This week I was the guest at the Blackmetrics #BAcommunity webinar (thank you Adrian Reed for the invitation), and the recording, slides, references, and other links are already available here:
I overran a bit, so there was less time than usual for Q&A. I’ll be more careful with the level of detail in future versions! I’m giving it again next week, but in person:
Not yet in the calendar, I will do a 2-day in-person one of these in Bangalore in December, and possibly one in Sweden or Denmark in November if I’m accepted to speak at Øredev. I’m also very open to doing one again in Manchester – I have both university and NHS interest there, and it might be very cool to do one for both groups together.
Last but not least, and as previously announced, on the Media page you’ll find an interview released earlier this month with Rohit Gautam for his Curiosulus Chronicles podcast, and below that one, interviews released in April with Mike Jones and Laksh Raghavan for their Strategy Meets Reality and Cyb3rSyn Labs podcasts respectively.
Leading with Outcomes
All of the above comes very much under the Leading with Outcomes umbrella. Other news there:
This post is the third in a series inspired by the fourth chapter of my new book, Wholehearted: Engaging with Complexity in the Deliberately Adaptive Organisation (April 2025). You can find both print and Kindle editions on amazon.co.uk, amazon.com, amazon.de and other Amazon sites around the world. The e-book is also available on LeanPub, Kobo, Apple Books, and Google Play Books. Building on the organisational model developed in the first three chapters, Chapter 4, The Space Between, deals with scale-related challenges.
How do teams respond to surprises – to new information, to novelty? To the members of the best teams, it seems to come so naturally:
Filter (or Ignore) – decide whether this information demands any kind of consideration or response
Adjust – make any immediate changes to plans or designs that may be warranted
Share – share with other team members as appropriate
Strategise – develop options for a more considered response, if one is needed
Reconcile – compare notes with the team as a whole so that effort won’t be duplicated and any overall response will be coherent
Structure – clarify expectations at some appropriate level of detail
Organise – the team organises around its modified commitments
There are a couple of interesting things about this process. The first is that each step represents an opportunity to contain or expand the response, each decision an exercise of discretion. Share freely, add to the noise, and risk overwhelm, or withhold what may turn out to be something vital? Given that we’re dealing with novelty, that question won’t always be easy to answer, and given the possible consequences, it seems fair to recognise that in even the most self-organising of teams, it may represent a leadership challenge.
The second is that if you start this process with step 4 (Strategise), and squint a bit, it kinda describes the team’s delivery process! Small wonder then that the self-organising team handles surprises so naturally. There are limits to that of course, but larger surprises need not break the model. Rather, it needs to work at different levels of scale. From the perspective of (for example) a team of teams, each team encounters novelty every day, some of which will be relevant to others, and so on up the organisation.
That’s easy to say of course, but the higher the level of organisation things get escalated to, the harder it gets, particularly that final step, organising around its modified commitments. To change commitments is hard enough; to reorganise is more difficult still, to put it mildly. Or do we have that the wrong way round? What if leaders could relax or unmake commitments sufficiently for responses to be self-organised? Whether the response is organised or self-organised may seem only a matter of perspective, but if organisations are going to respond well to change, it’s an important shift to make.
And don’t underestimate the importance of that reconciliation step. There are many ways to achieve it, ranging from lots of one-to-one conversations that iterate until a suitable level of coherence is achieved, to getting everyone together in one room and hashing it out. Different mechanisms will suit different situations, different corporate cultures, and perhaps even different national cultures (I have heard it said that the one-to-ones of hoshin kanri work rather better in Japan than they do elsewhere), but to focus solely on practice would be to miss the point. Organisations can live with incoherence for only so long.
Postscript
In the original draft of this article, I was reluctant to suggest that one can rely on established processes of reflection and inquiry to deal with the issues raised. This is not to say that they aren’t important (they really are), but because it’s too easy to make unsafe assumptions about their effectiveness. To recognise that they aren’t effective enough, deep enough, or frequent enough is the beginning of leadership! More shockingly perhaps, no formal process can ever suffice. We’ll explore that issue next.
Posts in this series appear first as LinkedIn articles. You can read and comment there:
[This post first appeared on LinkedIn. You can comment on it here]
You don’t have to be in management for long to learn that half the job involves representing the scope for which you are responsible to those to whom you are accountable, and vice versa. Those who are successful at it are those who can speak the language of both. If you work in IT, for example, it can be good for your career to be seen as “the acceptable face of technology”, as I was once described.
