ATD Footer Logo

Karen L. West

Effective training for a revolving door

As the founder of Velocity, LLC, The Conversation Company™, which emphasizes the art of strategic conversation using 4SConversations, Jill has spearheaded innovative programs for employees from corporations such as American Express, The Walt Disney Company, Elizabeth Arden, L’Oreal, Mary Kay, Donna Karan, Reebok International and Turner Broadcasting. Her approach to employee motivation and wellness has been highlighted at change management best–practices conferences worldwide. Contact her at jill@4Sconversations.net

Jill Miller

At the beginning of the past two years, I’ve written a post on important points I think you should know. In 2021 I mentioned the importance of context, emotion, and learning to learn. In 2022 I discussed some of the newer cognitive science models of cognition—including distributed, social, and embodied cognition—as well as the role of mental models. This year, I’d like to focus on a trend that we should extinguish: the belief that we are formal, logical, reasoning beings.The cognitive revolution transcended the view of behavioral psychology; we couldn’t talk about what went on in the brain. While many valuable insights were generated by that scientific paradigm, including the role of performance objectives, the move to thinking we could isolate necessary components provided further advances. Results that have stood the test of time—the recognition of sensory, working, and long-term memory as well as core cognitive processes like attention, elaboration, and retrieval—were identified.We tend to adopt existing models as frameworks for thinking about the brain, and the cognitive revolution was no exception. For example, consider the computer as a general-purpose information processing system. It made sense to adopt that model to reflect our abilities to process information and complete a variety of tasks. Thus, the dominant framework for thinking about thinking was to view our brains as formal, logical, reasoning machines.Such models, with some assumptions like mapping the world into formal representations, accomplished impressive tasks. Systems built upon that model could break down problems into components and solve them. They could even learn. Artificial intelligence (AI) advanced as a result. So-called “expert systems” were built upon interviews with the best practitioners. Sadly, these models failed in practical situations, leading to an AI winter. This was a disconcerting time, when behavior naturally observed in humans did not reflect these symbolic systems.The Postcognitive RevolutionOne of the most impressive capabilities of our thinking is the ability to organize the world into flexible frameworks. What David Rumelhart called schemas, Marvin Minsky called frames, and Roger Schank called scripts all reflect our ability to infer knowledge about the world. Thus, we had representations such as wheels that scaled up to vehicles but differently for automobiles versus bicycles. Symbolic logic struggles with this, however. Attempts were made to adapt, such as Lofti Zadeh’s Fuzzy Logic and Douglas Hofstedter’s Slipnets, but suffered in practice.An alternative framework emerged that could be characterized as “subsymbolic,” operating below the symbolic level. John Holland, Keith Holyoak, Richard Nisbett, and Paul Thagard created a genetic algorithm approach in Induction, which borrowed mutation from biology, but wasn’t aligned with neuroscience. Rumelhart, along with Jay McClelland, proposed connectionist models instead in their two-volume set Parallel Distributed Processing with a neuroscientific inspiration. These models were found to exhibit rational behavior similar to humans. They represented the same types of behaviors, including errors, that were empirically obtained from psychology research.These neural net models created not only a psychological revolution, capturing elements of cognition, but also a renewed basis for artificial intelligence, underpinning much of today’s work in machine learning.A Cognitive LegacyOne small legacy of the formal, logical, reasoning model of cognition, however, seems to linger. It appears that many of our practices in learning and development (and business in general), still seem to be based on this idea. This is a potential problem.If we’re formal logical beings, there are several things we should be able to assume. For one, if we give people new information, they’ll appropriately adjust their behavior. Moreover, the person with the greatest access to information should be the one to make a decision, and that decision will be