committee-based-organization

Committee-Based Structure

A committee-based organizational structure is characterized by the delegation of decision-making authority to various committees or groups within an organization. These committees are composed of individuals with expertise or interest in specific areas, and they convene to discuss, analyze, and make decisions related to their designated domains. Key aspects of committee-based structures include:

  1. Decentralized Decision-Making: Authority is distributed across multiple committees, allowing for decisions to be made closer to the source of knowledge or expertise.
  2. Specialization: Committees are often formed based on specific functions, such as finance, marketing, or operations, ensuring that decisions are made by individuals with relevant expertise.
  3. Cross-Functional Collaboration: Committees may consist of members from different departments or units, promoting cross-functional collaboration and the integration of diverse viewpoints.
  4. Transparency: Committee decisions are typically documented and shared with relevant stakeholders, fostering transparency within the organization.
  5. Accountability: Committee members are held accountable for the decisions made within their purview, ensuring responsibility for outcomes.
  6. Efficiency: Committee-based structures can streamline decision-making processes, as committees are focused on specific areas and can make informed choices swiftly.

Key Characteristics of Committee-Based Structures

To better understand committee-based structures, it’s essential to recognize their key characteristics:

  1. Committee Formation: Committees are established based on organizational needs and functional areas, each with a clear mandate and scope of responsibilities.
  2. Membership: Committee members are selected based on their expertise, experience, or relevance to the committee’s purpose. Membership may include both senior leaders and subject matter experts.
  3. Decision Authority: Committees have the authority to make decisions within their designated domains, often with limited involvement from upper management.
  4. Meetings and Communication: Committees convene regularly to discuss relevant issues, share information, and arrive at decisions. Communication within and across committees is essential for coordination.
  5. Documentation: Committee decisions and recommendations are documented in minutes or reports, providing a record of the rationale behind decisions.
  6. Alignment with Organizational Goals: Committees align their work with the overarching goals and objectives of the organization, ensuring that decisions contribute to the larger mission.

Advantages of Committee-Based Structures

Implementing a committee-based structure can offer numerous advantages to organizations:

  1. Expertise Utilization: Committees leverage the expertise of their members, leading to well-informed and strategic decisions in specific areas.
  2. Efficient Decision-Making: By focusing on distinct domains, committees can make decisions efficiently, avoiding delays associated with hierarchical decision-making.
  3. Diverse Perspectives: Cross-functional committees encourage diverse viewpoints and innovative ideas, leading to more comprehensive solutions.
  4. Transparency: The documentation of committee decisions fosters transparency and accountability, as stakeholders can track the reasoning behind choices.
  5. Reduced Workload for Leadership: Delegating decision-making to committees alleviates the burden on top-level executives, allowing them to focus on overarching strategy.
  6. Specialized Focus: Committees can concentrate on their designated functions, becoming subject matter experts in their respective areas.

Challenges of Committee-Based Structures

While committee-based structures offer significant benefits, they are not without challenges:

  1. Coordination: Coordinating the efforts of multiple committees can be complex, requiring effective communication and alignment.
  2. Decision Consensus: Achieving consensus within committees can be challenging, and disagreements may impede progress.
  3. Resource Allocation: Allocating resources among committees and ensuring equitable distribution can be a delicate task.
  4. Decision Delays: Committees may experience decision delays if consensus is difficult to reach or if there are frequent conflicts.
  5. Committee Proliferation: An excessive number of committees can lead to bureaucracy and inefficiency, so careful committee selection is crucial.
  6. Accountability: Ensuring that committees remain accountable for their decisions and actions is vital to prevent complacency.

Real-World Applications of Committee-Based Structures

Numerous organizations across various sectors have successfully implemented committee-based structures. Here are a few notable examples:

  1. Academic Institutions: Universities often employ committee-based structures, with committees dedicated to academic affairs, student affairs, curriculum development, and research. These committees bring together faculty members, administrators, and students to make decisions related to campus life and education.
  2. Nonprofit Organizations: Many nonprofit organizations utilize committees for fundraising, program development, and governance. These committees, composed of volunteers and board members, help steer the organization’s initiatives and ensure alignment with its mission.
  3. Corporations: Large corporations frequently establish committees for functions such as finance, marketing, and corporate social responsibility. These committees help guide strategic decisions and ensure that various aspects of the business are well-managed.
  4. Government Bodies: Government agencies often rely on committees to address specific policy areas or regulatory matters. These committees may include experts from relevant fields, lawmakers, and public stakeholders.
  5. Healthcare Institutions: Hospitals and healthcare systems often have committees dedicated to patient care, quality improvement, and medical ethics. These committees play a vital role in ensuring the delivery of high-quality healthcare services.