It is not difficult to understand why this should be so. The boardroom and the frontline team each discuss progress, issues, and performance very differently, but somehow they are related, and thus they need to be translated through the organisation’s different levels of scale, and in both directions.
Despite the allure of the hierarchical work breakdown structure (WBS) and the all-knowing management information system (MIS), it would be a serious mistake to think that translation is equivalent to aggregation. For one thing, there is such a thing as overcommunication! The team may care little that a team member discovered and dealt with a minor issue in the course of their work. Likewise, a team-of-teams need not be informed of issues its member teams should reasonably be expected to contain, so long as its wider goals are not impacted. Does the board need visibility of every small increment of progress, every minor issue? Quite the opposite: the organisation’s capacities for communication and decision making are finite. We organise to contain what can be contained, in a sense to manage complexity so that we are not overwhelmed by it.
There is therefore a relationship between this “leadership as translating” and the topic of my previous post, Leadership as structuring. (See also [1] to explain my fondness for those ‘-ing’ words.) Structures of various kinds need to be optimised to contain that complexity – neither so flat that the centre cannot hold, nor so deep that too much gets lost in translation. At the same time, every organisational scope must learn to share appropriately. That’s another optimisation problem, and one that requires those who do the sharing to empathise with their audiences, to speak their language, even to share their goals. You leave that to your reporting system at your peril, so work on those skills!
This post was inspired by my new book, Wholehearted: Engaging with Complexity in the Deliberately Adaptive Organisation. You can find both print and Kindle editions on amazon.co.uk, amazon.com, amazon.de and other Amazon sites around the world. The e-book is also available on LeanPub, Kobo, Apple Books, and Google Play Books. Building on the organisational model developed in the first three chapters, Chapter 4, The Space Between, deals with scale-related challenges.
[This post first appeared on LinkedIn. You can comment on it here]
A core idea of my new book, Wholehearted, is that we – leaders, practitioners, anyone who would engage in any serious way with the organisation or would help others to do so – must pay attention to the mutual relationships that exist between different aspects of the organisation. Are those relationships healthy and productive? Where they aren’t, what stops that? What gets in the way?
That general approach begs an obvious question: which relationships, and which aspects in particular? That question may be open-ended and contextual, but the model at the book’s core, namely the VSM-inspired Deliberately Adaptive Organisation, helpfully identifies some that necessarily exist in every organisation and at every scale thereof. Rather than listing them here (see [1] for some clues), for this post I’d like to focus on four aspects that are of particular interest when considering issues of scale.
The first two:
The organisation’s formal structure – i.e. how it is generally understood, which lines of accountability are most important, and so on
How the organisation understands its business environment – in terms of who and where its users, customers, suppliers, and competitors are, their needs, how they change over time, and so on
The relationship between those structures is very interesting! Not only can we ask if it is healthy and productive overall, we can ask it for every substructure. For every organisational scope, formal or otherwise (in the book, we place far more emphasis on what different participants actually experience than we do on what is formally settled upon), is its respective environmental relationship healthy and productive? Whose needs does it serve? What needs? How well? How do we know? What intelligence and insights is it uniquely well-placed to gather? And looking at it from the opposite direction, are there aspects of the environment that are not well served, or as the book has it, are there “holes in the whole product”?
Both of those first two aspects can and do change over time, but they are relatively stable compared to the last two:
The organisation’s commitments and their structure – plans, strategies, objectives, and so on
The organisation’s challenges, most interestingly (but not limited to) those that emerge from the environment
These new aspects introduce some tension. Is the organisation structured to fit its environment or to execute its plans? Do we understand the environment in terms of what persists or what’s new?
Except perhaps the most benign of conditions, those tensions never go away. At the extreme, the issues are existential. If, in the name of responsiveness, we blow in the winds of challenge, what do we actually stand for? Why then do we exist? Conversely, what if what we stand for risks becoming irrelevant?
