Let’s assume it is fact.  Accordingly, since we want the best to emerge from whatever involves people we must make it a competition.  We want a winner to incite the rest (of us losers) to become winners.  No one wants to be a loser!

Clearly, in business it would be best if we begin with winners, hire the best—why hire losers!  After all it would be tantamount to committing suicide if we did otherwise; an organization comprised of losers couldn’t possibly perform well.

However, with only winners hired, competition inside the organization would be extremely fierce. Everyone would be moved to maximize his/her performance—beating everyone is the goal. Although through competition the best of the best will rise to the top, all but a few would become losers.

But what are we to do with these newfound losers? If we kept them around then the organization’s performance would surely be mediocre—they must go!  Believing that we bring out the best through competition, we need to weed these losers out by using an innovative management practice, the rank-and-yank performance management system (where the bottom 10% are fired)—talk about misuse of statistics and distribution theory!

With this management approach you can imagine the intensity of the rivalry among employees that would emerge.  Now this will surely keep the people in the organization on their toes, always looking over their shoulder not feeling at ease!  [When it comes down to me versus you, I will do my best—see it does bring out the best in us—to make sure you (and not me) fall in the bottom 10%.]

If competition does indeed bring out the best in all of us, then the implications for child rearing is clear. Life is a competition, and we want to raise children who can make the cut.  Therefore, when raising children we must pit them—especially siblings—against each other for the satisfaction of their needs.  Need satisfaction must be earned.  For example, the giving of love and affection should be according to who is most deserving—to whom ever wins.  We can’t simply give love and affection to anyone who needs it; that would just reward the loser for not being the best.  Think about it, we’d have a society of losers expecting so much for doing so little!

Let’s Think Again

An unquestionable fact is that an organization is a system—a social system at that. In other words, an organization is a social structure created by people for the collaborative pursuit of a desired goal. Given that a system is a purposefully organized collection of people in mutual relation, a properly functioning system requires cooperation and collaboration among its members.

The assumption that competition brings out the best and results in maximum organizational performance is incongruent with the systems view of the organization.  In fact, competition among members of a system leads to sub-optimization and dysfunction—counter-productive efforts, absence of synergies, waste and inefficiency.  Yes there are organizations that foster a competitive environment and they do well according to bottom line measures: The question is, how much better could they do if they had a cooperative environment?

In a cooperative and collaborative environment people feel at ease with each other—they trust each other—knowing that the intention (of each) is to co-labor toward a mutually beneficial end.  The dis-ease and its associated dysfunction that permeate a competitive environment are unlikely to arise.

Many view sport as the ideal analogy to show the benefit of competition.   Let’s examine this further.  Is it essential for members of a basketball team—or any team for that matter—to cooperate and co-labor with each other toward the accomplishment of the team’s desired end or is it better for each to try to out-do each other in an effort to his/her individual position?  Is it better for each to attend to scoring the most points or for the team to seek to maximize the points it collectively scores, which may require one to make it possible for another to score?

Before we answer this we must also understand that a system’s performance is not the linear sum of the efforts of each individual, but it includes the interactions among the individuals.  Synergy through interaction plays a major role.  Thus, depending on the nature of the relationship among people the interactions could either negatively impact—if competitive—or positively impact—if collaborative—the team’s (i.e. systems) performance.

This suggests that what many assume factual, that competition brings out the best in us, is in fact fiction.  Those arguing for it being fact might point to the performance of organizations like GE in support.  However the other side could point to Enron’s failure as a result of its use of the very same system.  The point is no number of examples can provide proof of a theory—they only provide illustration—and only one counter example is required to disprove it.

With competition among people within an organization being so toxic to the human spirit, why is it that so many structure and manage/lead based upon competition and so few believe in the benefits of a cooperative environment?

Yamada tells of the importance of delegating while maintaining a ‘microinterest’, but without micromanaging those to whom you delegate.  Yamada said, ”learning how to delegate, learning how to let go and still make sure that everything happened, was a very important lesson.”  Could Yamada mean that leaders must balance control and delegation?  Yamada states that he reads about 1,000 pages of documents daily with the intent of developing an understanding of those aspects in each of the organization’s projects upon which success hinges.

