JohnBlog

Lend me your mind's ear — communications and portals

Posts Tagged ‘reputation

To the letter: How board letters can speak to stakeholders

leave a comment »

typeDeal with the issues before the issues you didn’t deal with become the issue

One of the most contentious issues for stakeholders is executive compensation. Prudential Financial is doing things right according to Laura Rittenhouse and Amanda Gerut. Prudential took on the subject of executive compensation, and changes they made to compensation.

Prudential board lead independent director, James Cullen, sent a letter to shareholders adding to the board’s letter. A simple step forward most companies don’t do.

Cullen talks about how his role fits into the board’s agenda, and how he works as a go-between for board chairman and independent directors.

Truth and its affect on stakeholders

In a world where too many stakeholders see less than best practices used in IPOs, the marketing of hot products and coverage of business generally, truth in investor communications makes investors take notice. Warren Buffett says, speaking on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway:

… as a company with a major communications business, it would be inexcusable for us to apply lesser standards of accuracy, balance and incisiveness when reporting on ourselves than we would expect our news people to apply when reporting on others … The CEO who misleads others in public may eventually mislead himself in private.

Buffett’s philosophy stands out:

  • Go beyond what’s required
  • Report what’s most beneficial to stakeholders
  • Focus on what’s best in the long-term for your organization and  reputation

Truth builds trust. Trust between companies and stakeholders is one of the most important aspects of business communications today. It’s important because of how trust has declined since the financial crisis.

Truth and building trust are the right things to do. A simple Google search on “investors” and “executive compensation” turns up too many companies having faced or facing stakeholder ire. Amidst the new investor activism, Rittenhouse lauds Prudential’s focus on compensation and sees it as much more than just lip service.

Letters to the board are an excellent tool for engaging disenchanted investors.

Leading by being

Allstate went further this year. Its board letter pointed out specific pages in its proxy explaining performance stock awards and CEO compensation.

Compensation and governance: an area where many fear to tread. But companies who deal with these issues don’t only look like thought leaders – they are thought leaders.

In 2011, Allstate’s say-on-pay result was about 57 per cent. Tom Wilson, CEO and chairman, along with company management teams, engaged with institutional investors after the 2011 meeting. The board then included a letter to shareholders in the annual report and proxy package.

Allstate got an enormous vote of confidence: 92 per cent support from investors in the next annual say-on-pay vote.

What I think is ideal is going from reading these letters to seeing how governance translates into performance and strategic execution at the company …

Laura Rittenhouse

Boards overseeing strategy and executive compensation: Greatest value add

Rittenhouse says board letters that engage stakeholders in how the the board is overseeing strategy and executive compensation have the greatest value add. Since investors are often most concerned about these areas, it’s clear they should take prominence, and:

  • Reflect a strategy where truth in communications is important
  • Uphold and enhance organizational reputation through actively listening to what is most important to stakeholders and acting on those issues

Action without listening looks a lot like obfuscation to stakeholders. Listening and then acting strategically reflects serious thought leadership.

Focusing on short-term gain too often leads to long-term pain. You can talk about leadership ad infinitum, but actually leading resonates with stakeholders. Win someone’s trust and you win someone’s heart.

If this sounds too touchy-feely, consider the touch and feel of being perceived as an organization that doesn’t tell the truth. Consider the effect on your brand, performance and reputation.

As Buffett and Rittenhouse point out, deceiving stakeholders is deceiving yourself. Informing stakeholders speaks to your ability to strategize and perform.

Follow me on Twitter, by RSS or sign up to receive posts via email, top sidebar to the right.

Want to contact me? Go here.
This work and all work on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Related articles:

Advertisements

To the letter: How truth speaks to stakeholders

leave a comment »

Technological change is blasting us forward and continues to solidify the role reputation and trust play for typeorganizations of all kinds. Even some news organizations, entities multiple stakeholders look to for unbiased information, can succumb to what is less than best practice.

According to Gallup, distrust in the media has hit a new high, with 60 per cent saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly. Pew found almost “one-third of the respondents (31%) have deserted a news outlet because it no longer provides the news and information they had grown accustomed to”.

