Please, Hamel, Don’t Hurt ‘Em

by Andrew McAfee on March 31, 2009

On March 24, Gary Hamel posted to his Wall Street Journal Management 2.0 blogThe Facebook Generation vs. the Fortune 500,” an entry in which he spelled out:

“12 work-relevant characteristics of online life. These are the post-bureaucratic realities that tomorrow’s employees will use as yardsticks in determining whether your company is “with it” or “past it.” In assembling this short list, I haven’t tried to catalog every salient feature of the Web’s social milieu, only those that are most at odds with the legacy practices found in large companies.”

I encourage you to read the post, which showcases Hamel’s enviable ability to distill a phenomenon and explain it to executives without oversimplifying. I don’t think I’ll be doing him any disservice if, in the interest of concision, I list the 12 characteristics here without including his explanations:

  1. All ideas compete on equal footing
  2. Contribution counts for more than credentials
  3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed
  4. Leaders serve rather than preside
  5. Tasks are chosen, not assigned
  6. Groups are self-defining and -organizing
  7. Resources get attracted, not allocated
  8. Power comes from sharing information, not hoarding it
  9. Opinions compound and decisions are peer-reviewed
  10. Users can veto most policy decisions
  11. Intrinsic rewards matter most
  12. Hackers are heroes

Hamel writes that “If your company hopes to attract the most creative and energetic members of Gen F, it will need to understand these Internet-derived expectations, and then reinvent its management practices accordingly.”

I’m not so sure about the ironclad “will need to” part. Back when there was a thriving finance industry many of my students, including some incredibly bright, talented, and ambitious young people, wanted desperately to work in it. They would have put up with paleolithic technology and caveman bosses (neither of which were rare) in order to be part of that sector. Hedge funds, investment banks, and private equity firms have had to make wrenching adjustments recently, but not because of the preferences of the millennials they employ or want to hire.

In general, though, I believe Hamel’s right: most organizations do need to take into account how millennials work, and how they think about hierarchy, expertise, collaboration, decision making, resource allocation, and many other aspects of organizational life. Gary has been a longtime advocate for reexamining these aspects, and for moving us past what he describes as the “mid-20th-century Weberian bureaucracy” that characterizes most large organizations today.

But how should companies do this? How should they reinvent their management practices? One school of thought argues for something like a corporate anti-neutron bomb —  one that leaves the people there but obliterates the existing structures, hierarchies, and edifices. A company taking this approach would try to become entirely Weblike, and to exhibit all twelve of the characteristics Hamel lists.

Of course, few if any organizations are actually going to do this, and based on my conversations with Gary I don’t think this is what he’s advocating. But a fully Weblike company is a useful strawman because it sets up the question “Why not?” —  why would it be bad (in addition to difficult) for a company to adopt these characteristics?

To answer this question, let’s take a look at a prototypical large corporation and concentrate on two of its employees: a brand new millennial hire, and an experienced, competent midlevel manager (the truths of Dilbert aside, such people do exist).

To me, it makes no sense at all to:

  • Have these two compete on equal footing to get their proposed projects approved and funded
  • Give their ideas equal weight
  • Let the two of them (and all other employees) decide who should work for whom
  • Let the newbie veto the graybeard’s decisions
  • Let the millennial decide what he wants to work on all day, each day

Doing such things simply ignores the fact that the more senior employee has greater experience and institutional knowledge. It also ignores the fact that a predefined hierarchy, even an imperfect one, provides certainty and clarity over decision rights that are very difficult to replicate in a purely emegent or egalitarian structure (see the debate over inclusionism and deletionism in Wikipedia, or the great story in The Onion — “Marxists’ Apartment a Microcosm of Why Marxism Doesn’t Work.”).

The Web works in strange and wondrous ways, and has a lot to teach any of us who are interested in making companies work better. Enterprise 2.0, my shorthand for how companies can and should become more Weblike, is the subject of much of this blog’s content. And my work on Enterprise 2.0 tells me that adopting the 12 characteristics listed above is going way too far.

In fact, fully adopting any of them is, I think, overdoing it. A better idea than entirely replacing predefined corporate structures and practices with emergent ones is figuring out how to blend the two approaches to organizing work —  how to overlay emergent systems on predefined ones.