Why does he do this?  As he claims that when a problem occurs he will be on top of it.  It appears that while Yamada does not want to micromanage those managing the projects, at the same time he is preparing to do so just in case.  What message is sent when a manager/leader shadows your activity in the organization?  What other ways could Yamada maintain ‘microinterest’?  Might the weekly process (see Hidden Lessons in Leadership) followed by Mark Pincus, founder and CEO of Zynga better serve as a way to keep in touch with both people and projects? What other ways could Yamada both maintain understanding of the organization’s work and show confidence in others?

We assume perception provides unadulterated reality when in fact it is filtered by thought.  What we hold—knowingly or unknowingly—in our mind’s eye acts as a filter to what we perceive and how we interpret data.

Accordingly, Wall Street’s growth imperative influences the focus of attention and perception of corporate decision-makers.  That is to say, a major contributor to ill-fated decision-making was (and is) Wall Street’s short-term (quarter-to-quarter) imperative.  In this system of thought profit is king and cost cutting is queen. It is likely that most executives are unaware of the conditioning that Wall Street’s quarter-to-quarter material growth imperative has upon their perception.

For far too many years the American automakers’ focus of attention was profit, not quality—resisting the efforts of Deming himself.  Of course GM and Ford have improved the quality of their cars, particularly in most recent years, indicating their recent attention to quality.  But whether they’ve truly learned the lesson that Toyota has recently provided, that they must never confuse means and ends remains to be seen. Thus, the question remains can they maintain this attention forever?

Whether GM and Ford will be able to make the gains in quality will require a fundamental shift in the focus of attention among those in authority, whereby the king and queen become quality and the customer, respectively. As explained in Spirit of Quality, a real commitment to quality requires an entirely different mindset throughout a company, especially from those leading from the executive suite.

Bob Lutz, who will retire in the Spring 2010 as Vice Chairman at GM, said he “hopes consumers notice the designs and features of G.M.’s vehicles rather than just their price.”  Further Mr. Lutz said his biggest objective at G.M. was “to establish an absolute, almost passionate focus on product over any short-term financial goals.”

Just like an individual must suspend his/her thoughts to gain a much fuller (and better) understanding, the executives at GM and Ford—at any company for that matter—must suspend those of Wall Street.  If Wall Street maintains its place at the table in both the Boardroom and the executive suite, how likely is it that quality and the customer will become the business of business?

This is not the first instance of a misreading of data.  In June 2009 the headline read, “Hints of hope in jobless data even as rate jumps to 9.4%”, and in August 2009 the message was “…the jobless rate unexpectedly fell to 9.4 percent, from 9.5 percent, the first decline since April 2008.” Such commentary is not reflective of any understanding, it merely reflects reaction to a difference.  It is merely reporting the large or the small or the most recent—any uninformed person could do this!  Although it may sell papers it doesn’t really help anybody.

Unfortunately such misuse and misinterpretation of data is epidemic! Given the widespread use of variance budget reports, it happens in business organizations on at least a monthly basis (see http://forprogressnotgrowth.com/2010/01/01/by-the-numbers ).

Those using data should learn how to understand the variation in the data they are using, and stop telling stories.  Until there actually is a (meaningful) trend in the data, reflective of a predictable pattern or of a change in the system, people should limit their story telling to children at bedtime—at least this would serve some good.

Our world is one of systems within systems, where each responds to and produces variation.  Thus, given the pervasiveness of variation, the need to learn how to understand it is paramount.  Yet the lack of statistical thinking is epidemic.

We wouldn’t think it was okay to place someone in a responsible position that couldn’t read, yet we regularly place those ignorant of statistical thinking is such positions.  Why is an ability to understand systems and the associated variation produced not seen equally as essential to competence as an ability to understand the written word?

A February 6, 2009 New York Times interview with Susan Docherty of General Motors revealed a key lesson for effective leadership.  In response to Adam Bryant’s question, how do you hire, Susan stated “…I’m looking at people for my team, it’s not just what’s on their resume—their strengths or weaknesses or what they’ve accomplished—but it’s the way they think.  I can learn twice as much, twice as quickly, if I’ve got people who think differently than I do around the table.”

The obvious lesson is that good leadership involves hiring the right people.  The right people—at least for Susan—are those who are ‘team players, innovative thinkers and willing to take risks.”  What is not explicitly discussed here is that good leadership is not just about surrounding one’s self with the right people but it is equally important that the leader be among ‘the right people’ as well.

