"The "autotelic self""

E aplicar o que segue a empresas? Atentas ao contexto, prontas a abraçar a mudança, e sentindo-se ao volante,  estabelecem indicadores e objectivos, monitorizam o desempenho e tomam decisões com base no feedback. Não porque seguem uma receita, mas porque vivem.

"A person who is healthy, rich, strong, and powerful has no greater odds of being in control of his consciousness than one who is sickly, poor, weak, and oppressed. The difference between someone who enjoys life and someone who is overwhelmed by it is a product of a combination of such external factors and the way a person has come to interpret them - that is, whether he sees challenges as threats or as opportunities for action. [Moi ici: Recordar as reflexões sobre os que resistem à mudança versus os que a abraçam - Abraçar ou resistir à mudança? ou Resistir versus abraçar]

The "autotelic self" is one that easily translates potential threats into enjoyable challenges, and therefore maintains its inner harmony. A person who is never bored, seldom anxious, involved with what goes on, and in flow most of the time may be said to have an autotelic self. The term literally means "a self that has self-contained goals," and it reflects the idea that such an individual has relatively few goals that do not originate from within the self [Moi ici: Recordar as reflexões sobre o locus de controlo interno e externo - Isto é mesmo um desafio digno de Hercules e Calimeros - não obrigado!].  For most people, goals are shaped directly by biological needs and social conventions, and therefore their origin is outside the self. For an autotelic person, the primary goals emerge from experience evaluated in consciousness, and therefore from the self proper.

The autotelic self transforms potentially entropic experience into flow. Therefore the rules for developing such a self are simple, and they derive directly from the flow model. Briefly, they can be summarized as follows:

1. Setting goals. To be able to experience flow, one must have clear goals to strive for. A person with an autotelic self learns to make choices-ranging from lifelong commitments, such as getting married and settling on a vocation, to trivial decisions like what to do on the weekend or how to spend the time waiting in the dentist's office--without much fuss and the minimum of panic.

...

As soon as the goals and challenges define a system of action, they in turn suggest the skills necessary to operate within it. If I decide to quit my job and become a resort operator, it follows that I should learn about hotel management, financing, commercial locations, and so on. Of course, the sequence may also start in reverse order: what I perceive my skills to be could lead to the development of a particular goal that builds on those strengths - I may decide to become a resort operator because I see myself as having the right qualifications for it.

And to develop skills, one needs to pay attention to the results of one's actions-to monitor the feedback. To become a good resort operator, I have to interpret correctly what the bankers who might lend me money think about my business proposal. I need to know what features of the operation are attractive to customers and what features they dislike. Without constant attention to feedback I would soon become detached from the system of action, cease to develop skills, and become less effective.

One of the basic differences between a person with an autotelic self and one without it is that the former knows that it is she who has chosen whatever goal she is pursuing. What she does is not random, nor is it the result of outside determining forces. This fact results in two seemingly opposite outcomes. On the one hand, having a feeling of ownership of her decisions, the person is more strongly dedicated to her goals. Her actions are reliable and internally controlled. On the other hand, knowing them to be her own, she can more easily modify her goals whenever the reasons for preserving them no longer make sense. In that respect, an autotelic person's behavior is both more consistent and more flexible."

"resistance is an emotional process"

"When we ask for help, we want both a solution to the problem and confirmation that everything we have done has been perfect.

A colleague of mine, Neale Clapp, mentioned one day that people entering therapy want confirmation, not change. On the surface, it would be ridiculous for a client to bring in a consultant for help, and then tell the consultant that no change was desired and the client did not really want to learn anything. This would not be rational. But that is the point: resistance is an emotional process, not a rational or intellectual one.

...

Not surprisingly, organizations that are in serious trouble tend to be the most difficult clients. They need to change the most and are least able to do it. For low-performing organizations, the tension of failure is so high that they are unable to take one more risk, and so instead they hold on to their unsatisfactory performance. In these extreme cases, there is probably not much consultants can do to surface the resistance to change. We may just have to accept it."

Julgo que já escrevi sobre este tema, Procrastinação e falta do sentido de urgência, sobre empresas que adiam a aplicação de micro-mudanças ao longo do vector tempo, ampliando o gap entre o que são e o que deveriam ser, até que só uma grande mudança a pode ajudar, mas não há experiência sobre como mudar, e há um medo tremendo de falhar ... mudar significa avançar para algo desconhecido, mudar significa medo.

