CHAPTER 3
Roles
The purpose of an organization is to enable common men to do uncommon things.1
—Peter F. Drucker, American educator and writer, 1909-2005
For a successful launch or relaunch of a knowledge flow management initiative, you will need to involve multiple parties. Some will sponsor activities, some will drive the initiatives forward, and last but not least you will want a large number of participants.
The role of a sponsor seems pretty clear at first. Those are the people who sign for infrastructure, project expenses, and support resources, right? I have found that there can be additional sponsors, and they are just as important for ongoing success. I am talking about the type of sponsorship provided by managers at all levels or even the participating individuals themselves.
One of the strongest barriers for being involved in knowledge- sharing activities is not lack of funding but lack of time. So any manager who allows or maybe even encourages team members to get involved in knowledge-sharing activities is a major sponsor. The time team members spend on those activities represents cost but often no immediate payback. In some rare cases, you might be able to embed the activity in a way that it produces quick returns, but that is prob ably more the exception than the rule. Of course, a strong executive sponsor can have special influence down the management chain.
If managers see the benefit of having their team members attend international community events with potentially substantial travel costs, they are acting as major sponsors to drive global knowledge flow. The same is true when they create processes that will ensure learning from projects and time available for people presenting lessons learned and experiences to their peers. By giving examples and creating the proper culture, they are sponsoring the inflow of contributions and the degree of reuse.
Furthermore, each individual can be seen as a sponsor. Hardly any knowledge worker these days has a completely set daily routine. A typical knowledge worker decides on the things she will be focusing on flexibly during the day. While a basic portfolio of activities is defined in the discussion between knowledge workers and management, it is left to the knowledge workers to set certain priorities within that portfolio. They could focus only on activities that are 100 percent spelled out in bonus or objective plans. Instead, it is common that they go the extra mile and spend time on sharing knowledge with others, whether in the hallway, during a phone conversation, giving a pre sentation, or preparing some type of asset for reuse. By choosing their priorities to include those types of activities, they are also becoming major sponsors of your knowledge flow management initiative.
In this chapter, as part of the discussions on drivers, we come back to the idea of including some of those sponsoring activities into staff objectives. It is not a trivial task, and it actually can have unexpected and counterproductive results.
The next sections deal with some of the additional roles that I see important in the process of knowledge flow management.
WHO SHOULD INTRODUCE AND DRIVE KNOWLEDGE FLOW MANAGEMENT?
Knowledge flow management is in large part a change management initiative as you want to improve knowledge sharing across your organization, something that will also require change in people’s behavior. So, who should take the leading role in getting this type of organizational change implemented? A method that comes to mind is to involve an external consulting organization. An advantage to that approach is the higher level of specific expertise and experience around knowledge flow management that those consultants usually bring with them. Also, external consultants might have it easier to steer around some political and internal structure issues. In comparison to employees they do not carry the same historic burdens with them. They can also bring some validity to the task, confirming, based on prior engagements, that there is real value in improving knowledge flow. But the use of external consultants has a high danger of overshadowing the need for a very strong internal ongoing leadership for an extended time. By using external consultants, the main stakeholders could come to believe that those consultants “will fix it.” And the ownership question for the initiative might not be as easy to clarify. For the initiative to survive longer term, it will need a lot more than just some launch and occasional control activities. If the initiative cannot be embedded and driven with internal support, it will not persist. The result very likely will be a limited knowledge management project, not a lasting knowledge flow initiative.
One aspect that plays an important role is the degree to which the person or team driving knowledge flow management is familiar with the cultural aspects of the organization. This applies to anybody from the executive sponsor to support administrators. A deep understanding of the organizational culture is a major challenge for external consultants, who usually lack that type of knowledge. People usually respect knowledge as their biggest asset. If you want to get to some of that knowledge, it is very important to have a full understanding of individual and organizational culture. Developing that deep understanding takes time. It is not something that you can pick up via a few questionnaires in a short time frame. Organizations are complex entities, and it can take years really to understand, across multiple areas, regions, and divisions, how the organization “ticks.” What are some of the hidden agendas? Who are key players? Who are the connectors, and who are the gatekeepers who block information? Some of those questions can be answered through careful analysis. Some of the insights surface only to those who have built an extensive network within the organization over a longer time frame.2 Not all cultures value knowledge sharing. Fears, real or just perceived, about losing power or even losing jobs are barriers to be taken seriously. I discuss barriers and how to deal with them further in Chapter 6.
