"Someday this bitter ache will pass, my sweet. Time wounds all heels."
This Groucho Marx line, from the 1940 film "Go West", is more than the ingenious reversal of the popular cliche "Time heals all wounds.” This is a myth that trips up many companies who have an executive who is too good to fire and too bad to keep.
(By the way, Ann Landers, the most widely syndicated columnist in the world, is also credited with coining this phrase. In 1955, Eppie Lederer was a 37-year-old well-to-do housewife and mother who had never published a word when she entered a contest to write an advice column under the pseudonym Ann Landers in the Chicago Times. She beat out 27 other entrants, many of them professional journalists, with a column that began “Time wounds all heels” and went on writing for nearly 50 years.)
In my book The Prodigal Executive, I discuss the misguided belief that time will work it out. The organizational hope is that the executive will eventually quit causing the pain, suffering and havoc.
So the leaders do nothing. Typically the board of directors or the CEO doesn’t want to confront the pain-in-the-assets executive. This inaction does more harm than good, because silence is reinforcing the executive’s negative behavior (“If they aren’t saying anything, then what I am doing must be okay” they reason).
Typically I am called in when the company can’t wait any longer for time to wound the heel. They feel they have run out of options and the situation has reached a crisis because of problems like high turnover, customer defections and even lawsuits for misconduct like sexual harassment and hostile work environment.
Nope, time isn’t going to be the answer.
That was the case with Larry, a big guy with a gruff, gruff exterior. Larry was good at alienating people and creating the impression they knew nothing he knew everything about his area of specialization. Despite repeated warnings from senior executives, Larry was not changing.
In organizations, there are many ways to communicate symbolically. There are ceremonies, awards, logos, icons, contests and oft-told stories. And there are real-life leadership behaviors that “speak” volumes.
My showing up created two pieces of symbolic communications for Larry. One, he didn’t believe his job was threatened until an outsider showed up. I was not afraid to confront him and tell him that he was inches away from being shown the door. The other message he got from my presence was the company was willing to make investment in him to be a more effective leader, so he had better pay attention. Happily, in Larry’s case, he did pay attention and lost the negativity.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Tell The Prodigal Executive The Bad News
Of course, it is human nature that people don’t want to give other people bad news. That is why there are expressions like, “Don’t shoot the messenger.” Deep down people want to be seen as likable, the nice guy or gal. Because they want to be nice, giving people negative, but necessary, feedback is the hardest thing for them to do.
The classic example is the senior executive who gave performance appraisals in the restroom. This manager would see the employee in the restroom and hand the person a folder with things they're doing well and not well.
Regardless of the reason, if you are a manager and you don't give somebody in your organization negative feedback, it borders on being unethical. You're carrying information the employee needs to know for their career survival. If that person doesn't succeed but could have if they had the information, then you as their manager have set them up for failure.
The other problem that happens in executive organizations is that the higher up you go, the less feedback you get.
In the words of Dr. Marshall Goldsmith, the author of 19 books on leadership, “All other things being equal, your people skills (or lack thereof) become more pronounced the higher up you go. In fact, even when things are not equal, your people skills often make the difference in determining how high you go” (“behave Yourself,” Talent Management Magazine, July 2007).
The feedback a high level executive receives is so sanitized because of the politics it is of scant value. So many times executives, when they do finally get this level of feedback that they're potentially derailing, they're very surprised. And some of the comments are, "Well why wasn't I told this before?" And part of that is the fear of telling the boss there's a problem.
The classic example is the senior executive who gave performance appraisals in the restroom. This manager would see the employee in the restroom and hand the person a folder with things they're doing well and not well.
Regardless of the reason, if you are a manager and you don't give somebody in your organization negative feedback, it borders on being unethical. You're carrying information the employee needs to know for their career survival. If that person doesn't succeed but could have if they had the information, then you as their manager have set them up for failure.
The other problem that happens in executive organizations is that the higher up you go, the less feedback you get.
In the words of Dr. Marshall Goldsmith, the author of 19 books on leadership, “All other things being equal, your people skills (or lack thereof) become more pronounced the higher up you go. In fact, even when things are not equal, your people skills often make the difference in determining how high you go” (“behave Yourself,” Talent Management Magazine, July 2007).