Trechos retirados de "Flawless consulting: a guide to getting your expertise used" de Peter Block.

Persuadir

"Not surprisingly, almost everyone is relying on the standard approach to drive change: Tell people what to do. Issue demands like: “Don’t go out,” “Stay six feet apart,” Wash your hands,” and “Wear face masks.”

...

Directives aren’t particularly effective in driving sustained behavior change because we all like to feel as if we are in control of our choices. Why did I buy that product, use that service, or take that action? Because I wanted to. So when others try to influence our decisions, we don’t just go along, we push back against the persuasive attempt. ... We avoid doing what they suggested because we don’t want to feel like someone else is controlling us.

...

So if telling people what to do doesn’t work, what does? Rather than trying to persuade people, getting them to persuade themselves is often more effective. Here are three ways to do that.

...

1. Highlight a gap.

You can increase people’s sense of freedom and control by pointing out a disconnect between their thoughts and actions, or between what they might recommend for others versus do themselves.

...

People strive for internal consistency. They want their attitudes and actions to line up. Highlighting misalignment encourages them to resolve the disconnect.

...

2. Pose questions.

Another way to allow for agency is to ask questions rather than make statements.

...

By encouraging them to articulate their opinion, they’ve had to put a stake in the ground — to admit that those things aren’t good for them. And once they’ve done that, it becomes harder to justify the bad behaviors.

...

3. Ask for less.

The third approach is to reduce the size of the ask.

...

A better approach is to dial down the initial request. Ask for less initially, and then ask for more. Take a big ask and break it down into smaller, more manageable chunks."

Trechos retirados de "How to Persuade People to Change Their Behavior" 

"Just do it!"

 Na segunda-feira publiquei aqui no blogue, "a hypothesis waiting to be tested":

"There's a failure to understand that you can run an organization thinking like a scientist. By that I mean, just recognizing that every opinion you hold at work is a hypothesis waiting to be tested. And every decision you make is an experiment waiting to be run.

So many leaders just implement decisions. It's like life is an A/B test, but they just ran with the A, and didn't even realize that there was a possible B, C, D and E. Too many leaders feel like their decisions are permanent."

 Entretanto, li mais uns trechos retirados de "How Big Things Get Done" de Bent Flyvbjerg e que julgo que encaixam bem com os sublinhados acima:

"A preference for doing over talking -sometimes distilled into the phrase "bias for action" - is an idea as common in business as it is necessary. Wasted time can be dangerous. "Speed matters in business," notes one of Amazon's famous leadership principles,

...

however, that Bezos carefully limited the bias for action to decisions that are "reversible." Don't spend lots of time ruminating on those sorts of decisions, he advises. Try something. If it doesn't work, reverse it, and try something else. That's perfectly reasonable.

...

When this bias for action is generalized into the culture of an organization, the reversibility caveat is usually lost. What's left is a slogan - "Just do it!"

...

we found that managers feel more productive executing tasks than planning them," ... "Especially when under time pressure, they perceive planning to be wasted effort." To put that in more general behavioral terms, people in power, which includes executives deciding about big projects, prefer to go with the quick flow of availability bias, as opposed to the slow effort of planning."

"a hypothesis waiting to be tested"

"There's a failure to understand that you can run an organization thinking like a scientist. By that I mean, just recognizing that every opinion you hold at work is a hypothesis waiting to be tested. And every decision you make is an experiment waiting to be run.

So many leaders just implement decisions. It's like life is an A/B test, but they just ran with the A, and didn't even realize that there was a possible B, C, D and E. Too many leaders feel like their decisions are permanent. [Moi ici: E ignoram aquela lição de vida - O que é verdade hoje, amanhã é mentira - as alterações do contexto tornam obsoletas as boas decisões do passado] As opposed to saying, "We're going to test and learn."

...

If you have a skeptical or resistant audience, it's not effective to go into prosecutor mode. It just invites the other person to bring their best defense attorney to court, and then we're just butting heads and nobody learns or opens their mind or changes anything. I think there are some good alternatives, including motivational interviewing, which is to just say, hey, I'm excited about this change. I'm anticipating some resistance. And I'd love to know what would motivate you to try this? Is there anything that would make it worth considering for you? And then you actually learn what motivates people by interviewing them as opposed to trying to shove your idea down their throats."

Trechos retirados de "Why CEOs Should Think Differently- and Experiment" publicado no WSJ do de 23 de Fevereiro último.

Por que engonhamos tanto?

Na capa do JN de ontem:

O futuro em Portugal anda à velocidade de um caracol. Estamos em Fevereiro de 2023. 

Aqui no blogue em Abril de 2007 - "Estava escrito nas estrelas ...". Depois, em Abril de 2008 "Um caminho para a farmácia do futuro?" e esta série até Janeiro de 2018 - A farmácia do futuro (parte VII).

Por que engonhamos tanto? Tanta gente a defender o passado, tantos responsáveis com medo de abraçar o futuro. Tanto tempo perdido, tantos recursos desperdiçados, tanta gente prejudicada.

Acerca das mudanças

Tapar o sol com uma peneira.

Tratar os sintomas em vez de ir às causas.

Pregar uns valores e princípios e praticar o oposto.

Enganar as pessoas.

Não preparar as pessoas para aquilo que para elas vai ser uma surpresa.

Apresentar uma dança da chuva qualquer para enganar papalvos.

Alguns conselhos, "Don't just Tell Employees Organizational Changes Are Coming - Explain Why":

"Inspire people by presenting a compelling vision for the future. During times of uncertainty, people experiencing change want a clear view of the path ahead. It’s important to share what you know – including what’s changing, when, and how. But for most change initiatives, it is also helpful to start with a narrative or story that clearly articulates the “big picture” – why change is important and how it will positively affect the organization long-term. This should serve as the foundation for how you communicate about the change moving forward.

...

Keep employees informed by providing regular communications. Change communications is never a one-and-done event; keeping employees informed is something that you will have to do throughout every step of the change process. Studies have found that continual communication is a leading factor in a transformation’s success. When thinking about how to communicate, keep the following in mind:

Be clear and consistent: All of your communications should tie back to the narrative that you developed, reiterating the case for change and presenting a compelling future vision.

You will not have all the answers:

...

Don’t forget to articulate “What’s in it for me?”:"

"an inspiring or urgent reason to change"

"When you create something yourself, you feel ownership of it, and once you own it, you might care enough to improve it. You can say the same thing about teams that create their work process: They feel ownership of their approach, which makes them take responsibility for improving it. Once teams discover and learn what works for them, they can share that learning with other teams across the organization. This process of lateral learning enables the organization to discover which changes it needs to make to build a model that works in its context.

...

Successfully bringing agility into an organization is a journey of discovery and learning. There is no fixed end-state when you can say, "The transformation is done." Instead, the end-state is a dynamic one, in which new insights are continually used to improve the product, processes, and organizational design.

...

Having an inspiring or urgent reason to change is a precondition for a successful transformation. Without it, the chances of lasting change are slim. After all, why would we change if all is running perfectly? Once the reason is there, then the hard work begins."

Trechos retirados de "Creating Agile Organizations: A Systemic Approach" de Ilia Pavlichenko.

Sermos a mudança que queremos ver

""The truth about culture is that the only way you can change it is by changing the way individuals work with one another. If you can change that, then you will find the culture has changed."

To change the way people work together, Martin argues, leaders must model the behaviors they want to see. "Literally the only way that I've seen culture change in the 42 years since I graduated from business school is when a leader sets out to demonstrate a different kind of behavior and makes that behavior work. Other people take their cues from that behavior, and, slowly but surely, the culture changes," he says. "Kremlin-watching does not happen only in Moscowit's an incredibly powerful force. People watch the leadership and do what the leadership does."

A notable aspect of this approach is that it does not require a major initiative or investment. Instead, the culture change depends on micro-interventions: small adjustments to the to the structure, dynamics, or framing of interpersonal interactions, applied consistently over time."

Trecho retirado de "When it comes to changing culture, think small"

"Transforming An Obstacle Into A Design Constraint"

  "Transforming An Obstacle Into A Design Constraint" 

Li esta frase ontem, durante a minha caminhada matinal junto ao Atlântico (finalmente acabou o Verão, e tenho a praia só para mim) aqui. 

Julgo que é esta a diferença entre os que resistem e os que abraçam a mudança, um tema recorrente aqui no blogue:

• Abraçar ou resistir à mudança? (Setembro de 2021)
• Resistir versus abraçar (Março de 2021)

Julgo que foi esta abordagem que a tripulação do UA 232 seguiu:

"There is almost no reference in the cockpit to the resumption of normal flying after the hydraulics are lost. Instead, the crew of UA 232 define themselves as being in a new, distinct situation that requires a very different mode of operating. Their resilience is embodied in making do with the few resources they have left.

...

The crew of UA 232 kept revising their explanation of what is happening and what is next." 

E ainda:

"Instead, they are dealing with possibilities. “In a contingent world, real-time improvising in the face of what people cannot fully anticipate [is necessary because] having designs that work as planned is only one of the many contingencies we prepare for." 

Talvez a maioria de nós perante um obstáculo comece logo por o ver como uma desculpa para não fazer, para não mudar, para pedir ajuda ao papá-pedo-mafioso aka o estado. 

Abraçar ou resistir à mudança?

Abraçar ou resistir à mudança? Esta mudança é a mudança que ocorre no exterior, com maior ou menor velocidade. É independente da vontade das organizações, está-se marimbando para as organizações. 

Ao longo dos anos escrevo aqui sobre abraçar ou resistir à mudança. E sobretudo, sobre o papel das lideranças associativas em predispor as mentes para abraçarem a mudança e procurarem oportunidades. 

"Human beings are resistant to many kinds of change. However, we are also a species driven by curiosity and programmed to seek out novelty. The difference between embracing and resisting change is rooted in our brain-body hardwiring. Evolution has resulted in a two-channel system, which is responsible for much of our response in times of uncertainty. The Survive Channel is activated by threats and leads to feelings of fear, anxiety, and stress. These triggers activate the sympathetic nervous system and, when working well, direct all attention toward eliminating the threat. By contrast, the Thrive Channel is activated by opportunities and is associated with feelings of excitement, passion, joy, and enthusiasm. These triggers activate the parasympathetic nervous system, allowing our mind to broaden its perspective and collaborate in new ways.

Creating smart, fast change means preventing the Survive Channel from overheating while activating the Thrive Channel in sufficient numbers of people, leading to more innovation, adaptation, and leadership.

Reflecting on recent stories of organizational change, no single lesson comes across as clearly as one related to leadership — specifically, the need for more of it from more people. Leadership as a behavior, not a position, has the capacity to meet the change challenge of today. There is a strong need to reconstruct the modern organization and create an environment that fosters more autonomy, participation, and leadership.

The relative strength of the Survive Channel, combined with the emphasis on reliability and efficiency reinforced by traditional management systems, leads to organizations that generally overheat the Survive Channel and under-activate the Thrive Channel. Organizations that can pivot and change quickly require leaders who can both calm an overheated Survive and amplify Thrive, for themselves and others."

Trechos retirados de "Is Your Organization Surviving Change — or Thriving in It?"

E conjugar isto com o sensemaking que Karl Weick refere nos seus textos:

"The very first image that appeared in this book described experience as a ’sea of ceaseless change.’ I argued that organizing is about creating some patterned recurrence into that ceaseless change."

"change is always, at some level, about what people value"

Há dias em "Why Change Fails" li e sublinhei:

"All too often, we assume that mere necessity can drive change forward, yet history has shown that not to be the case. There’s a reason why nations fail and businesses go bankrupt. The truth is that if a change is important, some people won’t like it and they will work to undermine it in underhanded and insidious ways. That’s what we need to overcome.

...

Organizations face similar challenges. Sure they invest in tangible assets, such as plant and equipment, but any significant change will involve changing people’s beliefs and behaviors and that is a different matter altogether. Today, even technological transformations have a significant human component.

...

One of the great misconceptions of our modern age is that people make decisions based on rational calculations of utility and that, by engineering the right incentives, we can control behavior. Yet people are far more than economic entities, They crave dignity and recognition, to be valued, in other words, as ends in themselves rather than as merely means to an end.

...

The biggest misconception about change is that once people understand it, they will embrace and so the best way to drive change forward is to explain the need for change in a very convincing and persuasive way. Change, in this view, is essentially a communication exercise and the right combination of words and images is all that is required.

Yet as should be clear by now that is clearly not true. People will often oppose change because it asks them to alter their identity. 

...

In other words, change is always, at some level, about what people value. That’s why to bring change about you need to identify shared values that reaffirm, rather than undermine, people’s sense of identity. Recognition is often a more powerful incentive than even financial rewards. In the final analysis, lasting change always needs to be built on common ground."

Bom material para uma futura conversa oxigenadora.

Interessante esta proposta, OpenSpace Beta para fomentar a transformação: 

"Explain the case for transformation.

Explain that specific practices have not been determined. 

Explain the challenges the business is facing in terms of competition, pricing pressure, organizational effectiveness, etc.

Invite everyone involved into the process of writing the transformation story. Communicate clearly that the managers do not have all the answers and that they are looking for the very best ideas to make the move to Beta genuine, rapid and lasting.

Make it plain that the organization will work with a wide array of Beta practices. The results of each intervention on the system (or "Flip") will be inspected to determine whether to continue the specific practice."

"Advertise the good behaviors, not the bad ones"

Ao ler.

"Small and seemingly trivial changes in the immediate environment or in the way we behave can have a big influence on what people do or how they behave."

Dei uma interpretação diferente daquela que a maioria das pessoas tem. Quem lê esta frase, olha para o futuro e pensa que a melhoria da situação actual pode depender de pequenas mudanças. Pensei, pequenas mudanças no passado podem ter criado a situação dolorosa actual.

Uma exemplo interessante sobre essas pequenas acções:

"Leaders can use this fact to influence their employees. How? By “advertising” the behaviors they want to encourage in their organization. For example, advertise that the majority of your employees are team players rather than complain about those that do not collaborate as much as you want. Similarly, advertise that the majority of your people come to work on time rather than complain about those that arrive to work late. Simply “advertising” the right behavior will encourage everybody to conform to that.

It sounds simple, but the truth of the matter is that we do the exact opposite in organizations: We complain about the lack of cooperation, or people arriving late to work, or not experimenting enough. By doing this, we are advertising the “bad” behaviors and in the process encouraging even good employees to conform to them.

...

Advertise the good behaviors, not the bad ones."

Trechos retirados de “Organizing for the New Normal” de Constantinos Markides.

O poder das estórias

"Make the Need for Change Personal

First, give them all the negative facts about disruption and warn them that if we don’t change, bad things will happen to us. This is the threat framing that is necessary to demonstrate that we are not hiding from reality. But as already pointed out, you should not stop there. Complement this threat framing with a positive reason why we need to change. The key is to make sure this positive reason is personal to every single employee.

...

A statement, however nice or inspiring, will not by itself elicit emotion from people. We therefore need to go beyond simply communicating to people to doing certain other things to support what we say. Here are a few tactics illustrating what we could be doing:

Walk the talk: It should be obvious that we need to support what we are saying with actions. Nothing could be more persuasive to people than seeing their senior leaders behave in ways that support what they are proclaiming, especially when the actions are not cost-free. 

...

Visualization: Things that people see are more likely to evoke emotions than things they hear or read. You should therefore help them visualize what you are trying to sell to them. This suggests that instead of simply telling them, “We need to become customer-centric because that will make our customers happy,” it is better to show them a video of happy customers complimenting the company on its customer responsiveness. Similarly, instead of telling them, “We need to become more innovative because that would save people’s lives,” it is better to bring patients into the organization to tell the employees how your company’s products have saved their lives.

...

Story-telling: Stories and how you tell them are more likely to evoke emotions than a presentation. You should therefore support what you are selling to people with stories."

Uma ilustração do poder das estórias nesta figura:

Quando se apresentam os factos associados a uma medicação e uma estória positiva ou negativa associada, vemos a taxa de aceitação dessa medicação. O caso B é particularmente impressivo!

Outra ilustração:

Trechos retirados de “Organizing for the New Normal” de Constantinos Markides. 

"it becomes frozen in time"

 "In performance cultures, people often become attached to best practices. The risk is that once we’ve declared a routine the best, it becomes frozen in time. We preach about its virtues and stop questioning its vices, no longer curious about where it’s imperfect and where it could improve. Organizational learning should be an ongoing activity, but best practices imply it has reached an endpoint. We might be better off looking for better practices."

Trecho retirado de “How to be Strategic” de Fred Pelard.

Não esquecer

 

“Research shows that when people are resistant to change, it helps to reinforce what will stay the same. Visions for change are more compelling when they include visions of continuity. Although our strategy might evolve, our identity will endure.”

Trecho retirado de “The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know” de Adam Grant.

Um arrepio...

Ao longo dos anos tenho aqui relatado a minha experiência e preocupação com a lentidão da mudança nas empresas portuguesas. Por exemplo, falta de fogo no rabo.

Também por isso receio o efeito dos lay-off: uma pausa que não pressiona as empresas a reformarem-se. Na verdade: Não vai ser nenhum 'lay-off' que as vai preparar para essa transição.

Por isso, assim que ouvi este trecho até me arrepiei:

"The COVID-19 pandemic has changed many aspects of business, but one thing that hasn’t changed is the urgent need for companies to transform. In fact, the crisis has underscored that need. Most organizations have already launched rapid measures in response to the situation. The challenge now is to build on these measures and develop longer-term, comprehensive initiatives to reposition the company for the future—which may feel like a permanent state of emergency."

Daqui, "How Transformative CEOs Lead in a Crisis": 

"many companies across industries and geographic markets now need to stabilize revenue, unlock growth through new digital sales channels, and reduce costs. 

...

Because the pace of change in business has accelerated, companies can no longer spend six months plotting a transformation and then several years implementing it. Instead, companies need to take immediate steps to begin delivering results, send cash to the bottom line, and fund future initiatives.

Top-performing organizations don’t rely on just cost cuts to free up capital—instead, they also improve capital efficiency and deliver quick wins to boost revenue. 

...

To be clear, cost reductions are often a critical step, but they can never stand alone. Over the long term, revenue growth has a greater impact on transformation success—contributing, on average, nearly half of cumulative value creation after five years.[Moi ici: Ainda na sexta-feira passada tive conversa com empresa que passou pela redução dos custos. E debatemos várias alternativas para aprender com os 4/5 clientes novos que ganharam nos últimos dois anos para perceber como procurar ainda mais clientes para aumentar vendas]

...

[Moi ici: Outra tema abordado nessa mesma conversa. O meu velho exemplo de Zapatero] New CEOs perform better in transformations. In fact, a new CEO can boost the odds of a successful transformation by 7 percentage points, on average. Why do new CEOs perform better? Because they take an outsider’s view of the business, with no legacy bias, and they are willing to take bold steps to shake up established ways of thinking.

Incumbent CEOs and management teams, therefore, cannot afford to be complacent and maintain the status quo. Instead, they must be somewhat paranoid and continuously take a fresh look at the business. Or, as we say, “If it ain’t broke, fix it anyway.”"

 

"your methods suck"

Algo que intuí há algum tempo e que exemplifiquei aqui "Causas e 5 porquês":

"E contei-lhes um caso real desta semana: numa pequena localidade do centro do país, entrei num pequeno café que tem um pão d'avó muito bom para almoçar uma sandes. Reparei que estavam duas mulheres com pinta de ucranianas a falar entre si e a interagir com os telefones. Depois, entra um sr. Alberto que veio para ler o jornal do café, depois entra uma outra mulher para tomar um café e beber um copo de água. De repente os quatro começam a falar sobre as "queridas" da encarregada da fábrica têxtil em frente, que tinham sido seleccionadas para fazer horas-extra no Sábado e que só depois de terem confeccionado 700 peças é que descobriram que as tinham feito mal."

Em sintonia com estes trechos retirados de "Change is more like adding milk to coffee":

"There is no such thing as Resistance to Change - only smart response to dumb method
...
"People don´t resist change."
Can you say that to yourself, in your head? Now that is a start. But what is behind the behavior, then, that we are observing all the time, in change efforts, if it is not resistance to change? Take a step back and you will see that people act consciously and intelligently (overall), to other things than the change itself. They may resist loss of status and power - which is quite intelligent. They may resist injustice, stupidity and being changed. Which is also intelligent. The change may also cause need for learning that is not properly addressed. And these are the things that we have to deal with in change: power structures, status, injustice, consequence, our own stupidity, top-down command-and-control, and learning.
.
"The more resistance to change you observe, the more likely it is that your methods suck."
.
Instead of watching out for the possibility of resistance, we should watch out for common mistakes in implementing change and deal with the perfectly natural reactions to (our) poor interventions."

Acerca das mudanças

Volta e meia procuro esta imagem e não a consigo localizar. Agora que a encontrei fica aqui para utilização futura.

“That’s how we’ve always done it.”

Este exemplo:

É um caso concreto de: