Solving a Multi-Billion Dollar Problem with Mentoring

In 1995 Peer Resources conducted a national study of the 2000 most productive corporations in Canada to determine the extent to which they were involved in mentoring (Carr, 1999). Almost 1700 of these companies participated in and completed our interviews. Our findings revealed that the two primary reasons for establishing a mentoring program in these highest producing Canadian corporations were (1) to provide opportunities for the career development of employees, and (2) to identify and nurture leadership potential in employees.

We also found one other result. Unfortunately, we did not pay sufficient attention to this additional finding because at the time we were too focused on how to bring mentoring youth in the community and corporate mentoring experience together. Today, however, this finding could be considered a multi-billion dollar oversight. What we found was that less than five percent of the sampled corporations reported that mentoring served either the purpose of (1) attracting and retaining employees, or (2) establishing systematic leadership succession planning.

Ironically, these two infrequently noted mentoring strategies can be more easily examined in terms of cost implications or return on investment (ROI) than either of two reasons that led most companies to initiate mentoring programs. Today, for example, more and more companies are recognizing the cost of losing an employee. Turnover or employee loss can be as high as 50 percent in some industries. Previously all the costs associated with recruiting, interviewing, selecting, and training a replacement employee remained obscure. Now, however, business analysts have consistently calculated that for every employee that leaves a company the cost to the company will be about 1.5 times the employee’s salary to hire a replacement.

I don’t shop at Wal-Mart very often, but I’m always impressed by the range of products and friendly service. Yet I noticed something that seemed at odds with the friendly service: I hardly ever encountered the same employee when I returned to scout out another product. My observation was verified by a stunning figure that appeared in a recent business newspaper. Wal-Mart has to hire between 500,000 and 600,000 employees a year to replace employees who leave. While the article I read was focusing on the progress unions were making in organizing workers (not much), the turnover figure left me wondering about Wal-Mart and how much this turnover is costing them.

Wal-Mart employs close to 1.6 million associates worldwide. The average salary of a Wal-Mart employee is estimated to be between $US13,000-15,000. Managers average between $80,000 and $106,000. Using the cost-of-turnover formula, this means that Wal-Mart spends approximately $1 billion dollars annually just to replace employees!

Replacement cost also includes the costs associated with (1) a staff managing the existing workload when an employee leaves, and (2) the time staff must take to orient a new employee and bring him or her up to speed. If turnover is extensive, it can severely disrupt the workplace and have a dramatic impact on productivity. These factors, which previously were not considered part of turnover cost calculations, are now more likely to be estimated when assessing how turnover impacts the dollar value of productivity.

Recognition of this cost has prompted many companies to search for better ways to reduce turnover and increase an employee’s commitment to and connection with the organization. Some of these companies rely exclusively on strategies that improve pay, bonuses, perks, or other financial incentives. But a rapidly increasing number of corporations are relying on mentoring strategies to prevent or reduce turnover. The primary reason for choosing mentoring is because study after study of new employees,questioned about what attracts and keeps them associated with their employers, has shown three consistent needs: (1) opportunities available for learning; (2) associations with people who care about the work they do; and (3) ability to engage in meaningful work. No other workplace strategy can fit more snugly with these needs than mentoring.

Employees are not the only ones who leave a corporation. One of the results described in a recent study by Booz Allen Hamilton (2004) of the world’s 2,500 largest companies has shown a dramatic rise in the number of CEO’s (14 percent) leaving their corporate position. European and Asian countries have even higher percentages of revolving door CEOs.

A recent study ( showed that the average CEO pay in 70 of the 100 largest companies in the US is $14.1 million. Yet too few of these corporations have in place any type of leadership succession plan. The number of companies that hire an external CEO far outnumbers those that hire from within. Yet data from the Booz Allen Hamilton study shows that external hires are more likely to result in an unsuccessful tenure often resulting in the newly-hired CEO leaving before term, lowered overall productivity, and an endless string of bad hires. The situation has become so rampant at the top executive level, the authors of the Booz Allen Hamilton study called CEOs “the new ‘temps’ of the working world.”

