An Authentic Leader of Today (and Tomorrow)
One of the newest developments in leadership studies is the focus on the complexity of social entities. Of course, societies are social systems, and so are organizations. My interest in the Macro-view on leadership was sparked by my involvement in the LEAD Institute and their fantastic work on Executive Development and Organizational Culture Change. Everybody who has ever worked in a company will be able to tell interesting tales about how people did what and why. They will be able to describe prevailing values, rituals and symbols, the work climate, dress code, and the kind of gossip at that work place, as detailed as they can talk about the purely professional aspects. Humans are social beings, and we just can’t help our desire for involvement in a certain culture, and that way we sometimes help create, perpetuate or destroy an organizational culture.
What has all this to do with Authentic Leadership, you ask?
My interest in Authentic Leadership will be extended to the whole organizational context. It’s no secret that authentic leaders will thrive in some contexts but not in others. The details I have yet to figure out.
For now I’d like to refer you to a recent NYT interview with a young top executive and CEO of an online company called Zappos. His responses to an interview at the Corner Office are baffling. His level of unbelievable maturity and personal depth is combined with his sparkling youth and genuine concern for his company in the most inspiring way. He talks about organizational culture, the potential of weird people and – authenticity.
Enjoy the read!
Posted: January 24th, 2010 under Leadership.
Tags: Authentic Leadership, authenticity, macro view, organizational culture, social systems
Comments: none
How to make an Authentic Decision
When President Obama didn’t give immediately a press conference after the failed bomb attack on Christmas day he was criticized for not talking to the country. (He did, three days later.) Before that, Obama was criticized for taking too long whilst trying to make a decision on the US-strategy in Afghanistan. (It took about three months.)
In short, his critics wish he would make his decisions faster, react quicker. They sense indecisiveness and weakness, qualities they don’t appreciate in their President. (Qualities which certainly aren’t desirable in any leader, for that matter.)
I think there can be a different reason for a time delay in decision making processes: some leaders want to do it properly.
Information Processing
To be objective is desired and necessary for leaders, and at the same time it is only human not to be. But wouldn’t it be nice if all leaders were aware of the responsibility they have in terms of the outcomes of their decisions? If they could only look at a problem from more than one angle, if they had the ability to overcome their bias, misperceptions, prejudices and fears, and I they were able to form their very own opinions?
Authentic leaders have been described to do just that: avoid following popular opinions and instead come to their very own conclusions about an important matter. They seek alternatives where possible before making a commitment, and try very hard to develop a balanced point of view about a problem. In order to do just that, leaders need the ability to critically assess a situation – as well as their own positioning in it. And all that – takes a little more time than firing away with words, actions and orders on the first hunch.
Authentic Decisions
The ability to recognize that one’s own perspective can always be prone to paradoxes if not errors is called “balanced processing of information”. The term ‘balanced’ refers to the attempt of balancing one’s own viewpoint with inputs from others in order to avoid falling into the trap of self-righteousness. Especially for leaders it is crucial to see the whole complexity of an issue because it can help minimizing the risk of overseeing important information. To balance information is also useful when it comes to anticipating the consequences of one’s action or the outcome of moral dilemmas.
Now, I think it can be as important how a leader came to a certain decision as the actual outcome of the decision making process. In that sense, making an authentic decision means all the above, as opposed to basing decisions on nothing but belief.
In very complex situations, leaders cannot possibly anticipate all results, consequences, changes and future developments. But they can certainly try to doing so by collecting information and making a careful assessment before making a decision. Can they think too much, and take too long, miss important opportunities and fail by doing so? Yes, of course! But equally, they can fail by not thinking things through properly.
Perhaps you agree with me that a talk to the nation only hours after the failed bomb attack would have set the USA in panic mode. Maybe you also think that the war in Afghanistan is a very complex issue and you are glad that Obama took his time before his decision about the military strategy.
It makes me think that he took these matters very, very seriously. And sometimes, that is all a leader can do.
Resources:
Avolio, B.J. et al., 2009. A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 764–784.
Eigel, K.M. & Kuhnert, K.W., 2005. Authentic Development: Leadership development level and executive effectiveness. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa, eds. . Authentic Leadership Theory and Practice: Origins, Effects and Development. Monographs in Leadership and Management. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 357-385.
