Entries Tagged 'People' ↓

If YKK was mentioned what would you have thought? Hmmm…YKK a zipper…You are right it is perhaps the biggest brand name of a zipper. The association of the zipper to Dr. YKK is so creative. The creative Dr. YKK is known as the world mind unzipper.

I had the immense pleasure to have met him a couple years ago in Mauritius and Malaysia and to listen to his seminars. All along the years since, we kept in touch with each other all so often. Now YKK has embarked in a new adventure: he has decided recently to continue his career in Sydney Australia.

Dr.YKK (Kam Keong Yew, Ph.D) is an acknowledged Distinguished Talent on creativity and a former creativity adviser to Lego. He has been described as an energetic speaker, a provocative mind unzipper, an entertaining laughter guru, a masterful story-teller and bestselling author all rolled into one. This together with his wide international exposure and diverse work experience enable him to connect well with his audience.

Creative Thinking

Most entreprises waste untapped potentials which may be released by the practive of creative thinking.Using skillfully designed yet simple exercises with profound impacts, Dr.YKK interaction with his audience allow them to discover their latent creative thinking skills. The powerful de-briefing opens their minds to the practical application of their newly re-discovered skills in idea generation and solution finding. Be warned that your mind once stretched may never return to its original dimensions! The elasticity, the stretching skills once acquired stays.

Business Innovations

Supported by latest stories and surveys of global business innovations, Dr.YKK provides convincing evidence that the most profitable business in the world is selling imagination. He shares principles, provides practical techniques and involved his participants on the what, why and how of business innovations. You leave the session with a new found confidence and skills of being able to stand out from your competition. With the right processes in place World Class entreprises are continously benefiting from business innovations brought by their own staff at all levels. Higher motivation of the staff and a spirit of belonging to the company are thus experienced. The payback of creating the culture of business innovation exceed many folds the investment.

Creative Strategies

Many multinational corporations have found Dr.YKK’s pre-strategy planning session as an invaluable exercise in mind opening and out-of-the-box thinking. It acts like a catalyst that elevates their corporate planning to a whole new level. The managers become more enthusiastic and better equipped to face the challenges ahead.

He is available for keynote speeches, workshops and facilitation sessions.

This posting is not for the zapper reader as it is a rather long one. It caused some deep reflexion on my part when I read the text as it addresses some very contemporary subjects. Do take some time to read it through.

Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser’s new theory says evolution hardwired us to know right from wrong. But here’s the confusing part: It also gave us a lot of wiggle room. Extract from DISCOVER

You argue that humans have an innate moral faculty. Can you describe what you mean by this?
The basic idea is to ask about the sources of our moral judgments. What are the psychological processes involved when we deliver a moral judgment of right or wrong? The crucial issue to keep in mind here is a distinction between how we judge and what we do. In some cases, our judgments may align very closely with what we would actually do, but on occasions they may be very, very different.

The second point is to draw on an analogy with language and ask whether there might be something like a universal moral grammar, a set of principles that every human is born with. It’s a tool kit in some sense for building possible moral systems. In linguistics, there is a lot of variation that we see in the expressed languages throughout the world. The real deep insight of Chomskian linguistics was to ask the question, “Might this variation at some level be explained by certain common principles of universal grammar?” That allows, of course, for every language to have its own lexicon. The analogy with morality would simply be: There is going to be a suite of universal principles that dictate how we think about the nature of harming and helping others, but each culture has some freedom—not unlimited—to dictate who is harmed and who is helped.

What is the evidence that we draw upon unconscious principles when making moral decisions?
Let’s take two examples. A trolley is coming down a track, and it’s going to run over and kill five people if it continues. A person standing next to the track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will kill one but save the five. Most people think that’s morally permissible—to harm one person when five are saved. Another case is when a nurse comes up to a doctor and says, “Doctor, we’ve got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a healthy person just walked into the hospital—we can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?” No one says yes to that one. Now, in both cases your action can save five while harming one, so they’re identical in that sense. So why the flip-flop? People of different ages, people of different religious backgrounds, people even with different educations typically cannot explain why they think those cases differ. There appears to be some kind of unconscious process driving moral judgments without its being accessible to conscious reflection.

What is the evidence that infants already have a moral code ingrained in their brains?
I don’t think we’re ready to say. Studies have shown that infants as young as 15 months are sensitive to the beliefs of others—true versus false beliefs. That’s crucial to the moral domain.