The feedback a high level executive receives is so sanitized because of the politics it is of scant value. So many times executives, when they do finally get this level of feedback that they're potentially derailing, they're very surprised. And some of the comments are, "Well why wasn't I told this before?" And part of that is the fear of telling the boss there's a problem.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Coaching A Toxic Boss Is Important, But Assessment Is Urgent
In coaching a toxic boss, before you can prescribe exercises to change behaviors, you need to make a diagnosis identifying the nature or cause of the real malady. Here the term truly means “knowledge through and through.” The more information you get the better.
But don’t think that taking time to do the important work of assessing does not mean you are not doing the urgent work of coaching. Even when you are making the assessment, you are beginning the coaching process. This is much like when you go to the doctor you feel better even before a prescribe treatment. Why? Because you know you are doing something to solve the problem.
One part of the assessment is to determine if the person is actually coachable. That requires some coaching to begin with. So give them something to work on and see if you get some traction on positive change. This will provide another data point. Typically a lack of traction means the person may not want to change.
So how is your bedside manner? Like a physician, one aspect of being a coach is to provide the results of the lab work (assessments) in a way that is motivating to the derailed executive. Giving feedback is both an art and science. The art is that the style, tone, and personality of the words need to fit the personality of the person. If not, the information can be experienced as harsh and hurtful. Instead, you want to present the information in a way that will engage the person you are coaching.
Another aspect is that when the facts are stated in a way that is not acceptable, the derailed executive is apt to become defensive and has a greater chance of rationalizing the information away. When you give feedback, remember the derailed executive needs to feel supported and not attacked. This will also be important so the information will help the person see their behavior from a different perspective.
But don’t think that taking time to do the important work of assessing does not mean you are not doing the urgent work of coaching. Even when you are making the assessment, you are beginning the coaching process. This is much like when you go to the doctor you feel better even before a prescribe treatment. Why? Because you know you are doing something to solve the problem.
One part of the assessment is to determine if the person is actually coachable. That requires some coaching to begin with. So give them something to work on and see if you get some traction on positive change. This will provide another data point. Typically a lack of traction means the person may not want to change.
So how is your bedside manner? Like a physician, one aspect of being a coach is to provide the results of the lab work (assessments) in a way that is motivating to the derailed executive. Giving feedback is both an art and science. The art is that the style, tone, and personality of the words need to fit the personality of the person. If not, the information can be experienced as harsh and hurtful. Instead, you want to present the information in a way that will engage the person you are coaching.
Another aspect is that when the facts are stated in a way that is not acceptable, the derailed executive is apt to become defensive and has a greater chance of rationalizing the information away. When you give feedback, remember the derailed executive needs to feel supported and not attacked. This will also be important so the information will help the person see their behavior from a different perspective.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Firing the Prodigal Executive
There are two schools of thought when it comes to letting somebody go. One is to create transition time so the executive can find a new job. The other approach is that once the decision is made, do it as quickly as possible. My recommendation is to terminate the relationship in a speedy fashion. Once a decision has been made, and the details (severance, etc) have been worked out, make it happen now.
You hire slow, but you fire fast. The reason is when a person is kept in an organization when they know they're going to be leaving, there is the lame duck syndrome. These executives a rarely productive. Plus, if they've been derailing anyway and are negative or hostile, there's really no reason they have any more value to the company. Keeping them around can create more problems than it's worth.
The message the senior leader making the decision should communicate is that the decision has been made. Once the person is gone everybody can breathe a big sigh of relief. Thankfully, it's time to move on.
Applying This to the Manager Coach
If you are the manager who is coaching the derailed executive, how do you know if this executive can get back on track? There are a several criteria.
The first criteria is whether they even want the coaching. If the executive doesn’t want it, you shouldn't waste your time or your money. The second criteria is that within a short period of time, usually within 4-6 weeks, if you don’t see any change then there's a probability this executive is not going to mentally engage in the coaching. The third criteria is if you ask the individual to go through the steps of the assessment or 360 degree feedback survey, and you get constant pushback, then the person is not coachable at this time.
In today's world we live in a new corporate environment. The issue of loyalty always comes up and I applaud the companies I work with because they cover all their bases to try and keep the individual within the organization.
