week 6 Organizational Theory And Development (B01)

n organization that has embraced each of the four disciplines will certainly become healthy, making success highly likely. But one

activity, more than any other, will be central to maintaining those disciplines, and sustaining health, over time.

No action, activity, or process is more central to a healthy organiza- tion than the meeting. As dreaded as the “m” word is, as maligned as it has become, there is no better way to have a fundamental impact on an organization than by changing the way it does meetings.

In fact, if someone were to offer me one single piece of evidence to evaluate the health of an organization, I would not ask to see its financial statements, review its product line, or even talk to its employees or customers; I would want to observe the leadership team during a meeting. This is where values are established, discussed, and lived and where decisions around strategy and tactics are vetted, made, and reviewed. Bad meetings are the birthplace of unhealthy

The Centrality of Great Meetings

A

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Advantage

organizations, and good meetings are the origin of cohesion, clarity, and communication.

So why in the world do we hate meetings? Probably because they are usually awful. More often than not they are boring, unfocused, wasteful, and frustrating. Somehow we ’ ve come to accept this — to believe that there is just something inher-

ently wrong with the whole idea of meetings. It ’ s almost as though we see them as a form of corporate penance, something that is inevitable and must be endured.

Well, I am utterly convinced that there is nothing inherently bad about meetings, nothing that can ’ t be fi xed if we confront the problems we ’ ve allowed to grow and calcify over the years. I wrote about those problems in a fi ctional way in my book Death by Meeting. 1 In that book I addressed a concept at the heart of the problem with meetings, some- thing I call “ meeting stew. ”

MeeTing sTeW

A good way to understand meeting stew is to imagine a clueless cook taking all of the ingredients out of the pantry and the refrigerator and throwing them into one big pot, and then wondering why his concoc- tion doesn ’ t taste very good. Leaders do the same thing when they put all of their issues into one big discussion, usually called a “ staff meeting. ” All too often they combine administrative issues and tactical decisions and creative brainstorming and strategic analysis and personnel discus- sions into one exhausting meeting. And like that cook, somehow they are surprised when the result doesn ’ t turn out so well.

If someone were to offer me one

single piece of evidence to

evaluate the health of an

organization, I would want to

observe the leadership team

during a meeting.

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Centrality of Great Meetings

The fact is that the human brain isn’t meant to process so many disparate topics in one sitting. There needs to be greater clarity and focus, which means that there needs to be different kinds of meetings for different kinds of issues. And, yes, that means there will be more meetings, not fewer.

That’s right. Leaders who want healthy organizations cannot try to eliminate or reduce time spent in meetings by combining them or cutting them short. Instead, they have to make sure that they are having the right kinds of meetings, and then they must make those meetings effective. As a result—and trust me when I say this—leaders actually come to look forward to their meetings, even enjoy them. In fact, they get real work done during those meetings which makes their lives, and the lives of their employees, better as a result.

The Four MeeTings

So what kinds of meetings does the leadership team of a healthy orga- nization have? There are four basic types:

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Advantage

1. Daily Check-Ins The first category of meetings is the least important but certainly worth doing when it is practically possible. Essentially, it’s about the team getting into the habit of gathering once a day, for no more than ten minutes, to clear the air about anything administrative that would be helpful to know. Schedules. Events. Issue alerts. That kind of stuff.

There are no agendas and no resolution of issues, just an exchange of information. To make sure that these meetings don’t morph into something they shouldn’t, it’s even best if people don’t sit down. The purpose of these daily administrative check-ins is simply to get the team accustomed to talking on a regular basis and to provide a forum for addressing the uber-tactical kinds of issues that get in the way of more important issues at staff meetings.

Plenty of leadership teams will protest having to do daily check-ins. Some of their reasons are valid, others not.

A good reason not to do daily check-ins is that members of the team are so spread out geographically that it isn’t practical to expect them to get together every day. That’s not to say that some virtual teams don’t find a way to do this by phone. But when it takes heroic efforts on the part of people in multiple time zones to make a daily conference call work, it can become just another form of drudgery. In those cases, not doing them is fine.

When team members work in the same location, there are no good reasons for rejecting the daily check-in. But what if some team members are out of the office? Have the session without them and let them know they can call in if they’re able. No pressure. What if people have other meetings during that time? First, don’t schedule meetings during that ten-minute period, but in the odd event that it is inevitable, don’t worry about it. Everyone else can meet. What if people feel they are too busy? That’s a bad excuse. Here’s why.

The most powerful impact of having teams meet every day is the quick resolution of minor issues that might otherwise fester and create

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Centrality of Great Meetings

unnecessary busywork for the team. For instance, when teams members don’t see each other more than once a week, or even less often, they end up trying to resolve the endless administrative issues that surface every day with an e-mail here and a voice mail there and a hallway conversation in between. That sets off a flurry of more e-mails, voice mails, and hallway stops as the situation changes and more people on the team need or want to be looped in. It would be fascinating to actually track and calculate the amount of time and energy that leaders spend chasing down issues that could be sorted out in a thirty- second conversation if everyone were in the same room for a few minutes every day.

A big part of the beauty of the daily check-in is that leaders know they’re going to see their colleagues within twenty-four hours, so rather than firing off an e-mail or a voice mail or interrupting someone in the course of their day, they simply make a note to bring up a small issue at the next day’s meeting. There is something undeniably efficient and liberating about this, which makes the protests I hear from execu- tives all that much more absurd. It’s as though they’re saying, Do you realize how busy we are trying to solve problems that result from our lack of communication? We can’t possibly spend ten minutes every day prevent­ ing them!

Once teams get used to the daily check-in, they’re hooked.

Disconnected

The leadership team at a Silicon Valley company implemented

the daily check-in begrudgingly at first. Then, after a few weeks,

they got used to the activity and did it gladly without complaint.

Still, they didn’t completely understand the value of it.

Then, during one particular period when a large number

of  leadership team members were on vacation, the daily

check-ins came to a halt. As so often happens, when

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Advantage

Getting used to doing the daily meeting will probably take a few weeks or a month. But once it happens, leaders find that they’re build- ing stronger relationships with their peers much more quickly than they thought was possible. Moreover, they’re able to address minor issues quickly so they can be more focused on the right topics during the other three kinds of meetings they need to have.

2. Tactical Staff Meetings When executives complain about meetings, many of them are probably thinking about their weekly or biweekly or monthly staff meetings. This is where meeting stew is usually served.

The truth is, there is no more valuable activity in any organization than the regular staff meeting of a leadership team. But if they are not effective, there is little or no chance of building a cohesive team or a healthy organization.

There are a few critical keys to making staff meetings work, many of which I’ve already discussed in this book. For instance, if there are too many people on a team, or if the people in the room don’t trust each other and aren’t willing to engage in productive conflict, then no matter how you reorganize your meetings you won’t see much impact.

everyone came back to work, the discipline of the daily meeting

didn’t get reestablished.

After a few weeks, team members felt strangely discon-

nected, and after talking about it, they realized that the cause

was not having the daily sessions. The president of the company

explained what happened: “We never realized how much closer

we were to each other, and how much we were able to avoid

wasting time and energy, until we stopped having the daily

check-ins.”

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Centrality of Great Meetings

However, assuming that a leadership team has bought into and is working on making their team small enough and behaviorally cohesive, they then need to change a few things about what they do before and during their staff meetings to make them compelling, useful, and yes, even enjoyable.

Real-Time Agenda The first thing a team must do to improve their staff meetings is really about what they should stop doing before the meeting. I’m referring to the dreaded agenda. Putting together an agenda before a staff meeting is like a marriage counselor deciding what issues she’s going to cover with a couple prior to meeting with them. The fact is, you don’t know what you need to discuss until you’ve come together and assessed the situation.

Instead of putting together an agenda ahead of time, team members need to come together and spend their first ten minutes of a meeting creating a real-time agenda. That involves two steps.

