Mission 1, Mission 2

Wave Your Hand, Fan the Flame
Mission One, Mission
Two
Why Our Change Advocacy Organizations
Get Off Track
I’m Norm DeLisle and I’m a Project Consultant for Michigan
Disability Rights Coalition:
Our Mission: “MDRC is a disability justice movement working to
transform communities”
Our Motto: “ With Liberty and Access for All”
Our Attitude: “Feisty and Non-Compliant”
I have been working in the disability community since late 1970,
and I have a long history of depression, anxiety and PTSD
symptoms. Right now, I am doing as well as I ever have in my life.
I’m happy to have this chance to talk to you about a very important
issue. You should feel free to take care of your needs when they
arise, and ask questions when you think of them.
Why is it so difficult to keep our organizations on track? It is
because we can’t serve just one master and still have a successful
organization. And the fight between those two masters is
demanding and stressful.

Is Your Purpose Fading?
●
Is it getting tougher to see where you are heading?
We start off strong, full of passion and advocacy fervor. Over time,
that passion fades as we come to grips with the reality of running
an organization. Eventually, it seems as though we have lost our
way, our purpose, and we are overwhelmed with paperwork,
human resources problems, funder political issues, and sheer
exhaustion.
Why?
The short answer is that organizations, just like people, forests,
cars, and mountains, age.
This presentation is the story of how organizations age, and what
you can do to slow and redirect the aging process.

How Organizations Age
Organizations age (some would say, “mature”) because of the
relationship between two obligations they must fulfill. Sometimes
these two obligations support one another, and sometimes they
conflict. The small everyday choices made about how these two
obligations interact are the force that ages the organization.
I call them Mission One and Mission Two.
Mission One is the purpose of the organization, the original reason
why it was created.
Mission Two is the sustaining of the organization; basically, all the
ways the organization maintains, repairs, and grows itself.
Mission One requires organizational effectiveness to produce
valued outcomes.
Mission Two requires organizational efficiency to make the best
use of scarce resources.

Mission One
Mission One is the purpose for which the group or organization
was created. Mission One reflects the valued outcomes for your
staff and members, the people who benefit from your existence.
Mission One motivates board and staff members, or
participants/members because the valued outcomes of Mission
One are so powerful, especially in social justice groups. Mission
One (not the PR version of mission one) always contains elements
that can be expressed in moving and meaningful stories by your
constituents.
Mission One motivates action.

Mission Two
Mission Two is the continuation or expansion of the group or
organization. Continuation is so ordinary an aspect of group or
organization work that it is readily confused with Mission One. But,
Mission Two is not Mission One, and can either expand or
destroy Mission One.
This tension between Mission One and Mission Two is what drives
the aging of the group or organization.
Sustaining your organization is not just about money. It is about
paperwork, reports, performance appraisals, maintenance, repair,
skills, capacities, experience, commitment, morale, policies, hiring
and firing, and the rest of what we take to be the ordinary day to
day tasks of any group or organization. All of these can be thought
about and implemented without reference to Mission One.
While we often believe (correctly) that Mission Two is necessary for
the survival of Mission One, it is also and always true that every
minute, every dime, every anxiety spent on Mission Two is taken

directly away from Mission One.
An obvious example is the organizational provision of funding
reserves. Reserves are funds that are deliberately not used for
Mission One in order to secure the ongoing survival of the
organization or group in the face of future funding uncertainty. The
time spent building these reserves, planning for their stability and
growth, and their exclusion from consideration for use to provide or
reach Mission One are all examples of how Mission Two detracts
from the achievement of Mission One.

A "Concrete" Example
Creating and Maintaining the American Freeway System:
● I grew up in Midland, Michigan, but the rest of my family lived
in Detroit
● Pre-Freeway, the trip to visit Detroit was 4 hours on two lane
roads traveling through many little towns
● When the freeway was finished, our first trip was one hour
and 15 minutes
● Then repairs and maintenance started, and traffic use
increased
● Now, if there is no gridlock, the trip is 2 and a half hours
● And its getting worse as more maintenance is required
The purpose of the freeway is becoming (more and more) an object
for repair and maintenance and the money that can be made by
doing that, and (less and less) a tool for rapid comfortable
transportation.