The cost to replace a CEO is staggering. Yet the cost to create a leadership succession plan where top executives mentor less senior executives is minimal. Corporations must establish a way to groom future candidates for the chief executive position. The creation of an executive-level mentoring system is essential to continue the productivity of the corporation and the accountability to shareholders. McDonalds (as reported in the Booz Allen Hamilton study) lost two CEO’s to untimely deaths during one year. Yet they were able to continue on despite these tragedies because of their well-established executive mentoring program.

Mentoring today is necessary at all levels of corporate life. While ROI isn’t the only reason to initiate and maintain a mentoring program in business, the tools available now to measure such returns add considerable weight to the value of mentoring and its impact on benefits to corporate life.

For further information about the studies cited in this article:

Carr, R. (Winter, 1999). The status of corporate mentoring in Canada: A survey of the 2,000 most productive businesses. Compass: A Magazine for Peer Assistance, Mentorship, and Coaching, 15, 1, 13-19. (Retrieved from

Lucier, C., Schuyt, R., and Tse, E. (Summer, 2005). CEO succession 2004: The world’s most prominent temp workers. strategy+business. (Retrieved from

Riggs, P. (2005). Executive remuneration: thriving under observation? Mercer Human Resource Consulting. (Retrieved from

“Someone’s sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago.”

~ Warren Buffett ~

Three Questions to Jumpstart a Peer Group Meeting

A common thread that ties peer assistance work to mentoring and coaching is the increasing use of group models (peer coaching and peer mentoring along with peer helping) to provide services or supervision, and assist participants to accomplish their goals more effectively and more quickly.

In both peer mentoring and peer coaching, group members typically distribute leadership within the group and take turns initiating activities to act as a catalyst for all members. Peer assistance differs somewhat because there is typically an assigned leader or supervisor, but the leader still works toward increasing the empowerment of each member to act as a leader for all other members.

Participants in all three types of groups, when given the opportunity to act as the group leader for any session, often wonder about how to start the group. Typically, this start-up is called a warm-up, transition or check-in activity. Most leaders want to get off to a good start and energize, focus, or center the members with an activity that will act as a lead-in to the group’s agenda or purpose for being together. And while often a leader’s desire is to use a “fun” activity, all too often the activity chosen is only marginally related to the group’s purpose or more formal agenda.

Peer Resources has devised a group beginning activity that is highly effective in helping a group get started with an enjoyable “ritual”, deepen the connection of the group members to each other, provide a strong foundation for the group’s upcoming agenda, and provide an opportunity for participants to help, support, and encourage one another. The activity is called “trinity,” and while it has a strong spiritual element, it is spelled with a lower case “t” so that it won’t be confused with the more religious meaning of Trinity.

Trinity consists of three questions. Any member of the group can start and provide an answer to the first question and from there each group member, one after another, provides their own unique answer to the first question. The first question is: “What am I grateful for today?” The range of answers to this question can be far-ranging, and it is purposely asked as a “what” question instead of a “who” question, although it is perfectly acceptable to identify a person. No discussion of responses needs to occur; the idea is to quickly create an atmosphere of “gifts” we each have in our lives and a mood of heartfelt connection.

When everyone in the group has volunteered their response to the first question, another group member can ask and be the first to respond to the second question: “What are my intentions for today?” Responses to this question can focus on outcomes, feelings, accomplishments, or even how a participant wants to respond if things don’t go as planned.

The third question that concludes this opening ritual is started by a group member asking, “What’s most important today?” In peer assistance groups a variation of this question is: “Considering what you are going to engage in over the next week as a peer helper, what’s the most important thing you want to accomplish today?”

Sometimes a fourth question is included after participants have identified what’s important: “What can I do today to integrate my gratitude, my intentions, and what I think is important?”

While it might be possible to spend an entire session on the answers participants give to just these questions, the questions are really meant to create a start-up climate or mood that will help every participant to be present and focused. Various responses can be noted or placed in a “parking lot” for further exploration at a later date, if appropriate.

If SpiritMentor readers try out these questions, I’d appreciate hearing about how they worked. I’m grateful to communications specialist and writer Laura Lallone for providing the reminder of the power of these questions and giving permission to adapt them here.

Become a Member of the Peer Resources Network

Peer Resources, the non-profit corporation I started with two partners back in 1980, is coming to an end. Our focus on mentoring, coaching, and peer assistance will continue through this Spirit Mentor blog, occasional posts on LinkedIn, social media, and our members-only Facebook page.

I’ve reviewed a number ways to conclude and celebrate the 36 years we’ve been in operation. What I’ve come up with is a way for current members of the Peer Resources Network to have access to all resources as well as some bonus offers we’ve negotiated with other organizations. Readers of Spirit Mentor can also take advantage of these resources and bonus offers.

Here’s a list of the what members will gain when Peer Resources transforms its business model.:

  1. Members pay a one-time fee of $99.00 and become members “emeritus.” This means that all services and resources will be available without any future fee being necessary.
  2. Resources will include all current and future e-books produced and published by Peer Resources.
  3. Resources will include all documents currently only available in Peer Resources’ password-protected area.
  4. Resources will include access to the members-only private Facebook page.
  5. Bonuses will include: A full one-year print and digital subscription to choice: the magazine of professional coaching at no cost (value = $US41.94); a full one-year membership in the International Mentoring Association and subscriptions to their quarterly magazine, Connect, and their monthly newsletter, The Link (value = $US95);the U.K.‘s Coaching at Work magazine has agreed to provide: a two-month, free digital trial, and then if [paid-up Peer Resources Network subscribers] take a paid subscription, Coaching at Work magazine will offer a 20% discount off either a print or digital subscription; and Ton deGraaf, the publisher of Worldwide Coaching Magazine, has offered Peer Resources Network members who take a paid subscription to his magazine (via ApplePay or GooglePay), a free e-book.

To take advantage of this offer, persons must sign up to become members by July 6, 2016. The signup offer is available at




People and Globe

The Ways in Which Mentoring Differs from Other Organization Roles

Mentoring, coaching, supervising, and managing share a number of com- mon elements. Yet the most often asked question is: “How are they different?” In this brief article Rey Carr, CEO of Peer Resources, identifies five key points that distinguish mentoring from other forms of business interaction.

The Quality of the Relationship

Mentoring is primarily about creating an enduring and meaningful relation- ship with another person. While the relationship may be short-term, the fo- cus is primarily on the quality of that relationship and the factors that affect relationship quality: mutual trust and respect, willingness to learn from each other, the use of deeper interpersonal skills and maintaining confidentiality.

While mentors might provide advice or suggestions, they have no stake in whether the partner actually uses or integrates such information into their work or personal life.

While the effectiveness of coaching, supervision and managing might all depend on the quality of the relationship, the primary goal for each of these activities is typically more performance or productivity oriented rather than relationship oriented. Not attending to the advice of a supervisor or manager may jeopardize an employeeʼs career.

The Opportunity for Mutual Learning

Mentoring is distinguishable from other activities because of its emphasis on learning in general and mutual or reciprocal learning in particular. Whereas learning is important in other activities, both the mentor and the partner take responsibility for maximizing the learning activity. Both parties must perceive benefits from participating in a mentoring relationship. While a partner may initially believe that mentoring will lead to promotion or advancement, such progress is based more on the knowledge and skill gained by the partner, and not as a result of the actions of the mentor.

Certainly the best coaches, managers, and supervisors are open to learning from their clients and employees. However, their interaction is less focused on learning from their clients or subordinates. Instead, their focus is more on establishing standards, behaviours, and expectations and ensuring that such elements are carried out properly. In addition, because they are typically paid to perform these roles, managers, supervisors, and coaches continue to carry out their responsibility regardless of any other concrete benefit that accrues to them.

The Developmental Changes

Mentoring in most formal programs has a beginning, middle, and end. It is typically time-limited and subject to a mutual agreement between the parties. In addition, the nature of the mentoring relationship changes over time. During the initial phases of the relationship, the mentor may take more responsibility for facilitating the content and process through asking questions and actively listening. As the relationship progresses, however, the partner begins to take on more and more responsibility for what transpires and the mentor shares perspectives and knowledge. As the partner grows, the need for the mentor may lessen, thus causing attention to how and when to terminate the relationship in a productive manner.

All good managers, supervisors and coaches want to see their clients or subordinates grow and develop in their careers and performance. However, they are normally in charge of when such a relationship will terminate. In addition, their focus remains static and they do not necessarily perceive themselves as developing as a result of employee contact.