First, the leader needs to go around the room and ask every member of the team to take thirty seconds to report on the two or three key activities that they believe are their top priorities for the week. Notice that I said “that they believe are their top priorities.” See, it’s possible that after everyone explains what they’re doing and the team assesses what’s going on in the organization, people are going to have to reorder their priorities.

Once everyone has taken their thirty seconds to list off, not expound on, their top priorities—most will use only ten or fifteen seconds—the leader moves on to the second part of creating a real-time agenda. This entails reviewing the one-page scorecard or chart that the team created— the one that includes their thematic goal, their defining objectives, and their standard operating objectives. I covered that simple structure in discipline 2 when I discussed the question, What is most important, right now?

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Advantage

Essentially this part of the meeting is about stepping back and asking, How are we doing against the things we said are most important? And the way teams evaluate themselves is by using an easy and digest- ible means of assessing progress: colors. That’s right. No matter how much data an organization has at its disposal, no matter how intelligent and sophisticated the members of a team may be, the key to quickly sizing up the organization’s progress and deciding where to spend scarce resources is by keeping the evaluation process as simple as possible. I don’t know of a better system than green for “things are good, we’re ahead of schedule,” yellow for “we’re doing okay, but we’re not yet where we ought to be,” and red for “we’re way behind on this one.” (Okay, we allow teams to use lime green and orange for those in- between evaluations.)

It should take a team only five or ten minutes to go through the items on their scorecard, assigning a color to each item. different people will influence each decision based on their perspective, and that’s good. In fact, leaders always learn a great deal about what is happening when they hear their colleagues’ assessments. “I’d give us a green on

Tactical Meeting Scorecard

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Centrality of Great Meetings

revamping our marketing message,” says one executive. “Are you kidding?” says another. “did you see the results of that focus group last week?” The first executive’s eyes go wide. “No, I didn’t. What did they say?” The second exec explains, “They threw up all over our ideas. We’re back to square one.” And everyone agrees that the color is red.

After the team has assigned their colors—a process that really is as enjoyable as it is informative—then and only then can they agree on what their agenda should be. Basically they will probably focus on the areas on the chart that are red or orange or perhaps one or two others that are particularly critical.

The beauty of this real-time agenda system is that the team will avoid the all-too-common problem of sitting through a presentation or a discussion of something that everyone knows is of little importance to the organization. When leaders put together agendas ahead of time, they’re often influenced by people in the organization who do a good job lobbying them for face time at the next staff meeting. Before anyone knows what’s happening, they’re sitting in a forty-five-minute multi- media presentation about how the HR department selected a vendor for the benefits program, even when the company’s benefits program is nowhere near being worthy of making it on the scorecard. Of course, if the company is experiencing employee turnover because of benefits and that is one of the critical issues facing the team, then by all means they should bring in the director of benefits. But leaders must make that decision because it warrants the time and energy of the leadership team, not because it seemed like a considerate thing to do for someone who wanted some extra attention.

A challenge that many leadership teams struggle with during staff meetings is the distraction that occurs when someone raises a compelling and important topic that shouldn’t be taken on during tactical meetings. While this may seem like a relief to executives who are always thirsty for something new and interesting, it presents two problems.

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Advantage

First, it derails the discussion of the more tactical issues that must be addressed during staff meetings. Second, it causes the team to take on critical topics in an environment where they don’t have enough time to achieve resolution and when they are not as informed or prepared as they need to be. That’s why leaders of a healthy organization must also have a third kind of meeting.

3. Adhoc Topical Meetings Probably the most interesting and compelling of all meetings is the third type: the adhoc topical meeting. In fact, it may be the most fun that leaders can have at work.

The purpose of this kind of meeting is to dig into the critical issues that can have a long-term impact on an organization or that require significant time and energy to resolve: a major competitive threat, a disruptive industry change, a substantial shift in revenue, a significant product or service deficiency, or even a troubling drop in morale, among many others. Any of these issues would warrant more time, energy, and preparation than could ever be given during a regular staff meeting. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine addressing any of them in less than a few hours. It easily takes that much time to frame up an issue, present even a cursory overview of basic research, brainstorm possible solutions, debate the merits of those solutions, and then come to a decision with real commitment.

And yet leadership teams rarely carve out enough time for this. Instead, they try to resolve important issues in fifteen-minute incre- ments in between more tactical and administrative topics during a staff meeting. The result is not only suboptimal decisions, but an immense sense of frustration among leaders. That frustration is most directly the result of knowing that they’re making bad decisions, but also a vague sense that they’re not getting to do what they thought they were going to be doing when they chose their careers in the first place.

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Centrality of Great Meetings

Let me make this a little clearer. When most people decide to go into business, they envision themselves sitting around a table with a group of colleagues, wrestling with diffi cult issues, and doing their best to make the right decisions by tapping into everyone ’ s knowledge, experience, and intuition. Th is is what happens during case studies in business school, and there ’ s no denying that it ’ s fun. Th e only problem with case studies is that they ’ re not real, and they leave people looking forward to the day when they can take on real issues and make real decisions with real consequences.

And then something bizarre happens: executives in the real world fi nd themselves so inundated with daily e - mail and voice mail and administrative requirements that they rarely, if ever, set aside enough time for thorough, challenging, tense, dramatic, and fun conversations. It ’ s really quite absurd.

It ’ s like a baseball player working all his life and fi nally making it to the Major Leagues, and then spending all his time at batting practice without ever stepping up to the plate during a game. Or better yet, when he fi nally does come to bat in a game, he rushes through it so he can get done quickly and get back to batting practice. Th e high point of being a baseball player is playing in the games, and the high point of being a leader in an organiza- tion is wrestling with diffi - cult decisions and situations. Truncating those high points just doesn ’ t make sense.

What makes this partic- ularly tragic is that it is simply the result of execu- tives mistakenly convincing themselves that meetings are inherently bad. Th inking they ’ re being effi cient, they reduce the time they spend in meetings by cramming every discussion into one big staff meeting. What they ’ re really doing

The high point of being a

leader in an organization is

wrestling with diffi cult

decisions and situations.

Truncating those high points

just doesn’t make sense.

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Advantage

is ensuring that those staff meetings are going to be ineffective and that the most important conversations they should be having—topical, strategic ones—are cut short.

What leadership teams need to do—and this may be the single most important piece of advice for them when it comes to meetings—is separate their tactical conversations from their strategic ones. Combin- ing the two just doesn’t work and leaves both sets of issues inadequately addressed.

As for the timing of topical meetings, there is no prescriptive answer. After all, critical issues don’t come up on any schedule. However, if a leadership team goes more than a month without a strategic meeting, something is probably wrong. Of course, when a team first adopts this new model of having separate meetings for specific strategic topics, there will almost always be a big backlog of issues that need to be addressed, so there will be an initial flurry of these kinds of meetings. Which is okay because, by definition, the topics warrant attention. And besides, no one is going to complain about spending too much time discussing critical issues.

4. Quarterly Off-Site Reviews The fourth type of meeting that every leadership team needs to have is often known as the “off-site.” The problem with these meetings is that too often they are nothing more than an expensive and extended version of the unproductive staff meeting. The purpose of them, like each of the others, should be unique and focused. In this case, that focus is all about stepping back from the business to get a fresh perspec- tive, which is why it is best done away from the office.

Activities that should be addressed during these meetings include reviewing the organization’s strategic anchors and thematic goal, assess- ing the performance of key employees, discussing industry changes and competitive threats, and of course, reviewing the behaviors of the team members in regard to cohesiveness. In essence, the off-site review

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Centrality of Great Meetings

is where the leadership team needs to step back and revisit the four disciplines covered in this book: team, clarity, communication, and human systems.

The timing of these meetings, unlike the others, is not really nego- tiable. Unlike the tactical staff meetings, which might take place weekly or biweekly, or the topical ones, which need to happen whenever an issue arises, off-site review meetings should occur quarterly. There is just something about doing this four times a year that makes sense. More frequently than that doesn’t give a team enough time to make progress on critical issues and identify meaningful trends in the market or in the company. Less frequently usually means that people are going to forget about what they talked about at the previous meeting, which makes continuity difficult and progress unlikely.

Finally, of the four types of meetings, the quarterly review is probably the one that might call for the use of an outside consultant. It’s often nice for the leader of the executive team to participate as a member and leave the organizing and facilitating to a trusted consultant.

Too Much TiMe in MeeTings?

Whenever executives challenge me about the practicality of having four different meetings on a regular basis, I ask them to add up all the time that they would spend in those meetings in a given month.

If we apply the model in the most time-intensive way possible (a full 10 minutes each day in check-in meetings, 2 hours each week in tactical staff meetings, 6 hours each month in topical meetings, and 2 days each quarter in developmental review meetings), the grand total of time amounts to about 1,500 minutes, or 25 hours per month.

Assuming a 50-hour workweek, that amounts to about 12 percent of our time. If you work just 45 hours per week, then it’s 1 percent. That means even when we’re spending the maximum amount of time

3

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Advantage

at each meeting, something few teams need to do, more than 85 percent of our time is still available for whatever else we do.

Some leaders will point out that they are often on more than one team, which they believe would make this kind of model unworkable. Well, even if a person were on as many as three teams and if all three of those teams spent the maximum amount of time in their meetings (something that is highly unlikely), that would still amount to less than half their time. And when we factor in the amount of time they’ll avoid wasting because they are actually focused on the right issues during their meetings, and eliminating all the interruptions that happen because they’re out of sync with one another, the value they get from having more meetings, not less, increases.

Finally, it’s worth asking, What else should leaders be doing besides going to meetings? E-mail? Analysis? Customer visits? Okay, there are certainly times and places for those activities. But a leader’s first priority is to create an environment where others can do these things and that cannot happen if they are not having effective meetings.

But what about management? don’t leaders need to allocate a lot of their time to managing their people? While it’s true that the single most important activity that a leader must do (outside of being a good team member) is managing his or her direct reports, much of that actually happens during meetings. Sure, they need to do some one-on-one men- toring, but that isn’t usually what executives are hoping to do when they’re arguing about having to spend too much time in meetings. The truth is, if executives are having the right kind of meetings, if they’re driving issues to closure and holding one another accountable, then there is much less to do outside meetings, including managing their direct reports.

The thesis behind all of this is worth repeating: a great deal of the time that leaders spend every day is a result of having to address issues that come about because they aren’t being resolved during meetings in the first place. That’s why it’s really hard for executives to make a credible case for spending less time in meetings, assuming those meetings are good ones.

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Centrality of Great Meetings

Of all the recommendations my firm makes to clients, the one that is most consistently embraced and touted as having an immediate impact on an organization is the adoption of the meetings model out- lined here.

Finally, it’s important to remember that at the end of every meeting, with the exception of the daily check-ins, team members must stop and clarify what they’ve agreed to and what they will go back and com- municate to their teams. This is called cascading communication and it is covered in detail in the discipline 3 section.

old Dog, new Tricks

A church-related services organization was experiencing prob-

lems internally and seeing that those problems were affecting

their clients. Among the many things the leader did to make his

organization healthier, he cited the restructuring of his leader-

ship team’s meetings as a key part of their overall organizational

transformation.

“I’m fifty-eight years old, and I would never have thought that

having more meetings would help productivity, but it actually did.

The meetings have made converts out of us all.”

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

The Advantage

checKLisT For MeeTings

Members of a leadership team can be confi dent that they ’ ve mastered

meetings when they can affi rm the following statements:

— Tactical and strategic discussions are addressed in separate

meetings.

— During tactical staff meetings, agendas are set only after the team

has reviewed its progress against goals. Noncritical administrative

topics are easily discarded.

— During topical meetings, enough time is allocated to major issues

to allow for clarifi cation, debate, and resolution.

— The team meets quarterly away from the offi ce to review what is

happening in the industry, in the organization, and on the team.

Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage : Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from liberty on 2023-08-24 15:58:00.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

2. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.