Strategies for Effective Implementation

Implementing a committee-based structure requires careful planning and execution. Here are strategies to ensure a successful transition:

  1. Clearly Define Committee Roles: Establish well-defined roles and responsibilities for each committee, outlining their specific areas of decision-making authority.
  2. Select Committee Members Thoughtfully: Choose committee members based on their expertise and relevance to the committee’s focus. Consider a mix of senior leaders and subject matter experts.
  3. Provide Training: Offer training and resources to committee members to enhance their decision-making, communication, and conflict resolution skills.
  4. Establish Communication Protocols: Define communication channels and meeting schedules to facilitate effective collaboration and information sharing among committees.
  5. Monitor and Evaluate: Implement mechanisms for monitoring committee performance and evaluating their effectiveness in achieving organizational goals.
  6. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: Develop clear processes for resolving conflicts or disagreements within committees, ensuring that issues are addressed constructively.
  7. Resource Allocation: Establish guidelines for resource allocation among committees, taking into account their respective needs and priorities.
  8. Leadership Support: Ensure that senior leadership provides support and guidance to committees, emphasizing their importance in the organization’s decision-making processes.

Conclusion

Committee-based structures offer organizations a flexible and collaborative approach to decision-making. By leveraging the expertise of committee members and distributing decision authority, these structures can lead to more informed choices, increased efficiency, and a broader range of perspectives. However, successful implementation requires careful planning, effective communication, and ongoing evaluation to address challenges and optimize outcomes. As organizations continue to evolve and adapt to changing environments, committee-based structures remain a valuable tool for navigating complex decisions and achieving strategic goals.