the best one possible. We see this manifest in several ways.For one, our training frequently resembles the presentation of new information with an expectation of behavior change. Too often, we see bullet points of information extracted from (and even presented by) experts. After this, there’s an expectation that we’ll do something differently. Similarly with annual or quarterly reviews. People need feedback at the appropriate time and support for change. We don’t just change when we wish to; it takes time and practice.We also see decisions made by individuals without consultation. Folks will decree a new approach because it’s been determined by the person at the appropriate decision point. Yet the evidence suggests that we get better outcomes when we bring more people into the decision-making process, such as in Keith Sawyer’s Group Genius. When we follow practices that help us suitably explore a problem individually, and then collectively brainstorm solutions, test, and adapt, the outcomes are better.A Problematic LegacySadly, there is also evidence that this approach to work isn’t working. We see it in the outcomes of learning investments, and when we evaluate organizational success as an outcome of our approaches, we see that more informed ones work better.In the 2012 Harvard Business School working paper The Great Training Robbery, Michael Beer, Magnus Finnstrom, and Derek Schrader cite metanalyses that suggest only 10 percent of training investment has an impact. There may be multiple causes for this, but it does suggest that we’re wasting money with our approaches. The Serious eLearning Manifesto suggests that much of traditional learning is based on information presentation, so it’s safe to say that we’re not doing as well as we could.Similarly, efforts like Laura Overton’s Toward Maturity and Lauri Bassi’s Human Capital Capability Scorecard suggest that organizations do better when they’re better aligned with how people think, work, and learn. Organizational performance reliably improves with better employee approaches.Overall, the continued use of ineffective practices undermines our organizational success. We need to effectively achieve our organizational goals, which includes ensuring we can optimally execute what we know we need to do and continually innovate when we have to invent or adapt.Moving ForwardWhat should you do differently?Truly understand how your brain actually operates. Know the basics of the human information processing loop and extensions for learning and performance.Avoid the myths that continue to hinder our industry.Conduct deep needs analyses to find important performance gaps and their root causes. There are many causes of problems besides a lack of knowledge or skills. Stop thinking that if you give people knowledge, behavior will change.Leverage external resources. Decision making is best done collectively and iteratively. To do otherwise is to minimize your potential.Move from legacy practices to evidence-based practices. There are vested interests that continue to exist based on perpetuating approaches that aren’t effective. Many products that are quite lucrative—profiling instruments and development programs —aren’t effective.Start measuring impact. This doesn’t mean what people prefer (there’s no correlation with what people think of a program and its impact). Instead, assess the actual change in the organization. You can’t collect this yourself; you must partner with the business units that require change.Align programs to demonstrable gaps, and then measure until they’ve improved.Ultimately, L&D should be the folks that are responsible for not only optimal execution but also continual innovation. When you’re innovating (problem solving, designing, or researching), you don’t know the answer when you start, so inherently it is learning. It’s informal learning, and no one knows the answer (yet)! Still, it’s an opportunity for L&D to attain a more valuable role in the organization.To make this strategic move and start bringing evidence-based practices from formal to informal learning, take ownership of these practices within your teams. Make it safe to fail; share stories of what you tried; and learn together. Create and understand a learning microculture before taking it to the rest of the organization.Last, identify the organizational legacies that are holding you, and your organizations, back. Then, find alternatives, and implement them. When you’re free of your unexamined past, you can move forward to an evidence-based future that means better outcomes. That’s a trend I’d like to see and encourage you to undertake.