It does absolutely no good—it is actually harmful—if you have all the right people around and you are not willing or able to be open to their influence.  If you haven’t sufficiently developed your self, then you surely won’t be ready to meet the challenge.  That is to say, those who are attached to what they know and believe—those with minds that are made up—are most likely to not engage the power of others.  Moreover the right people will become the wrong people when the leader doesn’t also create the space—both physical and psychological—within which these ‘right people’ could freely and fully exercise their capabilities.

Susan Docherty describes her space by saying “I’ve had to work hard at being inclusive. I may have an opinion, and I may already know where I want the answer or the decision to go. But I make my team members feel valued by asking them: “What do you think? What would you do? What would your idea be?”  As explained above, if the leader is not sincere when asking these questions—if the intent is merely to present an image of openness—then ‘these right people’ will learn quickly that their leader has no substance—he/she leader is not ready to be influenced by their ideas.  As the leader seeks to control, in effect, what is communicated is both his/her own inadequacy and mistrust.

Susan goes on to say she doesn’t do this to keep people on their toes: “I do it because I often get new insights and new ideas from people who are looking at things with a fresh set of eyes… It’s one thing to say that you’re inclusive, but it’s a whole other thing to be inclusive.”   To engage others you yourself must be engaged.  Having an open door policy is merely surface-level stuff.  It is far more engaging to be open-minded and inquisitive.  In leadership being is far more effective than having.

The leadership mind is an inquisitive critical thinking mind. The mind of a leader is not the mind of the expert but rather that of the beginner.  It is the mind of one convinced that what is known is just the beginning of what could be known.

What is your experience with people in authority positions—so called leaders—who couldn’t engage the talents of others?  What were the effects?

Moreover as the business continues to place the focus of attention on the quality of its products and services those served become loyal customers—a share of market condition that minimizes rivalry.  Moreover, as long as the implicit contract between the enterprise and its’ customers is maintained the business’ share of market will not only solidify, it likely will increase—thus ensuring the continued existence of the enterprise.

However, if those in authority place the focus of their attention to increasing profitability or market share of the enterprise, then the business of the business becomes the growth of its measures and means.  In so doing leadership essentially performs a sleight of hand, whereby the means and measures become the ends.  In effect those in authority lose sight of the customer and the associated quality as the reason for the business.  The means and measures become the thing, not the quality of what is produced!   In effect the production and delivery of the enterprise’s product and service becomes a cost—something of instrumental value—to the business of producing material growth and profit.  There is a switch between means and ends.

Repeatedly, history has shown that when this happens eventually those leading the organization find—if not too late—that to regain viability of the enterprise they have to be re-introduced to those they serve.  A case in point is the recent recall and quality issues Toyota is now facing. According to the New York Times, Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asked why Toyota had moved away from a business model that prized quality and openness, Mr. Lentz (president of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.) offered a simple explanation: “We lost sight of our customers.”

More specifically, by focusing attention on becoming the largest automotive company in the U.S., they changed the business of their business from providing quality to customers to providing material gain to themselves. Toyota is not the first to do this, nor are they the last—surely they are among many, as more have done it than not.

Why do you suppose this change in focus of attention—the switching of means and ends—frequently happens in business organizations?

If those in authority believe the business of business is profit then they will very likely organize and manage as if the world is their oyster. According to this system of thought, reality is a collection of objects (i.e. resources) and business is a tool—an instrument, a machine—for the purpose of exacting material gain from the assets or resources at hand. Resources include the people employed by the enterprise—objectified as labor.   I am sure you have heard or perhaps even spoken these words: our employees are our greatest assets!  Stop and think about this: Who really wants to be the useful tool of another?

Logically, leaders will seek to ensure that the business’ resources are used efficiently and effectively.  Given that the meaning of effective is relative to the focus of one’s attention, within this system of thought being materially productive equates to effectiveness.  Moreover, the setting of the organizing context and the management system that guides the actions of others will be shaped by this.  In other words, that which maximizes material productivity with least expense—that which maximizes profit—will guide decision-making.

Correspondingly, management procedures and processes will be devised to monitor and measure the behavior of those doing the work for the purposes of controlling: 1) what employees are doing (i.e. the work); and 2) how well employees are doing it (i.e. performance). Given that it makes for clear-cut decisions when everything can be translated into monetary terms, the latter objective is often translated into how much each individual and functional component contributes to the profitability of the organization.