Some More Examples
● New Humans: Brand new humans are full of possibilities, but
as we age, we spend more time maintaining ourselves and
less time learning and exploring possibilities
● Government: Programs start out with one purpose and
gradually add rules and additional purposes, until they
sometimes end up doing the exact opposite of what they
started out to do.
● Large Corporations: When businesses start, they typically
have one outcome-a product or a service. As they get bigger,
they may go public and suddenly have shareholders who
don’t care about the product, only how much money they are
making. Often, the largest enterprises are only about money,
and we find financial services corporations betting against
their own customers in order to make money for individual
brokers and managers.

Seeing the Tension
In our ordinary work lives, it can be hard to see the tension
between Mission 1 and Mission 2. Generally, there needs to be a
crisis before that tension is revealed. The crisis can be large, but
doesn’t need to be.
A crisis doesn’t guarantee that we will see the tension between
Mission 1 and Mission 2. We tend to meld the two missions
together and see the crisis as one for the organization, not one for
the conflict between Mission 1 and Mission 2. We try to solve the
crisis without any deep consideration of the impact it is having on
our version of Mission 1 and Mission 2.
I am going to give some examples of crises that point to the tension
between Mission 1 and Mission 2.

Organizational Crises
In the very early life of a new organization or group, it is often
possible to focus only on Mission One-at least for a time. But
eventually, issues arise and begin to dominate the attention of all
stakeholders. These issues are related to how the group or
organization will continue to exist:
● Financial Crises
○ Financial Controls
○ Low Level Embezzlement
○ Employee Equity
○ Fundraising flaws
● Governance Crises
○ Board membership stability
○ Board focus on micromanagement
○ Autocratic founders
○ General Internal Political/Social conflicts
● Resource Crises (funds, skills, work demands)
○ Example: A Crisis of Capacity for Mission One
■ MPAS Individual Advocacy Model: I worked at
Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service for 13

■ years. In the first few years, I was an advocate for
individuals in a 6 county area in the Thumb. About
half of my work was representing families and
students in conflicts over special education
services.
At first, because we advocates knew the law and
regulations regarding school education
obligations, it was very easy to win these
conflicts. In addition, because we quickly became
good at winning, it was always easier to just solve
the student’s issue by ourselves rather than
involving the family in deep learning about how to
advocate for themselves. This produced two
consequences. One was that the school district’s
gradually got better at understanding special
education rules, and they hired attorneys on
retainer to handle conflicts that came up. They
were smarter about the issues over which they
fought with us, and the issues themselves
became much more complex, requiring more of
our time. The second problem was that once we
helped a family, we could expect them to tell their
friends and show up the next year expecting us to
advocate for their son or daughter again.
This led inevitably to an inability on our part to
respond to the advocacy demands, though it took
several years to reach this point.
■ This problem of advocacy strategy (Mission 1)
and resources (Mission 2) caused a strategic
crisis. How could MPAS handle this overload?
● Simply increasing funding might slow the
emergence of the crisis, but wouldn’t
change it fundamentally. The Michigan
Department Of Education estimated that

● 10% of education planning meetings were
contentious and would require an advocate
to sort them out, a total of roughly 20,000 a
year, requiring roughly 200 full time
advocates who did nothing but special
education advocacy. This was and is
impossible to fund (say, $20 million a year).
● Changing the culture of the education
system was an option, but hasn’t moved
much off the dime on its own in the last
quarter century. It would require the
commitment of the organization to a new
Mission 1 that would take decades.
However useful such an outcome would be,
the time and funding required were
unrealistic over that long term.
● We could shift to a community organizing
model in which each advocate would
operate as an organizer with families in their
geographic area to create local advocates
and serve as a support system and a
facilitator of skill development for that
region.
● We could keep the basic mission and
change the model to target priority cases for
advocacy and use an I&R model for the
rest.
■ MPAS chose the last of these because it
preserved the special legal skills accumulated
over the previous decade. Personally, I would
have chosen the community organizing model,
but, then, I’m not an attorney who had committed
their career to disability law, nor someone who
had worked for decades to create accessible legal
services for people with disabilities.
■ But this strategic choice dictated the future of
MPAS-how it supports and continues its activities,

■ how it judges the issues that its customers bring
to it, how it allocates all of its resources.
■ So, this one crisis required a complete
reformulation of the organization’s strategy.
○ Reaching a limit in a critical resource is a very common
problem (a Mission 2 problem) that requires a
reformulation of Mission 1. If you haven’t run into your
version of this yet, you will, if you are a successful
organization.

So What Can We Do?
Oh No!!!
Here is what we CAN’T do:
● Drop either Mission 1 or Mission 2
● Come up with an artificial balance between Mission 1 and
Mission 2 (maybe mission 1 days and mission 2 days)
● Create Rules to Ensure Our Commitment to Mission 1 (noting
mission focused activities on our time sheets and reporting
the amounts to the Board)
.
These are all Mission 2 ways of dealing with the problems of
Mission 1 capacity issues. They will undermine Mission 1, even
though they might well support continuation of the organization.

No, Really, What Can We Do?
Some Places to Start:
● Create Separate Mission Statements for Mission 1 and
Mission 2
● Board members perform Mission 1 critical activities
● Managers perform Mission 1 critical activities
● Mission 2 staff perform Mission 1 critical activities
● Undermine creeping Mission 2ism

Mission Statements
A common pattern for mission statements in nonprofit organizations
is that they become more general and less meaningful over time,
as the focus of the organization shifts from their original purpose to
marketing the organization to stakeholders and funders who do not
necessarily “get” that original purpose.
Think, “Our organization will become the best (definition of
services) provider in this (region, state, national, global, or cosmic)
area”.
I am not implying that we shouldn’t try to make our mission
understandable to people who aren’t deeply involved in our
community, and who don’t understand our code words and jargon.
What I’m really saying is that purpose (Mission 1) and marketing
(Mission 2) are different worlds.
I’m suggesting that organizations have two mission statements:
● One for deep purpose
● One for communicating your work to the world outside your

● target community.
Making use of a concept like this would require you to decide
whether a message or communication is for Mission 1 or a MIssion
2, and then use the appropriate statement. It also requires you to
create two mission statements, and we all know how frustrating it is
to create one.
On the other hand, going through the process of making two
mission statements allows those who participate to clearly see the
difference between Mission 1 and 2, and incorporates that
difference into their thinking about what work they do and why they
do it. This is equally true for board members as well as staff-even
for volunteers if you include them in your mission statement
development work.

Board and Mission 1
The Big Picture
Boards are often overwhelmed by their Mission 2 responsibilities,
and have a very abstract notion of what Mission 1 is for the
organization they govern. Over time, Mission 2 displaces their
focus on Mission 1, making it distant and largely irrelevant to the
immediate demands of funding and human resources issues.
Finding deep and enjoyable ways for board members to participate
in truly Mission 1 activities is difficult. But it is the only effective way
I have seen to sharpen the difference in the minds of board
members about the real distinctions between Mission 1 and
Mission 2.
Note that lived experience of your mission, while helpful in
maintaining the distinction between Mission 1 and Mission 2, is no
guarantee over the long term. Constant and unremitting exposure
to the demands and crises of Mission 2 will whittle awareness of
Mission 1 down to nothing over a few years. As Kurt Vonnegut said
of his novel, Mother Night, "We are what we pretend to be, so we
must be careful about what we pretend to be."

Managers and Mission 1
Making Sausage
Managers, regardless of their background or commitment to
Mission 1, have their work lives gradually taken over by Mission 2.
Managerial work is a lot like making sausage-attempting to make
the best tasting concoction you can out of largely unpalatable
components-and the “vision thing” is often degraded into trying to
avoid various kinds of Mission 2 disasters.
This kind of managerial reality has a corrosive effect on
commitment to Mission 1. A manager’s day consists of interruptions
and crises from above and below. Managers become cynical about
the possibilities of genuine change, and feel caught in an economic
trap by the need for a job that pays as well as the one they have
now.
Managers also need to perform Mission 1 critical activities. They
must actually help a constituent of the organization achieve a
valued outcome. They must keep the link they once had with the
day to day lives of those they serve. This link to the lived
experience of a person is the distinction between empty activities

that look like Mission 1 outcomes and real Mission 1 outcomes.

Mission 2 Staff and Mission 1
In all but the smallest organizations, some staff focus exclusively
on Mission 2 outcomes. A typical example would be staff who focus
on financial and accounting tasks. You want these staff to be
honest and direct about the impact of decisions on the
organization’s finances. You certainly don’t want to discourage
them from reporting problems.
At the same time, senior managers need to make decisions about
Mission 2 problems with Mission 1 in mind. This doesn’t necessarily
mean that you would choose Mission 1 over Mission 2 in a financial
crisis. More likely it means that you have to work harder to come up
with a solution that doesn’t undermine either Mission.
In addition to this basic managerial strategy, you need to find a way
to help Mission 2 staff understand your Mission 1 less abstractly. A
way to do this is to have occasional opportunities for Mission 2 staff
to “shadow” Mission 1 staff in their direct work with the constituents
who are invested in your Mission 1 outcomes. The contact with
lived experience of those who benefit from your Mission 1 will

deepen staff understanding of why you do what you do. It is also
possible (and has been done in Michigan’s CMH system) for
Mission 2 staff to build communication materials that effectively tell
constituents how the financial rules impact constituent lives. The
process of struggling to make financial concepts and rules, easily
understood by financial staff, equally understandable to persons
with no financial background, will go a long way to building a better
understanding of Mission 1.

Creeping Mission 2ism
This house is no longer a home. Disaster has made Mission 1
(a home) impossible for the time being.
For this house, Mission 2 has replaced Mission 1, at least until it is
rebuilt. Once it is rebuilt, making it a home will require a lot of work.
As our earlier discussion shows, the replacement of Mission 1 by
Mission 2 is not really a single choice. It is many, many choices
generally made over a long period of time, and resulting in Mission
2 gradually becoming the most important, maybe even the only,
valued thing that the organization does.
An example of a common choice point occurs when a staff person
pursues a valued Mission 1 outcome, but undermines a valued
Mission 2 outcome (maybe by spending money not allocated to a
specific budget line).The common response of managers is to
punish the failed Mission 2 outcome, giving the clear message that
Mission 2 is more important than Mission 1, even if it is
unintentional.

Other examples would include the use of a policy to deny or
exclude a Mission 1 outcome; refusing to advocate for a Mission 1
outcome because of the political consequences; fudging your
Mission 1 values to a funder either to obtain or keep funding.
Note that these actions are not necessarily bad or even avoidable.
Rather, they are sacrificing Mission 1 to continue the organization
(Mission 2).
Mission 2ism arises because we have to make many many Mission
2 decisions or choices for every Mission 1 decision or choice we
make. If we don’t actively promote commitment to Mission 1,
Mission 2 will clutter our thinking and gradually displace Mission 1
through the sheer frequency of Mission 2 issues.

More Ideas
No magic formulas here-just some ideas to provoke your
thinking:
● Automate every aspect of Mission 2 outcomes you can, so
that staff don’t have to think about them or develop anxiety
about them. Anxiety makes any triggering event more
important than it really is. Technology has great possibilities
for supporting this process.
● Make Mission 1 outcomes a standard part of the discussions
in every staff meeting, and put them earlier on the meeting
agenda.
● Give higher point values to Mission 1 outcomes in
performance evaluations and put them earlier in the
evaluation than Mission 2 outcomes. Better yet, get rid of
performance reviews, which are always biased toward
Mission 2.
● Avoid creating personnel policies for low incidence behaviors
that undermine Mission 1. Use progressive discipline instead.
● Produce HR policies through full staff consensus as much as

● humanly possible.
● Use “nudges” instead of black and white policies for HR
compliance issues.
● “Efficiency” is a Mission 2 value, and it is only useful when
applied to an outcome where you can predict the future well.
So, many of your financial outcomes can be viewed through
the lens of efficiency. This won’t work for many of your
Mission 1 outcomes, like, say, self-determination plans.
Forcing efficiency in outcomes that are marked by the
uncertainty of life will destroy the Mission 1 purpose of such
outcomes.
● “Effectiveness” is a Mission 1 value, focused as it is on
producing highly valued outcomes drawn from your purpose.