A Trend to Supersede

When you’re looking to maintain, protect, or grow the budget that powers your corporate LMS (not to mention the rest of your L&D ecosystem!), you need to be able to make your case to business-minded stakeholders. These C-suite executives want hard data that points to tangible business impact—and, when you know where to look, that’s exactly what you can give them.You’ve got a wealth of areas across your organization that benefit from L&D, and they all have a data-backed story to tell. When you know what kind of results you can expect your L&D investments to deliver, you can start planning ways to measure those results and couch them in terms your C-suite will appreciate. That means looking beyond the course usage and completion metrics that, while an essential part of your learning analytics, need to be combined with business impact data to make the most compelling case to the people holding the purse strings.Read on to discover the quantifiable outcomes your C-suite wants to see, including:Increased levels of engagementA strong reputation for learningPowerful internal mobility practicesEmployee Retention and AcquisitionYou’ll likely be aware, in broad terms, that good L&D can have a positive impact on employee retention and acquisition. These are fantastic factors to consider when you’re looking to demonstrate quantifiable returns on your L&D investments, provided you can guide stakeholders through the chain of linkages that connect learning to cost savings. So, what’s the evidence that L&D reduces turnover and increases an employer’s appeal for prospective applicants? And how can you leverage that information to impress your internal stakeholders? Read on.Articulating the Value of a Strong Reputation for LearningAccording to 2023 research, organizations that don’t offer development opportunities risk losing talent—in fact, that lack of development was respondents’ most commonly cited reason for quitting. The conclusion here is simple enough: when you’ve got a robust, tech-backed culture of learning, your organization is going to be more appealing to all those prospective hires looking for development-rich career opportunities. We’ve established that L&D can, in theory, have an impact on your reputation and on the talent acquisition that follows. But how might you turn this observation into a solid case for the business impact of your L&D investments?If you just wanted to show that your L&D efforts have left you with a good reputation for employee development, that’s fairly straightforward to achieve. You might, for example, incorporate a survey question into your application process, asking applicants why they’re interested in your organization. If applicants are citing your learning culture, you’ll know your reputation is growing in the right direction. But on its own, that information just isn’t enough. It might get across some positive sentiment directed toward your L&D function, but it doesn’t tell upper management how your learning-first reputation leads to business impact.Instead, you’ll want to identify some of the measurable benefits associated with your talent acquisition. If you’ve got a reputation for those sought-after employee development offerings, you can expect a wider pool of candidates—which means you’ll have more high-caliber hires to choose from. Demonstrate that high caliber to your CFO by taking note of factors like reduced time to competency or increased productivity in departments that receive new hires. You’re then just a step away from a set of highly tangible data that business leaders will find much more persuasive.Communicating the Links Between Engagement and Your Bottom LineGiven the popularity of employee development among workers, it’s no wonder that L&D is often linked to higher levels of employee engagement. According to research sponsored by Bridge, learning opportunities were the most commonly cited factor among respondents looking to nurture engagement. Gaining employee engagement data is straightforward enough with the right tools. In fact, Bridge itself offers employee engagement software that allows you to send out regular pulse surveys to check in on engagement levels. So, if you’re looking to establish how your L&D program leads to better business outcomes, you’d be wise to prove that your learning investments are affecting engagement. You might achieve this by conducting before-and-after snapshot surveys to see if your engagement levels improve following a new learning initiative.However, once again, engagement statistics alone aren’t necessarily enough to sell your learning investments internally. To the people holding the purse strings, the question’s going to be “so what?”, and—with the right preparation—that’s a question you can answer with hard figures.According to Bridge’s report, the area most commonly affected by employee engagement is retention. So, once you’ve established that your learning investments are engaging your people, you can start to examine your turnover figures. If your more engaged employees are sticking around for longer periods of time, you’ll be able to point to the substantial, dollars-and-cents cost savings that’ll likely justify any initial L&D expenditure.Connecting Mobility Metrics to Clear Cost ReductionsPromotions and other kinds of internal movement are made possible in part by learning—and, handily, this is something that your HR function will have plenty of data on. If your people are using your learning ecosystem to qualify for internal vacancies, you’ll be able to link the course usage data in your LMS to the talent mobility data held by your HR team. The result? A compelling business case for your learning function: one in which L&D is the lynchpin of talent mobility.That said, higher rates of internal movement aren’t necessarily going to impress your CFO without a little extra context. If you want buy-in for mobility-enabling software, you’ll have to contend with a key question: what’s the business impact of better internal mobility?Once again, turnover numbers are your friend here. Research shows that turnover is less likely when employees are able to move internally. And that’s especially true of workers born after 1996, who—according to LinkedIn—are much more likely than older generations to agree with the statement that “through learning, I can explore potential career paths at my company”.So, your challenge isn’t just to show that your learning ecosystem has led to a rise in internal mobility. It’s to show that these upward or lateral movers are sticking around for longer rather than seeking opportunities elsewhere, reducing the various costs associated with hiring new talent.Reskilling and UpskillingAccording to a survey from GP Strategies and Watershed, less than half of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their organization uses data to understand skills gaps. That’s a lot of room for improvement, especially when 69 percent of organizations reported having a skills gap in 2023—compared to 55 percent in 2021. This is an alarmingly large number that’s growing at an equally alarming rate, and there’s no question that when employees don’t have the skills they need to do their jobs effectively, you’re going to see lower productivity and decreased employee performance.Clearly, the ability to close those gaps through learning and skills development practices has huge implications for any business’ bottom line: It’s no wonder that Watershed names new skills qualifications as one of the more valuable L&D targets to measure. Regulatory ComplianceIn general terms, your discussions about L&D investments will center around how your learning resources make an impact. But there’s one exception. In the world of compliance, there’s a strong case to be made for the avoidance of impact—especially when it comes to the serious penalties that noncompliance can bring.If your learning technology can keep your people compliant—whether that’s by consistently training employees on the same standards, keeping everyone up to date, or providing that all-important compliance documentation—you’ll protect your organization from outcomes as serious as major fines or even being shut down. This is especially true of organizations in high-consequence industries, which often face additional compliance challenges around multilingual needs and data security.A little digging into the penalties your organization is exposed to can go some way toward justifying any L&D expenditure that puts compliance first. According to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, 2023 saw fines for financial noncompliance alone totaling around $5 billion. Against even a small slice of a figure like that, you’ll have no problem making the case that the cost of a compliance-first LMS (for example) is more than justified.And good compliance training doesn’t just help you avoid fines. It can also offer savings like lower insurance costs—a tangible figure that will go some way toward mitigating your initial learning tech expenditure.