There’s also this from the work of Elliot Turiel [a cognitive scientist at the University of California at Berkeley]. He said, Look, there’s a very important distinction between a social convention and a moral rule. Children by at least the age of 3 or 4 understand that distinction. Here is a simple way of putting it. If a teacher comes into a classroom and says, “Today, class, instead of raising your hand when you want to ask a question, just ask your question. Don’t raise your hand.” If you ask kids, “Is that OK?” kids will say, “OK, fine.” If you tell them, “In our class, we raise our hands to ask questions, but in France they never raise their hands. Is that OK?” “OK.” So it’s basically open to authority; it’s culturally variable.

There appears to be some kind of unconscious process driving moral judgments without its being accessible to conscious reflection

So that’s a social dimension. But now imagine the following situation. The teacher comes into the class and says, “If you’re annoyed by a child sitting next to you, just punch him!” You’re going to have moral outrage. You can’t say that! If you say, “But in France they do,” they’d say, “Well, the French are weird; the French can’t say that.” So it’s completely not open to authoritarian override, in a sense, and it’s not culturally variable. So you get this kind of fundamental distinction that’s coming on fairly early. But first the question is: How does the kid know that it’s in the moral zone as opposed to merely the social zone? We don’t know.

Why would natural selection have favored the evolution of an innate moral code within our brains?
One possibility is that these principles that I’m describing were not selected for morality. They were favored for other aspects of social cognition and are simply borrowed by morality. What does morality do at a very general level? It sets up, either unconsciously or consciously, rules for navigating the social world. Now, why might it be unconscious? It might be unconscious for exactly the same reason that language is unconscious at some level.

Imagine that every time you would try to talk to me, you had to think about adjectives, nouns, verbs, and where they go. Well, you would never say anything. This conversation would take 10 years to complete. Whereas if it’s unconscious, well, you’re just jamming through all this information, because the structure of this stuff is just natural to you. My guess is that there is some aspect of morality which is very much like that. If every time you were confronted with a moral issue you actually had to work it through, you would do nothing else. So there’s something highly adaptive to the unconscious aspects of not having to think about these things all the time.

Of course, one of the things that makes morality adaptive is that it does allow for a certain level of within-group stability and, therefore, allows for individual fitness to be enhanced from a genetic perspective. So if I live in a world of defectors, I have no chance, whereas if I can find the cooperators and cooperate with them, my own individual fitness will be greatly enhanced. So I want to know who are the individuals I can trust and those I can’t trust. At that level, there’s been, of course, greater selection for any kind of social group to have certain kinds of principles that allow for group-level stability.

You draw an analogy between Noam Chomsky’s theory of a universal grammar and your own concept of a universal moral code. But moral rules, as described in your book, differ across cultures. For example, some societies permit intentional murder, such as honor killings of women who have transgressed that society’s sexual codes. How do you explain this?
Let’s focus on honor killings. In this country, in its early stage of colonization, the South of the United States was colonized in part by Celtic herders, Irish, and Scotsmen, whereas the North/Northeast was colonized heavily by German potato plow farmers. That kind of colonization set up very different cultural psychologies. The South developed this very macho policy toward the world—if somebody took your cattle, you were going to kill them. That was crucial to your livelihood. Whereas nobody is going to steal a crop of potatoes. If somebody takes a few, who cares? What that machismo led to were these cases where if a man’s wife was caught with somebody else, it was not merely permissible for the man to kill his spouse, it was obligatory. Now, let’s take the Middle East. They, too, have honor killings in cases of infidelity. But who does the killing is completely different. There it’s not the husband. It’s the wife’s family who is responsible for killing her. There are rules for permissible killing. Who does the killing is simply a parameter in that space of permissibility.

You mention honor killings in cases of infidelity, but sometimes the victim may simply have been caught in public talking to a man who is not her husband. As a Western woman raised in the liberal tradition, I think that is immoral. Yet in societies where honor killings are acceptable, the decision to kill the woman is deemed morally correct. Why?
Let’s go back to language. You’re a speaker of English. In French, the world “table” is feminine. Why? Isn’t that weird? Isn’t that incomprehensible? For an English speaker, that’s the most bizarre thing in the world! It’s incredibly hard to learn. Yet are the French weird? They’re not weird. They speak another language.

The analogy to language is to me very profound and important. When you say, “Look, it’s weird that a culture would actually kill someone for infidelity,” it’s no different than us making a language that’s got these really weird quirks. Now, here’s where the difference is crucial. As English speakers, we can’t tell the French: “You idiots. Saying that a word has gender is stupid, and you guys just change the system.” But as we have seen historically, one culture telling another culture, “Hey, this is not OK. We do not think it is morally permissible to do clitoridectomies, and you should just stop, and we’re going to find international ways to put the constraints on you”—now, that’s whoppingly different. But it also captures something crucial. The descriptive level and the prescriptive level are crucially different. How biology basically guides what people are doing is one thing. What we think should happen is really different. That just doesn’t arise as a distinction within language.

 

Isn’t there a big difference between nuances in language and the varying ways in which different societies define murder? A definition of murder seems much more fundamental to human behavior than whether the French language applies gender to nouns and English does not.
That’s a great question. I think the way to unpack it is in the following sense. Look, everyone speaks a language. Everyone has a moral system. You can also say, “Look, every language has certain abstract variables, like nouns and verbs.” That’s true. Now, what I would say is that every culture has got a distinction about intended harms, about actions versus omissions. There are abstractions about the nature of action which play a role in the same kind of way as nouns and verbs do.

My guess is this: It’s a hypothesis. There’s a huge amount of other work to be done. In the end, I will bet that the analogy will only go so deep. Morality could not be just like language. It’s a different system. But my guess is that there will be unconscious, inaccessible principles that will be in some sense like morality. They will not be part of a child’s education, and there will be a richness to the child’s representations of the world in the moral area that will be as rich as they are in language.

If every time you were confronted with a moral issue you had to work it through, you would do nothing else

Are there moral principles that hold true across all societies?
People want to say things like “do unto others [as you would have done unto you].” You see it everywhere. So there’s some notion of reciprocity, and that includes both the good and bad. If I have been harmed, there is some notion of revenge which certainly seems to be part of the human psychology. Some level of, “If somebody does something nice for me, I should do something nice back to them” also seems part of the psychology. It may be evolutionarily ancient. Work that we’ve done on animals suggests some kind of reciprocity, some ancient level of cooperation. So is there a generic rule that says “don’t kill others”? No, there’s not, because that rule is always adjoined to a caveat, which says, “Well, we kill some people, but not everybody.” It’s always an in-group, out-group distinction.

What impact does religion have on moral behavior?
I think that for many who come from a religious background, religion is synonymous with morality. Some people think that if you’re an atheist, you simply have no morals. That is just wrong. There are an awful lot of people who are atheists who do very, very wonderful things. As an objective question, do people who have religious backgrounds show different patterns of moral judgments than people who are atheists? So far, the answer is a resounding no.

Do you mean that people give the same answers to objective tests of moral reasoning regardless of religious background?
One hundred percent. So far, exactly the same. Here’s an example that comes from MIT philosopher Judy Thomson. She was interested in a question of whether the fetus has an obligatory right to the mother’s body. So she gives an incredibly apocryphal, crazy example: A woman is lying in bed one morning, and she wakes up to find a man lying in bed unconscious next to her. Another gentleman walks up to her and says: “I’m terribly sorry, but this man right next to you is a world-famous violinist, and he’s unconscious and in terrible health. He’s in kidney failure, and I hope you don’t mind, but we’ve plugged him into your kidney. And if he stays plugged in for the next nine months, you will save him.”

You ask people, “Is that morally permissible?” They’re like: “No, it’s insane. Of course not.” Well, that makes [Thomson’s] point exquisitely. It would be nice if she said, “Sure, I love this guy’s playing; plug him in.” But she’s not obligated to do so. Now let me make it like the abortion case. She says, “Yes, I love this guy’s violin playing!” Two months into it, she goes: “You know what? This really is a drag,” and she unplugs. Now people all of a sudden have a sense that’s less permissible than the first case. But here, people who are pro-choice or pro-life do not differ. So the point is, if you take people away from the familiar and you capture some of the critical underlying psychological issues that play into the real-world cases, then you find that the religious effects are minimal.

Do other species have any form of moral faculty?
Certainly sympathy, caretaking, cooperation; those things are there in some animals. The crucial questions are, “Do animals have any sense of what they ought to do?” and “To what extent will animals judge transgressions of others as being wrong in some way?” How we’d ever understand that, I don’t know.

The latest trends in advertising and marketing use neuroscience, and look beyond influencing our choices to directly affecting our brains at a physical level. Technology to monitor and alter brain waves dates back to the 1970’s. Current research uses functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to map the brain’s responses to stimuli. In 2001, “The Brighthouse Institute for Institute for Thought Sciences” gave birth to the BrightHouse Neurostrategies Group, the first neuromarketing company, based in Atlanta. Last week, neuroscientist Baroness Susan Greenfield told the Institute of Direct Marketing how marketing can create new neuronal networks in the brain. Critics say using neuroscience to directly manipulate the brain is unethical and will be used to control our thinking, and voting too.

Marketing interest in learning more about the brain has also been spurred by Jerry Zaltman’s landmark book, How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market, which explores in some depth connections between the brain and marketing theory and practice.

Two recent articles have attracted considerable attention among my colleagues. U.S. News and World Report cover story was “Mysteries of the Mind” by Marianne Szegedy-Maszak. The article told about researchers’ findings that 95% of mental activity involved in a decision occurs outside of consciousness. Considering that most marketing concentrates on the conscious mind, that’s a notable finding to say the least.

The other article appeared in the Los Angeles Times, “Searching for the Why of Buy” by Robert Lee Hotz. Ponder this statement Hotz makes when discussing what brain imaging was telling researchers:

My interest in Marketing and the latest technology used has taken me to the website of Centre for Cognitive liberty & ethics. Emory University’s study on the subject is fascinating and I expect a lot of development in this field. The test and the results of the Pepsicola and Coca cola branding memory in the brain are indeed very interesting. Did they use the technology for the Bush election? Who knows! The roads between ethics and science once again are crossing. The big question remains: How much is being used unethically without the knowledge of society?

I met her in the mid 90’s in Bath UK when she was the administrator of the NLP course I followed. We became friends and she even visited Mauritius later on my invitation. She helped me in doing some awareness sessions on NLP with colleagues at work as well with social friends. She ran for the Rotary club of Port Louis an NLP training session for social workers of organizations specialized in alleviating drug addiction. I am pretty sure a number of my old friends who are now reading my blog will recall Penny’s visit to Mauritius.

Retired from a very successful career in teaching, Penny today, still works as an examiner to some University examination boards, acts as a personal coach and still conducts seminars on requests.

My memory of Penny was awakened when I read the blog of Avinash yesterday on learning to learn. Penny’ web site immediately rang a bell in my mind.

Her latest newsletter, of particular interest in goal achieving, read as follows:

Knowing is not enough; we must apply!
Goethe


Without a doubt ‘knowing’ something is very different from being told it is true and that you should therefore believe it. I had one of those ‘knowing’ experiences this morning.

Every day I climb the very steep lane behind my house to give my heart some exercise. It is hard going even though I have been doing it for a number of months. As I look up the hill snaking away in the distance above my head I am daunted.

Today I was busy marvelling at the flowers in the hedgerows. There are still one or two primroses, and bluebells too; there is a wonderful display of harebells and the vetch is showing; Herb Robert is blooming alongside a proliferation of dandelions (have you ever tried their leaves in salad?) giving a bright yellow glow in the greenery. Added to that the lambs were curious and very noisy as they watched me walking.

I was up the hill without even realising. Instead of puffing and panting and wishing I was at my goal, I was so pre-occupied with the ‘now’ that I barely noticed I was climbing.

I know about focusing on what I am doing in order to reach my goals, but it had never been brought home to me so graphically just how easy it is to achieve what you want to achieve if you enjoy what you are doing.

In the discipline I am in it is called the ‘demon’ state. A state where you are so engrossed in what you are doing that time slips away. When you are in this state you are content.

So, as you choose your long term goals be sure to also create short term goals that are interesting, appealing, motivating, exciting or simply delightful and watch achievement become an absolute pleasure.

Setting quality goals isn’t as easy as you might think. As a coach I can help you to set failsafe goals. That is a big claim, but if you do it right you will achieve your goals. So get in touch or tell your friends how valuable coaching can be.