In the New York Law Journal, 2009 was referred to as “the Year of Investor Anger”. FAIR Canada published a report in 2011 called A Decade of Financial Scandals highlighting fraud as a problem and making recommendations for prevention, detection, prosecution and compensation. Edelman‘s recent study on trust revealed trust in banking and financial services has dropped 50 per cent even amongst global, informed publics.

Against this backdrop, where investors both small and institutional are looking for a return but also an investment they can believe in, Laura Rittenhouse looks beyond what is reported in most public companies’ financials. She looks for innovation in communications.

Rittenhouse writes about CEO communications. She focuses on strategy, culture and performance with the idea of truth key in her audits.

Truth as competitive advantage

Today, forward-thinking companies are embracing the opportunity to really “talk” to investors and other stakeholders. There’s so much noise surrounding annual general meetings and annual reports that investing in communicating regarding contentious issues pays dividends.

An organization that sees the light on corporate transparency thinks in a more holistic way. Organizations stepping forward to be thought leaders are creating best practice not rushing to engage in best practices because others have already set the agenda for them.

Truth in reporting is so obvious that it bears more focus. Sometimes, it’s the obvious issues that fall out of the cross hairs of what’s important for managements to do.

Richard Edelman notes how logic becomes oxymoron:

[CEOs demand] … less regulation while CEOs suggest that enforcement of the new regulations has restored trust; this is a baffling logic problem.

Yet this is part of the duality of the human being. Although we know what’s right, we don’t always do what’s right.

Anyone who doubts what negative sentiment or negative media attention can do when an organization is held up to pursue less than best practices, and what that can do to reputation, might want to take a look at what legislators are calling “egregious” and “outrageous” regarding Apple’s “web of tax shelters”.

[While other companies have taken advantage of loopholes,] … I’ve never seen anything like this, and we don’t know anybody who’s seen anything like this.

              — Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

Business culture suffers due to lack of transparency. The reputation of business is left to the media which will tend to focus on the worst rather than the best. The media plays a vital role in highlighting tremendous failures in business but it’s up to businesses that are engaging in innovative practices to tell their story.

Business needs to get better at communicating. Business needs to communicate true innovation and best practice. It may have been the best of times with respect to some companies, but the organizations that showed up most often in the wake of the financial crisis are the ones that reflect a “worst of times” operational execution.

In such an environment, companies operating in a forward-thinking manner will be best positioned to gain from stakeholders’ need for a positive story. While it’s important to reveal worst practices, corruption and other failings, there’s a decided human need for the positive, for the feel-good story wrapped in the long-term resilience of truth.

Rittenhouse is a big proponent of a new wave of letters from directors and boards. She feels it’s a “powerful opportunity” to make a statement about governance.

A letter may be traditional but it’s impact can be revolutionary. Truth is the revolution. Companies need to tell the truth not only for the advantages truth will bring from a long-term operational point of view, but because it’s absolutely the right thing to do.

 

Part Two: Why boards need to deal with the issues

Follow me on Twitter, by RSS or sign up to receive posts via email, top sidebar to the right.


Want to contact me? Go here.

Reputation. Reputation. Reputation. Your key differentiator: Corporate Social Responsibility

with 2 comments

Stand out by being a CSR thought leader

“In the business world, the rear view mirror is always clearer than the windshield.” — Warren Buffett

reputation

A study by Adam Friedman Associates continues to confirm the importance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CSR’s becoming a harder asset.

Executives from Fortune 1000 organizations said that the C-suite and/or board of directors involve themselves directly in “decision-making and measurement processes with regards to the company’s CSR programs.” There’s lots of talk about being different but when it comes to CSR and “getting it”, decision-makers at the forefront of thought leadership understand that CSR is a key differentiator.

Be different. Be better.

Who are you? What do you stand for? Where are you going?

Competition is fierce. Tools that define who you are and what you stand for as an organization show a company to be forward-thinking with a strategy that reaches beyond the latest quarter and far into the future.

The C-suite’s talking about CSR. Executives are more and more conscious of how CSR contributes to business.

CSR: Growing. Growing. Grown.

Results of the study show:

[T]here has been an expansion in scope and focus of CSR strategies and resource allocation. Many CSR initiatives were created in response to environmental issues and pressures, but companies are now expanding their focus to social, health, diversity, labor and safety issues. While many companies still focus much of their time and resources on environmental issues, CSR has grown to include almost any issue or concern that affects the operations and reputation of the company.