How to Prove the ROI of Learning & Development: Unlocking the Metrics That Matter 

 Whether you are a Mom-and-Pop operation or one of the larger talent development firms, you probably have some sort of strategy guiding you. Hopefully, this strategy has been documented and is the outgrowth of input from key people in the organization. But even if the strategy is only in your head, it is still waiting for action.Unfortunately, many strategic plans, which are key to the future of our businesses, are rarely executed fully—if at all. In the previous blog on strategic growth planning, I mentioned that some 80 percent of strategic plans fail to get executed. (I know I have read or heard this stat enough times to think it is true. But if truth be known, I don’t have a source to share with you to validate this alleged finding. Nonetheless, there is good reason to believe that most strategic plans are not fully executed as designed.)There are myriad reasons why this is the case, not the least of which are the normal changes to a business model or that leadership demands a different direction than originally proposed, deeming the original strategy moot. More importantly, in the ever-evolving talent development industry, one could even argue that sticking to a growth strategy could be counter-productive.  But what about strategic plans that are not subject to major interferences in the business model or competitive landscape? Why aren’t they  implemented? Execution Best PracticesA March 2015 Harvard Business Review article, “Why Strategy Execution Unravels—and What to Do About It,”  by Sull, Homkes, and Sull spells out several likely culprits, highlighting the myths many business leaders adhere to about strategy execution. Their research found that several practices actually get in the way of effective execution, including:inadequate alignment across business unitsundying commitment·one-way communicationstoo much of a performance cultureexecutive-only leadership.While the authors studied very large multinational organizations across many industries, these strategy execution lessons that apply to any organization.  Let’s take a closer look at each practice. Alignment:  To execute a strategic plan in a typical three- to five-year time span, senior leadership must be in total agreement about the direction the business is driving toward. Without this sort of alignment, major departments  and functions will continue to do their own “thing”—working at cross-purposes of the overall business.Interestingly, the research pointed out that while 40 percent of managers note alignment (or lack thereof) as the main cause of poor execution, the second major reason was failure to coordinate across units, noted by 30 percent of participants. Apparently, alignment alone doesn’t necessarily equate to execution—albeit it is a significant influencer.  So, while one of the primary goals of any strategic planning process is to achieve senior leader alignment, it also is important to align across all business units.Commitment: Most business leaders believe that alignment requires commitment to the strategic direction. But in my experience, alignment can exist (on the surface) without total commitment to the strategy. In this case, leaders agree with the overarching direction and some elements of the strategy, but not with all of it. In fact, unswervingly sticking to a strategic plan may impede its execution, given that many intervening factors and changes will surface over time. While commitment to the plan is initially necessary, ignoring the environmental changes taking place will undoubtedly result in leaders executing the wrong plan.Communications: The most likely reasons organizations fail to execute strategic plans:Leaders don’t provide communication to the rest of the business.Leaders provide communications that are unclear, foggy, and lack any inspiration for moving forward.Simply communicating the strategy from “on high” is too little to achieve a well-executed strategy. Instead, communications must create a dialogue that enables employees to offer input and questions so they can truly understand their role in the execution process. If a rational business case for the strategic direction isn’t offered to—and accepted at—the individual level, it will be difficult for employees to internalize the plan and their role in its execution.Performance Culture: Possessing a culture that is committed to performance is critical to execution. Organizations must establish a culture that recognizes and rewards practices like teamwork, experimentation, and flexibility, which may appear at times to slow down performance.  Although a high-performance culture values and demonstrates continual accountability, this head-down and all-hands-on-deck approach doesn’t allow organizations to slow down in the short term so they can move faster in the long term.  Indeed, the right delays—yielding the right results—should be perfectly acceptable.Executive Leadership: We often hear that true change must start at the top. But top-down involvement can impede the achievement of sustainable results. Certainly, the CEO and C-level team must lead the initial charge for execution, and even monitor its progress. However, the sooner frontline employees can internalize a strategy, the sooner they can rightfully execute it. Once the organization feels it must wait for executive approval, the process slows, engagement wanes, and innovation falters. In other words, it takes a village to effectively execute, not just a team of senior leaders who decide when and how execution should take place.Bottom LineThese execution practices are logical enough and, at some level, seem relatively simple to enact. Regrettably, they become more complicated in their actual operation. Perhaps, though, this is just the nature of most businesses that are growing—with growth comes frequent change and even alterations to the corporate strategic direction.Maintaining flexibility around strategy is a dual-edged sword, because sometimes flexibility can become an easy excuse for not following the original, well-thought out plan. Other times, flexibility makes complete sense and is, in fact,  necessary for the business to move forward. In either case, executing a strategic plan is a critical element of both the short- and long-term success of any business, including those in the talent development space. What’s more, minding these best practices can help any organization execute their strategy with success.How have you experienced poor to no execution of a strategic plan? Whether you were the leader or the follower, what were the reasons for this in your business? What were the real business consequences of the failed execution? How could the execution have been specifically improved? Share your experiences in the Comments below.  To learn more, check out my book The Complete Guide to Building and Growing a Talent Development Firm.