One of the most important skills required by all managers & entrepreneurs is leadership. I am personally a great believer of brain power!which we do not make use enough! Here are the five lessons from Carly Fiorina.
Carly Fiorina, the controversial CEO of Hewlett-Packard from 1999 until she was fired in 2005, shares five lessons she has learned.

Leaders create something new.
Management is about producing acceptable results within known constraints and conditions. The force for change must be stronger than an organization’s natural inclination to preserve the status quo. This is why even a change agent CEO must have the support of a critical mass of employees. In 1999, HP was no longer among the top 25 innovators in the world. I challenged our engineers and inventors to innovate. By 2004, we were generating 11 patents a day, the highest rate of innovation in HP’s history, and had become the number-three innovator in the world.

Don’t fall in love with your product.
Too much has been made of my background in marketing. Of course, I’d held sales and marketing jobs, but I’ve had experience in virtually every department in a big company. Nevertheless, it is true that as a “nontechnologist,” I thought the point of our technology was to serve customers and, in the process, to deliver revenue and profit. Sometimes, technologists forget the customer. This was happening at HP in the late ’90s, and it was one of the reasons our growth was slowing dramatically.

Competition requires risk-taking.
The risks of change always seem to be more real than the risks of standing still. Leaders have to be willing to make tough choices at the right time, which usually means before they are obvious to everyone else. The Compaq merger was widely criticized when it occurred; many people did not understand the decision immediately. Yet, it was a prudent risk given the changes in the industry and our decision to return to a leadership position within it.

Ethics matter.
Businesses often tolerate behavior that’s on the edge; people justify it as necessary to achieve results and take comfort that it’s not strictly illegal. Yet such actions are corrosive. Some of the most important choices I ever made were firing people who weren’t conducting themselves with integrity.

The 21st century is about brainpower.
It requires different capabilities than the 20th, and American competitiveness is not something we can take for granted. We must realistically assess the state of our educational system and invest in its transformation. At the same time, we must acknowledge that while globalization has caused some real hardship and dislocation for American workers, our security and prosperity are greatly enhanced when a greater number of people around the world have a stake in the success of the global economy. And we must accept that this country has prospered because motivated people have wanted to come here and build a better life.

This afternoon, I was discussing with an old friend of mine about doing something meaningful. He has been a successful entrepreneur and has been working very hard and smartly for the last 3 decades. He admits that earning more wealth for himself or his family is no more his prime objective. What motivates him to carry on in life? What kicks him now? He enjoys challenges, learning and making best use of his skills & knowledge accumulated through his life. He is after all an entrepreneur, an economist with a strong sense of finance. Whilst still the chairman of a number of very profitable companies; he has taken a back seat in running the companies. He oversees the companies whilst remaining the strategist of his group. To keep an interest in business, in general, he spends the major part of his day in Mauritius, studying successful entrepreneurs and have a keen eye on the stock exchange in the UK from which he is reaping couple of thousand of Pounds regularly.

One of the entrepreneurs mentioned by him and from whom one could learn from was Philip Green. The 4^th wealthiest man in the UK, he started with very modest means.Not only did Green not go to business school, he didn’t even take A levels. Having left formal education aged 15, he has built Britain’s biggest privately-owned retail group and accumulated enough debt-free assets to put him in that rarest of clubs: those who are not only worth a billion pounds, but created it themselves. I read what I could gather from the net on Philip Green and was stunned by the story of a self made 55 year old billionaire who started his first company with 20000 Pounds loan less than 30 years ago.

” ‘Retailing is bloody hard work. You have to be absolutely committed, passionate and prepared to get into every level of detail. It is all-consuming. We are not dead yet,’ he says.”

It is relatively easy to run a business where you are the owner, the operator, the controller, the marketer in the nutshell: the one man show. You do not need to possess any managerial skill as you only have to manage yourself. Your growth and consequently potential will be limited to what you personally can do.

An entrepreneur at least a successful one, I dare say is someone who, above all have the skill to run a business beyond his personal presence. Thus the entrepreneur has to develop his skill of leading & managing people, resources and understand the environment. You are called a manager only when you have people reporting to you.

I have been recently listening to Bill Bartmann, who is recognized as one of the best entrepreneurs of the US by NASDAQ some years ago. Learning from his mistakes, has been his greatest success. It is worth learning the secrets that took Bill Bartmann from a failure to a success, from bankrupt to a billionaire. You will thus learn real-world entrepreneurship tactics that actually work.