Key Highlights

  • Introduction:
    • Committee-based organizational structures delegate decision-making authority to committees composed of individuals with relevant expertise, fostering decentralized decision-making and cross-functional collaboration.
  • Key Aspects:
    • Decentralized decision-making, specialization, cross-functional collaboration, transparency, accountability, and efficiency are key aspects of committee-based structures.
  • Characteristics:
    • Committees are formed based on organizational needs, have defined membership, possess decision authority within their domains, conduct regular meetings, document decisions, and align with organizational goals.
  • Advantages:
    • Expertise utilization, efficient decision-making, diverse perspectives, transparency, reduced workload for leadership, and specialized focus are advantages of committee-based structures.
  • Challenges:
    • Coordination, decision consensus, resource allocation, decision delays, committee proliferation, and accountability are challenges associated with committee-based structures.
  • Real-World Applications:
    • Committee-based structures are utilized in academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, corporations, government bodies, and healthcare institutions to make decisions related to various functions and initiatives.
  • Strategies for Implementation:
    • Strategies include defining committee roles, selecting members thoughtfully, providing training, establishing communication protocols, monitoring and evaluating performance, implementing conflict resolution mechanisms, managing resource allocation, and garnering leadership support.
  • Conclusion:
    • Committee-based structures offer organizations flexibility and collaboration in decision-making. Successful implementation requires careful planning, effective communication, and ongoing evaluation to address challenges and optimize outcomes. As organizations evolve, committee-based structures remain valuable for navigating complex decisions and achieving strategic goals.
Case StudyStrategyOutcome
ToyotaCommittee-Based Structure: Uses cross-functional committees to address quality control, product development, and operational efficiency.Enhanced product quality, innovation, and problem-solving capabilities, driving growth and competitiveness in the automotive industry.
Johnson & JohnsonCommittee-Based Structure: Operates with committees focusing on product safety, regulatory compliance, and strategic initiatives.Improved decision-making, regulatory compliance, and innovation, driving growth and leadership in health care products.
NASACommittee-Based Structure: Utilizes committees to oversee mission planning, technology development, and safety protocols.Enhanced mission success rates, technological innovation, and safety standards, driving advancements in space exploration and technology.
IBMCommittee-Based Structure: Uses committees for strategic planning, innovation, and project management.Improved strategic alignment, innovation, and project execution, driving growth and leadership in technology and consulting.
Procter & Gamble (P&G)Committee-Based Structure: Implements committees for product development, marketing strategies, and supply chain optimization.Enhanced product innovation, marketing effectiveness, and operational efficiency, driving strong brand loyalty and market share growth.
UnileverCommittee-Based Structure: Operates with committees for sustainability initiatives, product innovation, and market expansion.Improved sustainability practices, product innovation, and market responsiveness, driving growth and competitiveness in consumer goods.
General Electric (GE)Committee-Based Structure: Utilizes committees for business strategy, risk management, and innovation.Enhanced strategic planning, risk management, and innovation, driving growth and competitiveness across diverse industries.
MicrosoftCommittee-Based Structure: Uses committees for product development, cybersecurity, and strategic partnerships.Improved product innovation, security, and strategic alignment, driving successful product launches and market leadership.
SiemensCommittee-Based Structure: Implements committees for innovation, sustainability, and operational efficiency.Enhanced product innovation, sustainability practices, and operational efficiency, driving growth and competitiveness in industrial manufacturing.
PfizerCommittee-Based Structure: Operates with committees for drug development, regulatory compliance, and market strategy.Improved drug development efficiency, regulatory compliance, and market responsiveness, driving growth and leadership in pharmaceuticals.
Google (Alphabet Inc.)Committee-Based Structure: Utilizes committees for innovation, ethics, and strategic initiatives.Enhanced innovation, ethical standards, and strategic alignment, driving growth and market leadership in technology.
NestléCommittee-Based Structure: Uses committees for product development, sustainability, and global market strategy.Improved product innovation, sustainability practices, and market responsiveness, driving strong brand loyalty and market share growth.
Related FrameworksDescriptionImplications
Committee-based Organizational StructureInvolves organizing an organization’s decision-making process around committees or groups responsible for specific functions or areas of responsibility. – Committees may be permanent or temporary, depending on the nature of the tasks or projects. – Promotes collaboration, expertise sharing, and participative decision-making. – Allows for distributed leadership and accountability.Collaboration and expertise: Committees bring together individuals with diverse skills, knowledge, and perspectives to address complex issues and make informed decisions. – Decentralized decision-making: Distributes decision-making authority across different committees, empowering employees and fostering ownership. – Challenges with coordination: Requires effective coordination and communication among committees to ensure alignment with organizational goals and avoid duplication of efforts. – Risk of inefficiency: Excessive committees or overlapping responsibilities may lead to inefficiencies, delays, or conflicts in decision-making processes.
Matrix Organizational StructureCombines aspects of functional and project-based structures. – Employees report to both functional managers and project managers. – Promotes flexibility, specialization, and cross-functional collaboration. – Can lead to complexity and role ambiguity.Enhanced flexibility and collaboration: Allows for pooling of resources and expertise across different functions and projects. – Specialization and skill development: Provides opportunities for employees to work on diverse projects and develop new skills. – Challenges with role clarity: Requires clear communication and alignment between functional and project managers to avoid confusion and conflicts. – Risk of power struggles: Dual reporting relationships may lead to conflicts of interest and challenges in decision-making.
Cross-Functional TeamsComprise individuals from different functional areas or departments working together on a common project or objective. – Promote collaboration, innovation, and problem-solving. – Encourage diverse perspectives and expertise. – Require effective communication and teamwork.Diverse perspectives: Bring together a range of skills, knowledge, and experiences to tackle complex challenges and opportunities. – Faster decision-making: Enables quicker responses to changes in market conditions or customer requirements. – Challenges with alignment: Requires clear goals, roles, and processes to ensure coordination and cohesion within the team. – Risk of conflicts: Differences in priorities, values, or communication styles may lead to conflicts and hinder team performance.
Project-Based Organizational StructureOrganizes work around projects rather than functional departments. – Teams are formed temporarily to complete specific projects or objectives. – Promotes flexibility, innovation, and adaptability. – Requires effective project management and resource allocation.Adaptability and agility: Allows organizations to respond quickly to changes in customer demands or market conditions. – Specialization and expertise: Enables teams to leverage specialized skills and knowledge for project success. – Challenges with resource allocation: Requires efficient allocation of resources and prioritization of projects to maximize productivity and results. – Risk of team fragmentation: Constantly forming and disbanding teams may lead to instability and challenges in maintaining team cohesion and morale.
Hierarchical Organizational StructureInvolves multiple layers of authority and control, with decision-making concentrated at the top. – Clear lines of authority and reporting. – Promotes specialization and efficiency. – May result in slower decision-making and limited employee autonomy.Clarity of roles and responsibilities: Ensures accountability and clear reporting relationships within the organization. – Enhanced efficiency: Streamlines decision-making and resource allocation processes. – Challenges with communication: Hierarchical structures may inhibit open communication and collaboration across different levels of the organization. – Risk of rigidity: Lack of flexibility may impede the organization’s ability to adapt to changing market conditions.
Flat Organizational StructureInvolves minimal levels of hierarchy and a wide span of control. – Promotes collaboration, communication, and autonomy. – Encourages innovation and creativity. – Facilitates quick decision-making and responsiveness.Promotes collaboration and communication: Enables seamless information flow and cross-functional teamwork. – Enhanced employee engagement: Fosters a sense of ownership and empowerment among employees. – Challenges with supervision: Requires clear roles, responsibilities, and performance expectations to ensure accountability and productivity. – Risk of overburdening: Flat structures may overload employees with responsibilities if not balanced effectively.
HolacracyAn organizational structure where authority and decision-making are distributed across self-organizing teams called circles. – Emphasizes autonomy, transparency, and distributed leadership. – Facilitates rapid adaptation and innovation. – Requires clear roles, processes, and governance principles.Autonomy and empowerment: Empowers employees to make decisions and take ownership of their work. – Adaptability and flexibility: Enables organizations to respond quickly to changes in the external environment or market conditions. – Challenges with implementation: Requires significant cultural and mindset shifts to adopt holacratic principles effectively. – Risk of chaos: Lack of clear guidelines and accountability may lead to confusion and inefficiencies within the organization.

Read Next: Organizational Structure.

Types of Organizational Structures

organizational-structure-types
Organizational Structures

Siloed Organizational Structures

Functional

functional-organizational-structure
In a functional organizational structure, groups and teams are organized based on function. Therefore, this organization follows a top-down structure, where most decision flows from top management to bottom. Thus, the bottom of the organization mostly follows the strategy detailed by the top of the organization.

Divisional

divisional-organizational-structure

Open Organizational Structures

Matrix

matrix-organizational-structure

Flat

flat-organizational-structure
In a flat organizational structure, there is little to no middle management between employees and executives. Therefore it reduces the space between employees and executives to enable an effective communication flow within the organization, thus being faster and leaner.

Connected Business Frameworks

Portfolio Management

project-portfolio-matrix
Project portfolio management (PPM) is a systematic approach to selecting and managing a collection of projects aligned with organizational objectives. That is a business process of managing multiple projects which can be identified, prioritized, and managed within the organization. PPM helps organizations optimize their investments by allocating resources efficiently across all initiatives.

Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model

kotters-8-step-change-model
Harvard Business School professor Dr. John Kotter has been a thought-leader on organizational change, and he developed Kotter’s 8-step change model, which helps business managers deal with organizational change. Kotter created the 8-step model to drive organizational transformation.

Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model

nadler-tushman-congruence-model
The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model was created by David Nadler and Michael Tushman at Columbia University. The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model is a diagnostic tool that identifies problem areas within a company. In the context of business, congruence occurs when the goals of different people or interest groups coincide.

McKinsey’s Seven Degrees of Freedom

mckinseys-seven-degrees
McKinsey’s Seven Degrees of Freedom for Growth is a strategy tool. Developed by partners at McKinsey and Company, the tool helps businesses understand which opportunities will contribute to expansion, and therefore it helps to prioritize those initiatives.

Mintzberg’s 5Ps

5ps-of-strategy
Mintzberg’s 5Ps of Strategy is a strategy development model that examines five different perspectives (plan, ploy, pattern, position, perspective) to develop a successful business strategy. A sixth perspective has been developed over the years, called Practice, which was created to help businesses execute their strategies.

COSO Framework

coso-framework
The COSO framework is a means of designing, implementing, and evaluating control within an organization. The COSO framework’s five components are control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring activities. As a fraud risk management tool, businesses can design, implement, and evaluate internal control procedures.

TOWS Matrix

tows-matrix
The TOWS Matrix is an acronym for Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and Strengths. The matrix is a variation on the SWOT Analysis, and it seeks to address criticisms of the SWOT Analysis regarding its inability to show relationships between the various categories.

Lewin’s Change Management

lewins-change-management-model
Lewin’s change management model helps businesses manage the uncertainty and resistance associated with change. Kurt Lewin, one of the first academics to focus his research on group dynamics, developed a three-stage model. He proposed that the behavior of individuals happened as a function of group behavior.

Organizational Structure Case Studies

OpenAI Organizational Structure

openai-organizational-structure
OpenAI is an artificial intelligence research laboratory that transitioned into a for-profit organization in 2019. The corporate structure is organized around two entities: OpenAI, Inc., which is a single-member Delaware LLC controlled by OpenAI non-profit, And OpenAI LP, which is a capped, for-profit organization. The OpenAI LP is governed by the board of OpenAI, Inc (the foundation), which acts as a General Partner. At the same time, Limited Partners comprise employees of the LP, some of the board members, and other investors like Reid Hoffman’s charitable foundation, Khosla Ventures, and Microsoft, the leading investor in the LP.

Airbnb Organizational Structure

airbnb-organizational-structure
Airbnb follows a holacracy model, or a sort of flat organizational structure, where teams are organized for projects, to move quickly and iterate fast, thus keeping a lean and flexible approach. Airbnb also moved to a hybrid model where employees can work from anywhere and meet on a quarterly basis to plan ahead, and connect to each other.

Amazon Organizational Structure

amazon-organizational-structure
The Amazon organizational structure is predominantly hierarchical with elements of function-based structure and geographic divisions. While Amazon started as a lean, flat organization in its early years, it transitioned into a hierarchical organization with its jobs and functions clearly defined as it scaled.

Apple Organizational Structure

apple-organizational-structure
Apple has a traditional hierarchical structure with product-based grouping and some collaboration between divisions.

Coca-Cola Organizational Structure

coca-cola-organizational-structure
The Coca-Cola Company has a somewhat complex matrix organizational structure with geographic divisions, product divisions, business-type units, and functional groups.

Costco Organizational Structure

costco-organizational-structure
Costco has a matrix organizational structure, which can simply be defined as any structure that combines two or more different types. In this case, a predominant functional structure exists with a more secondary divisional structure. Costco’s geographic divisions reflect its strong presence in the United States combined with its expanding global presence. There are six divisions in the country alone to reflect its standing as the source of most company revenue. Compared to competitor Walmart, for example, Costco takes more a decentralized approach to management, decision-making, and autonomy. This allows the company’s stores and divisions to more flexibly respond to local market conditions.

Dell Organizational Structure

dell-organizational-structure
Dell has a functional organizational structure with some degree of decentralization. This means functional departments share information, contribute ideas to the success of the organization and have some degree of decision-making power.

eBay Organizational Structure

ebay-organizational-structure
eBay was until recently a multi-divisional (M-form) organization with semi-autonomous units grouped according to the services they provided. Today, eBay has a single division called Marketplace, which includes eBay and its international iterations.

Facebook Organizational Structure

facebook-organizational-structure
Facebook is characterized by a multi-faceted matrix organizational structure. The company utilizes a flat organizational structure in combination with corporate function-based teams and product-based or geographic divisions. The flat organization structure is organized around the leadership of Mark Zuckerberg, and the key executives around him. On the other hand, the function-based teams are based on the main corporate functions (like HR, product management, investor relations, and so on).

Goldman Sachs’ Organizational Structure

goldman-sacks-organizational-structures
Goldman Sachs has a hierarchical structure with a clear chain of command and defined career advancement process. The structure is also underpinned by business-type divisions and function-based groups.

Google Organizational Structure

google-organizational-structure
Google (Alphabet) has a cross-functional (team-based) organizational structure known as a matrix structure with some degree of flatness. Over the years, as the company scaled and it became a tech giant, its organizational structure is morphing more into a centralized organization.

IBM Organizational Structure

ibm-organizational-structure
IBM has an organizational structure characterized by product-based divisions, enabling its strategy to develop innovative and competitive products in multiple markets. IBM is also characterized by function-based segments that support product development and innovation for each product-based division, which include Global Markets, Integrated Supply Chain, Research, Development, and Intellectual Property.

McDonald’s Organizational Structure

mcdonald-organizational-structure
McDonald’s has a divisional organizational structure where each division – based on geographical location – is assigned operational responsibilities and strategic objectives. The main geographical divisions are the US, internationally operated markets, and international developmental licensed markets. And on the other hand, the hierarchical leadership structure is organized around regional and functional divisions.

McKinsey Organizational Structure

mckinsey-organizational-structure
McKinsey & Company has a decentralized organizational structure with mostly self-managing offices, committees, and employees. There are also functional groups and geographic divisions with proprietary names.

Microsoft Organizational Structure

microsoft-organizational-structure
Microsoft has a product-type divisional organizational structure based on functions and engineering groups. As the company scaled over time it also became more hierarchical, however still keeping its hybrid approach between functions, engineering groups, and management.

Nestlé Organizational Structure

nestle-organizational-structure
Nestlé has a geographical divisional structure with operations segmented into five key regions. For many years, Swiss multinational food and drink company Nestlé had a complex and decentralized matrix organizational structure where its numerous brands and subsidiaries were free to operate autonomously.

Nike Organizational Structure

nike-organizational-structure
Nike has a matrix organizational structure incorporating geographic divisions. Nike’s matrix structure is also present at the regional and sub-regional levels. Managerial responsibility is segmented according to business unit (apparel, footwear, and equipment) and function (human resources, finance, marketing, sales, and operations).

Patagonia Organizational Structure

patagonia-organizational-structure
Patagonia has a particular organizational structure, where its founder, Chouinard, disposed of the company’s ownership in the hands of two non-profits. The Patagonia Purpose Trust, holding 100% of the voting stocks, is in charge of defining the company’s strategic direction. And the Holdfast Collective, a non-profit, holds 100% of non-voting stocks, aiming to re-invest the brand’s dividends into environmental causes.

Samsung Organizational Structure

samsung-organizational-structure (1)
Samsung has a product-type divisional organizational structure where products determine how resources and business operations are categorized. The main resources around which Samsung’s corporate structure is organized are consumer electronics, IT, and device solutions. In addition, Samsung leadership functions are organized around a few career levels grades, based on experience (assistant, professional, senior professional, and principal professional).

Sony Organizational Structure

sony-organizational-structure
Sony has a matrix organizational structure primarily based on function-based groups and product/business divisions. The structure also incorporates geographical divisions. In 2021, Sony announced the overhauling of its organizational structure, changing its name from Sony Corporation to Sony Group Corporation to better identify itself as the headquarters of the Sony group of companies skewing the company toward product divisions.

Starbucks Organizational Structure

starbucks-organizational-structure
Starbucks follows a matrix organizational structure with a combination of vertical and horizontal structures. It is characterized by multiple, overlapping chains of command and divisions.

Tesla Organizational Structure

tesla-organizational-structure
Tesla is characterized by a functional organizational structure with aspects of a hierarchical structure. Tesla does employ functional centers that cover all business activities, including finance, sales, marketing, technology, engineering, design, and the offices of the CEO and chairperson. Tesla’s headquarters in Austin, Texas, decide the strategic direction of the company, with international operations given little autonomy.

Toyota Organizational Structure

toyota-organizational-structure
Toyota has a divisional organizational structure where business operations are centered around the market, product, and geographic groups. Therefore, Toyota organizes its corporate structure around global hierarchies (most strategic decisions come from Japan’s headquarter), product-based divisions (where the organization is broken down, based on each product line), and geographical divisions (according to the geographical areas under management).

Walmart Organizational Structure

walmart-organizational-structure
Walmart has a hybrid hierarchical-functional organizational structure, otherwise referred to as a matrix structure that combines multiple approaches. On the one hand, Walmart follows a hierarchical structure, where the current CEO Doug McMillon is the only employee without a direct superior, and directives are sent from top-level management. On the other hand, the function-based structure of Walmart is used to categorize employees according to their particular skills and experience.

Main Free Guides:

Discover more from FourWeekMBA

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top
FourWeekMBA