Growing Talent Management Firms: Strategy and Execution

ATD Blog

While facilitating leadership development workshops at Emerson (a Fortune 125 company with 90,000 employees in 140 countries), there is an interesting comment I frequently hear: “I did not realize how much time you would give me in this workshop to think!”Is that a compliment or a complaint? I believe most people mean it as a compliment because they are surprised. Most of them haven’t had enough time to think in prior trainings.I’ve heard this comment many times, and it never takes me by surprise. In fact, I would be disappointed if I did not hear it. Most learners aren’t given adequate time to think and reflect when they attend training sessions.Far too many training programs rely on content rather than application and do not offer learners time for intentional reflection. In my 28-year learning and development career, I’ve seen too many programs approach learning by telling learners as much as possible in the time provided. Many of us in L&D call that strategy “ten pounds of training in a five-pound sack.”Fred Harburg, former chief learning officer at Fidelity Investments, sums it up well: “If there is no time for reflection, there is almost no chance for improvement.”L&D professionals want to create value for learners. One of the most valuable activities we can build into the design and delivery of our courses is intentional reflection and implementation planning. To improve our training programs, we must stop talking and pushing content, and let learners think.This represents a paradigm shift for many L&D practitioners. Spend less time on content and more time on intentional thinking and reflection.L&D thought leaders Roy Pollock, Cal Wick, and Andy Jefferson (authors of The Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning) popularized the term “learning scrap.” Learning scrap refers to content covered in a workshop that is never applied. Most L&D programs have a typical learning scrap rate of 85 percent. At best, most learners apply 15 percent of what’s taught in a workshop on the job. If you want to decrease learning scrap and increase learning transfer, build more deliberate thinking and reflection activities into your courses.In his classic book, Learning and Memory, Donald A. Norman writes, “To remember is to have managed three things successfully: the acquisition, the retention, and the retrieval of information. Failure to remember means failure at managing one of these three things.” I argue failure usually occurs at the retention level. If there is no reflection, there is no retrieval. If there is no reflection and retention, do not expect retrieval to follow.This issue is well-documented by Ruth C. Clark, Frank Nguyen, and John Sweller in another classic book, Efficiency in Learning. They refer to this concept as “information fatigue.” We need to give learners more time to process during a training program. The authors’ research shows a lack of time for reflection leads to cognitive overload. Overload implies a malfunction; learning is short-circuited. If a person attends a program to learn, and we cram it full of content without giving them time to think, it’s no wonder learning scrap occurs.Several years ago, I codeveloped a workshop with Michael Watkins (a former faculty member at Harvard Business School and founder of Genesis Advisers) to create a workshop based on his bestselling book, The First 90 Days. Our workshop designed intentional thinking activities that asked participants a series of questions at the end of each module. The reflection activities took between 20 and 30 minutes to complete and consisted of five or six questions. These were not simply recall or comprehension questions, but rather synthesis and evaluation questions (the higher levels of cognitive thinking).Some of the top executives who attended this workshop told me that if I had not built in deliberate time to think, their goal would have been to rush through the course so they could move on to the next thing on their list.Here are some ways to build time for reflection into your programs:
Build thinking time into the design and delivery of every learning program you create, no matter the delivery method (in person or virtual).Resist the temptation to add more content to your courses. Do not fall prey to the “myth of more.” More content at the expense of intentional time for reflection will not improve learner performance. It will diminish it.Remember, the goal is not to give the content. The goal is for learners to get it, which will only happen through the discipline of quiet reflection.If trainers are given the option to talk or let their learners think, many would choose to fill the silence with their own voices, but the greatest value trainers bring to a workshop is knowing when to stop speaking and give learners time to reflect.