There's been an evolution. In the 1940 to 1960s it was an implied cradle to grave contract. If you started working for IBM, then you ended your career with IBM.
Not any more. Because of this new reality the loyalty issue becomes very confusing, even on the executive level. Many executives help companies get to a certain point and when they get to that point it's time to move on. There's more fluidity and mobility, and there just isn't the same loyalty aspect there used to be.
With layoffs and downsizing of organizations, the implicit contract has changed to become more of a free agency model. Individuals in this generation, having seen their parents being laid off, don't feel that same sense of loyalty. Companies know that when times are good they bring in lots of bodies, and when times aren’t good there are layoffs or outsourcing to countries where the work is cheaper.
Just remember this: It's a business decision, not a personal decision.
You hire slow, but you fire fast. The reason is when a person is kept in an organization when they know they're going to be leaving, there is the lame duck syndrome. These executives a rarely productive. Plus, if they've been derailing anyway and are negative or hostile, there's really no reason they have any more value to the company. Keeping them around can create more problems than it's worth.
The message the senior leader making the decision should communicate is that the decision has been made. Once the person is gone everybody can breathe a big sigh of relief. Thankfully, it's time to move on.
Applying This to the Manager Coach
If you are the manager who is coaching the derailed executive, how do you know if this executive can get back on track? There are a several criteria.
The first criteria is whether they even want the coaching. If the executive doesn’t want it, you shouldn't waste your time or your money. The second criteria is that within a short period of time, usually within 4-6 weeks, if you don’t see any change then there's a probability this executive is not going to mentally engage in the coaching. The third criteria is if you ask the individual to go through the steps of the assessment or 360 degree feedback survey, and you get constant pushback, then the person is not coachable at this time.
In today's world we live in a new corporate environment. The issue of loyalty always comes up and I applaud the companies I work with because they cover all their bases to try and keep the individual within the organization.
There's been an evolution. In the 1940 to 1960s it was an implied cradle to grave contract. If you started working for IBM, then you ended your career with IBM.
Not any more. Because of this new reality the loyalty issue becomes very confusing, even on the executive level. Many executives help companies get to a certain point and when they get to that point it's time to move on. There's more fluidity and mobility, and there just isn't the same loyalty aspect there used to be.
With layoffs and downsizing of organizations, the implicit contract has changed to become more of a free agency model. Individuals in this generation, having seen their parents being laid off, don't feel that same sense of loyalty. Companies know that when times are good they bring in lots of bodies, and when times aren’t good there are layoffs or outsourcing to countries where the work is cheaper.
Just remember this: It's a business decision, not a personal decision.
Friday, May 1, 2009
You Have To Break A Few Eggs to Make An Omelet, or Executive Derailment is Inevitable
A popular myth is that executive turnover is inevitable. To make a great company you need to weed out the executive troublemakers, regardless of the value they bring to the company.
There is an old proverb that says you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. This means that in order to achieve something it is inevitable and necessary that something should be destroyed. Some credit New York Times Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter Walter Duranty with popularizing the phrase in describing Joseph Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. For the record, in Russian, the proverb is “when the wood is cut, the chips fly.”
So let the chips fly where they may. You can nickname this management style as churn, baby, churn. If the executive derails, then just get rid of them before it turns into a full blown train wreck.
This just doesn’t make economic sense, because companies today must compete to find, develop and retain top talent. Given the estimates that the costs of replacement of highly skilled workers and those in leadership roles can run up to 200 percent of the employees salary, the incentive for retaining talent is enourmous (Nowack, Envisa Learning White Paper, “Coaching Competent Jerks: Can Zebras Change Their Stripes?” 2006).
There is an old proverb that says you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. This means that in order to achieve something it is inevitable and necessary that something should be destroyed. Some credit New York Times Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter Walter Duranty with popularizing the phrase in describing Joseph Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. For the record, in Russian, the proverb is “when the wood is cut, the chips fly.”
So let the chips fly where they may. You can nickname this management style as churn, baby, churn. If the executive derails, then just get rid of them before it turns into a full blown train wreck.
This just doesn’t make economic sense, because companies today must compete to find, develop and retain top talent. Given the estimates that the costs of replacement of highly skilled workers and those in leadership roles can run up to 200 percent of the employees salary, the incentive for retaining talent is enourmous (Nowack, Envisa Learning White Paper, “Coaching Competent Jerks: Can Zebras Change Their Stripes?” 2006).