So, CSR is growing its influence.

More measurement. More third parties.

Measurement’s still not universal. But there are more third parties involved and more supplier audits. Of course, reception of programs by consumers and media are important and impact evaluation.

Transparency and volume of information have made consumer opinions more important than ever.

CSR and profitability are clearly linked for many corporations. Today’s thought leaders no longer see CSR “as a ‘soft’ discipline within the corporate structure”.

CSR directly affects profitability.

Integrate. Maximize. Get results.

Still think social media is a digital smoke screen?

The study found:

Social media has become an important tool companies use to communicate to their publics about their CSR efforts in addition to traditional media. This allows companies to communicate their CSR activities and progress in a manner that is fast, easily accessible and provides them with vital feedback from their publics.

Companies are using social media to supply their stakeholders with information and content. They are building online communities.

Companies are using social media to find out what their stakeholders care about. They’re using incoming messages to help craft future social media strategies.

Thinking strategically, companies have embedded CSR communications deep into their overall communication strategies. Employees are using social media to measure the effectiveness of CSR.

Everything that makes CSR disappear, makes CSR stronger:

In integration, find strength

Some executives believe:

[T]he CSR function may disappear altogether as corporations begin to absorb CSR into all aspects of their business and make it a part of every employee’s responsibilities. As companies begin to assess and measure the effects their CSR programs have on the business’s reputation, CSR may increase in both scope and importance. Based on the interviews conducted, some CSR practitioners said they believe CSR should not be its own function or department but rather an integrated part of the business … Senior executives should pay more attention to the views of their external stakeholders when developing CSR strategies because their sentiments will affect the company’s reputation and/or its position among competitors.

The study found businesses need to look at CSR as a growing function. CSR strategies should be integrated into all areas of business.

In a world where the media is full of stories of corruption, best practices will continue to resonate.

Loudly.

Follow me on Twitter, by RSS or sign up to receive posts via email.

Find the study by request.

Find more on reputation and CSR/sustainability here:

Facebook and the Frankenstein monster: It’s hard to control the lightning in hype (but best practices help)

leave a comment »

It’s alive!

After all the Facebook IPO hype, how could reality measure up?

As Dr. Frankenstein learned, tapping lightning to create life is full of peril. Creations can take on a life of their own.

Is buzz any different?

Creating life in the context of reality

From an investors point of view, how could a company at various times valued at 80 to 100 times earnings, valued in the stratosphere above companies with years of history and profits, not disappoint? The more sober reaction to the IPO, showed investors were paying attention to value.

While Facebook and engagement should prove valuable over time, investors were saying, hold on a minute, what’s your strategy for increasing earnings? The thing about Facebook is:

Right now, what is most valuable for brands on Facebook is free.

Why would investors speculate on the future of what Facebook might do? In the current climate, post-financial crisis, companies that pay dividends, handsome dividends of three to five per cent have a value that IPOs like Facebook just can’t match.

The modern Prometheus

Hype has a dangerous flipside.

Sure, there’s potential, but potential for what?

While most management teams want buzz for their brand, they might not necessarily want the Frankenstein monster version of it. Remember, the monster spent much of its “life” trying to kill its creator. In the aftermath of the Facebook IPO, lawsuits, finger-pointing, back-stabbing, technical failures, and other endless melodramas splayed across the media, it reminds of the classic Kubrick/Sellers line: “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!”

How long before a satirical film’s made out of this story? Think Dr. Strangelove meets Frankenstein.

Dr. Strangebook or Frankenface

It’s obvious that Facebook, Morgan Stanley and the Nasdaq are all suffering reputational body blows. While some private investors made a lot of money on the IPO, does any management team, board, shareholder, or even casual user want to be associated with such a media horrorshow post-IPO? Monstrous hype only amplifies the “is that all there is?” feeling when it goes wrong.

The monster, stitched together and ashen, stumbled into the light of day.

When the hype machine overloads, marketers and public relations professionals have to remember that there’s no such thing as lightning in a bottle. Buzz, at its most extreme, has the potential to lash out in every direction.

When the hype machine creates a monster, it can become the destroyer of brands.

Social media seems like it’s been here forever but is still new. The buzz became a monster. Was there any longer the ability to manage the hype as the Facebook IPO drew near?

The blowback says no.

Fiascos have the potential to incubate revenge. Social media users will engage, but not in the way the brand wants them to. And like the Frankenstein monster, social media users who feel betrayed have a tendency toward revenge.

Brands are sure there’s a way to profit from engagement. It’s this belief that drives Facebook earnings. When GM came out and said that they’d lost faith in Facebook ads, despite criticism of GM’s social strategy, there was a revaluation of Facebook in the marketplace.

Doubtless, there are marketers and public relations professionals that do engagement very well. Social media, is, and will continue to be a tool of engagement where the permutations of dialogue are still being explored and improved.

But it should be part of a well thought out integrated marketing/public relations strategy.

Facebook had been grabbing headlines for a long time. Hype over Facebook crackled with the energy and unpredictability of lightning.

Now, Facebook’s grabbing headlines for all the wrong reasons. Yet again. How does this reflect on the Facebook management team? Marketers are going to re-evaluate the brand and social engagement through it.

It’s value, after a brief pop, has dropped 25 per cent since the IPO despite the underwriters’ propping the stock price up. Argue with that metric.

Facebook has emerged from the laboratory a case study.

One thing is sure: Silly season is over for now.

Luke … I am your father

A characteristic of hype is that it is a lense that distorts. Those who work at brand, engagement, reputation and other features of the marketing and public relations matrix try to tell the story of organizations for the benefit of stakeholders. But practitioners have to remember how many audiences there are these days.

Hype is a bit like Luke and his dad, Darth: There is a light side and a dark side.

Practitioners have to remember that less than best practices have a short shelf life and lead to case study after case study of failures.

Facebook promised the opportunity of the century. It failed to deliver.

This is the chemistry for a backlash.

From a marketing and communications point of view, professionals will get more creative.  But they’ll also get more analytical.

Lurching out of the laboratory: The aftermath

The nightmare of creating a monster like the one that lurched out of the Facebook laboratory reinforces the idea that best practices have to align with business objectives — and they do have to be best practices.

If Facebook’s strategy was simply to make a ton of money for its private investors then it succeeded. But as far as the long-term viability of a brand, of its sustainability, Facebook leaves a lot to be desired at the moment. Is this the image companies want to leave ricocheting around on Twitter or elsewhere?

Facebook will have to spend substantial resources trying to restore its brand and reputation. Future growth depends on earnings, and future capital depends on investors. Reputation either feeds itself or devours itself.

Alienating marketers, investors and users and being held up as a flop by the media, aren’t the kind of brand associations any organization wants. Of course, this leads to many more challenging Facebook’s business strategy.

It’s safe to say that Facebook failed at engaging with its users in the short-term. Facebook has added to retail investors suspicion of markets and valuations. Investors and the general public have tired of creature features. In the U.S., 46 per cent of people surveyed said their trust in the financial services sector had decreased.

Since stakeholders already had many questions to ask of Facebook and user privacy, you’d think that someone involved with the IPO would have been more careful before tapping the lightning that created this latest beast.

The problem with the Facebook parade’s short-term thinking is that stakeholders have long-term memories when it comes to monsters (or buzz on crank). They don’t like the feeling of being had.

Remember, the Frankenstein monster hunted down its creator across continents until it found him dead.

Related:

Brave new reputation: What CEOs need to know

leave a comment »

The new boss sings the stakeholder electric

Reputation is turning into a harder asset in the highly digitized corporate world we find ourselves in. This trend will only increase as technology rockets us forward.

Do you know where your reputation is?

Companies need to think of themselves through their stakeholders. Clients, customers, employees, the general public, shareholders, strategic alliances — just some of the important relationships in a world of informational digital milliseconds.

Just as corporations depend on consumers to buy their products, companies depend on customers to consume their brand.

After they’ve digested that brand, what do they feel, think and say?

In You’ve got to do something about your reputation: Why CEOs need to pay attention to reputation management, I looked at reputation.

Let’s dig deeper.

Fombrun, business leaders and reputation management

What are reputations worth?

Plenty.

Fombrun outlines three ways reputation adds value.

  • First, “reputation affects operating performance” resulting in increased profits
  • Second, “profitability affects market perceptions of the company’s future prospects – and so, increases demand for the company’s shares.”
  • Third, “the company’s operating activities … contribute to building ‘reputational capital’”

The shadow knows

In fact, the shadow consumes. In traditional and digital ways, it contains, or will contain, everything about an organization.

The perception of that information will depend, largely, on how a corporation prioritizes reputation, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), sustainability and related issues into its operational activities.

Fombrun says, “reputational capital” is a “shadow asset”, invisible but effective:

Intangible equity that humbly works behind the scenes in a company’s product brands or corporate brands — these days, often in zeroes and ones, expanding into the digital universe.

Bharawadj did a study of 125 manufacturing businesses. The study found “reputation and brand equity of the business … to be the best predictors of variation in business unit performance”.

Another study looked at a group of 435 companies rated in Fortune’s most admired companies. From 1984 to 1995, these organizations were better able “to sustain superior operating performance over time.” They were also better able “to improve operating performance over time.”

Bottom line? There are lessons to be learned from the financial crisis: Companies focused on sustainability outperformed peers by 15 per cent.

Fombrun provides substance for reputation building reputation. In effect, reputation gathers strength from itself.

So, the shadow is its own shadow asset.

Reputation. Stock price. Ownership.

In a study by Gregory on “brand power,” during extreme stock volatility from October 27-28, 1997, the research team discovered while all stocks fell on the 27th, the strongest brands regained almost all losses by the 28th.

A benign shadow supports brand

Less strong brands continued to founder. These brands did not have mighty reputations to deliver them from stock price purgatory.

While accountants feel operational activities like public relations, corporate philanthropy and advertising are best treated as direct business costs, Fombrun makes a thought-provoking point:

… it’s certainly ironic that accountants have been so conservative in their treatment of all reputation-building activities yet so willing to facilitate the capitalization of unearned income that enabled Enron, WorldCom and Xerox to claim inflated returns for so long …

In a post-Enron world, wise public relations practitioners and business leaders might note that brand-building and reputation-building sound concrete compared to the manufacturing of imaginary returns.

There is a difference between the invisible and the imaginary.

The financial value of reputation

Hanging a shadow on a signpost (or shadow valuation)

What if you could hang your company’s name out on a signpost and lease it?

Interbrand did just that. In 2002, at sales of $20 billion, assuming a higher royalty rate of 14 per cent (a royalty rate of 8-14 per cent of projected sales is common), Coca-Cola could realize a potential (royalty) rate on their brand of $2.4 billion.

Over 20 years, the Interbrand research team estimated this value of the Coke brand to be worth $69.9 billion.

Today, Coke is digital, social, focused on sowing reputational seeds in a new world of information.

Deep within its brand is everything stakeholders perceive Coke to be. Coke’s shadow delivers reputational capital.

If $70 billion doesn’t catch a CEO’s attention, what will? The shadow is changing rapidly. Move with the shadow or be outcast.

The figure isn’t perfect, but it reveals reputation has financial value despite its unseen nature.

Catch RQ during bull: The Shadow Quotient

Maybe the most valuable jewel in the cache of information Fombrun reveals is the development of the Reputation Quotient (RQ).

RQ focus groups revealed why people have high regard for some companies. They felt emotional appeal, products and services, financial performance, vision and leadership, workplace environment and social responsibility were the most important qualities affecting RQ.

Fombrun points out:

“Being well regarded is closely associated with a company’s earnings, liquidity, cash flow and growth — it’s operating results. Consumer ratings are therefore tied to familiar indicators that a company is well-managed.”

But being well-regarded pays off more in bull markets when the company’s stock price is on the rise than it does in bear markets when the opposite is true.

Companies gain when their stock price increases.

Spend some time with Fame and Fortune. Extrapolate Fombrun’s ideas to this new, digital paradigm. Demystify the unknown, difficult to measure, world of corporate reputation.

Reputation is in the cyber-ether. It permeates corporate space and the expanding online universe of stakeholder perception.

Any CEO who does not understand how reputation affects the bottom line, will, after reading Fombrun.

Business leaders and their companies will also benefit when they understand how to make exceptional reputations a reality in this brave new digital world.

Keystrokes? Swipes? Maybe simply gestures. Your brand and your repuation’s out there.

What is it saying?

You’ve got to do something about your reputation: Why CEOs need to pay attention to reputation management

leave a comment »

Scandals. Scandals in extremely visible corporations fill the media. Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, SNC Lavalin,  Goldman Sachs, BP, News Corporation … The list goes on.

Business decisions, such as fee, pricing and user privacy missteps, have dogged Bank of America and Netflix. Simply put, there have been a lot of examples of how to damage a reputation.

Charles Fombrun says perception creates its own reality. If this is so, every business leader needs to think about the reality his company is portraying.

What does the company look like to assertive stakeholders?

Since a corporation’s reputation affects a lot of stakeholders, what is today’s savvy CEO to make of reputation issues?

Think about it. Before we make a purchase, the reputation of a company or product impacts on us.

What do people say about a product? What have influencers said about the new smartphone we want to buy? What are suppliers’ business practices? How does advertising influence our purchase?

When investing our money, a company’s reputation undoubtedly affects us. We turn to people, as Charles Fombrun, writer of Fame and Fortune says, who have knowledge “better than our own”.

“Clearly,” Fombrun says, corporate “reputations affect the judgments we make”. Consumers and their perceptions have a definite effect on blackening corporate reputations.

Eighteen industries covered in one recent study only improved their reputation scores slightly over last year.  Even worse:

  • 16 per cent of companies ranked “poor” on reputation, down 3 per cent from a year ago
  • None came in with a “leading” ranking, the top score, where 14 per cent did last year

Fombrun makes a strong case for effective reputation management and public relations. In the future, it will be all the more important. Fombrun says reputation “is a key source of distinctiveness”, and that “it differentiates [a company] from its rivals.”

Lars Thoger Christensen adds that transparency is crucial because “the investment policies of pension funds … are regularly scrutinized these days by investors.” Because of pressure groups, business analysts and “other inquisitive stakeholders,” many organizations “feel more vulnerable”.

Transparency, one of the foundations of a reputation, is now necessary. CEOs can’t ignore more assertive stakeholders. Christensen feels corporate communicators must “transform [transparency] from a market condition to a business strategy”.

The Economist writes public relations firms are becoming  “not just service providers, but also purveyors of strategic advice to senior management”. The best firms and practitioners are the ones already providing strategy.

In a world where, as William Briggs of San Jose State University says “79 per cent of Americans take corporate citizenship into account when making purchase decisions,” and 71 per cent consider it “when making investment decisions,” a corporate leader who ignores this fact does so at his or her peril.

Reputation affects the drive to recruit and retain employees. In a study cited by Fombrun, undergraduate students preferred to work for companies regularly in “the 100 best companies to work for.” Interviewed MBA graduates chose “high reputation firms in consulting, investment banking, and high technology”.

Sometimes what glitters is gold, at least for attracting talent.

Institutional investors focus on corporate reputations. Fombrun says these investors control “80 per cent of all U.S. trading activity.” To further bolster reputation, Fombrun says in recent years “a number of institutional investors have flexed their muscles on various corporate governance issues, questioning the reasoning behind executive pay packages,” and that vision and leadership are “at the heart of the crisis in confidence”.

In the wake of the financial crisis especially, investors are tired of corporate smoke and mirrors. In the U.S., 46 per cent of people surveyed said their trust in the financial services sector had decreased.

According to Fombrun, strategic positioning pushes reputation into prominence. Reputation “is a mirror.” When stakeholders like and support the company, “an upward spiral results that attracts more resources to the company.”

But, if people are unhappy with what they see, a downward spiral can lead to a “reputation-damaging criminal indictment”. Think Arthur Andersen, British Petroleum or News Corporation.

Every CEO should remember the above companies and their plunges into corporate limbo.

In a study featuring CEOs’ views on reputation management, CEOs said they didn’t expect or look for return on investment (ROI) alone with respect to public relations expenditures. CEOs use public relations regularly to enhance and protect reputation.

As advertising struggles, businesses now think of public relations and the management of reputation as mission critical. Social media innovators continue to make strides in reputation management.

Interested in exploring:

  • What reputation is worth?
  • How reputation affects a corporation’s stock price and ownership?

Find out more:

Brave new reputation: What CEOs need to know

Related articles:

%d bloggers like this: