Why Member Surveys Fail and What Strategic Listening Actually Requires

Most private clubs run member surveys. Almost none of them run them well. The questions are drafted by the wrong people, fielded at the wrong intervals, analyzed without segmentation, and followed by silence — a sequence that teaches members, survey by survey, that their input is theater rather than intelligence. This episode makes the case that the member survey is one of the most powerful strategic instruments a club possesses, and that almost every club is wasting it through a combination of misplaced ownership, methodological shortcuts, and broken follow-through.

Topics discussed: why annual, crisis-driven, and multi-year survey gaps each produce their own category of failure; the three-year cadence as a baseline aligned to strategic planning cycles; the discipline of instrument continuity (stable tracking questions versus rotating strategic questions) and why clubs that redesign the survey from scratch lose longitudinal intelligence; why the GM and marketing consultants are the wrong authors of survey questions, and why long-tenured member focus groups with strategic perspective produce fundamentally different and more actionable questions; the full mechanics of assembling and running those focus groups (selection criteria, session structure, two-to-three session arc from learning objectives to question drafts to prioritization); the technical review that should happen after focus groups shape the substance, not before; specific question categories every club survey should cover (member experience, facility satisfaction, value perception, trajectory sentiment, programming awareness, open-ended responses) alongside the traps that compromise most surveys (operational over strategic framing, leading questions, compound questions, questions the club cannot act on); the follow-through discipline that closes the loop between member responses and visible documented decisions; why a headline satisfaction number of seventy-two percent can hide a strategic emergency when segmented by frequency of use, tenure, or demographic; non-response bias and why the seventy percent who don't respond skew systematically toward the members whose disengagement is the actual strategic problem; the quantitative-qualitative balance and how open-ended questions surface language and priorities no rating scale can produce; pulse surveys as a between-cycle listening tool tied to specific launches; digital-first delivery with paper and phone alternatives calibrated to the club's membership profile; confidentiality protocols and the case for outside administration to create a genuine firewall; the GM's correct role as advisor on feasibility during design and executor of response after results, but not author of the questions; how boards that explain away uncomfortable findings teach members that surveys are political theater; and the architectural application — how three cycles of longitudinal survey data changes what a club can ask of its architect and how well a renovation can be scoped and defended.

The takeaway: a member survey is not a satisfaction ritual or a board checkbox — it is a strategic instrument, and it only functions as one when the cadence is deliberate, the questions are authored by long-tenured members through structured focus groups, the analysis is segmented rather than summarized, and the results are translated into documented decisions members can trace back to their own input. Clubs that build this discipline know their membership. Clubs that don't assume they do — and their strategic and architectural decisions reflect that gap in ways that compound over time.

Connect with us: LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/egcd/ | Fountain: fountain.fm/show/yzI5IQdvhrChoCRj3htR

Why Open Kitchens Are Now Expected — and Why Most Clubs Get Them Wrong

By the mid-2010s, the visible kitchen had stopped being a differentiator in contemporary dining and become a baseline expectation — yet most private clubs are still cutting holes in walls and calling it an open kitchen. The open kitchen is not a decorating choice. It is a fundamental rethinking of how the kitchen is laid out, how equipment is specified, how mechanical systems perform, and how a kitchen team operates as a public performance. Clubs that treat it as a visual gesture produce open kitchens that expose everything wrong with their operation. That represents, conservatively, eighty percent of the open kitchen projects currently being built in the private club world.