The Voluntary Nature of the Connection

Most mentoring relationships are informal and take place in many cases without the direct, conscious knowledge of the participants. In newer, more formal programs, individuals volunteer to be involved in a mentoring relationship. It is typically not part of their formal job description or performance requirement; they are not paid for their involvement; and while they may provide feedback to each other, there are no formal assessments or performance reports conducted or forwarded as part of a participantʼs career progress evaluation. Mentoring experts often recommend that a mentor and partner be far enough apart in a chain of command so that no formal evaluation responsibilities become relevant.

Managers, supervisors and for the most part coaches are all paid for their involvement with other employees. Except for coaches they have evaluative responsibilities and are often required to provide detailed performance reports.

The Big Picture

While mentoring can focus on a narrow band of performance issues or knowledge, it typically is more open to examining broader perspectives. It is often more inclusive of a wider range of topics, including vision, goals, motivation and passion, all reviewed from both a personal and professional perspective. A mentor is more likely to share what he or she has learned from his or her own experiences and what meaning that learning has had as well as what actions have happened as a result.

While coaches, managers, and supervisors might be interested in the whole person approach, they are more often than not, interested specifically in shorter term results or outcomes. Focusing on the larger picture might only be a tool to produce better results. And in some cases, workplace policies or legal issues restrict the range of topics that can be discussed.

Mentoring, coaching, supervision and managing also have many factors in common: they all use and rely on the same interpersonal skills; they all involve learning; they all have an impact on career development; and in common practice, the roles are often used interchangeably. Supervisors and managers, though, are typically official job title designations. Not surprisingly it may turn out that the better managers and supervisors are in carrying out their roles, the more closely they will come to be called coaches and mentors.

A True Mentor is Always Considered in the Present Tense

For the last 15 years, I have been curating a list of mentor pairs from a variety of sources including autobiographies, biographies, newspaper articles, personal interviews, and diligent historical research.

The pairings are divided into ten categories. (1) Actors, Comedians, Producers and Directors (Stage, Screen and TV); (2) Mentoring relationships depicted in motion pictures and television; (3) Musicians, Songwriters, and Singers; (4) Classical and Broadway Musicians, Composers, Conductors, Ballet, and Modern Dancers; (5) Fashion, Media and Celebrities; (6) Artists, Writers, Photographers, Publishers, Novelists, Poets; (7) Mentoring relationships depicted in print (novels stories, fiction); (8) Sports Figures, Athletes, and Coaches; (9) Historical, Political, Spiritual and Civic Leaders; and (10) Business, Industry, Education, Science, and Medical Leaders.

In many cases, the mentoring relationship is one between a mentor who has died and a person who they mentored who is still living. When I first started detailing this type of relationship, I referred to the relationship in the past tense: ‘the person who died was a mentor to the person who is still living.’ For example, when referring to the mentoring relationship between the award-winning actress Patty Duke, who died in March of 2016, and the person she mentored, Melissa Gilbert, another great actress, writer, and producer, one could say that Patty Duke was a mentor to Melissa Gilbert.

But that description using the past tense would be totally wrong with regards to mentoring. That is one of the aspects of mentoring that makes it different from virtually all other types of relationships. A true mentor helps you learn something better or faster, and that learning lasts your entire life. In other words, what you learn from a mentor does not disappear, fade, or stop when the mentor perishes. What you learn from a true mentor stays with you all your life; it’s not temporary, it’s a permanent part of you as a person.

Therefore, when a mentor dies, we don’t say he or she “was” a mentor to so and so. Instead, we say, the person who died “is” a mentor to so and so. And if the mentor is a true mentor, the mentoring influence remains regardless of what has happened to the mentor. In some cases, for example, people might refer to someone as a “former” mentor or a person is “no longer a mentor.” A true mentor is a mentor for life even when there is no longer an active relationship. This is one of the outstanding qualities of mentoring; one that distinguishes mentoring from coaching, training, and supervision.

When Everyone Suffers, You Suffer (Guest Blogger Julia Menard)

(I’m blessed to have several friends who are great bloggers (writers) and are willing to let me share their work with people who appreciate growth and development. Today’s guest article is from Julia Menard, a mediator, coach, and conflict resolution specialist, who writes a monthly newsletter called HEN. The name comes from “transforming conflict to revitalize your Health, Environment, Negotiations.” Readers can subscribe to her free newsletter at

I’m really enjoying my most recent class in the Masters of Education (MEd) in Leadership Studies at Royal Roads University. It’s called Community Leadership and Adult Learning and my professor, Ron Faris, is passionate about the cause of income inequality.

As a consequence, you too, dear HEN reader, will benefit from his influence today!

A recent article he sent around from the Harvard Business Review surprised me. It said that income inequality makes us all less happy with our lives, even if we’re relatively well-off.

I had always understood that all indicators show if you have more money, you will be healthier. And, through lived experience, I can see that those without much money are not as healthy.

What I didn’t know, is the impact of income only goes so far – and then the benefits stop. As the gap in incomes grows, this does not result in more benefits for those with more money.

As this article indicates, it actually results in negative, unintended, effects. The authors also cite a 2010 paper by psychologist Daniel Kahneman and economist Angus Deaton, both Nobel laureates. They calculated that day-to-day happiness peaks at an income of $75,000 a year, after which it plateaus (about $85,000 in today’s dollars).

The income gap creates more dissatisfaction and more stress, worry and anger.

The article goes on to say there are implications for pay and compensation policies in organizations as well – since executive salaries today have continued to balloon, growing to as much as 200 times what median workers earn.

The bottom line is, as the article indicates:

“The more income is concentrated in the hands of a few, the more likely individuals are to report lower levels of life satisfaction and more negative daily emotional experiences. That is, the higher the share of national income that is held by the top 1%, the lower the overall well-being of the general population.”

So, when one of us suffers, we all suffer. We are all ultimately connected and need to care about each other. When this comes to income disparities, this means starting with even knowing that we gain more when we are all sharing in the wealth – in our organizations and societies.

“We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both.”   ~ Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice

Ensure Accurate Self-Assessment in Peer, Mentor, and Coach Work

Feedback_KeyAssessment has become a billion dollar industry and is strongly fueled by the conventional wisdom that an individual’s ability to assess him or her self is typically less reliable, less accurate, or less valid than an external or expert source of assessment. Most of us have between 12 to 18 years of experience with this viewpoint as our teachers graded our work from kindergarten to graduate school. While there might have been the occasional unhappiness about a particular grade as not being fair, for the most part we learned to accept this conventional view that “teacher knows best.”

This same perspective is perpetuated in the workplace. While even the most conservative organizations will solicit employee views about their own progress, growth or development, they rely mostly on reports from supervisors, managers, co-workers, or assessment inventories to obtain “real” data. Self-assessment data is often described as “subjective,” “self-serving,” or “inaccurate.” It would be ridiculous, most managers believe, to rely exclusively on an employee’s self-evaluation of performance when the outcome of that evaluation may determine promotion, advancement or pay increases.

The vision of most mentors, peer trainers, and coaches includes a commitment to their partners’, trainees’, or clients’ ability to have accurate views of their own work, development, or skills. But what happens when a mentor’s assessment clashes with the self-assessment of the person he or she is mentoring? Or when a peer trainer’s assessment of a training participant doesn’t match the self-assessment of that person in training? Or when a coach’s view of a client and the client’s view of him or herself do not line up? In other words, even though both parties want to improve the accuracy of self-assessment, what happens that prevents this outcome?

During the 1970’s I experimented with a number of self-assessment procedures in my university courses. I was especially interested in the relationship between external assessments of learning and how much learners perceived they had gained. I wanted to know what factors influenced a difference between a learner’s own assessment and an instructor’s assessment of that learner. Since both learners and instructors were dealing with the same content, the same procedures, and the same evaluation data, why were they so often at odds with each other when it came to the assessment of progress, results, or outcomes.

Part of my motivation for this experimentation was a dissatisfaction with the traditional grading system that minimized the student role and contributed to the atrophy of student ability to make accurate self-assessments. Another element in my intention was my experience during my own graduate student days on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley during the Free Speech Movement, where “student power” became our everyday mantra. I was determined to find ways to integrate student power into the classroom and show how it actually improved academic achievement.

My first experiments were almost completely based on my Berkeley experience. “At the end of the term,” I told my first group of undergraduates, “give yourself a grade and provide a rationale.” My courses became oversubscribed by eager students willing to participate in this experiment. While many enrolled because they wanted to learn about the topic, seize the opportunity to re-vitalize their intrinsic ability to make assessments, or become associated with such a radical procedure, others enrolled for the perceived easy grade and opportunity to improve their grade point average.

Although all course outlines and grading procedures had to be submitted to department chairs, the sheer weight of such pages from all the members of the department likely prohibited my chair from anything but just filing them in a “current course outlines” folder. Thus, I had not received any feedback about my intended procedure.

When the semester came to an end, I had several hundred self-assessments to read. And as you’ve probably guessed by now, almost every student gave him or herself an “A” grade. The accompanying rationales ranged from a single sentence to several pages. I’ll leave it to your imagination as to the variety of reasons students provided for such a mark.

I should note here that students did participate in both essay exams and quick quizzes, and they also wrote a paper on a related topic of their choosing. Students received scores on their exams and feedback about their papers. Some of the most paradoxical rationale for the end-of-term self-assignment of the “A” grade came from students who scored at the low end on the exams and wrote questionable papers. Going into those details is beyond the scope of this article, but mostly the extent of their rationale was “I learned a lot.”

When I submitted my grade sheets listing the extensive number of “A” grades and then went on holidays, I was still very dissatisfied with the outcomes and thought I really hadn’t come much closer to understanding the relationship between self-assessment and actual learning, let alone how to make this happen in a practical and concrete way in the classroom.

After returning from my vacation, I was greeted by a stack of mail and a copy of the university newspaper that had as a headline: “University bans self-assessment as a grading option.” My mail included mostly requests from senior administrators to attend meetings to explain why my grade sheet was so out-of-line with all other grade sheets; followed by requests to attend the academic senate hearings on why my grade sheet had so many high grades; and followed by a request from the university president to meet and explain my rationale.

In the relatively short time I had been employed by the university, I was delighted to have such an interest in my work. Of course, it didn’t bode well for my progress towards tenure to have so many administrators and colleagues “annoyed.” (I use that term because the terms that most of my colleagues used would not be suitable for this newsletter.)

To make this long story short (oops, probably too late), I went back to all the rationale statements provided by the students and identified a number of themes. These themes led to designing a different way to integrate self-assessment into the classroom and increase the likelihood that such assessments would more accurately reflect or match actual learning. The resulting system was implemented successfully in virtually all of my courses and was continued until retirement from university teaching (with tenure).

The elements of that system are described in Carr, R. (1977). The effects of specific guidelines on the accuracy of student self-evaluation. Canadian Journal of Education, 2 (4), 65-79. This study used videotape feedback and three degrees of specific, objective instructions to impact self-assessments. Theme analysis of the original course data and continuing data from subsequent courses confirmed that the more explicit the criteria used to make the self-assessment and the more involvement in the creation of those criteria by the person making the self-assessment, the more likely that the self-assessment matched other “objective” measures of learning.

In our work as mentors, coaches, and peer supporters, if we want self-assessment to play a significant and accepted role, and we want to maximize the accuracy of self-assessment (that is, be reasonably in line with other accurate data sources), then the procedures and structure we use to gain such self-assessment data are crucial.

First, the person who will be the focus of the self-assessment must be actively involved in determining the criteria to be used to make the assessment. The criteria can be created through discussions with supervisors, managers or co-workers, but ultimately they must be criteria that both the self-assessor and the person that the self-assessor will submit the results to agree upon as being important. This often means that pre-determined instruments or previously used sets of criteria will have limited utility unless they contain items valued by both parties. “Re-inventing” the wheel each time is more likely to yield accurate self-assessments.

Second, the criteria developed must be specific, concrete or explicit enough so that all parties will understand not just “what” the criteria are, but also the way in which the criteria are relevant. Most people object to this part. They are more likely to design simple criteria and then spend more time analyzing the response to the criteria. Ambiguous criteria often receive ambiguous answers. When I was asked by a previous employer (a theme park, motion picture, and television production organization that I will not name) to assess “How much have you learned about operating ‘Ride X’?” I responded with the informative phrase, “A lot.”

While there can still be debate as to whether an individual’s own self-assessment or another person’s assessment of that individual can be considered “more accurate,” without the knowledge of the factors that contribute to better self-assessment, we have little chance to prevent individuals from missing the mark, being too critical, or ignoring their own learning.

“Life asks us to make measurable progress in reasonable time. That’s why they make those fourth-grade chairs so small – so that you won’t fit in them again at age twenty-five.”

~ Jim Rohn ~