Over the years, I have met with a number of those driving knowledge flows in their organizations. The majority of them came from within the organization. They might have been in a leadership development role, a technical role, or a human resources function before they were tasked with looking into knowledge management. In some cases—and I would actually include myself in this category—the knowledge function evolved out of a business unit that tried to solve an efficiency problem using methods to increase the leveraging of knowledge.
If companies hire experts to get started, they usually use these experts as an addition to an existing organization. If experienced knowledge management professionals are hired to start from scratch, they usually make it very clear that it takes time to get to measurable results that indicate a change to a better knowledge flow.
In summary, for ongoing success, you will need strong internal expertise and a number of people who have built a certain level of experience. Some of the expertise can be obtained by the internal experts via involvement in external networks, but they will need to get the buy-in from their management to serve in an ongoing knowledge flow management role for an extended time and be able to practice what they learn and extend their expertise. Short-term engagements or switching people frequently will make it hard for expertise to develop. External consultants can help to introduce disruptive and innovative elements needed to overcome barriers that exist in highly change-resistant organizations.
So far I have mainly discussed the drivership role within corporate organizations. But even in noncorporate organizations that might be highly distributed and do not follow traditional structures, a clear drivership is needed. In those types of organizations, drivership is usually part of a governing body or controlling function. Examples for those types of organizations could be professional communities that have often been founded to support leveraging individual or group knowledge on a larger scale. In such environments there is the same need for dedicated support and drivership as there is in corporations.
WHO SHOULD WORRY ABOUT KNOWLEDGE FLOW MANAGEMENT?
If you start with the primarily technical view of knowledge management, it is easy to conclude that this is primarily a topic for technically oriented people or information technology (IT) managers. But whenever I tell people what I do and introduce it as “helping to ensure that knowledge that is available in one part of the organization is used in another,” almost everybody can relate to that. If the people I am talking to are from a large organization (private or government), they respond with a statement like “Oh, we need to get better at that in our organization, things get reinvented all the time, we are big and distributed, most people don’t even know what others do.” But even in a small organization with 10 or 20 people, the reaction is “We definitely could do better at that” or “We have a clear problem with making sure that knowledge gets shared and we are really scared of the effects if one of our few experts leaves.”
Even individuals or very small organizations see the potential to benefit by leveraging knowledge. Take the example of a baker. A baker has special recipes that he will very likely not share, but there might be some areas where interacting and sharing knowledge with other bakers (perhaps not with the competitor on the next corner) could very well be beneficial. Think of ways to deal with government health and food processing standards, some technical knowledge on bakery machines, or insights into industry trends. Today, isolation is dangerous. And the life of a baker might have become a little bit more complicated as well. Instead of trying to figure it out all by himself, he could engage in formal or informal (i.e., social networking) organizations that offer real-life or virtual platforms to share some of that knowledge.
Here is one more example. My wife is a physiotherapist. Most of her work involves treating patients with her hands or instructing them to go through specific exercises. The knowledge she accrued over the years is based on study and experience. She studied in a special physiotherapy school, where practicing was a central part of schooling, of course. The experience is what happened everyday for many years. In her mind those things flow together. Hardly any cases are like any others, as every patient is different, especially since my wife follows a school of physiotherapy called orthobionomy, which focuses on looking at the patient in a holistic way. She works in a very small team, so the knowledge flow between the team members is usually via face-to-face contact by discussing cases and questions that might arise or sharing stories during lunch and dinner. Does she need some type of knowledge flow management?
Because the team is rather small and time between patent treatments is short, the exchange of knowledge is somewhat limited. So she quite often uses a Web-based online message board, where experts in her specific field discuss ideas, therapies, and special cases. This could be therapy related or about physiotherapy office procedures and guidelines. The fact that somebody put up this board, is maintaining it, and is passionate about it has all the elements of a successful knowledge flow management initiative. A number of the participants have met in person at trainings and were able to build higher trust levels. So it is not all about the technology—the message board; it is more about the community as a whole.
Apart from this technology-supported community, she is part of an interdisciplinary group consisting of doctors, physiotherapists, and even psychologists who meet regularly to exchange experiences. The interdisciplinary character of the group enables cross-learning and innovation.