Further, if those in authority are seeking a broader understanding, but consistent with this system of thought, they might even use the balanced scorecard approach to measure and monitor the behavior/performance on four general criteria.  These include: financial (e.g. return on capital); internal work processes (e.g. rework); employee/management (e.g. staff attitude, revenue per employee); and market/customer (e.g. market share, customer satisfaction).  Clearly this approach provides multiple outcome measures that span the entire surface of the organization. Unfortunately, management’s gaze is limited to the tangible surface-level aspects of the organization; it excludes, and thus ignores, the very human aspects that underlie what is observed at a distance.

So what’s missing?

Missing is the understanding that each person needs more than a paycheck from his/her work; that each has an inherent need to learn and to unleash his/her unique potential through the process of work—to actually create and develop through work.  Missing is the understanding that each needs to relate to and connect with others in a very human way—to be a contributing part of a We.  In short, missing is the understanding that people need to be humanly productive through work, and not just materially productive at work.

Why is it that we accept without question the existence and influence of the invisible hand when advancing the value of markets and yet are unwilling to acknowledge, understand and attend to the non-material aspects in organizing and managing a business?

Acknowledging, understanding and meeting these very human needs require an entirely different system of orientation. It is a system of orientation that advances the belief that the business of business is more than profit—not other than profit. Accordingly, both material and non-material human needs are very much a part of the purpose of the conduct of business.  Non-material needs are very much a part of each and every person’s life, so it shouldn’t be surprising they are an inextricable part of business.

Consequently the focus of attention of those in authority must not be just broader but deeper. Gazing at a distance at behavior, measuring and quantifying won’t be adequate.  Such practices will not afford those in authority the needed understanding of the very thing that underlies it all.  Those in management will need to engage with and listen to people, not simply measure, rank order and judge them.

In this system of thought, organizing and managing means creating and maintaining the space—both physical and psychological—that will facilitate the development of human potential. The difference is a change from command and control for material gain to concern for and care of the development of human potential through the work of the enterprise. That is, leading involves relating to people and making a conscious effort to meet their needs.

Attention to the development of human potential through the work of the enterprise will sustain viability and yield material benefit, but the same can’t be said about the converse.  Until those in authority organize and manage with a far deeper understanding—one that facilitates humanly productive work—any gain in material productivity will be misleading and short-lived.

What is your experience relative to these orientations?

In a New York Times Corner Office interview with Mark Pincus, founder and CEO of Zynga, interviewer Adam Bryant asked about leadership lessons learned.  Mark brought to light the importance of reliability, working as a team and getting everyone going in a productive direction especially when you are not physically present.

Being reliable involves recognizing the importance of attending to your responsibility. The phrase that Mark offered which captures what he meant is, your’ “head is really in the game”—you can be counted on. In other words it is critical for people to have trust in you; that you won’t let them (the team) down. This point is really about not having a self-serving focus on Me, but rather having a focus on We (the very point made in Leadership Involves We, Not Me).

Mark also spoke of the importance of trusting others by giving them the opportunity to develop a sense of importance in what they do—he called this turning people into C.E.O.’s.  He did this by giving them really big jobs to do, which translates into allowing them to engage in their work.  That is, enable them to do their whole job by affording them the opportunity to make the big decisions in their work. As an example, Mark told of how he gave the receptionist at Zynga the responsibility of deciding which phone system the company will use.  This person became so engaged that she eventually was given the responsibility of managing the entire office.

So what is the not so obvious lesson?  People really do enjoy learning, when given the opportunity.  More fundamentally, people actually need to learn–that’s why it is so enjoyable.  Yet, so many of those who are in-charge of our organizations design and manage/lead in a fashion that minimizes the likelihood of this happening. No wonder that so many abhor working—their job is not a joy!

One other thing that Mark uses is O.K.R.’s, which stands for objectives and key results.  In this practice—which was developed at Intel and is used at Google—the company and everyone have just one objective and three measurable results.  Clearly having one objective for everyone gets everyone going in the same direction, which minimizes if not eliminates the likelihood of people working at cross purposes—this surely helps the sense of all one team.  

The hidden lesson in this is the importance of ensuring one system.  One aim means one system, which affords optimal organizational performance. Unfortunately, this lesson is often overlooked as evidenced by the prevalence of silos and inter-departmental competition.  Because reductionism and its partner individualism are so prevalent most organizations are designed and managed to encourage sub-optimal performance.

Another lesson in Mark’s practice is reflected in the weekly process where everyone identifies their three priorities at the beginning of each week—the week’s roadmap—and reflectively assesses their progress relative to each at the end of each week.  This is not a judgment process but more of a focusing process.  Mark pays attention to everyone’s weekly roadmap as a way of keeping in touch.  Mark said “I’ve been surprised how much they can achieve without me being involved.”

But Mark is involved! I think that’s the point of the lesson to be learned, just how to be involved.  Critically thinking further about this process it becomes clear how much it aligns with the Hawthorne Effect.  In that experiment it wasn’t the lighting but the attention of those in authority that gave employees a sense that their job was important and meaningful and that they were valued.  It is not O.K.R.’s, in and of themselves that produces greatness—we know managing by results is a route to failure—but rather the interplay of trust, teamwork, a single aim (one system), the opportunity to learn, and just plain humane attention. 

Using this example—and the associated lessons learned—what common practice should be eliminated and what would replace them?  How might these lessons change and/or inform how to design and lead an organization?

The U.S. government initiated The Race to the Top that essentially offers a bag of cash—$4.35 billion to be exact—to get the attention of those in authority of public education within each state. However, as noted in the Wall Street Journal, “the U.S. has been trying without much success to spend its way to education excellence for decades.” [It should be noted that although this amount is substantial, it is less than 1% of what is allotted for education nationally in a year.]

Seemingly the intent is to incite—actually to incentivize—people to focus on improving the educational outcomes of their school system.  President Obama said, “We will use the best data available to determine whether a state can meet a few key benchmarks for reform, and states that outperform the rest will be rewarded with a grant.”  Pay for success: Sounds great!

I am sure the argument is that the allure of money it will get people to do something.   After all, nothing is being done now!  Of course the prospect of getting the money will likely cause some movement, but it isn’t that clean and simple.

The Devilish Details

Seemingly it is believed—erroneously I might add—that popular business practices are effective.  Accordingly, The Race to the Top is fashioned after what leaders of business organizations often do—create competition, manage by results, incentivize and devise pay-for-performance schemes.  However the popularity of these practices is not sufficient evidence to support their effectiveness.  Yes they get people to do something, but getting movement is not quite the same as realizing lasting improvement. These tactics have never proved to be effective over the long run, so why the Secretary of Education (Arne Duncan) includes these as the levers for improvement is unclear.

When the context is competitive then nothing is more important than winning.  Some might argue this is what we want from our education system, people who know how to win!  Politely, no.  We really need graduates who know how to learn and who find learning joyful. If these were realized, we might then have a society of people capable of progressing beyond what is currently known.

Managing by results means results rein supreme. Some might contend that knowing how to get results is what education is about!  When getting results is what matters—good grades, best test scores—learning becomes the least of people’s concern.  Hitting the numbers—by hook or by crook—is what becomes important.

Moreover, since competition is a zero-sum game winning equates to not losing.  Therefore, with the confluence of competition and a results focus, what we really teach is results are all that matters—the process is irrelevant.  What is (tacitly) learned is how to rig the system in one’s favor, or fudge the numbers so that the results show oneself to be the winner.  [In this environment, might we see teaching to the test, fraud and cheating scandals in the future?]

Last but surely not least is merit pay, based on student test scores, to determine the compensation or continued employment of a teacher. The argument in support of this system is that it incentivizes (i.e. forces) teachers to ensure students do well.  If a teacher’s job depends on it, then it will surely bring focus to what they do.  Of course we want teachers to do their job well!  But this merit pay arrangement changes their job. What this essentially does is cause the teacher to choose between facilitating learning and getting students to score well on tests  It amounts to student learning versus teacher survival.  Guess what will win out?  The bottom line is that teachers become trainers and students become highly trained test takers—training is not education.

Merit pay sounds great but it doesn’t work as intended, and there is credible research to support this.  Also, if it worked as well as its widespread use would indicate, then the vast majority of business organizations would exemplify the pinnacle of performance from top to bottom.  But they don’t!

By looking to business for common problem solving practices government officials have disregarded the very things that would help: systems thinking, statistical thinking, theory of human development and learning theory—yes just like business leaders do.   Instead, they’ve copied what they see in business, the widespread practice of reductionism and competitive context setting.

In summary, when those in authority focus on results and employ money through competitive schemes to solve complex human problems, it is a signal that they haven’t a clue of what to do.

A Critical Thinking Mind Might Help

Why not first use our mind before we deploy our money?  We’ll continue using The Race to the Top to explain.

It seems reasonable to ask: Why is it necessary to incite action toward improvement among those with authority over public schools?  More specifically, if those in charge of education need to be incentivized to improve the learning experience, then are they the right people to have in this authority position?  If improvement is needed why haven’t they already initiated efforts to do so (why aren’t they already doing it)?  Do they know that their system is not performing well?  You may believe they do know but they haven’t the money so that is why the offering of money. But don’t they have the money to support doing what they are now doing?  And if what they are doing isn’t producing quality, then why aren’t they using that same money to do something different that will?  Improving quality does not require doing something in addition to what is being done it requires doing different things—and often times differently!

Might those in authority be impediments to improvement?  Maybe they just don’t know what or how to improve?  If this is the case, then should they be provided the opportunity to learn about quality and its’ improvement?  Or should they be replaced with people who understand the ‘why’, ‘what’ and ‘how’ of quality?

What are the consequences if we ignore exploring these questions and simply offer money?  What is the likelihood that it will be properly invested in support of fundamental improvement?

The educational system is not performing as desired and it appears consistent in this regard.  It seems reasonable to conclude that the system is designed and managed to produce what it is delivering.  What it produces are people who (for the most part) enter the system eager to learn and exit the system not knowing how to learn and not finding learning joyful.

What was the educational system designed to do?  Long ago when knowledge had a shelf life of 50-years or more, teaching people to remember things—memorizing course content—was adequate for the task.  However, with the shelf life of knowledge now in the single digits, having the ability to remember facts doesn’t quite cut it.  Actually it never really did serve the development of people but its effect was hidden by the long shelf life of technology.

We must re-think and thus re-design the system, and not merely manipulate the parts in pursuit of better test scores.  A focus on the parts—reductionism—will not result in an improved system!  Rather it is the system itself that needs to be re-designed and transformed.

Throwing money at a problem, absent of understanding, no matter the amount is never a sound approach. If we were to use our mind before using our money, what could be done?

Apart from the priceless human cost, why is it a big deal for Toyota (and seemingly bigger than if it had been any other automobile manufacturer)?    Toyota has been known as the highest quality manufacturer—the gold standard in the auto industry.  Not only had consumers touted Toyota as the best in quality, the competition had sought to measure up to Toyota’s level of quality. 

So what does this quality breach mean?  It means that Toyota will have to do right by its customers by showing that quality includes, care and concern for customers’ well-being.  In a recent New York Times article, James Womack (co-author of The Machine that Changed the World) stated, “When your whole deal was quality, every mistake is a big deal.”

Yes it is a big deal, but quality does not mean that mistakes are never made.  What quality does mean is that you learn from a mistake—never to make it again—and improve using the knowledge gained.   The conduct of business provides opportunities to learn and improve each and every day and a quality organization seizes these opportunities.  If Toyota is indeed all about quality, then they should emerge from this situation just a bit more knowledgeable.  A more knowledgeable Toyota could cause more nail-biting among those now back-biting.

Yes they must learn from the malfunctioning of the accelerator mechanism, improving the design so that it doesn’t happen again.   But more importantly they must see that the bigger more fundamental mistake—the root cause—was not keeping their eye on quality in every facet of their business.  Apparently what they had done was turn the focus of their attention toward costs.  This led them to relax their supplier standards in order to broaden their supplier network in support of a growth objective.  While they may have realized growth, they surely hadn’t made progress!  Sacrificing progress for growth, they are in a less viable position today.

GM and Ford like birds of prey are circling Toyota with the intent of swooping in to bite off a share of its customers.  But are they poised to learn?  Are they about quality?  Are they paying attention enough to learn from the example Toyota has provided or is their attention solely on the prospect of immediate gain?   Are they focused on growth or progress?