Luthans, Fred & Avolio, Bruce J., 2003. Authentic Leadership Development. In Positive organizational Scholarship. Berrett-Koehler.
May, Douglas R. et al., 2003. Developing the Moral Component of Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247-260.
Posted: January 5th, 2010 under Leadership.
Tags: Afghanistan, Authentic Leadership, balanced processing, Obama
Comments: none
On a Personal Note…
For me, this past year was a year of change and positive turnarounds. The biggest event in my professional life happened when I realized that my previous educational institution had deceived me and many others in the most disappointing way. My discovery about Thierry’s lack of academic accreditation was received with amazement and shock by many colleagues. On a positive note, I managed to make sure that future damage could be prevented; without its proper academic accreditation, this school cannot award (or sell, for that matter) Masters and PhD degrees anymore.
What does 2010 have in stock?
This coming year will be a new beginning for me and my studies of Authentic Leadership. My work and pursuit of a doctoral degree will continue at the Fernuniversitaet Hagen, Germany, and I’m excited about my involvement in the department of Business Administration. I have already started to explore other research areas and established new contacts.
This blog has become an important part of my work on Authentic Leadership. Informal writing about the topic that interests me most helps me to gather my thoughts and forces me to keep academic studies relevant and practical. I see blogging as a form of leadership because it is an influencing tool; I also accept the responsibility that comes with that.
Thank you all for reading my posts, for participating and for spreading the word in 2009 – let’s continue this path in 2010 together.
Let me wish you all a fantastic New Year 2010!
Posted: December 23rd, 2009 under Uncategorized.
Tags: Authentic Leadership, deception, new beginning
Comments: none
If they had a choice – would your people follow you?
Lately I have been thinking a lot about the difference between formal and informal leadership. Let’s say that ‘formal’ leadership refers to the assignment of a leadership – or followership – position. Most people have a boss or are the boss; everyone who wants to be part of an organizational hierarchy has to accept, respect and follow – or be – a person with formal authority.
Then there are ‘informal’ leadership relationships, those that develop naturally within a group of people where one or more people take the lead, and the others follow them naturally. These ‘informal’ leader/ follower dynamics are quite interesting, because their members do not adhere to any external rules or organized structures. Followers more or less choose their roles, and leaders emerge by setting the tone for the group and making the decisions. It is up to these informal leaders – and not to organizational rules and hierarchies – to demand the respect and trust that they need to accomplish a certain task.
Informal, Non-Human Leadership
Maybe I have been thinking about this topic because there was a lot of hype about the dog-whisperer in the news. Cecar Millan is known to be the best dog trainer in the world, and his philosophy is fascinating yet basic: dogs are happiest when they have a strong leader that they can follow.
However, he claims that they will only follow a stable leader. As opposed to humans, that is, who will also follow unstable leaders. That is how much integrity dogs have.
Having trained an extremely rambunctious 12-month old, 50+ lbs Alpha Male dog myself, I can wholeheartedly confirm Millan’s point of view. The absurd helplessness, deep frustration and pure rage that I first felt in the face of my own lack of power over him helped shape the outlook on my personal leadership style. It wasn’t until I realized what he needed that he started to genuinely obey me: a strong, consistent leader. But I had to fight for his obedience and loyalty very, very hard.
Well, in the rather rationalized environment of human-to-human leadership, managers and leaders can rely on their position and job title to help gain respect and power. We are immersed in a context where we are forced to follow those leaders that have been assigned to us. Dogs, on the other hand, don’t know these kinds of social and organizational pressures; they sniff out the stable from the unstable people and follow them accordingly.
If they had a choice, would they follow YOU?
Following on from this, I came up with a thought-experiment by asking: if people had a choice, would they follow their bosses? If human team members were a pack of dogs and their manager the lead dog for just one day: would they still obey his requests, respect and follow him? Or, would they overthrow, or ignore her or simply chase her away and choose a different leader? In other words: if the restraints – and protection – of organizational life would disappear for one day, leaving the question of leader- and followership to pure and naked nature: how many of the bosses would still be considered as such? Just consider for one moment: If you are a boss/manager/leader of others: do you think they would still follow you without your formal authority?
If yes: Why? If No: Why Not?
Hiding behind a job title, or being a True Leader?
The dog-comparison works well for this experiment because dog behavior is a visible manifestation of those animal instincts that humans also possess. Of course, human life has become quite sophisticated and complex, rendering us capable of much more than any other animal. But our knowledge can deceive us, our social systems create an unnatural environment for some fundamental processes. The structure of formal leadership positions in organizations can make us forget that we still have to fight for the respect and followership of others.
Our job titles and place in the hierarchy can make it too easy to insist on our right to lead without being true leaders. That’s why it can be helpful and, at least, interesting to ask oneself why others should follow us. How much stability, trust and direction we really provide to be worthy the followership of others.
Comments from human-to-human, as well as human-to-animal leaders are welcome! (:-)
Posted: December 2nd, 2009 under Leadership.
Comments: none
Leadership Blogs worth checking out
This time I’d like to give a few recommendations for interesting blogs that are dealing with the topic of leadership, authenticity in organizations, business etchis and business in general.
My favorite is, of course, Bill George’s blog; he is the ex-CEO and now Harvard professor who made the idea of Authentic Leadership ‘famous’ and acceptable for business people.
Then there is a high-profile blog by the Washington Post, featuring leadership experts of all kinds that offer interesting views on the topic.
If you need a break from leadership issues, check out Trust Matters, whose authors give a lot of thought to a variety of (business) issues.
The LIFT Blog is a great resource for people who want to learn more about Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS), considering that Authentic Leadership is one of its relatives.
Last but not least, my latest find is a blog called Authentic Organizations which of course complements my work on Authentic Leadership perfectly.
So, for those of us who might need a break from eating turkey this coming Thanksgiving, or from meeting relatives and driving from feast to feast: let’s curl up on the sofa with our laptops and enjoy some interesting online mind-sharing!
Posted: November 24th, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: Authentic Organizations, Bill George, Ethics in Leadership, leadership blogs, Leadership experts, Washington Post
Comments: none
I’m back in the Game!
I’m pleased to announce that I will commence working as research assistant at the Faculty for Business Administration, Leadership, and Organization, at the University Hagen (FernUniversitaet Hagen, Germany) in January 2010.
This also means that I keep pursuing my goal of studying towards a PhD. I’m very grateful for this fantastic opportunity and look forward to this new challenge.
Posted: November 12th, 2009 under Uncategorized.
Tags: Germany, Hagen, PhD
Comments: none
The Image Problem of Authentic Leadership
Authentic Leadership is suffering from an image problem. The majority of non-academic writings that I see do not look at it as the complex social phenomenon which it is. Even people who genuinely want to understand authentic leadership and feel very strongly about its importance in business, only look at it in a one-dimensional way. After a lengthy online-discussion about the nature of authentic leadership, I was utterly frustrated because I hadn’t learned anything new. All I did was to defend my position as a leadership scholar against some people who haven’t thought things through yet (which is fine, but doesn’t do the topic any favors). Consequently, I tried to figure out what it was that separated our points of view in such a fundamental way.
After a few days of brooding over this question I realized that the core of our (friendly) disagreement constituted not only a difference in world views, but I know now where some of the misperceptions about authentic leadership come from.
Tunnel view, or: why we need to look beyond the Self
In short, many people get stuck in focusing on the Self. I totally agree that self-awareness (knowing yourself) is the basis for authentic leadership and many of my discussions cover that issue. Yes, authentic leaders must look inward, this being a totally personal and individualistic act. They must know themselves well, and be able to coordinate actions and behaviors with their true Self. For many managers, the discovery of their Self can be a life-changing event and help them become happier people and better leaders.
But self-awareness is only the starting point for our studies of authentic leaders. If you look further down the line, considering the social interactions leaders have and the complex organizational structures they are in, we realize that we need to understand more than the process of self-awareness. Leaders have to be able to look beyond their own Self, too. They need to incorporate the needs, expectations and opinions of their followers, in order to respond to them as effective leaders.
I am aware that is tricky, not only in theory. Many opposing concepts, principles, values and consequences between their Self and the outside world will pop up, and any leader has to struggle with these dichotomies on a daily basis. Still, it is through interactions and experiences with the outside world (= people) that leaders enhance their own, their followers’ and their organizations’ development and growth. Change can only happen when the status quo is being questioned, and that always involves opening up our own mind to others – and genuinely consider, as well as question, the expression of our own Self in our actions and behaviors.
Bottom line: If authenticity would only refer to my need to “accept myself as I am without apology” or to celebrate my “uniqueness” I could not only end up being pretty lonely but also as a rather ineffective leader.
The halo of Authentic Leadership
Another argument that I keep hearing is that we can’t study authenticity/authentic leadership scientifically. To me this sounds as if the topic is too personal, too precious, too complicated to understand- yes, too holy. I argue: we express our authenticity (and lack thereof) in tangible actions and behaviors. And the latter can be studied very well.
I have failed in the past to critically look at the concept of Authentic Leadership, too. Whilst I think it’s the most interesting concept I’ve come across, I’m also aware that it has flaws. It’s not the only way to lead, and probably not the best strategy in all circumstances. Nevertheless, I know for sure that an esoteric approach to authenticity and authentic leadership renders us blind to its actual practicability and its use for managers and leaders, practitioners and coaches. Everyone seems to “know” what authenticity means, and most people then conclude that the discussion around authenticity should look the same as the discussion around authentic leadership.
Well, life and leadership are a bit more complicated than that.
With the awareness that there are many people out there who might disagree, I look forward to their critical comments and feedback.
Posted: November 5th, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: Authentic Leadership, authenticity, esoteric, Self
Comments: none
Is it Me, Myself or My Self that’s in charge?
When you think back in your career, and think of the people in leadership positions you worked with: have you ever encountered those that seem to be saying one thing but doing another? Or, do you remember the manager who urged commitment and integrity in her employees but resigned at the first chance when things got tough? Or maybe you know the leader who played the power card with his team, but ducked like a beaten dog whenever his own boss was nearby? I have met them all at some point. And sometimes I wondered if it was me, having totally misjudged these people, or if it was them, displaying their multifaceted personalities.
As it turns out, there are thinkers out there who assume that humans can have multiple Selves.
What I need to know now is this: what does this idea mean for the concept of Authentic Leadership, a theory that is based on one, and only one ‘Self’?
You, Yourself and Your Self…
Paul Bloom introduces us to two different viewpoints when it comes to thinking about a person’s “Self”. The traditional view states that humans have a “Self”, a “you” that can make long-term plans, but one that has to fight off impulses, compulsions or addictions of any kind. In contrast to that, he writes, modern research suggests that each of us is a “community of competing selves… which are continually popping in and out of existence. They have different desires, and they fight for control – bargaining with, deceiving, and plotting against each other.” The examples he provides, are taken from our every-day lives: the one Self that wants to lose weight, fights the other Self that wants to eat too much cake. And so on.
Accepting this notion and thinking back at our previous bosses, it becomes crystal clear now why they behave with inconsistency. They (whichever of their Selves that might be) suffer from the Multiple-Self-Syndrome and are torn apart by the complexity of decisions, expectations and principles that rule any leader’s life. Yes, their planning long-term Self might want to be a role-model leader with the best interest of their team in mind, but the selfish short-term Self tells him otherwise. No reason, then, to feel accountable, is there?
No, this is not what Paul Bloom says. He knows that people need to be and remain ‘whole’ and rely on the fact that they are one and the same person today which they were yesterday. He does admit that it can feel ‘wrong’ to assume this theory, because “society and human relationships would be impossible without this form of continuity”, and we would “feel no long-term guilt, love, shame, or pride.”
And yet, he “gives up the idea that there is just one self per head.” – I am confused…
The quest for Authenticity in Leadership continues…
When studying the concept of Authentic Leadership, one is confronted with the assumption of an “authentic Self”. This Self – my Self and your Self, your Managers Self, your Leader’s Self – provides the basis for the choice of principles and values on which every day actions and decisions are based on. Keeping in mind that humans are social beings and leadership is a purely relational phenomenon, however, the view on authentic leadership should be that the (authentic) Self shapes, and is shaped, through exchanges with others.
But there is still only one Self… one Self that makes the decisions, one Self that does or doesn’t follow the rules, one Self that reminds me not to be biased too much, one Self that makes you want to be a Role Model for your associates, one Self that makes your manager want to support you in your role, and one Self that helps your leaders to make the morally sound decision. One Self that takes full responsibility and leads the way for others to follow. Or is there?
In my view, the complexity of human nature with all its colors and shades can be incorporated in the notion that there is only one Self. Our various addictions, competing values, inconsistencies and contrasting traits can become familiar to us by ways of becoming more self-aware. It frightens me to assume that we are all just a sum of many competing Selves, because nobody can really decide which Self makes the decisions. Can we ever find our Authentic Self amongst all these Selves?
And if our leaders don’t even know what their own Self is made up of, haven’t we lost all hope to find our own?
I look forward to your comments and suggestions regarding this topic.
References:
Bloom, P., 2008. First Person Plural. The Atlantic Online. Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/multiple-personalities/.
Avolio, Bruce J. & Gardner, William L., 2005. Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
Posted: October 21st, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: authentic Self, authenticity, Authenticity in Leadership, multifaceted, Self
Comments: 1
Official Role Models
We’ve heard a lot about Role Modeling in connection with Authentic Leadership. In short, this crucial quality of authentic leaders refers to the ability to act in accordance with the values they communicate. The integrity, energy and braveness that leaders need to act upon their principles make them authentic. If they follow their own rules with consistency and passion, their behaviors will inspire others, resulting in a role model effect.
Now, there is plenty of room for discussion in regards to the demand to acting on strong values. For example, how far should a leader go by insisting on certain principles, despite potential pressure from their environment? Or, you could ask: was Hitler an authentic leader because he strictly followed his twisted principles? The list of possible challenging questions about this issue could go on, but let’s save this discussion for another time. The premise I’m making is this: authentic leadership involves having strong values about certain issues, communicating them and acting upon them. And by doing so, leaders set examples for their followers, to do the same. They become Role Models.
This time I’d like to bring this philosophical question closer to life and focus on a simple example. To start with, I’m asking why only hierarchically recognized leaders could be role models. What about teachers? Or doctors? Or, to get the story rolling – police officers?
Police Officers and Road Safety
I am in a love-hate relationship with my cell phone. It’s an ancient model that only survives for the lack of use and is tolerated in my handbag for its potential role as savior in an emergency situation. I have yet to find out more about the nature of the crucial discussions that many people (Americans mainly, sorry!) have on their cell phones whilst walking their dogs, riding bikes, strolling with their kids or, the worst of all, driving their cars. Put the question of content aside I don’t think driving and being on the cell phone is a healthy combination. Apart from the fact that it looks dangerous to me, other people seem to agree.
My argument/question is this: assuming that it is true that ‘cell phone driving’ is dangerous, and further assuming that police officers enforce (road) safety, can we conclude that police officers should definitely not be on the cell phone whilst driving? And second: do police officers have a certain position in our society that would render them role models, which would mean in this context that in order to enforce road safety they should not be caught by ordinary citizens on the phone whilst driving? That would at least be my expectation, an expectation that clashes with reality on a daily basis. I see police officers on the road and talking cheerily on their cell phones on a regular basis. Now you are asking yourself “Well, where does she live? Maybe the job of police officers requires them to have important telephone conversations whilst they are driving?” To answer your question: No, I don’t live in Chicago where officers are in the middle of a high-profile mafia operation and their ‘cell phone driving’ helps them find the bad guys. And no, I also don’t live in Los Angeles, where police officers are fighting dangerous gangs and ‘cell phone driving’ is a matter of life and death. I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan with a wonderfully low crime statistic.
Role Models, Offically
Bottom line: even people that are in no classical leadership position can and should view themselves as role models. In the above mentioned case I’m referring to those members of society that (at least in my eyes) enjoy the respect of citizens because they have a hard job keeping us relatively safe and secure. I like the police, and never had a problem with them. But I wish more officers in our town would see themselves as role models by not driving and talking on the cell phone at the same time. If they view their job as important as most ordinary citizens do, then they should be able to feel pride in their job and the awareness of their responsibility as role models.