Another good idea is to reinvent current management practices not by replacing existing hierarchical routines with emergent ones, but rather by using emergent systems, communities, and processes to lead the way —  to show how existing practices can and should be changed. This could mean, for example, not having all ideas compete on equal footing, but instead ensuring that all ideas are open to scrutiny, commentary, and improvement, and that the ones that come from high up in the hierarchy aren’t treated as if they’re fully formed or free from error.

Here are some initial thoughts on how to start blending Hamel’s characteristics of online life into current management practices:

  1. All ideas compete on equal footing. No ideas are above review or commentary; there are no sacred cows within the organization. For an example of this in action, see this blog post.
  2. Contribution counts for more than credentials. Credentials are not necessary for making contributions. Bo Cowgill was working in customer service at Google when he proposed the creation of a internal prediction market for the company; he then became the ringleader of the team that built it.
  3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed. Some hierarchies are allowed to form naturally.
  4. Leaders serve rather than preside. Leaders expand their toolkit by using 2.0 technologies and participating in the resulting communities. They blog, tweet, join social networks, and use 2.0 technologies to show why they’ve ascended to high positions. Paul Levy, CEO of Boston’s Beth Israel hospital, is a prime example of such a leader.
  5. Tasks are chosen, not assigned.
  6. Groups are self-defining and -organizing. Just as with hierarchies, some tasks and groups are self-organizing.  Cisco decided on its current set of 20+ corporate priorities via a largely emergent process, and employees selected themselves into groups to work on them. All this, of course, was in addition to the ‘normal’ work of the company.
  7. Resources get attracted, not allocated. This is a tough one. Current resource allocation processes are highly hierarchical. Even when initiatives arise from emergent work, they get funded officially from the top down. It’s hard to see how to effectively change this.  Ideas, anyone?
  8. Power comes from sharing information, not hoarding it. One way to become powerful is to share information, refine and improve it, and/or use it to connect people with each other.
  9. Opinions compound and decisions are peer-reviewed. Decisions are subject to peer scrutiny. In other words, the crowd has the ability to weigh in on the direction the company is taking. This is very different than giving all crowd members veto power, or even a vote. Enterprise 2.0 does not mean setting up a corporate democracy (even Wikipedia is not a democracy).
  10. Users can veto most policy decisions. See #9. I think and hope that individuals will have greater voice within organizations in the future, but not greater veto power.
  11. Intrinsic rewards matter most. Companies use 2.0 tools and approaches to tap into a wider mix of motivations —  both intrinsic and extrinsic.  One note here: it’s important not to confuse intrinsic vs. extrinsic with small vs. big, or monetary vs. non-monetary. Many of the traders in Google’s prediction market are extrinsically motivated. They want external rewards for good work, but seem to be much more interested in t-shirts than cash prizes.
  12. Hackers are heroes. Dissenters are valued as long as they do two things: justify their arguments with logic and facts (or at least lay out how to test their hypotheses), and strive to be helpful to others and productive for the organization. “Everything sucks and this place is run by morons” is the stance of a sullen adolescent, not a courageous truth-teller.

What do you think of Hamel’s characteristics and my attempt to blend them with current organizational practices? Are we correct, at least on the right track, or badly kidding ourselves? And what have you observed about how millennials want to work, what technology makes possible, and how companies are adjusting to these trends? Leave a comment, please, and let us know.

  • http://wordofpie.com Laurence Hart

    I think you are on track. Millenials bring a different angle on how to be productive and get things done. They don’t bring the experience always make the right decisions. Allowing them to lead the way in using the new tools is a great way to engage them as that is where they have expertise.

    I believe the key is to make everything more participatory, which will allow them to gain the necessary experience by seeing how decisions are made and what the outcomes are. Visibility is the key.

    I want to add a little note. When I first started, I thought I had all these great ideas. I did. Many of them just weren’t feasible, but I didn’t know why. In an environment with an E2.0 mentality, I would have been able to present my ideas to a larger group that could have helped craft the ideas into something workable, or at least illuminated why it wouldn’t work.

    Oh, and you are right. If you are doing the right work, people won’t focus on the tools as much when making a job decision. The best will focus on the people.

  • Simon G

    Totally agree. I think Hamel was being totally unrealistic

  • http://www.business-strategy-innovation.com Braden Kelley

    My comment is relevant to several of the points including – #2 Contribution counts for more than credentials:

    Some of Generation F will be much more adept at personal branding than previous generations. Just as employees will have to learn how to become skilled at personal branding, organizations will have to learn how to manage and leverage employees who build up a sizable external presence.

    Here are a couple of articles on personal innovation:

    The Commodity Marketplace for Employees
    http://www.business-strategy-innovation.com/200

    Personal Innovation – Shine Your Star
    http://www.business-strategy-innovation.com/200

    An article looking at personal branding from the employer's perspective might be interesting. Maybe we could work on one together. :-)

    @innovate

  • Frank

    I'm beginning to think this whole generation F thing is an April Fool's joke, witness:
    <http://www.socialmedia-academy.com/index.cfm>

  • Tom Stewart

    Andy (and Gary) (and Don Tapscott) (et al.)

    As someone who once mistrusted anyone over 30, and is now twice-over ensconsed among the untrustworthy, I find myself hoping against hope when I read this, but feeling a sense of deja vu all over again.

    Case in point: a terrific Fortune cover package with articles by Nina Munk and yours truly, her contribution called “Yo! Corporate America” and including this passage “They also think they’re entitled to a job that’s fun, a job that’s cool, a job that lets them discover who they really are. Work is not about paying the rent; it’s about self-fulfillment. Contrary to the old Gen-Xers-as-slackers myth, this lot often works so hard their jobs become their lives. Listen to Richard Barton, the 30-year-old head of Microsoft’s Expedia, a Website that lets you book your travel online: ‘Work is not work. It’s a hobby that you happen to get paid for.’ That’s the mantra of today’s desirable young worker. And forward-thinking companies are tapping into it.” Publication: Eleven years ago, March, 1998.

    We’ve all seen the slide. it reads
    Five years ago: Hierarchy
    Today: Flat
    Five years from now: Networked.
    Trouble is, we’ve seen the same slide for the last 20 years.

    I wish I saw convincing evidence of structural change rather than reiterations of the wish for it and change at the margin. As Sally Bowles put it
    Maybe this time, I’ll be lucky
    Maybe this time, he’ll stay
    Maybe this time
    For the first time
    Love won’t hurry away…
    All the odds are in my favor
    Something’s bound to begin
    It’s got to happen, happen sometime
    Maybe this time I’ll win

    Tom

  • LeoBorwick

    Your adaptation of Hamel's 12 Gen F commandments reminds me a bit of the John Betjeman (I think!) poem – “Thou shalt not kill. But needst not strive officiously to keep alive.” and so on. I wonder how much of this latest set of strictures will end up in pious mission statements and the like!

    More to the point, though, it seems to me that #7 is the most critical – follow the money! As a process, resource attraction sounds to me like what happens in markets (though they are often described as mechanisms for resource allocation). Allocation, on the other hand, sounds like what organisations typically do – they are fairly deliberate, in a top-down kind of way, about who gets resources for what. This makes sense, if nothing else, because the corporate cost of capital is likely to be less than that of its parts (ok, maybe not if it's a bank).

    But corporations don't always behave that way – think of the process of bidding for project funding with financial business cases, rather than by “fit with the strategy”. Maybe Gen F-ers would be well advised to work for financially-controlled conglomerates?

    Almost as important would be the question of who gets decision rights. Commandments 9 and 10 seem to bear on this, but I'm not sure that you are being fair in interpreting them as being about replacing hierarchy with democracy. I'm not sure how peer review would work, but it sounds as if it would be more about getting people of equal organisational standing (and maybe different specialisms) to check the assumptions, logic, unintended consequences and so on of a proposal, not allowing the door person to veto it. Again, this seems to me to be quite a familiar concept in cubicle land.

    Equally, the “users” in commandment 10 are surely users of the company's products and services, not just fellow employees – maybe Facebook's recent apparent demarche over intellectual property rights would be an example?

  • CLindner

    I like your attempt to bring Hamel's post back down to earth. Well said and it will calm some nerves. That said, I give Hamel credit for being bold, making people feel uncomfortable, and forcing people to think. With the amount of attention this post got this week, he clearly struck a chord. Your words will help people realize his points are legitimate.

  • Martijn Linssen

    Nice! Almost all true in my world, so you're on track!
    Just a few thoughts:

    5. doesn't agree with 7. Ideally, people compete for the best assignments within a company as well as they compete outside for the best jobs. It's just that drawing up the assignment description can be very hard, but hey! Throw all the assigners in one big room and they should have an assignment profile database within a few weeks…

    8. I most strongly agree, and think this is the biggest change if you look back a few years or decades

    10. In large (government) organisations people are already deciding on whether to cooperate on (policy) change or not. Not vetoing something doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be a success

    12. I call him / her “the positivie critic”. Don't complain, just tell how you want it, and why it should be changed that way. After all, everyone (else) is also interested in the answer to the ultimate question: What's in it for me?

    It's not a question of tools, they're all there. It's about patterns, habits, customs, and people fearing change. My idea is that we will be going there, to some extent, within some industries.

    But, to be “modern”: as the opinion of everyone counts here, why not mass-email this within a company ;-)

  • Martijn Linssen

    Nice! Almost all true in my world, so you’re on track!
    Just a few thoughts:

    5. doesn’t agree with 7. Ideally, people compete for the best assignments within a company as well as they compete outside for the best jobs. It’s just that drawing up the assignment description can be very hard, but hey! Throw all the assigners in one big room and they should have an assignment profile database within a few weeks…

    8. I most strongly agree, and think this is the biggest change if you look back a few years or decades

    10. In large (government) organisations people are already deciding on whether to cooperate on (policy) change or not. Not vetoing something doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to be a success

    12. I call him / her “the positivie critic”. Don’t complain, just tell how you want it, and why it should be changed that way. After all, everyone (else) is also interested in the answer to the ultimate question: What’s in it for me?

    It’s not a question of tools, they’re all there. It’s about patterns, habits, customs, and people fearing change

  • http://www.pmcluster.com/ John T Maloney

    Hi —

    We examing, grok these ideas at the next Collective Intelligence Conference 24 Apr in NYC. See:

    http://www.pmcluster.com/NYC09.htm

    They are delivering an enormous impact on Enterprise 2.0.

    -j

  • R. Lancaster

    Great article – but you’ve made a bit of a typo – it should read: 7. Resources get attracted, not allocated. Thought you’d like to know and correct this!

  • http://blog.wirearchy.com Jon Husband

    I think that your analysis and elaboration of the points instantiated by Hamel are very sensible and grounded in practicality

  • abigaillb

    This article spurred some good conversation around some J&J Global Procurement leadership – you spoke with them last year on this topic. I agree with the analysis: My take is that while the article is a good summation of the online social and communicative construct of those in this “Facebook” generation, I think that “Gen F” employees nonetheless still understand and respect the existing hierarchy, as you say.

    At the end of the day, what drives most people to perform and work is probably more related to their paycheck than any new-fangled notions of communal information sharing. If your manager is assessing progress for pay and bonus, well, then, traditional carrot and stick models seem to apply.

    Transformation may happen necessarily, as the demographic ages into leadership roles. In fact, some of this transformation is happening now – as dot.com era webbies mature into roles of increasing importance throughout corporate America. Otherwise, expectations of leapfrogging into the 2.0 world may be realized as a result of grave crisis – e2.0 characteristics sprouting as an unanticipated benefit of the global economic crisis.

    For a company like J&J, one can hardly hope for a near-death experience to really bring on the 2.0. The solution for such organizations may well in maturing the understanding of these characteristics for HR purposes with renewed zeal (I say this somewhat self-servingly).

    I also liked Venkatesh Rao's related spin on this topic: “There's No Such Thing As Culture Change.”

    As part of the J&J conversation on this topic, someone made a very good point about changing the underlying mechanics of the organization – spot on for our case: As the tidewaters of this transformation rise higher and higher, those who CAN re-engineer the underlying mechanics are starting to do so (just where we’re at in GP). The problem becomes more about how:
    What I've seen so far in my J&J experience is that the incentives to share, connect, comment, contribute and query are low right now for this group: partly because we haven’t successfully correlated that activity with improved individual results (the “WIFM”), and because we haven’t transformed the underlying mechanisms that drive the overall processes for the function – to expect transparency, user-freedom, and interoperability as part of doing work.

    As part of my work – I've been able to gleaning some insight into the barriers that hinder moving this particular piece of Process into a more transparent, interoperable and agile mode. These include a lot of attention to hierarchy, and some political jostling. I would imagine this would be the case for lots of organizations. The challenge for me right now delivering the message with tact to the leadership to get them engaged: For them right now, Web 2.0 is somehow connected with “using the Portal” or “SharePoint” and less about fundamentally shifting the way things work around the place.

  • http://blog.wirearchy.com Jon Husband

    I left a comment earlier (similar to below, but not verbatim), guess it got eaten by the comment system.

    There's an issue with respect to the false dichotomy of “hierarchy versus flat” that has to do with the common method of job design, directly related to the arcane (and boring and dry) practice of job evaluation (job size and weight, not the evaluation of performance on the job). Job evaluation determines the positioning of the jobs in the boxes on the (hierarchical, in almost all instances) org chart. HR typically carries responsibility for this 'service”, with the core 'design' inputs coming from the C-level, with input from the the line or staff managers they 'own'.

    All the major JE methods (Hay Method, Aiken Plan, Towers Perrin, Elliott Jacques) were invented anywhere from 55 to 40 years ago, and they all rely on a basic framework of inputs (knowledge), throughputs (problem solving) and out puts (accountability). In almost all instances the dominant factor is knowledge, which is arranged in hierarchical semantic scales, as in your boss knows more than you, and her boss knows more than her, and so on .. and knowledge is either domain-specific or gained through experience (and as you go up the hierarchic chain of command, the knowledge is dimensionally broadened through what is called “breadth and complexity of management”).

    This is essentially livable-with in a networked environment, but lacking in sophistication.

    The next two factors become more problematic.

    Problem solving is sub-defined into Thinking Challlenge and Thinking Complexity .. and these are again hierarchically arranged such that the higher-ups define the problem and to what degree past practices, policies and procedures and protocol are brought to bear on a given problem if one thinks about how issues are defined, addressed and come to terms with in a networked environment, the ineffectiveness begins to become apparent.

    Accountability is dominated by two sub-factors; Freedom to Act and Magnitude (typically measured in budget terms or the closest tangible proxy to budget … could be revenue targets or marketing spend or some such). However, the weight of the Freedom to Act factor is typically about twice that of magnitude, and is derived directly from the reporting relationships arranged on the org chart. This factor too bears less and less relevance to the way work is happening / carried out in networked environments (but of course its useful to understand when and how to act, but the factor implies “getting permission” from one's boss.

    Job evaluation effectively forms the skeleton of the organization, and increasingly is (in my opinion) causing dissonance with / amongst networked knowledge workers who have to think on their feet, define problems clearly and quickly, respond effectively, and have accountability for carrying out key aspects in a chain or web of activities that are unfolding in parallel if not simultaneously.

    It's an area almost no one writes about, or thinks about much, mainly because it is so deadly boring and basically taken for granted. this issue is exacerbated because much of the process, in many organizations, has been either encioded into Job Evaluation applications driven by algorithms (I know, I built some of the early algorithms in the mid-90's) or carried out by a wet-thumb-in-the-air benchmarking exercise.

    Basically, the fundamental assumptions of job size and weight in these methods, and their pertinence / usefulness / applicability for increasingly networked environments wherein hand-offs and effective horizontal knowledge-based collaboration is more and more necessary, have not been (and are not being) deeply examined, and revised in ways that account for the complexity and dynamics of knowledge work in networked workplaces.

  • Molli Sullivan

    Andrew — I think both you and Gary make excellent points. Gary set the stage, you elaborated and put thing into a realistic perspective. I found this excerpt you wrote most significant:

    “Another good idea is to reinvent current management practices not by replacing existing hierarchical routines with emergent ones, but rather by using emergent systems, communities, and processes to lead the way”

    As a millennial, this idea really speaks to me. Everyone says that millennials want free reign, to call all the shots. I disagree. Actually, I think most want and need a hierarchical structure, but it must be coupled with management “getting” us. That means, understanding, respecting and implementing some of our preferred modes of communication and individual processes. We don't need to do everything our way — just some things. :)

    We want to take instruction and learn from those who have more experience, but we want to contribute as well. We also need leadership that walks the walk — that means not just giving us an “atta boy!” when we bring something unique to the table. Instead, find a way to incorporate our new ideas, experience and advice and then (when appropriate) integrate it with their own processes.

    In my opinion, a hierarchical structure is a must — but it must also be mutually beneficial for all involved. More communication in more innovative ways.

  • http://www.kermapartners.com Friedrich Blase

    these are good qualifications of Hamel's headlines; they make his proposals appear more immediately workable.
    from about 3 years of practice, i can share that building a business based on thoughts such as Gary's/yours is tough work – lots of trial and error, in policy setting, in application and – most notoriously – in patrolling.
    if you put those rules – purified or modified – before 1,000 people of all ages, many will agree with them, say 800 of them. if you put those 800 into an organization that abides by these rules, 200 would resign within weeks – they just don't get it in practice. Of the remaining 600, you have to fire about 300 if you want the rules to be preserved – they just don't get it right. and of the remaining 300, you probably fire another 30% for lack of performance. how many firms have the discipline of getting rid of so many people because of rules that have little accounting correlation with financial performance of the organization?
    a couple of questions regarding the comparison between the millenial hire and the mid-level manager: what is the half-life of their contribution to the organization? how much is experience an obstacle to innovation? what is more replacable?

  • http://www.tourtravelchina.com China Travel Deals

    I think a hierarchical structure is a must — but it must also be mutually beneficial for all involved. More communication in more innovative ways.

  • http://www.tourtravelchina.com/ China Tour

    Great post, what you said is really helpful to me. I can't agree with you anymore. I have been talking with my friend about, he though it is really interesting as well. Keep up with your good work, I would come back to you.

  • pixbook

    I like your attempt to bring Hamel's post back down to earth. Well said and it will calm some nerves.

    Ways to make money

  • nadinej77

    Nice! Almost all true in my world, so you're on track!
    Just a few thoughts… I believe the key is to make everything more participatory, which will allow them to gain the necessary experience by seeing how decisions are made and what the outcomes are. Visibility is the key.

  • dinheiro

    Very interesting article, congratulations!

  • gen123

    The Internet provides regular people, those of us in the Facebook generation, an equal playing ground to become a fortune 500 company. I started my life in the plumbing business up until I had a serious back injury, never thought I would then be led into web development, I even own my own toilet repair website and this technology allowed that to be possible.

  • makemoneyonlinegenuine

    well written article and very very interesting thanks

  • kevinlampard

    I must agree…Give Hamel the credit for being bold, making people feel uncomfortable but I still think he was unrealistic.

  • http://www.loftbedplan.org Joy

    Among the 12, what I really like is the #8, One way to become powerful is to share information…which is really true.

  • http://www.loftbedplan.org Joy

    Among the 12, what I really like is the #8, One way to become powerful is to share information…which is really true.

  • http://seoreviewguide.com/ SEO Review Guide

    Well this is interesting. Hackers are heroes. Maybe in a way they are.

  • http://stutteringtips.com Jane Baker

    All I can say is that Hamel's a genius.

  • http://prasutan.blogspot.com/ Blog Tips SEO

    interesting !

    Hackers are heroes. Dissenters are valued as long as they do two things: justify their arguments with logic and facts (or at least lay out how to test their hypotheses), and strive to be helpful to others and productive for the organization. “Everything sucks and this place is run by morons” is the stance of a sullen adolescent, not a courageous truth-teller.

    Event Organizer

  • http://idotamaphack.blogspot.com/ Ronnel@Dota Map Hack

    Is it hamel realistic? by the way thanks for this ideas. Keep up!

  • http://mytrusted-best-ptc-sites.blogspot.com/ Best Ptc Sites

    Hackers are amazing, when I see the charactersitcs of Hamel’s, all I can say he is really smart person.

  • Anonymous
  • http://restaurantcitymagics.blogspot.com/ Restaurant City

    Well said and it will calm some nerves. That said, I give Hamel credit for being bold, making people feel uncomfortable, and forcing people to think. 

  • Anonymous

    Handbagse shop could be a well-known web store regarding considerable  selection of well-known 
    burberry outlet store Company handbags.Phony affordable burberry tote is actually almost all a lot more when in comparison to globe,  within roads, paths additionally to shops, you have to be very critical within  purchasing a burberry Purchase, in addition to you may be tossing out  dollars.An authentic burberry bag certainly be pretty costly. Women should  never be very particular about trading inside a genuine 
    burberry outlet online bag. With  regards to these handbags are great to think about or have utility value, these  are typically thrilled and satisfied.Because of the very fact burberry totes  are very-loved additionally to preferred in the marketplace, you’ll uncover  companies which create counterfeited burberry handbags additionally to  brief-situation.

  • https://www.allinonetech.net/ Allinonetech

    Thanks for sharing

Previous post:

Next post: