Kensington, Conn., 2007
[28]
B. Emiliani, REAL LEAN: Critical Issues and Opportunities in Lean
Management, Volume Two, The CLBM, LLC, Kensington, Conn., 2007
[29] For a list of key papers, see www.theclbm.com
[30]
B. Emiliani, Practical Lean Leadership: A Strategic Leadership Guide
for Executives, The CLBM, LLC, Kensington, Conn., 2008