To lead is both to represent those structures in spite of those tensions and to engage with the paradoxes therein, knowing that there is no quick fix – no supposedly objective formula, no algorithm, no methodology – that can resolve them for you. To fail to do those things when it matters most would represent a failure of nerve [2] and therefore of leadership. But both to depersonalise the issue and to create opportunities for leadership, a deliberately adaptive organisation frequently challenges its structures, its understanding, and its commitments, and does that at every level of organisation. Embedding that discourse, learning, and meaning-making in the face of structural change is as much an act of organisation design as the structural changes themselves, more so as the latter are experienced not as imposed but as self-organised. Formal structures may remain, but do we let them get in the way of doing the right thing? Only if we let them!
This post was inspired by my new book, Wholehearted: Engaging with Complexity in the Deliberately Adaptive Organisation. You can find both print and Kindle editions on amazon.co.uk, amazon.com, amazon.de and other Amazon sites around the world. The e-book is also available on LeanPub, Kobo, Apple Books, and Google Play Books. Building on the organisational model developed in the first three chapters, Chapter 4, The Space Between, deals with scale-related challenges.
Over the past couple of weeks I’ve done a couple of iterations on the Leading with Outcomes cheat sheet. In addition to several cosmetic improvements, the latest includes a version of the graphic we use in our training for the IdOO (“I do”) pattern: Ideal, Obstacles Outcomes:
This resource concentrates on what OD folks might describe as the inquiry aspect [1] of Leading with Outcomes. I hope in due course to produce similar cheat sheets for its context-capturing aspects and its generative/ideation conversations, but for now, let’s see how this existing cheat sheet relates to the Leading with Outcomes curriculum.
Starting (as one should) with Leading with Outcomes: Foundation, the IdOO pattern shown in the cheat sheet’s centre is this module’s most important topic, dominating three out of four sessions and making its presence felt in the last one too. In exercise form, the pattern is most often used with the setup questions shown middle left; as a leadership routine, it allows plenty of room for personalisation. Foundation uses a somewhat simplified version of Obstacles Fast and Slow (bottom middle, formerly Good Obstacle, Bad Obstacle) and a much-simplified version of 15-minute FOTO (bottom right).
As workshop activities and coaching patterns, and with leadership takeaways, those simplified exercises are covered in more depth in the Inside-out Strategy module, whose structure is given by the now-familiar IdOO pattern. This module also covers the Challenge Mapping questions (bottom left), of which “Why is that important?” appears on its own in Foundation. We like to sneak it into the otherwise Clean Language-based coaching game 15-minute FOTO also – see [2] for a writeup.
Combined with the IdOO pattern, the Outside-in Strategy Review questions (top right) feature heavily in the Outside-in Strategy module. There is plenty in them to unpack!
Notice the section top centre of the cheat sheet, Starting points: generative images and challenge questions. That’s starting points plural, so where do you start? Now we are in workshop/intervention design territory, and that is covered in the fourth and final session of Train-the-Trainer / Facilitator (TTT/F). The next one takes place in a month’s time:
Still unaccounted for module-wise is the Adaptive Organisation. Rather than focusing on the abovementioned patterns, routines, and exercises, this more advanced module assumes at least some passing exposure to them. Accordingly, in various packages of public and private training held both in person and online, the Adaptive Organisation and Foundation modules are often combined. With the spring cohort of LIKE already underway, your next scheduled opportunity comes in the autumn:
If that seems too far away, there is the recent book Wholehearted for you to read and further whet your appetite, and also the self-paced training option, which you could begin today! For the latter, Foundation is the place to start, and a cheaper Foundation-only subscription is now available. You can upgrade this to cover the whole Leading with Outcomes in your own time. So what’s stopping you?
Further reading
[1] See my 2024 book Organizing Conversations for a distinction between inquiry and generative conversations that I didn’t make in the 2021 Agendashift 2nd edition. Both come under the umbrella of dialogic organisation development (dialogic OD).
[This post first appeared on LinkedIn. You can comment on it here]
It was a great pleasure last week to join Rohit Gautam on his Curiosulus Chronicles podcast, and the episode is now available on YouTube:
We were of course focused on the recent publication of Wholehearted, and Rohit was not the first to be intrigued by Chapter 3, Mutual Trust Building, and in particular, a section titled “Models of trust-building leadership”. This section covers:
The inverted pyramid, aka reverse hierachy, in which the CEO is still at the “pointy end” of the organisation, but that sits at the bottom. In this model, the job of the organisation and its leadership is to support those who serve the customer. More easily said than done!
Servant Leadership, the title of Robert Greenleaf’s classic book. The metaphor doesn’t work for everyone, but I can’t fault Greenleaf’s starting point: leaders that fail to meet the needs and expectations of their staff will lose their legitimacy in that role. Seems kinda obvious now, but in the 1970s, still the era of the “job for life”, ahead of its time.
Host Leadership, which I wish was the title of Mark McKergowand Helen Bailey’s Host: Six new roles of engagement for teams, organisations, communities, movements. This and the next one illustrate very well something I learned for myself as a senior manager: sometimes it’s not so much about your different competencies or the different stances you are capable of adopting, what matters is your ability to move quickly and fluently between them, even in the course of a single conversation.
Clear Leadership, after Gervase Bushe‘s book of the same name, speaks to a core theme of Wholehearted, your organisation’s capacity for communication and decision making, on which are founded your organisation’s adaptive capacity and thereby its resilience and its ability to innovate. On the topic of trust, how can you expect to be trusted if you can’t even trust yourself? That requires you to be in command of yourself. That doesn’t mean emotionlessness, it means listening to and acknowledging your feelings, and as appropriate, being transparent about them and about where you’re coming from. If several of my books emphasise curiosity, it may be skilful transparency (or “descriptiveness”) that earns you that right.
Intent-based models, via Stephen Bungay, L. David Marquet, and Stan McChrystal, mission command (aka commander’s intent) and some fascinating developments thereof. It manifests itself as efficient communication with just the right balance between prescription and ambiguity that leaves room for others’ expertise, autonomy, and innovation, but that’s just the beginning.
I feel the need sometimes to reiterate my belief in leadership. Self-organisation doesn’t preclude it! Wholehearted could well be described as a leadership book! Organisations need people who are engaging on the right challenges, inviting others to participate, and celebrating their successes [1]. And at any given level of organisation, absent presence, availability, a good nose for what needs attending to next, and the drive to build a more trusting and trustworthy organisation, it becomes increasingly difficult for the operational and strategic aspects of the organisation to understand each other. Sooner or later, and for lack of context, bad decisions will be made. Alongside the issues of communication and decision-making capacity, that so-called “context challenge” is a fundamental organisational constraint and one to which leaders must allocate significant personal effort. Those models aren’t the whole story – it would be foolish to think that in something as complex as an organisation that there is ever only one story – but in what is a difficult task, they do help.
Wholehearted: Engaging with Complexity in the Deliberately Adaptive Organisation hit Amazon last month. You can find both print and Kindle editions on amazon.co.uk, amazon.com, amazon.de and other Amazon sites around the world. The e-book is also available on LeanPub, Kobo, Apple Books, and Google Play Books.
[This post was first published on LinkedIn here – your reactions and comments there welcome!]
What is the Toyota Production System (TPS)? Is it a long list of tools, many with Japanese names – kanban cards, heijunka, andon cords, hoshin kanri, and so on? Or is it an expression of Toyota’s epic, multi-generational pursuit of customer-focused flow, whose practices change as the world changes and as the organisation learns? It’s an important question: the early years of Lean were so entranced by TPS’s surface detail that it failed to grasp not only what produced and sustained it but what would drive its continued evolution.
We can ask a similar question about Scrum. Is it going through the motions of backlogs, planning meetings, daily meetings, reviews, retrospectives, and so on? Or does it seek to paint a picture of a high-performing team iterating its way to product success, goal by goal? [1]
Describe Scrum “left to right”, backlog first, and an Agile fairy dies. Sorry about that! And Scrum is to a significant degree prescriptive. Without the artefacts, events, and roles laid out in the Scrum Guide you’re not doing Scrum. But if, as I have, you have enjoyed the privilege of working on that kind of high-performing, customer-focused team, whether or not you are doing things by the book matters little. And to put Scrum into historical context, for the teams that first inspired the model, there was no book!
Why put yourself through all that pain when you could address scale-related dysfunctions so very much more directly?
Prescriptive models have their place; the better ones capture (without too much distortion, one hopes) what has worked for someone, somewhere. The problem of course is that they tell you to do certain things regardless of whether they actually address whatever problems are most pressing in your context. The larger the model and the more expensive, time-consuming, disrupting, and (above all) distracting it is to implement, the bigger this problem becomes. I’m not against the models so much as their rollout; in the case of the scaled Agile process frameworks, for example, why put yourself through all that pain when you could address scale-related dysfunctions so very much more directly?
That’s an issue for Chapters 4 and 5 of Wholehearted; here I want to say some more about descriptive models – models that describe what’s there, useful not for what they prescribe but for the insights they bring and those they trigger. One such model is the OODA loop, the subject of my previous article and referenced in Chapter 2, but the book’s main model is the Deliberately Adaptive Organisation, a reconstruction of Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model (VSM), scoped to the digital-age organisation.
It really isn’t something you roll out. It has no prescribed process, organisation structure, roles, or practices. It is descriptive of organisations because it identifies aspects that every organisation must inevitably have to at least some degree, likewise pretty much any organisational scope at any organisational scale that you might identify with. To say that it is useful is an understatement; its undoubted power lies in the relationships between aspects, relationships at and between every scale of organisation that lead to dysfunction if they are out of balance. Working in the other direction, many if not most of the dysfunctions that your organisation currently manifests can be understood relationally.
It might sound abstract to understand a dysfunction in terms of relationships between aspects, but it really helps. You are much less likely to point the finger at some person or group if you can point to a relationship between things you can easily depersonalise. Working at the problem from both ends and from the middle, your solution options are doubled and tripled.
For example, you might follow best practices in the conduct of your delivery-related work and have what you believe to be a world-class system for coordinating that work. But best-practice and world-class or otherwise, if their relationship is not healthy and productive, that’s a real problem. What is the nature of that conflict? That is worth digging into. More than that, it’s worth getting multiple perspectives on it – from those who do the work, those who administer and/or champion the coordination system, and others impacted by the problem. If they can articulate a shared understanding what “good” feels like for that relationship and identify what seems to be getting in the way of that, testable solution ideas can’t be far behind.
The model has enough aspects to be interesting – six “systems” organised into three overlapping “spaces” – and not so many that the model overwhelms, especially if it is taken one space and three systems at a time. Its richness is in its relationships: each system or space has at least two, and that’s considering only one level of organisation. Relationships between scales of organisation (and in practice there are typically many more of those than the org chart shows) are multi-stranded, and untangling those is key to understanding scale-related dysfunction. Understand the problem and you’re already making real progress. Can the same truly be said about the rollout alternative?
Wholehearted: Engaging with Complexity in the Deliberately Adaptive Organisation hit Amazon last month. You can find both print and Kindle editions on amazon.co.uk, amazon.com, amazon.de and other Amazon sites around the world. The e-book is also available on LeanPub, Kobo, Apple Books, and Google Play Books.
This month saw the print and Kindle releases of my new book Wholehearted: Engaging with Complexity in the Deliberately Adaptive Organisation. In relation to that, I’ve been blogging more than usual, experimenting with a LinkedIn-first approach. The first two of those posts were perhaps a little dry (I had some things to get off my chest perhaps):
Thank you Mike Jones and Laksh Raghavan. Another is recorded and awaiting release, I’ll be recording another on Friday, and two more in the pipeline also!
Upcoming in May, two different formats – meetup and webinar – but essentially the same talk:
Both of those are online (don’t be put off by the “Berlin”), and I know at least one person who plans to attend both. There for the Q&A I guess! To be fair, that can be the most fun part – certainly the most unpredictable, perhaps because I ask for the hard questions!
Finally, a reminder that “Office hours” / Ask Mike Anything (AMA) sessions take place on Thursdays at 2pm UK time – 14:00 BST, 15:00 CEST, 9am EDT. Invitations are published weekly to Academy and Slack subscribers. You can also book a 30-minute Zoom via my Calendly.
Further ahead
The next TTT/F will be in June, and if the spring cohort of LIKE comes too early for you, there’ll be another in the autumn:
*LIKE begins 2pm UK time – 14:00 BST, 15:00 CEST, 9am EDT today. If you’d like to join, best get in touch with me directly, and quickly! All the usual discounts available.
[This post was first published on LinkedIn here – comments there welcome!]
I’m old enough to have grown up with the original BBC Radio version of Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe, and this was one of my favourite scenes (one of the several that as teenagers we would recite at school):
MARVIN: I’ve just worked out an answer to the square root of minus one.
FORD: Go and get Zaphod.
MARVIN: It’s never been worked out before. It’s always been thought impossible.