In short, entrepreneurs essentially should address the following:

Investment – Raise the money you need to grow fast
Recruitment – Attract top talent with creative compensation
Management – Get your business to run without you
Exit Strategy – Cash-out wealthier than you thought possible.

I was watching over the weekend on the BBC TV channel, an interview of Maurice Flanagan, the CEO running the most successful Emirates Airline. I was enthused to hear of Maurice’s abundance mentality and vision of the future. During the interview, he spoke of the fantastic growth that his airline has experienced and the challenge the airline has taken to grow even larger in the coming years with a detailed plan to operate over 150 fuel efficient wide body aircraft. Emirates airline has on order from Airbus 47 A380!

The development of the airline is in the overall strategy of the Dubai foremost family, the Al Maktoun’s vision to develop Dubai past the wealth that can be drawn from pumping “black gold” crude oil from the underground of the gulf area. Dubai today has become a center for many things and a great attraction for tourism, finance and trade.

Maurice grew the airline with the open skies policy of Dubai which today is served by over 110 airlines. I recommend the reading of the write up on the history of success of Emirates under the leadership of Maurice since 1978. He is known in the aviation field as a fierce supporter of open competition.

To the question of the rising competition being planned by the neighboring states of

Abu Dhabi and Qatar airlines, he replied in his interview that the more there will be competing airlines in the region, the greater the traffic in the region will grow. The Gulf area with great airlines he said will become an enormous airline hub for the benefits of the whole area and a cross road to serve east and west. A market place is a location where you have the choices between many operators. The larger the market place: more opportunities open up.Let the cake grow larger and may the smarter of the operators share the largest slice.

From his position as the sales Manager of B.O.A.C in Southern Africa when I first met him years ago, Maurice has surely forged himself a very successful career. I had the chance to meet him again sometime back in the 90’s when with my mate Omar Ramtoola we attempted to secure the general sales agency of Emirates for the Indian Ocean region. He used to be friendly with one of my bosses, the late John Ribet at Rogers Aviation in the early 70’s. We surely have to learn from Maurice’s business acumen.

“Emirates is run on the principle that customers are smart, recognize and reward better service – and are willing to pay for good value-for-money.”

On my last blog written in French, I shared my enthusiasm on the seminar I attended. It is worth noting that Process Communications is the brain child of Dr Taibi Kahler who formulated his process following works he did for the NASA to ensure the the team of Astronauts who had to live in close confinement for relatively long period had the necessary psychological tools for better communications amongst them.

Process Com provides very useful people skills to acquire by us all.The french book I am now reading thereon give a myriad of examples to be put in application in family, work and social environment. I recommend that you pay a visit to the web site.

Eric Berne nous parle de 3 types de leadership :

Ø Le leader responsable

C’est celui qui occupe la place de leader dans l’organigramme. Il est responsable du groupe et rend des comptes à une plus haute autorité (hiérarchie, conseil d’administration, actionnaires, …)

Son niveau de leadership se mesure par sa capacité à prendre des décisions en toute autonomie

Ø Le leader effectif

C’est celui qui est reconnu par le groupe comme ayant un niveau de compétence pointue sur un ou plusieurs domaines (techniques ou non techniques)

Son niveau de leadership se mesure par l’écoute qu’il suscite et par sa capacité à déléguer officiellement une partie de son leadership effectif à une personne plus compétente sur un domaine.

Ø Le leader psychologique

C’est le plus influent. C’est celui qui représente aux yeux d’une équipe l’image du leader. Il se révèle souvent dans les périodes de tensions. Il occupe, de ce fait, une place particulière dans le groupe.

Son niveau de leadership se mesure par la confiance qu’il inspire et par sa capacité à réguler les énergies au sein d’une équipe.

· Les 3 sortes de leadership peuvent être exercés par la même personne

· La réalité nous montre que c’est très rare

• Toutes sortes de combinaisons existent

Le leadership effectif

Le leadership

Psychologique

J’ai été enthousiasme du séminaire que j’ai participé la semaine dernière sur La process com.

Voila de ‘Quoi’ m’occupait pour la semaine : la lecture des recherches de Taibi Kahler et le livre de Gérard Collignon.

Merci Pierre Agnese pour ta brillante animation.