Want Them to Learn? Give Them Time to Think

Seth Godin is a bestselling author of 19 books. He is also the founder of the altMBA and the Akimbo Workshops. Prior to his keynote session, Godin spoke with Connection Point about his background and experience and what he’ll share with ATD Virtual Conference: Unleash Potential attendees.What can attendees expect to learn from your keynote session?This is a fork in the road for the professionals working in L&D. As organizations pivot to either thrive or simply survive in a new world, it’s the team that’s on board that will determine what happens next. And the shift from compliance to leadership could never be more urgent. In my keynote session, I will help attendees see just how much leverage they have to help people develop into the leaders that they need right now.Why is creativity important for TD professionals to harness?Not only do we need to hire for and develop creativity in others, but we need to dig deep to find it in ourselves. That’s because the best practices don’t exist yet—we have to create them. Our organizations need leadership, not simply management, and it’s up to each of us to model that and teach it. It begins with us realizing that attitudes are skills and that leadership is not the same as management.What is a common roadblock to creativity in the workplace, and how can we overcome it?There are only two, and they’re related. The first is believing that creativity is a talent—that some people are creative and others aren’t. And the second is fear. Fear of failure and ridicule and, ultimately, a loss of status.We amplify the fear in just about everything we do at work, and we reflect that fear by announcing that creativity is for other people and, anyway, it’s a crisis and we’ll be creative later.We can do better than that. We must.How is finding your voice linked to creativity?Do you have a voice? Where did it go? What would happen if you could share your generous insights with people who need to hear them? What would you do if you were sure you were going to fail? What’s so worth doing that you would try it anyway? Shifting to a posture of generosity is heroic, and it’s urgently needed. Once we realize we have something to say, we unlock the door to creativity at work.What is one action TD professionals can take right now to unleash potential?That’s it: Ask. Ask why. Ask how you can contribute something more than effort, and ask why you haven’t. Ask what if. What if we did it differently? We can’t train our way out of this situation. Our only hope is to develop our way forward instead.Share your ATD Virtual Conference experience on social media. #ATDVirtualConference

Creativity Is Essential: A Q&A With Seth Godin

You've probably heard about design thinking—maybe you've read an article or watched an online video. But then what? How do you apply the principles and make an impact? How are companies actually applying design thinking, and what business results come from it? Design thinking is not just a trendy buzzword; it's a proven and practical method to create human-centered solutions.
During part 1 of a two-part webcast series, Keith Keating, senior director of Global Learning Strategies, shares a thorough look into the principles of design thinking in an easy-to-understand format. Using practical examples and stories, this webcast will provide you with a solid foundational understanding of design thinking and ideas for ways you can apply it within your own organization. Keith has taken his theoretical design thinking education from MIT and brought it to life with Fortune 500 companies to help create learner-centric experiences, products, and processes. He will help you jump-start your transformative journey from being a theoretical learner to a design thinking practitioner.
In this webcast, you will learn about:

the value of design thinking and why more companies aren't using it
practical design thinking stories from Fortune 500 companies
the top five design thinking best practices for you to drive business results
five L&D ideas for applying design thinking.


Search results for 'Karen L. West'

Categories

Refine By

Search results for 'Karen L. West'

Categories

Refine By

Role

Topic