FORD: Go and get –
MARVIN: I’m going. Pausing only to reconstruct the whole infrastructure of integral mathematics in his head, he went about his humble task. Never thinking to ask for reward, recognition, or even a moment’s ease from the terrible pain in all the diodes down his left side. “Fetch Beeblebrox,” they say, and forth he goes.
“Pausing only to reconstruct the whole infrastructure of integral mathematics in his head, he went about his humble task”. That line comes to me when I think about how I first responded to John Boyd’s OODA loop, which I introduce in Chapter 2 of Wholehearted, the chapter titled “Adaptive Strategising”:
To understand my initial reaction, you need to know that before John Boyd became known as a military strategist, he was a fighter pilot. Looking at the Orient part of that picture, did he – mid combat, and before executing his next move – pause only to reconstruct the entire infrastructure of cultural traditions, genetic heritage, etc on which his performance was founded? Doing that faster than his adversary – “getting inside their OODA loop”, as the popular takeaway goes – is that what was key to his survival?
To some extent perhaps, but that is, I think, to miss the point. Acting in the moment, a highly trained pilot draws on what they know. Flashes of insight may occur, but most of the learning comes afterwards, reflecting on what happened, integrating the experience and the new information that it generated. That’s a much longer loop than the moment-to-moment decision-making of combat.
There is no adversary whose OODA loop you need to get inside!
Mercifully (and I don’t say this lightly), most of us will never experience combat. Our situations are not even best understood as adversarial. There is no adversary whose OODA loop you need to get inside! But, and paraphrasing if not directly quoting Boyd himself, we do need to “develop our capacity for independent action”. We need somehow to stay in the game when the game itself may be changing, and that Orient box – the only one that connects to all the others – is crucial.
Boyd was right: it is important to bear in mind that the understanding and the intelligence on which our strategies depend are very much products of the past – of our “tradition” and “heritage”, if you like. For your organisation, how it thinks depends very much on the path it has travelled. Moreover, its current structure and its priorities speak to how it now understands the world and its challenges. And therein lies another challenge: let it not be forgotten that they are significant constraints on what new intelligence and insights it will be capable of gathering and generating.
Effective strategising must therefore be conscious of the fact that everything that it thinks it knows is not only very incomplete, it has passed through perceptual filters that are both narrow and path-dependent. You can’t escape that, but you can act accordingly. Not as catchy as the popular takeaway, but that, for me, is the one to remember.
Wholehearted: Engaging with Complexity in the Deliberately Adaptive Organisation hit Amazon earlier this month. You can find both print and Kindle editions on amazon.co.uk, amazon.com, amazon.de and other Amazon sites around the world. The e-book is also available on LeanPub, Kobo, Apple Books, and Google Play Books.
Think about which part of your organisation you identify with most strongly. Then the parts it relates to – peer units, subunits formal and informal, higher-level units, and so on – and the nature of those relationships – relationships of flow, service, accountability, belonging, strategic interest, and so on.
It gets complicated pretty quickly, doesn’t it! Now think about how you experience those relationships, and how that experience changes with each new priority, each new challenge, and with the passing of time and the deepening of your understanding. So not just complicated, but ever-changing.
Now begin to imagine how different colleagues new and old would answer those same questions. Especially as organisations get larger, no single person’s perspective can hope to describe it adequately. However you try to represent it, it’s at best a compromise, and a static one at that. Your organisation is not just complicated, it is by any useful definition of the word, complex, and we’ve hardly begun to identify all the relationships involved.
Beginning Wednesday 30th – just a week away now – the spring cohort of Leading in the Knowledge Economy (LIKE) will help you, with others, to make new sense of your organisation, and better understand its challenges and how to engage with them. At its heart is the Deliberately Adaptive Organisation, a descriptive, relational, and complexity-friendly model, a lens on your organisation and framework for organisational inquiry and generative change. It’s the same model that’s explored in my new book Wholehearted: Engaging with Complexity in the Deliberately Adaptive Organisation and you’ll get a free copy of the e-book edition of that too. Join us!
Save 15% with coupon code BLOG15, and contact me for other codes (government, healthcare, education, non-profits, NGOs – that kind of thing, also bulk discounts). Don’t stress over your ability to make all 7 sessions – that issue affects one participant already, and there are ways to catch up.
Today and further ahead
Every Thursday, at 14:00 BST, 15:00 CEST, 9am EDT it’s Office Hours, aka Ask Mike Anything (AMA), all welcome. Zoom details:
Agendashift 