Topics discussed: how the closed kitchen became the dominant convention in hospitality and why the open kitchen displaced it as a member expectation across the last two decades (chef's counter culture, food television, Instagram, fast-casual precedents); why a member who has spent a decade in contemporary restaurants registers a solid kitchen wall as dated without ever articulating why; the five structural reasons club open kitchens underperform (retrofitted dining rooms where the kitchen was never redesigned for visibility; equipment chosen for cost rather than presentation, with the cost delta between a visually intentional and a functionally adequate package running two hundred to five hundred thousand dollars; mechanical systems undersized or incorrectly configured for the combined air volume of an open plan, producing smoke migration or perceptible drafts; staff culture and chef temperament as the most catastrophic failure point, requiring a cultural transformation from a rough closed line to a choreographed public performance; coordination failure when architect, interior designer, food service consultant, mechanical engineer, acoustical engineer, and chef never occupy the same room during schematic design); the acoustic problem of seventy-five to eighty-five decibels of kitchen noise migrating into the dining room without proper ceiling treatment and baffling; what a well-executed open kitchen actually looks like (wood-fired or hearth centerpiece, visible finishing stations for plating and cold assembly, working kitchen fully screened behind the line, intentional finish materials, warm directional lighting, low-velocity makeup air diffusers, an oversized hood system, and a pass designed as an architectural threshold rather than a hole in a wall); how each party contributes to failure (architects who don't push back hard enough, boards who approve the concept and value-engineer the systems, GMs who don't raise chef-culture concerns, chefs who privately resist and wait for the building to open, food service consultants who treat the visible line as a variation on standard kitchen design rather than a separate discipline, and members who want the result without accepting its cost); five directives for clubs currently considering the investment; and a practical observational exercise — sitting with sightlines to the line at your favorite open-kitchen restaurant and asking honestly whether your club's team could perform at that level in that space.

The takeaway: the open kitchen decision is simultaneously an architectural, mechanical, operational, financial, and cultural decision, and every one of those dimensions has to be resolved before the wall comes down. A cheap open kitchen, a retrofitted open kitchen, or an open kitchen run by a chef who wasn't ready for it is not a lesser version of the thing you were trying to build — it is actively worse than the closed kitchen you had before. If your operation isn't ready for visibility, the most sophisticated choice you can make is to leave the wall up.

Connect with us: LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/egcd/ | Fountain: fountain.fm/show/yzI5IQdvhrChoCRj3htR

The wine rep who's been servicing clubs in your region for eighteen years knows which boards are about to fire their GM, which clubs are substituting cheaper products under the same menu prices, and which operations are quietly stretching payables to ninety days — and none of that intelligence is in any monthly report your board will ever read. Vendors are the private club industry's most accurate, most current, and least consulted benchmarking database. This episode makes the case that the informal intelligence network living in the heads of your longest-tenured vendors is worth more than most of what clubs spend on formal consulting and strategic planning — and that almost no club is capturing any of it.

Topics discussed: the vendor as comparative intelligence source (linen companies tracking dining covers through napkin volume; wine distributors reading financial stress through order composition and payment terms; equipment suppliers identifying deferred maintenance patterns; landscape contractors sensing budget pressure through reduced service scopes; beverage reps gauging bar health through keg turnover; uniform companies measuring staff investment per employee; HVAC contractors mapping mechanical risk across regional clubs; chemical suppliers tracking compliance posture; insurance brokers reading operational discipline through claims history; local trades seeing accumulated deferred maintenance through repeat service calls); why vendors don't share what they know (business model depends on discretion; nobody asks the right questions; clubs penalize honesty rather than rewarding it; political dynamics inside clubs have burned vendors before); five patterns vendors are seeing right now that most boards aren't (quiet product substitution eroding member value; payables stretching despite record revenue; GM turnover signals visible months before the change; accelerating deferred maintenance velocity; hiding-decline through accounting and capital project distraction); how adversarial vendor management produces invisible costs that dwarf its visible savings; what high-trust vendor relationships look like in practice and what they return; concrete recommendations for board members, GMs, finance chairs, department heads, and architects on how to unlock the vendor intelligence network.

The takeaway: vendors move fluidly across club boundaries in a way that boards, GMs, and consultants never do — they see your operation from the inside and compare it against dozens of others in real time, week after week, year after year. The clubs that will navigate the next decade most effectively are the ones that stop treating vendors as adversaries to be squeezed and start treating them as the longitudinal, comparative intelligence resource they actually are. That shift costs nothing except the willingness to ask an honest question and the humility to sit quietly through the answer.

Connect with us: LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/egcd/ | Fountain: fountain.fm/show/yzI5IQdvhrChoCRj3htR

Most private club boards assume they compete within a metropolitan area, a regional reputation, or a demographic archetype. The actual competitive boundary is a drive-time radius of roughly twelve to eighteen minutes from your front gate — and inside that boundary, the total pool of households that can afford sustained full-service club membership, haven't already committed elsewhere, and are in a life stage where joining makes sense often numbers in the low hundreds. That is the entire population your initiation fees, your waitlist, and your next renovation depend on. This episode makes the case that every strategic decision a club makes — architectural, operational, financial, or programmatic — should begin with an honest, data-grounded understanding of that bubble, and that almost no board in the industry has built one.

Topics discussed: why frequency of use, not theoretical appeal, determines a club's financial health; the fifteen-to-eighteen-minute drive-time threshold that separates daily-life members from occasional-use members; why regional brand investment is largely wasted marketing spend; how to size the real addressable market (census block-group data, household income thresholds, life-stage filters, existing membership elsewhere) and why it is almost always smaller than the board imagines; the honest income threshold for sustained full-service membership (household income north of $400K, with equity and employment stability); the three competitive categories clubs must map (traditional peer clubs, substitute private experiences, and at-home alternatives); three recurring bubble patterns and their distinct renovation implications (the aging-in-place bubble, the generationally turning-over bubble, and the economically stretched bubble where housing values have outpaced disposable income); why consumer confidence in the bubble's primary employment sectors is a leading indicator that most boards ignore in favor of lagging membership pipeline data; the capture-rate diagnostic (how quickly a club converts appropriate new bubble arrivals into members, and what a healthy rate looks like); a specific anonymized case study of a $30M renovation scope that the underlying bubble could not support; how bubble reality should reshape programming, food and beverage pricing, and staffing strategy; and an accountability framework that assigns bubble blindness to boards, GMs, architects, membership committees, consultants, and long-tenured members alike.

The takeaway: the bubble is not a marketing input — it is the foundation beneath every financial, architectural, and operational decision a club makes. A board that understands its bubble honestly can make hard calls with confidence; a board that doesn't is building strategy on optimism, and optimism eventually meets reality in the form of a softening waitlist, a stalled renovation, or a capital structure that doesn't pencil. Draw the circle. Learn what's inside it. Build everything else from there.

Connect with us: LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/egcd/ | Fountain: fountain.fm/show/yzI5IQdvhrChoCRj3htR

Why Most Club Plans Are Aspirations in a Binder

Most private clubs spend between seventy-five and two hundred thousand dollars on a strategic plan that nobody uses to make real decisions. The leather-bound, consultant-facilitated, member-survey-informed document sitting on the GM's credenza is not a strategic plan — it's an opinion in a binder. This episode makes the case that a strategic plan incapable of translating every aspirational priority into a quantified, stress-tested, multi-scenario financial model is structurally useless regardless of how well-written the vision statement is.

Topics discussed: why the typical strategic plan document fails (vision statements, values sections, SWOT analyses, and strategic priorities without financial scaffolding); the five structural reasons this gap persists (consulting firms whose core competence is facilitation rather than financial modeling; boards that don't know to demand rigorous analysis; the incentive to avoid uncomfortable findings that real modeling would surface; time horizon mismatches that decouple the approving board from the executing board; and the dirty underlying financial data that makes precision difficult); what a real strategic plan financial model actually contains (baseline multi-year revenue and expense projections with documented assumptions by member category, dues structure, initiation fee pipeline, F&B by venue and daypart, golf, and ancillary revenue; initiative-level modeling for each strategic priority including capital cost, operating expense changes, revenue impact, and payback analysis; consolidated multi-year cash flow integration across all simultaneous initiatives; sensitivity analysis under membership decline, recession, labor cost shock, and interest rate scenarios; trigger points for deferral; and full reconciliation with the capital reserve study so that replacement obligations and strategic capital compete visibly for the same dollars); the specific damage done when clubs make renovation and membership decisions referencing a plan that wasn't actually a plan (scope gaps that produce twenty-two million dollar projects budgeted at twelve million); the role of consulting firm incentive structures and client preference in perpetuating qualitative-only plans; what a board presentation looks like when the financial work has actually been done; direct guidance for GMs and CFOs who are quietly maintaining shadow models because the strategic plan doesn't provide usable information; guidance for architects and design consultants on the professional obligation to surface budget-to-reality gaps early rather than designing to unrealistic numbers; and the broader argument that the financial complexity of operating a private club has increased dramatically over the last decade — with initiation fee volatility, labor cost escalation above dues growth, and construction inflation running above general inflation — while the planning tools clubs use to navigate that complexity have largely not evolved.