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Prodigal Executive and the Myth of Once a Jerk, Always A Jerk
Have you met a competent jerk?
A colleague, Dr. Kenneth Nowack, describes the competent jerk as someone who is difficult to work with or lacks interpersonal skills, but is highly knowledgeable and capable. Sometimes they are “unwavering in their convictions (mostly having to do with them being right) that they are unwilling to take counsel and see absolutely no reason to change their ways” (Envisia Learning White Paper, 2006, “Coaching Competent Jerks: Can Zebras Change Their Stripes?).
Now this is tricky because many executives have been so rewarded for being a jerk throughout their career, being a jerk has exquisite value. The jerk’s position is, why change? They see no benefit to be gained from transforming from being a jerk to becoming a decent human being. In fact they have much to lose.
The competent jerk’s reluctance to change is understandable. This always reminds me of the story of a very nice man, Bob Newhart, the former accountant who mined his nervous stammer and deadpan demeanor for comedy gold. As a stand-up comedian, Newhart’s underplayed delivery and gentle stammering earned him three Grammys and the first comedy album to reach #1 on the Billboard charts. His unique brand of humor translated well to television, where he starred in two of the best-loved sitcoms of the 1970s and 1980s.
When he was doing The Bob Newhart Show, one of the producers pulled him aside and said that the shows were running a little long. The producer wondered if Newhart could cut down the time of his speeches by reducing his stammering. "No," Newhart told him. "That stammer bought me a house in Beverly Hills."
For many executives, being a jerk got them where they are today. Actually being a jerk can work under certain circumstances or life cycles of an organization. For instance, this can work well when a company needs someone to take charge in a turnaround situation or crisis mode, but doesn’t work so well when you are in growth mode.
The poster child for the competent jerk boss is Al Dunlap, author of Mean Business: How I Save Bad Companies and Make Good Companies Great (Dunlap with Bob Andelman, 1997). His tough, tell-it-like-it-is persona stems from humble beginnings in Hoboken, New Jersey. ``My parents couldn't afford to send me to college,'' he says, ``so either I got a scholarship or I wouldn't get an education.'' A West Point graduate, he believed in screaming at and purposefully humiliating his employees like, including top management. Dunlap was so ruthless in downsizing corporations for short-term shareholder profit that he earned nicknames such as "Chainsaw Al" and "Rambo in Pinstripes."
Wall Street loved Dunlap at Scott Paper, where he laid off thousands, but then hated him at Sunbeam, where he himself was finally fired. Another book, Chainsaw, by John A. Byrne (2003), dramatically documents the rise and fall of Dunlap, the havoc he wreaked on companies and people's lives, and how he came to power in the first place. Dunlap, unhappy about Byrne's reporting, once said of the Business Week writer, "If he were on fire, I wouldn't piss on him." It's a charming quote that Byrne uses to kick off his last chapter.
In my experience, even the competent jerk can change. For me this conjures up images of someone I coached named Stuart, a boss that yelled and screamed, purposely to make people feel intellectually inferior. Stuart was leading the company during a turnaround crisis and he wanted the company to act with urgency. He saw himself like an emergency room physician attending a bleeding trauma patient. In that world there is no time to be nice.
Stuart’s management style worked, in the short run. But when things turned around at the company, that behavior didn’t work any more. If Stuart wanted to continue to lead he needed to learn skills like persuasion and inspiration. When finally confronted with the honest truth (“you either get an executive coach or an outplacement specialist to help you find a new job”), Stuart found the inspiration to change his ways.
A colleague, Dr. Kenneth Nowack, describes the competent jerk as someone who is difficult to work with or lacks interpersonal skills, but is highly knowledgeable and capable. Sometimes they are “unwavering in their convictions (mostly having to do with them being right) that they are unwilling to take counsel and see absolutely no reason to change their ways” (Envisia Learning White Paper, 2006, “Coaching Competent Jerks: Can Zebras Change Their Stripes?).
Now this is tricky because many executives have been so rewarded for being a jerk throughout their career, being a jerk has exquisite value. The jerk’s position is, why change? They see no benefit to be gained from transforming from being a jerk to becoming a decent human being. In fact they have much to lose.
The competent jerk’s reluctance to change is understandable. This always reminds me of the story of a very nice man, Bob Newhart, the former accountant who mined his nervous stammer and deadpan demeanor for comedy gold. As a stand-up comedian, Newhart’s underplayed delivery and gentle stammering earned him three Grammys and the first comedy album to reach #1 on the Billboard charts. His unique brand of humor translated well to television, where he starred in two of the best-loved sitcoms of the 1970s and 1980s.
When he was doing The Bob Newhart Show, one of the producers pulled him aside and said that the shows were running a little long. The producer wondered if Newhart could cut down the time of his speeches by reducing his stammering. "No," Newhart told him. "That stammer bought me a house in Beverly Hills."
For many executives, being a jerk got them where they are today. Actually being a jerk can work under certain circumstances or life cycles of an organization. For instance, this can work well when a company needs someone to take charge in a turnaround situation or crisis mode, but doesn’t work so well when you are in growth mode.
The poster child for the competent jerk boss is Al Dunlap, author of Mean Business: How I Save Bad Companies and Make Good Companies Great (Dunlap with Bob Andelman, 1997). His tough, tell-it-like-it-is persona stems from humble beginnings in Hoboken, New Jersey. ``My parents couldn't afford to send me to college,'' he says, ``so either I got a scholarship or I wouldn't get an education.'' A West Point graduate, he believed in screaming at and purposefully humiliating his employees like, including top management. Dunlap was so ruthless in downsizing corporations for short-term shareholder profit that he earned nicknames such as "Chainsaw Al" and "Rambo in Pinstripes."
Wall Street loved Dunlap at Scott Paper, where he laid off thousands, but then hated him at Sunbeam, where he himself was finally fired. Another book, Chainsaw, by John A. Byrne (2003), dramatically documents the rise and fall of Dunlap, the havoc he wreaked on companies and people's lives, and how he came to power in the first place. Dunlap, unhappy about Byrne's reporting, once said of the Business Week writer, "If he were on fire, I wouldn't piss on him." It's a charming quote that Byrne uses to kick off his last chapter.
In my experience, even the competent jerk can change. For me this conjures up images of someone I coached named Stuart, a boss that yelled and screamed, purposely to make people feel intellectually inferior. Stuart was leading the company during a turnaround crisis and he wanted the company to act with urgency. He saw himself like an emergency room physician attending a bleeding trauma patient. In that world there is no time to be nice.
Stuart’s management style worked, in the short run. But when things turned around at the company, that behavior didn’t work any more. If Stuart wanted to continue to lead he needed to learn skills like persuasion and inspiration. When finally confronted with the honest truth (“you either get an executive coach or an outplacement specialist to help you find a new job”), Stuart found the inspiration to change his ways.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Prodigal Executive Myth That You Can't Teach An Old Executive New Tricks
The proverb “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” explains why people who have long been used to doing things in a particular way will not abandon their habits. This expression is often used in the workplace to describe how difficult it is for someone who has been doing something one way for a long time to learn how to do it a new way.
Here is some food for thought from my book, The Prodigal Executive. There is some scientific backing to this concept about an older person’s inability or lack of desire to learn about new and modern things.
A protein normally associated with the immune system could hold a clue to one of the great puzzles of neuroscience: why you can't teach old dogs new tricks. The Harvard medical School study, published in the journal Science, could even create hope for people suffering spinal cord injuries and brain damage.
Plasticity in the brain is its ability to rewire internal connections as a result of experience. Normally this plasticity is largely restricted to critical periods of development early in life, meaning puppies are more receptive to learning tricks.
Now Harvard researchers have shown that adult mice who lack a certain protein have brains that retain the plasticity of much younger mice. Put another way, mice that have protein are less able to make new connections (Science, Aug. 25 2006, “Learning Induces Long-Term Potentiation in the Hippocampus”).
Historically executive incompetence has been conceptualized in terms of a manager not having the characteristics of success (Bray and Howard, Longitudinal Studies of Adult Psychological Development, 1983). These included the tricks of being able to delegate, to maintain relationships with peers and direct reports, and to build a team.
However, I believe the notion that executives are set in their ways and unable to learn is just not true. My experience is working with top executives, helping the best of the best to get even better through some season of derailment. I have found that the best want to learn more so they can be the best that they can be.
So how do you teach these old dogs new tricks? You have to do it in small amounts so they get success along the way. You also need to help them see how these new skills will help them reach some higher goal they desire.
This reminds me of story of virtuoso violinist. An interviewer asked him, what is your number one regret? He replied, “I should have become the violinist I knew I could have become.”
The interviewer said in disbelief, “But you are the maestro of maestros, the best of the best.”
What the world-renowned violinist wanted was to be even better. Likewise executives. All top executives are success driven. They are constantly trying to get better at their craft and become all that they can be.
Take Peter, for example. Peter, president of a Fortune 500 subsidiary company, was the most creative genius I have ever met. His level of intuition and ability to analyze problems were superb. He was also one of the best negotiators I have ever seen. Peter picked up subtle nuances and would instantaneously have the perfect retort ready.
With all of those skills it was amazing why the corporate vice president of human resources invited me in to coach Peter.
Peter never listened to anybody who worked for him. He felt because he was the smartest person in room (no doubt true), listening just wasted time because he already knew what was best. Not surprisingly, there was a mass exodus of top talent from the company.
I coached Peter to listen using small steps. First, I just had him practice not talking for awhile while his subordinates spoke. Next we had him practice nodding while others spoke. Then, while going through the motions, something amazing happened. He actually heard what they were saying. “I sure learned a lot more listening than when I was talking.” For Peter, listening was a whole new trick and he continued doing it.
Here is some food for thought from my book, The Prodigal Executive. There is some scientific backing to this concept about an older person’s inability or lack of desire to learn about new and modern things.
A protein normally associated with the immune system could hold a clue to one of the great puzzles of neuroscience: why you can't teach old dogs new tricks. The Harvard medical School study, published in the journal Science, could even create hope for people suffering spinal cord injuries and brain damage.
Plasticity in the brain is its ability to rewire internal connections as a result of experience. Normally this plasticity is largely restricted to critical periods of development early in life, meaning puppies are more receptive to learning tricks.
Now Harvard researchers have shown that adult mice who lack a certain protein have brains that retain the plasticity of much younger mice. Put another way, mice that have protein are less able to make new connections (Science, Aug. 25 2006, “Learning Induces Long-Term Potentiation in the Hippocampus”).
Historically executive incompetence has been conceptualized in terms of a manager not having the characteristics of success (Bray and Howard, Longitudinal Studies of Adult Psychological Development, 1983). These included the tricks of being able to delegate, to maintain relationships with peers and direct reports, and to build a team.
However, I believe the notion that executives are set in their ways and unable to learn is just not true. My experience is working with top executives, helping the best of the best to get even better through some season of derailment. I have found that the best want to learn more so they can be the best that they can be.
So how do you teach these old dogs new tricks? You have to do it in small amounts so they get success along the way. You also need to help them see how these new skills will help them reach some higher goal they desire.
This reminds me of story of virtuoso violinist. An interviewer asked him, what is your number one regret? He replied, “I should have become the violinist I knew I could have become.”
The interviewer said in disbelief, “But you are the maestro of maestros, the best of the best.”
What the world-renowned violinist wanted was to be even better. Likewise executives. All top executives are success driven. They are constantly trying to get better at their craft and become all that they can be.
Take Peter, for example. Peter, president of a Fortune 500 subsidiary company, was the most creative genius I have ever met. His level of intuition and ability to analyze problems were superb. He was also one of the best negotiators I have ever seen. Peter picked up subtle nuances and would instantaneously have the perfect retort ready.
With all of those skills it was amazing why the corporate vice president of human resources invited me in to coach Peter.
Peter never listened to anybody who worked for him. He felt because he was the smartest person in room (no doubt true), listening just wasted time because he already knew what was best. Not surprisingly, there was a mass exodus of top talent from the company.
I coached Peter to listen using small steps. First, I just had him practice not talking for awhile while his subordinates spoke. Next we had him practice nodding while others spoke. Then, while going through the motions, something amazing happened. He actually heard what they were saying. “I sure learned a lot more listening than when I was talking.” For Peter, listening was a whole new trick and he continued doing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