And I’m sure that those police officers, who feel like that about their job, do exactly that. They know what’s safe and what isn’t and they will not just preach water and drink wine (an unfortunate saying in the context, I know). If they act authentically and genuinely believe that cell phone driving is dangerous (I hope they do), they can make the most of their position to keep the rest of us safer by behaving like real role models. Officially, so to speak.
You consider this notion as problematic? Then I look especially forward to your comment. You can also send me an email to andrea@derlercoaching.com. Thank you!
Posted: September 23rd, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: authentic, Consistency, police officers, Role Model
Comments: none
Executives as Moral Agents
If I was a cynical person I would say that the two terms “executive” (as in corporate executive) and “moral agent” (as in ethical individual) seem at odds with each other sometimes. However, cynicism isn’t a nice trait and that’s why I will make an attempt to reconcile the two. In this spirit, I investigated the following two questions:
1) Why are Executives Moral Agents? (the one way or the other) and
2) How can Executives understand their role as Moral Agents?
Organizations as Moral Institutions
Some of you might already assume that the writings about Chester Barnard, an American Business Executive in the 20th century, must have been on my post natal reading list… right… (;-)
Unknown to many people, Barnard’s ideas have influenced the literature about Authentic Leadership immensely, particularly its moral aspect. He was the first management scholar to portray formal organizations as social systems that reflect a certain ‘culture’ (convictions, beliefs) and to suggest that management decisions are to a great extent concerned with moral issues. If you look at organizations under this light, then many decision executives make, the objectives they lie out and the actions they perform get a whole new meaning. Meaning which they can ignore, or meaning which they can accept, along with an increased importance of their managerial and leadership role that they have.
“Functions of the Executive”
In his book with the same title (1938) he brings up the aspect of morality in Leadership, but more than describing a philosophical ideal he assigns a great honor/burden to executives: he challenges them to become moral creators of values:
“The distinguishing mark of executive responsibility is that it requires not merely conformance to a complex code of morals but also the creation of moral codes for others.”
In order to be elevated to this level of responsible leadership, the executive needs to be able to:
a) Recognize the moral intensity of each situation,
b) Exhibit moral imagination by rising above normative solutions in order to
c) Create moral efficacy in form of solutions that impact the moral climate of the organization.
Now, hopefully we all have met executives of that caliber!
Managers or – Leaders after all?
Barnard even uses the word ‘Authenticity’ in Leadership when he talks about the responsibility that executives have in their capacity as moral leaders. For him, there are two aspects to successful leadership that need to be ‘harmonized’ by all means:
• Quality of competence to perform the formal role (technical aspect)
• The quality of the role responsibility (moral aspect)
So, for all of those executives, managers and leaders who like to hide behind their technical expertise, behind their formal role in the organizational hierarchy, or simply behind their glass tower office desks: there is no escaping the harsh reality that they shape their follower’s moral agency as much as they shape their every day work. To the better, or to the worse, mind you.
Can we recognize the manager from the leader by assessing how much of the moral agency and the awareness of that responsibility they display in their actions and behaviors? I’m happy to hear your point of view.
Authentic Leadership
In any case, as fashionable as the concept of Authentic Leadership seems to us today, Barnard already talked about it in 1938. He answered the two questions asked at the beginning:
Ad 1) Executives are Moral Agents due to the powerful position they are in. Unknowingly or not, they shape their environment and the people working with them. (I think they might as well make use of that and do it well.)
Ad 2) They can do this by being aware of that very fact, and by following Barnard’s suggestions as listed above (a-c)
The Authentic Leader is one who not only follows the existing moral code within an organization, but who helps to shape the existing moral culture. And along with that comes a whole lot of responsibility for the outcome.
—-
As usual, I welcome your comments on this issue. If you’d like to get in touch with me personally, please write to andrea@derlercoaching.com. Thanks.
References:
Novicevic, Milorad M. et al., 2005. Barnard on conflicts of responsibility; Implications for today’s perspectives on transformational and authentic leadership. Management Decision, 43(10), 1396.
Posted: July 29th, 2009 under Leadership.
Tags: Authentic Leadership, Chester Barnard, Executives, Moral Agent, Responsibility
Comments: none
© 2010 Authentic Leadership Blog - Entries (RSS) - Comments (RSS) - Log in
Powered by WordPress - Theme design by Andreas Viklund