The takeaway: a strategic plan that cannot answer documented questions about five-year revenue trajectory, initiative-level capital and operating costs, dues implications year by year, scenario sensitivity, reserve study reconciliation, and contingency triggers is not a plan — it is a narrative that will fail on contact with the operating budget. The clubs that will be in strong positions ten years from now are the ones that have replaced the inspiring vision document with an integrated financial framework; the ones that haven't will discover the gap in the middle of a renovation crisis or a membership decline, when the reactive version of that work becomes significantly more painful and significantly more expensive.

Connect with us: LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/egcd/ | Fountain: fountain.fm/show/yzI5IQdvhrChoCRj3htR

The Architectural Reality Underneath the Trends

Built around Chris Lewis's article "Changing golf clubhouses to meet member expectations," which ran in the July/August 2026 issue of Golf Inc. and featured insights from Susan Castor of Castor Design Associates and Brian Doerr of Strategic Club Solutions. The article catalogs the trends reshaping the private club industry — expanded dining venues, family-friendly programming, golf simulators, custom interior finishes, and technology integration. This episode credits and builds on that reporting to examine the architectural, operational, and financial consequences that a trade article cannot fit.

Topics discussed: how clubhouse function has fundamentally expanded over the past two decades and what that means for cost-per-square-foot comparisons; the operational cost shadow of expanded dining venues; the architectural complexity of family-friendly programming and intergenerational zoning; the real infrastructure requirements of a serious golf simulator suite ($250K to $2M+ in capital, plus operational depth); technology integration as architectural decision, not retrofit; custom finishes as a fifteen-to-twenty-year commitment that requires lifecycle planning; the four-question framework for deciding which trends fit your specific club (identity, operational capacity, lifecycle affordability, design longevity); the difference between refresh, renovation, reconception, and rebuild; the risk of following trends that the leaders have already moved past; the financial reality that holding an elevated bar costs more every year than holding the previous one.

Recommended reading: Chris Lewis, "Changing golf clubhouses to meet member expectations," Golf Inc., July/August 2026. Thanks to Chris Lewis, Susan Castor (Castor Design Associates), Brian Doerr (Strategic Club Solutions), and Golf Inc. for the work that anchored this conversation.

Connect with us: golfclubhousedesign.com | LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/egcd/ | Fountain: fountain.fm/show/yzI5IQdvhrChoCRj3htR

Why Every Strategic Plan Has a Calibration Window, and What Happens When You Miss It

Median initiation fees rose seventy-two percent between 2019 and 2022 in many markets, yet clubs across the country are still using pre-pandemic strategic plans to justify eight-figure capital projects. A strategic plan is not a document — it is an instrument with a calibration window, and outside that window it doesn't just lose value, it actively misleads the people relying on it. This episode argues that most clubs operating right now are running on expired plans, and that the architectural consequences of that expiration are physical, expensive, and permanent. The binder still has the consultant's logo on the cover, it still sounds authoritative, and it is quietly driving decisions on assumptions that no longer match the world.

Topics discussed: what a strategic plan actually does when it's working (board continuity across leadership transitions, capital prioritization, GM decision-making framework, member accountability, architectural programming); the four forces that shorten a plan's useful life (external context change including labor markets, interest rates, and remote work patterns; internal context change including membership demographic shifts and GM turnover; operational drift from projected performance; and leadership change that orphans the document from its original intent); the calibration window concept and why three to five years is the realistic working life of any club strategic plan; five visible signs of an expired plan in practice (ceremonial citation, misalignment between stated priorities and actual capital spending, uncomfortable silences when assumptions are surfaced, new initiatives justified around the plan rather than through it, and building committees that cannot articulate a shared vision of the club's future); the architectural stakes of expired plans and why a capital project built on an outdated strategic foundation locks in bad assumptions for twenty-five to forty years; a detailed anonymized case study of a club that completed a thirty-million-dollar renovation on a pre-pandemic plan and found itself planning the next renovation within two years of opening; the recurring practice model as the alternative (annual calibration review, two-to-three-year substantive refresh, five-to-seven-year full rebuild, and explicit linkage between strategic currency and capital project approval); the objection that fast-changing conditions make strategic planning futile and why the correct response is more frequent planning with shorter horizons and explicit assumption acknowledgment rather than abandonment of the discipline; structural accountability across all parties (boards treating plans as one-time accomplishments, GMs quietly routing around expired plans, consultants producing sixty-page monuments designed to feel permanent, architects accepting outdated foundations without pushback, and members disengaging after the original planning exercise); and seat-specific calls to action for board members, GMs, renovation committee chairs, and architects and consultants.

The takeaway: a strategic plan is not a monument to a planning exercise that happened — it is a working instrument that has a shelf life, and treating it as permanent is one of the most expensive mistakes a club can make. Every renovation, every capital priority, every programming decision rests on the strategic foundation underneath it, and when that foundation has aged out, the building doesn't fail because of the architecture. It fails because the assumptions the architecture was designed to serve no longer exist.

Connect with us: LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/egcd/ | Fountain: fountain.fm/show/yzI5IQdvhrChoCRj3htR

Why the Four-to-Seven-Goal Framework Determines Whether Your Next GM Succeeds or Fails

The average private club GM tenure is three to four years — and in most cases, the departure has nothing to do with the candidate. Boards conduct six-month searches, sign contracts, hold receptions, and send press releases, then spend the next eighteen months having quiet parking-lot conversations about whether they hired the right person. They did. What they failed to hire was a mandate. And the absence of that mandate will cost the club two to three years of stalled progress that no amount of talent can recover.

Topics discussed: the structural anatomy of a failed GM tenure (honeymoon phase, divergence, reactive drift, and the broken annual review); why the single most important hiring decision happens before the first candidate is interviewed; how unspoken board member priorities calcify into private benchmarks the GM is judged against but never shown; the four-to-seven-goal framework as the operative standard for mandate-setting (fewer than four means the board hasn't done the work, more than seven means the goals lose meaning); what a good goal looks like versus what an aspiration looks like (specific metrics, verbs, and deadlines versus phrases like "improve the culture" and "drive operational excellence"); who must be in the room when goals are set and why full-board participation produces ownership that executive-committee ratification never does; the case for ranking goals, not just listing them, and why ranking is the step boards resist most; sequencing the mandate across an eighteen-to-thirty-six-month horizon so the GM has language to say no to good ideas that aren't on the current year's list; how the mandate transforms annual review from a referendum on individual board members' moods into a structured evaluation of delivery against agreed commitments; what to do when the board can't agree — and why that disagreement is a governance problem to solve before the search, not after; a direct playbook for GMs already in a mandate-less tenure (how to choose the right venue, frame the request without sounding defensive, bring a draft, and insist on the ranking discipline); and the architectural dimension — why a GM without a mandate cannot be a true capital-planning partner, how the missing mandate produces renovations that reflect the loudest committee voices rather than operational strategy, and why the resulting design misses compound for thirty years inside the building itself.

The takeaway: the candidate is not the variable in GM success or failure — the mandate is. A board that skips the hard work of defining four to seven prioritized, sequenced, measurable goals before hiring is not selecting a leader; it is selecting a placeholder. And placeholders are expensive in ways that never appear in a line item, but show up in years of stalled progress, cycling searches, and capital projects that miss their potential permanently.

Connect with us: LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/egcd/ | Fountain: fountain.fm/show/yzI5IQdvhrChoCRj3htR

Walk into the boardroom of almost any private club in America and you'll find two framed documents that nobody at the club can quote — not the board president, not the GM, not the membership chair. Private clubs collectively spend forty to a hundred and twenty thousand dollars on strategic planning retreats that produce mission and vision statements written by committee to offend no one, commit to nothing, and guide no decision. This episode makes the case that the strategic planning industry is in the middle of a generational shift: mission and vision are being retired, and purpose and core values are taking their place — and this is not a semantic change but a structural one with direct consequences for how clubs make decisions about architecture, capital, programming, and culture.

Topics discussed: why mission and vision statements entered the club world in the late 1980s and 1990s and what they were designed to do; four structural reasons the framework collapsed in the club governance environment (the committee writing process that dilutes every document into vague inoffensiveness, the inoffensiveness imperative that prevents any document from taking a real position, the time horizon mismatch that orphans vision statements within a single board cycle, and the fatal disconnection between strategic documents and operational decisions); why the failure is structural rather than the fault of consultants; what purpose means in the strategic planning sense and why a real purpose statement must exclude things to be useful; how core values differ from vision statements by being descriptive of current behavior rather than aspirational about future states; why descriptive documents have teeth that aspirational documents don't; how a clear purpose statement transforms the architectural brief (from a list of programmatic requirements into a set of design constraints that actually mean something); how purpose shapes capital allocation, budget distribution, scope decisions, and phasing choices; a detailed anonymized case study of a club where purpose-grounded renovation produced a building that members describe as feeling like the club six years later; the role of consultants, boards, GMs, and members in making the framework function rather than collapse into the old pattern; what the listening-based development process looks like when it's done rigorously; why boards who water down draft purpose statements in the approval process reproduce the same failure they were trying to escape; and the governance practices required to keep purpose and core values alive across successive board administrations.

The takeaway: the strategic planning industry spent thirty years producing documents that got framed and ignored because the mission and vision framework, transplanted from the corporate world into the club governance environment, could not survive the conditions it landed in. Purpose and core values work differently not because the words are better but because the process that builds them is grounded in observable reality, and because documents that describe what a club already is have staying power that documents describing what a club wishes it were never achieve. Clubs that make this shift well are making faster capital decisions, building more coherent buildings, and holding their cultures together across board transitions. The documents on the wall should be documents people actually use.

Connect with us: LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/egcd/ | Fountain: fountain.fm/show/yzI5IQdvhrChoCRj3htR

On an eighteen-to-thirty-month renovation, members are paying full dues, often plus a capital assessment, while losing access to spaces they use daily — and most clubs respond to that sustained pressure with a paragraph at the bottom of the monthly newsletter that says construction is progressing well. The construction communication vacuum is not a side effect of renovation; it is the most expensive avoidable failure in the entire process, more damaging than any change order or schedule slip. What determines whether a project opens to applause or crossed arms is not whether problems occurred — problems always occur — but whether the membership felt genuinely informed and respected across every month they lived next to a construction site. Almost no club handles this well, and the reasons are structural, not accidental.

Topics discussed: why the eighteen-to-thirty-month construction window places the membership under sustained financial, experiential, and emotional pressure; five structural reasons the communication vacuum forms (no single owner of the communication function; leadership exhaustion producing lowest-effort updates; fear that transparency will trigger member panic; the technical language of construction resisting translation into member-facing prose; and boards that quietly prefer the vacuum because it gives them latitude on budget and schedule variance); five predictable symptoms of vacuum dysfunction (rumor as the dominant information channel; resignation letters representing a much larger silent erosion; the angry town hall that ruptures after a year of silence; staff improvising answers they were never given; and grand openings that land emotionally flat); the mechanics of communication done well, including ownership by name with explicit authority, a cadence of biweekly updates plus monthly features plus quarterly forums plus an always-on digital channel, multi-channel delivery calibrated to different member consumption habits, storytelling rather than milestone reporting, photography and video as a positive counter-narrative to rumor, and the discipline of sharing hard things — schedule slips, change orders, field conditions — proactively and with full context; a real case study in which a million-dollar soil remediation setback, communicated candidly with a letter and a follow-up town hall, produced more membership goodwill than the project had carried before the setback occurred; the multi-voice communication model deploying the board on strategic decisions, the GM on operational impact, the architect on design intent, and the construction team for on-site texture; how to handle member dissent as investment rather than opposition; what members actually want (to feel like insiders, not spectators); the staff dimension, including weekly briefings and talking points that convert frontline employees from rumor channels into project ambassadors; and the real cost of doing this well — estimated at one hundred fifty to three hundred thousand dollars on a fifteen-to-twenty-million-dollar project — and why that line item is the most consequential cut a club makes in value engineering.

The takeaway: the construction window produces two deliverables simultaneously — the building, which the architecture and construction team is producing, and the membership relationship, which the board, GM, and communications function are producing. Most clubs invest almost entirely in the first and treat the second as an afterthought. The clubs that emerge from renovation with a stronger relationship than they entered with did not achieve that through architectural quality alone. They achieved it by deciding, at the beginning of the project, that communication was not the thing they did when there was something to announce — it was the thing they did continuously, with discipline and honesty, because the alternative is that the membership writes its own version of the story, and the version they write is almost never the one leadership would have chosen.

Connect with us: LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/egcd/ | Fountain: fountain.fm/show/yzI5IQdvhrChoCRj3htR