Resources
Copper Mining in the UP
Online Versions of the Slide Presentation:
Slideshare (PDF):
http://www.slideshare.net/ndelisle/mission-one-mission-two-25775965
Organizational Resources:
SAMHSA (value-driven resources): http://www.samhsa.gov/
World Institute on Disability (value-driven resources):
http://wid.org/resources
Mind Tools (general resources): http://www.mindtools.com/index.html
Strategic Vision (general): http://goo.gl/bnfODF
Idealist (a combination of general and value-driven):
http://goo.gl/DKTcBT
Nudges Resources:
Rethinking Behavior: Change, Nudge-style: http://goo.gl/jkg4t3
Nudge blog: http://goo.gl/qWo30E
Progressive Discipline:
What is Progressive Discipline?: http://goo.gl/Rx6Gr7

Performance Evaluation:
10 Reasons to Get Rid of Performance Reviews: http://goo.gl/KyAjan

Your Presenter
I am Norm DeLisle, Executive Director of Michigan Disability
Rights Coalition:
Short Bio: hubby2jill, 2dogs, advocatefor40+yrs, change strategist,
trainer, geezer, pa2Loree, gndpa2Nevin
Email: ndelisle@mymdrc.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/mdrcngd
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/disability.norm
Blogs:
Recovery Michigan: http://recoverymi.posthaven.com/
Disability Futures: http://normdelisle.posthaven.com/
Health and Disability: http://ltcreform.posthaven.com/
Economic Justice: http://economic-justice.posthaven.com/

Evaluations
Don’t forget to fill out the evaluation form!

Last Thoughts
Justice is the set and constant purpose which gives every man his due.
--Marcus Tullius Cicero
Efforts and courage are not enough without purpose and direction.
--John F. Kennedy
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained
through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
--Helen Keller
The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things.
--Rainer Maria Rilke
Getting an audience is hard. Sustaining an audience is hard. It demands a consistency of
thought, of purpose, and of action over a long period of time.
--Bruce Springsteen
Holding to the Purpose that means the most to you, is the best way to keep Mission 1
alive.

Thanks for Participating
I Appreciate Your Interest!

Further Along The Road...
The slides that follow will show you information that goes beyond
the presentation but will expand your understanding if you want to
review them.
The focus of the following slides is on the more general problem of
having two purposes that sometimes support and sometimes
conflict with each other. A visual guide to this notion is to connect
the two complements with a ~, as in Mission 1 ~ Mission 2. The
tilde indicates that the two purposes sometimes support and
sometimes conflict.

Mission 1 ~ Mission 2
It is obvious that sometimes Mission 1 and 2 support each other
and sometimes they interfere with each other. How should we
understand their relationship? After all, I hope I have made it clear
that you can’t simply ignore one or the other and have a viable
organization.
Pure Mission 1 = Explosion, flashy, but dies out quickly
Pure Mission 2 = Zombie, with no meaningful purpose (except of
course, eating brains!!)
The real issue is how to manage the coordination of these
complements in our day-to-day organizational lives.
Some of the ways that have been tried in the past to understand
relationships between partly incompatible processes like these
include:
● One is good and one is bad
● One is more important than the other

● Both are important at different times in some cycle or process
Any of these are true sometimes, so picking one isn’t very helpful
as a guide. You’ll end up being wrong too often. We want an
understanding that is more like the yin-yang model, but less
abstract. Most of us don’t have the time or desire to sit in a cave for
20 years meditating on the philosophical possibilities of Taoism to
discover lessons for daily life. We need a model that is more
concrete.

The Adapative Cycle
A model of greater usefulness in looking at the relationship
between Mission 1 and Mission 2 was created for understanding
how forests and other ecosystems age and renew. It is called the
Adaptive Cycle. It is a biological model of how Mission 1 and
Mission 2 interact over the life of an ecosystem(= organization) in a
cycle of four phases:
1. Reorganization/Renewal: When purpose is the only driving
force (Mission 1), we try whatever seems possible, up to the
point where we run into resource scarcity.
2. Growth/Exploitation: We find we must develop a strategy
for growth or maintenance (Mission 2), and we begin to view
our resources as assets that must be nurtured, cultivated,
harvested, and exploited.
3. Conservation: As we bump into the ultimate limits on our
growth, including our capacities, our markets, and our
competition, we begin to view resources (funding,
capabilities, experience) as long term assets that must be
protected, defended, and, often, hidden from scrutiny.

1. Release: As conservation continues, and we focus more and
more on Mission 2, we become organizationally brittle, lose
our sense of our original purpose, and our assets and
advantages begin to break down and drift away. Our context
becomes ripe for new purposes and less hidebound beliefs,
often done well outside our current organization.
Ecosystems have a built-in way to remove the no longer useful.
Useless biological organisms are simply eliminated, the ecosystem
itself is simplified, and there remains an environment in which new
organisms can make better use of old resources. Unfortunately, it is
entirely possibly for human organizations to genuinely turn into
zombies without this process of release and renewal occurring, at
least in the near term. We can individually and organizationally
pretend that we are useful, even when we aren’t.

Advocacy ~ Engagement
Another example of how complicated purpose complements can be
is Advocacy~Engagement. Adversarial relationships often create
collaboration and engagement. Remember that “War makes for
strange bedfellows”. Traditional advocacy is a purely adversarial
process in which we defend a position, as in a court battle over
legal and substantive rights. But even in court, some level of
cooperation is required to hold the adversarial contest, follow the
rules for speaking and arguing, etc. I noticed in my time as an
advocate at MPAS, that we often used a strategy I called “bounded
collaboration”. Basically, we would cooperate until some line was
crossed. At that point we became adversaries.
More recently, I have found that simply taking a position as an
advocate has become less and less fruitful over the years, and that
engagement of the other parties in the stakeholder environment is
necessary to move advocacy along. Most policy implementation
problems these days, especially in health and supports, are very
complex and contain structural problems that must be resolved
before positional advocacy can work at all.

Public Housing
Another Example of a Complement:
The complement I’ll look at here is Segregated Housing ~
Distributed Housing. Our value of Inclusion says that people with
disabilities should have affordable and accessible housing in the
same communities as everyone else. At the same time, the stigma
of disability can make real inclusion difficult and personally
desctructive. And the history of trauma can make acquiring and
using the social skills necessary to actually include yourself in a
regular community difficult.
Two models of creating affordable and accessible housing have
developed (with many variations):
● Segregated Housing: All housing units are part of a single
building project with a focus on a single community (say,
vets, seniors, poor, adults with disabilities), with supports
provided in the building by a single provider
● Distributed Housing: Each housing unit is developed and

● built in the larger community. Supports are provided to the
individual or family in that individual unit by a provider hired
by the individual or family.
There are specific economic and control reasons why The System
has wanted to create and maintain segregated models of housing:
● In the creation of plans for housing projects, it is much easier
to propose a single site, with infrastructure, design of
individual units, tax credit use, and the scaling of supports
through a single provider contract
● There are economies of scale with a single site for
maintenance and repair of individual units and the project as
a whole.
● It is much easier to hide and manage unethical use of project
funds in a single site
● It is also easier to enforce control over tenants and sanction
them for violations, both of formal and informal rules, making
it easier to serve the interests of the managers at the
expense of the tenants. Scapegoating and bullying individual
tenants into conformity is much more effective when you tie
supports and loss of lease together. Failure to conform
results in loss of housing, a powerful threat.
There are also social/emotional reasons that perpetuate
segregated housing and segregated community models:
● Especially in the early phases of recovery, most people prefer
to spend their social time with persons who are experiencing
struggles similar to their own. The first issue in recovery is
usually feeling safe.
● The preservation of the feeling of safety, basically relief from
pain whether physical or social, becomes self-perpetuating in
the same way that any relief from any pain does. Not ever
leaving one’s comfort zone becomes a permanent way of
living.
● One accepts the abusive control that project managers exert

● as the price for feeling safe.
● One’s life becomes permanently constrained
So, segregated housing supports segregated communities, and
vice versa.
One way (one of a huge number of variations) of “complementing”
these two models would be to always separate supports from
residence, so that individual tenants can’t lose tenancy for choosing
a different provider of supports or no provider of supports. Another
would be to put limits on the length of time a person can remain in
segregated projects, or set a framework of supports for leaving. A
third would be to make transition from segregated to distributed
housing a standard part of planning supports and skill building from
the first day of tenancy in a segregated project. All of these would
alter the dynamic of the Segregated Housing ~ Distributed Housing
complement.

Other Complements
Some More Examples of Complements Important in Our Lives:
Health Care ~ Health Costs
Support ~ Personal Autonomy
Learning ~ Choices
Relationships ~ Personal Boundaries
Structure ~ Process
If you are really interested in this idea of complements, there is no
better resource than The Natural Complement by Scott Kelso. You
can find it at http://goo.gl/5l8sq2

Mission 1, Mission 2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Mission 1, Mission 2

Similar to Mission 1, Mission 2 (20)

More from Norman DeLisle

More from Norman DeLisle (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mission 1, Mission 2