I think it is fair to say that almost anybody could benefit from a well-managed knowledge flow. For organizations, the benefits usually would be expressed in terms of increased sales or reduced cost due to the availability of critical knowledge where it is needed. In the physiotherapy example, the benefit might be a better therapy and increased customer satisfaction, making it more likely that patients will choose the same therapist again next time.
In the case of an incorporated organization, usually a specific group of senior management stakeholders should worry about knowledge flow:
• Head of human resources (HR). There is no way he can develop the human capital in dynamic times without building on synergy and learning through sharing of knowledge.
• Head of IT. Of course IT will play a major role by providing the enabling technologies. Those will range from setting up the right infrastructure platforms (e.g., e-mail and content management systems, social networking platforms, etc.) to implementing very specific systems to support certain knowledge flow management initiatives. IT could also help in providing measures that will be needed to convince management and finance about the value of improving the organizational knowledge flow.3
• Head of finance. Knowledge as the basis for innovation, and effective performance can represent high financial value. Making best use of existing knowledge, creating new knowledge by ensuring it can flow and be leveraged is a key factor to contain costs. Reinventing the wheel too often and missing opportunities for success can have a substantial effect on the financial health of an organization.
• Head of internal communications. In order to create an ongoing marketing stream about your initiatives that reaches your current and potential participants, you need the expertise on how to craft and deliver those messages. Just as evangelizing by knowledge flow management supporters is important, the communications department can be used to build the brand, highlight successes, and make the value clear via stories posted to larger audiences.
• Head of marketing. Only a well-working knowledge flow from your customers to the inside of the organization can ensure that the marketing strategy is well tuned for success. But knowledge from the field usually does not magically make it to your strategy and development departments. Direct questions to those dealing with customers will bring to the surface only a portion of the knowledge they really have; a large portion remains in their heads. A well-tuned customer relationship management initiative can bring to light more of that knowledge. Through smart analytics, additional insights can be generated.
However, there is another very important effect in organizations that supports the flow analogy very well. Knowledge is passed on via direct interaction between those working closely together. It could be via joint engagements or stories being told. In an organization where the rate of interaction is high, the knowledge will eventually make its way from the edge of the organization to the inside. It must flow from those facing customers to those who need it within the organization. Here is an example of that type of flow. Imagine a number of small incidents where a field person watches unexpected customer behavior. By themselves, those incidents might not be big enough to be reported. But as time passes, those incidents get turned into small stories floating around, hit other parts of the organization, and eventually flow toward product marketing and development.
One way to increase the level of inflow is to extend the number of staff members who are facing customers, moving from the traditional model of only certain people directly interacting with customers to a model where a large portion of the organization uses any and every possible opportunity to interact with customers directly. At my company we have done so through a flow of national and international user groups with high involvement of staff not only from marketing but from support, consulting, research and development, and, of course, executive leadership from all parts of the organization. In the age of Web 2.0, social media offers an additional way to get involved with many customers more directly.
To increase the flow more generally, offer sufficient possibilities for employees to interact within the organization either in a face-to-face manner or by using social media type of technologies. Face-to-face is still sometimes the only way that certain knowledge flows, but social media technologies can add additional channels that are more cost effective and scale much better. An example at our company is an internal microblogging service that is becoming quite popular as an additional way to connect.
As it is not realistic to rely on a direct flow of knowledge alone, the exploitation of an indirect flow based on increased activity is an important extra component. Organizational culture is a big driver (or inhibitor) of this type of flow. And in this case, it is that part of the culture that lets people interact with one another with trust and respect. Discussing whether you can change organizational culture at all and, if so, how, is beyond this book, but I think culture in today’s organizations is still very much influenced top down. Even though collaboration plays an increasing role, for an organization to build a culture, it still needs top management agreement to endorse it first.
I would not say that everybody in an organization should be worrying about knowledge flow management. As knowledge-sharing activities get embedded, it is to be hoped that most of the participants will come to the point where it is just one natural step in the process.
However, there is a need for some people to be dealing with those activities explicitly. Several times I have heard managers issue statements like “We don’t need any organization to drive the sharing of knowledge. In our company, it is everybody’s job.” In some ways, that is the goal knowledge flow management, and in the perfect organization, activities related to knowledge sharing will be embedded to a degree that the scenario just described might actually come close. As far as I can see, however, the majority of organizations are not at that stage just yet, and they will not get to that stage by top management stating that this is where they want them to be or, worse, pretending they are already there. It takes more than a statement. Without that ongoing support organization and a certain number of key stakeholders worrying about knowledge flow management, organizations will not get there automatically. There are too many barriers that need to be addressed actively.
On one hand, organizational leaders state and assert that the knowledge of their people is their biggest asset for being competitive and innovative. On the other hand, organizations seem still not sufficiently ready to acknowledge that specific roles and specific skills might be needed for handling the knowledge flow. Often those tasked with the job are technical experts who will not necessarily have the full range of skills needed for running knowledge flow management initiatives. Chances are they have not been trained in it, or perhaps they expect a silver bullet tool or technology to solve knowledge flow issues for them.
Organizations have realized that it might be a good idea to have an administrator to handle and coordinate certain tasks. Most large organizations do not have every individual make his or her own travel booking without some central support. It is usually cheaper and more efficient to have a professional travel coordinator support the process. There are many such examples where organizations have come to realize that a certain type of specialization might make them more efficient.
So why is it so hard to realize that knowledge flow might get boosts via specialization as well? Let us take an example from a sales organization. Salespeople actually hold a huge amount of highly valuable knowledge about their customers, the competition that they run into, approaches that work and those that do not, typical customer problems, and much more. A common approach to make use of that type of knowledge is to ask salespeople to share their success stories in some fashion or another. I have seen several cases where sales management tried to jump-start this process by offering money for each story shared and written down.
The issue is that a large part of the knowledge is actually proprietary to the salespeople. It is what makes them successful. As there is usually some type of competition between salespeople based on regions, products, and perhaps individual customers, they believe that sharing everything they know might endanger their position.
As a result, a common response is to play it safe and share as little as possible. Another element is time, of course. Even though some think sharing could have a negative impact on their careers, it would not hurt to share perhaps 10 percent of process knowledge, customer issues, and general tips. However, to do so, it would mean that they have to spend some of their precious customer-facing and sales time on analyzing what might be safe and what might be dangerous to share with others. Adding to the issue is the fact that typical salespeople are very good in oral communication but perhaps less good as writers, so asking them to describe sales successes is not really calling on one of their core competencies.
What if you would take a person who is good at writing success stories and have her build a trusted relationship with the salesperson? The writer could use several ways to obtain the basic information: listening to stories the salesperson tells, interviews, or short, very focused questionnaires. The writer would be someone who knows the sales cycle, knows the fears of a typical salesperson regarding sharing, and would be the one to help make the 90 percent proprietary/10 percent safe split. Being sensitive to the issue, the writer would create a sales success story in writing, video interviews, podcasts, or whatever medium seems best. She would appeal to what most salespeople like to do: tell stories. Through listening and transformation, the writer could capture and prepare some assets to be shared. The knowledge represented by those assets might only be a fraction of what the salespeople know, but 10 percent is better than nothing. And the writer would be freeing the salespeople from a task they probably do not really enjoy, they are not good at, and that keeps them from doing what they should be doing: caring about their customers and driving in new sales.
The person just described can be referred to as a knowledge intermediary. The IBM Institute for Knowledge Management (IKM) actually did some extensive research on knowledge intermediaries and identified three major types:4
1. Knowledge brokers. Mainly concerned with connecting individuals
2. Knowledge stewards. Helping others to produce codified assets containing key information based on knowledge
3. Knowledge researchers. Servicing others through research and discovery activities of information that is needed to create a certain type of new knowledge
In reality, knowledge intermediaries usually come as some type of hybrids.In the example of the person who helped the salesperson to identify sharable knowledge and supported the sharing of key information derived from it this support person would be referred to as a knowledge steward. But while the IKM research is almost 10 years old, I have yet to see a single job advertisement for a knowledge intermediary. Most organizations still believe they can make the typical activities that such people perform part of just anybody’s job description. I think they are wrong. It is time to think about specialization.
There are actually some educational programs for knowledge managers or other types of knowledge management-related roles now, but often they only cover the MBA type of high-level structuring skills. What about support roles that specialize on a more practical level? Several years ago I spoke at a European conference for HR managers. My keynote was about the relationship between those involved in improving the knowledge flow and the HR organization. I urged those HR managers to get involved in their own organizations, to not let this be an IT-focused topic only. I asked them to think about ways they can drive the development of knowledge-related specialized roles. Judging by a scan through international Web-based job boards, I do not think many have followed that direction yet. You might see a job posting for a knowledge officer here and there or an intranet librarian (with some elements of a knowledge researcher), but we are still far away from having some professions with the necessary focus and expertise. We are still missing experts who could handle the flow of the most important asset that organizations have: the knowledge of their people.
In the next section, we take a closer look at the effects that a knowledge intermediary might have on your knowledge flow.
KNOWLEDGE INTERMEDIARIES
In the late 1990s, we had a problem with people contributing to a couple of our initiatives. As we measured and looked at participation in detail, we found one country specifically to be underrepresented. It was our office in Japan. We saw some participation from the usage side, but contribution numbers were very low based on the size of the office there. In discussions, people told me that was probably linked to a certain element in the culture that makes Japanese people much more careful than those from western cultures in presenting experiences to a wide global audience. Depending on how their contribution is judged, they might lose “face.” This fear appears in western culture as well but is especially strong in the Japanese culture. While I did not want to give up based on that estimation, I was not sure how to tackle the issue at the time.
A couple of years later, Japan was number 4 in contributions in the world for one of the initiatives. How did that turnaround happen?
One event that had a major influence in the end was an Asia-Pacific meeting of knowledge coordinators in Singapore. (Knowledge coordinators are those people in our local offices who drive the global initiatives forward and serve as local experts.)
One participant in the group was a young Japanese woman working in our Japan marketing department. She came to our meeting after being in the knowledge coordinator role for only a short time, and she seemed very shy and quiet. Most of the time she left the talking and discussions largely to the more experienced members of the group. What was not so obvious was how extremely thorough and quick her learning was during those two days in Singapore. She really understood the major points of what driving knowledge-sharing behavior is all about, and she went back to her office with a whole pack of innovative ideas. While she did some of the roll-out and motivational activities that all knowledge coordinators were asked to do, she came up with a few activities that were quite specific to her environment:
• She translated the weekly e-mail about newly available contributions into Japanese every Monday morning. It was a great way to increase the number of people who would actually read and digest the e-mail.
• She worked intensively and on a one-on-one basis with contributors, starting with doing a major part of the contribution work, but gradually handing over responsibility to the individuals.
• She offered all potential contributors help to find relevant information and became a trusted advisor, supporting many contributors when they had urgent needs. But she was smart enough not to let people just hand all requests to her. She was also focused on the self-service aspect.
Through those very smart activities, which represented a considerable effort and took a great passion to pull through with an audience that was quite skeptical at the beginning, she built trust not only into her service and in the initiative but, most of all, in the contributors themselves that participation will be safe.
In fact, they discovered that other participants are only “cooking with water” as well.5 Not all contributors are guru-level experts, but the information shared still could become priceless as it provides a pointer to a person that has just the experiences desperately needed.
The young woman taught us—and she actually presented this topic a year later at a European knowledge coordinator gathering—that cultural translation services might be needed to reach success. She took our strategies and experiences from elsewhere and translated them to Japanese culture. Being Japanese herself, people accepted her advice from a cultural point of view more readily than they would have from anyone in a central driving role (i.e., from headquarters). By taking what she obtained from the global knowledge coordinator community and transferring it to the local Japanese office community, she did just the type of translation that was needed to get her office started.
She did not necessarily fit just one of the IKM knowledge intermediary roles; she was a true hybrid. In helping her local colleagues to get to information, she did researcher activities. As she played an increasing integral role to the local Japanese organization, brokering became one of the benefits she brought to those who used her services. And last but not least, by helping them to contribute information representing their knowledge to an international initiative in a smart and effortless way, she acted as a knowledge steward. People like this woman can be extremely valuable to an organization. Unfortunately, they are in high demand; eventually this woman went on to pursue a career at an international bank.
Typical knowledge intermediaries have extraordinary communication skills and are very good networkers. Through the somewhat general focus of the work, they build extensive internal networks and accrue knowledge in a range of areas. As a result, they are often noticed by line managers as high performers. This then makes them candidates for specialist jobs in marketing, sales, or other parts of the organization.
Those who do well in their knowledge intermediary position enjoy it very much, but another danger is that the intermediary job is not recognized sufficiently. Often management and other key stakeholders do not see and acknowledge the high value of that role right away. They see it purely as an administrative task, neglecting the combination of administrative and strategic tasks, the combination of general business knowledge and specialized expertise around knowledge flows. The result could be a rather high turnover. Unfortunately, the performance of knowledge intermediaries depends a lot on trust and relationships, which need a certain amount of time to develop.
One way to acknowledge the value of people in these roles is to have proper job descriptions and career paths that acknowledge the value of the position. And those career paths have to be linked to value-based payment structures as well.
Good knowledge coordinators:
• Recognize naturally what needs to be connected, who needs to be connected, and when connections need to happen. This is a skill that can develop over time.6
• Have the ability to take in a lot of disparate inputs and make sense of those inputs to enable the best possible flow of knowledge to occur
• Are very good at motivating themselves using the stories that they experience everyday
• Show a lot of passion for their job
But even the biggest passion will suffer over time if the effort is not acknowledged. Knowledge intermediary performance is often not easy to measure. Measuring to some degree would be possible but can be very costly. That is, following every project where an intermediary helped to see what her exact contribution was would actually slow down the business process dramatically, similar to micromanaging. Very often, it is a large collection of small effects that make up knowledge intermediaries’ value to the organization they support. As the results of improving knowledge flow might lie sometime in the future, it is hard to ascertain exactly what each of those intermediary services was worth.
If people are good at the intermediary job, their roles can become visible to the organization through feedback of peers and internal customers. Frequently, however, the value they provide is more visible to the wider organization than to the immediate manager. And in a lot of cases, their value stays fully hidden because those who make use of an intermediary, for example, do not talk about it; they just keep going to her.
Some possible performance measures for knowledge intermediaries are:
• Feedback from a range of their “customers”
• Indirect measures that evaluate the performance regarding certain strategies that are known to drive positive knowledge flow behavior
• Relative measures that do not concentrate on certain fixed numbers but evaluate organizational changes in behavior or participation growth for knowledge flow initiatives
In general, there is still a large potential in developing knowledge intermediary roles and the framework needed to educate more people to serve in such roles. This is where HR and educational institutions could have an increasing responsibility. As long as the organizational knowledge flow management is not approached with the right focus, not many jobs for this type of role will be offered. And as long as there are no specific jobs for the profile, there are probably not many institutions that will educate specific knowledge intermediaries. It is a typical chicken-and-egg problem. Until the situation changes, it is very likely that you will need to build your own intermediaries internally.
Some of the typical functions that a knowledge intermediary serves actually are handled by certain individuals in your organization already. But it is more of a coincidental filling of the role. In his book The Tipping Point7,Malcolm Gladwell talks about those in an organization or industry who can influence a wide range of others. So you probably already have people in your organization who are natural knowledge intermediaries spending considerable effort making sure that knowledge can flow. They connect those in their network who might profit from sharing knowledge. But leaving it to those special talented, driven people who perform that function often outside of their actual job description is not enough. To get more consistent success, in a lot of cases it will be necessary to have really dedicated and tasked individuals.
The “naturals” are good candidates when you are looking for knowledge intermediary roles to be filled. You might have to deal with the fact that they are usually good at a range of things, and others may resist you moving them out of their current roles into knowledge intermediary roles, where the value might be harder to quantify. If they do a good job in their new roles, they will not only find satisfaction for themselves but also provide a high value to a larger part of the organization. As they are the ones enabling others, having a high-performing individual in that place can have positive ripple effects and the scale of those is often underestimated.
NOTES
1 I am quite sure Peter Drucker meant this quote to be independent of gender.
2 One good tool for identifying key players and networks is social network analysis (SNA). It can help to speed up the discovery process but can also be used for ongoing analysis, as discussed in Chapter 8.
3 See more on measuring in Chapter 8.
4 See more on those roles in J. Sharon, A. Parker, and E. Mosbrooker, “Identifying Key People in Your KM Effort,” KM Review 3, no. 5 (November-December 2000).
5 This saying is based on the German term “Sie kochen auch nur mit Wasser,” which basically means that others are not using any magic; they just use standard ingredients to get results.
6 It is the type of fast judgment that Malcolm Gladwell described in Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking (New York: Back Bay Books, 2007).
7 Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (New York: Back Bay Books, 2002).
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.