Change Management -
How to Implement a New Strategy Without Disrupting Your Organization
From The Palace Of Kabiesi Ebo Afin!Ebo Afin Kabiesi! His Magnificence Oloja Elejio Oba Olofin Pele Joshua Obasa De Medici Osangangan broad-daylight natural blood line 100% Royalty The God, LLB Hons, BL, Warlord, Bonafide King of Ile Ife kingdom and Bonafide King of Ijero Kingdom, Number 1 Sun worshiper in the Whole World.I'm His Magnificence the Crown.
For Spiritual Consultations, Spiritual divination reading, Guidance and Counseling, spiritual products and spiritual Services, offering of Spiritual Declarations , call or text Palace and Temple Phone and Whatsapp contact: +2348166343145, Phone And WhatsApp Contact : +2347019686274 ,Mail: obanifa87@gmail.com, Facebook page: Sun Spirituality.
Website:www.sunspirituality.com.
Our Sun spiritual Temple deliver Spiritual Services to Companies owners, CEOs, Business brands owners, Bankers, Technologists, Monarchs, Military officers, Entrepreneurs, Top Hierarchy State Politicians, and any Public figures across the planet.
Author:His Magnificence the Crown, Kabiesi Ebo Afin! Oloja Elejio Oba Olofin Pele Joshua Obasa De Medici Osangangan Broadaylight.
Summary.
Throughout most of modern business history, corporations have attempted to unlock value by matching their structures to their strategies: Centralization by function. Decentralization by product category or geographic region. Matrix organizations that attempt both at once. Virtual organizations. Networked organizations. Velcro organizations.
But none of these approaches has worked very well. Restructuring churn is expensive, and new structures often create new organizational problems that are as troublesome as the ones they try to solve. It takes time for employees to adapt to them, they create legacy systems that refuse to die, and a great deal of tacit knowledge gets lost in the process. Given the costs and difficulties involved in finding structural ways to unlock value, it’s fair to raise the question: Is structural change the right tool for the job?
The answer is usually no, Kaplan and Norton contend. It’s far less disruptive to choose an organizational design that works without major conflicts and then design a customized strategic system to align that structure to the strategy.
A management system based on the balanced scorecard framework is the best way to align strategy and structure, the authors suggest. Managers can use the tools of the framework to drive their unit’s performance: strategy maps to define and communicate the company’s value proposition and the scorecard to implement and monitor the strategy.
In this article, the originators of the balanced scorecard describe how two hugely different organizations—DuPont and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police—used corporate scorecards and strategy maps organized around strategic themes to realize the enormous value that their portfolios of assets, people, and skills represented. As a result, they did not have to endure a painful series of changes that simply replaced one rigid structure with another.
Throughout
most of modern business history, corporations have attempted to unlock
value by matching their structures to their strategies. As mass
production took hold in the nineteenth century, for instance, companies
generated enormous economies of scale by centralizing key functions like
operations, sales, and finance. A few decades later, as firms
diversified offerings and moved into new regions, a rival model emerged.
Corporations such as General Motors and DuPont created business units
structured around products and geographic markets. The smaller business
units sacrificed some economies of scale but were more flexible and
adaptable to local conditions.
These
two business models—centralized by function versus relatively
decentralized by product and region—proved durable for a long time,
largely because the evolution of business organization was fairly
incremental. Indeed, the product division structure remained the
dominant model for 50 years or more. But as competition intensified in
the last quarter of the twentieth century, problems with both models
became apparent, and companies searched for new ways to organize
themselves to unlock corporate value.
Many
multinationals adopted a matrix arrangement in the belief that they
could retain both the economies of scale of centralized functions and
the flexibility of their product-line and geographic business units. But
matrix organizations were difficult to coordinate. Managers operating
at a matrix intersection had to juggle the dictates of two masters,
which led to conflict and delay. The business process reengineering
movement of the 1990s introduced another model, in which the corporation
organized around its various processes instead of its traditional
functional, product, and geographic boundaries. But multiple
process-focused units still had problems coordinating and aligning their
activities; a silo is a silo whether it is a business process, a
function, or a product group. More recently, we’ve been hearing about
“virtual” and “networked” organizations operating across traditional
boundaries and the “Velcro organization,” a company capable of being
pulled apart and reassembled in new ways to respond to changing
opportunities.
The
continual search for new organizational forms is driven by basic
changes in the nature of competition and the economy. First, advantage
today is derived less from the management of physical and financial
assets and more from how well companies align such intangible assets as
knowledge workers, R&D, and IT to the demands of their customers.
Second, the opportunities and challenges that globalization affords are
forcing companies to revisit many assumptions about the control and
management of both their physical and their intangible assets. Today’s
computer company, for example, can manufacture components in China,
assemble them in Mexico, ship them to Europe, and service the purchasers
from call centers in India. This dispersal creates demands for new
structures to align internal and outsourced units around the world.
As
companies have struggled with these issues, many have gotten caught up
in expensive and frustrating cycles of organizational change. ABB is a
classic case: The company went through one reorganization after another
following its first experiment with the matrix form in the late 1980s.
As Pankaj Ghemawat of Harvard Business School describes in his November
2003 HBR article, “The Forgotten Strategy,” this restructuring churn is
expensive and often creates new organizational problems as bad as the
ones they solve. It takes time for employees to adapt to new structures,
and a great deal of tacit knowledge—precisely the kind that’s become
most valuable—gets lost in the process, as disaffected employees leave.
On top of that, companies get saddled with the vestiges of previous
organizational decisions, such as obsolete local and regional
headquarters and legacy IT infrastructures. Given the costs and
difficulties involved in finding structural ways to unlock value, it’s
fair to raise the question: Is structural change the right tool for the
job?
We
believe the answer is usually no. The lesson we’ve drawn from our work
with hundreds of organizations on strategy maps and balanced scorecards
is that companies do not need to find the perfect structure for their
strategy. As we will demonstrate in the following pages, a far more
effective approach is to choose an organizational structure that works
without major conflicts and then design a customized strategic system to
align that structure with the strategy.
We
will see how two very different organizations—DuPont Engineering
Polymers and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police—took their existing
structures as given in the belief that tinkering and realigning
authority, responsibility, and decision rights would not produce the
magic needed to achieve corporate-level synergies. Instead, executives
in these two organizations used the tools of the balanced scorecard
strategy management system to guide the decentralized units in their
search for local gain even as they identified ways for them to
contribute to corporatewide objectives.
What Kind of System Do You Need?
A
management system can be defined as the set of processes and practices
used to align and control an organization. Management systems include
the procedures for planning strategy and operations, for setting capital
and operating budgets, for measuring and rewarding performance, and for
reporting progress and conducting meetings. It is fair to say that,
historically, most companies have relied entirely on financial
systems—usually centered on the budget—for these various processes and
practices. But relying on the budget as the primary management system
caused short-term financial considerations to overwhelm longer-term
strategic goals. In the 1980s and 1990s, many companies introduced total
quality management as a new management system. But while TQM enabled
firms to focus more effectively on process improvements, the ability to
implement strategy across organizational units remained elusive.
Companies’ management systems were still tactical and operational, not
strategic.
In
our experience, a management system based on the balanced scorecard
framework is the best way to align strategy and structure. Managers at
every level in the corporation, from regional sales managers to group
CEOs, can use the tools of the framework to drive their unit’s
performance. Strategy maps enable managers to define and communicate the
cause-and-effect relationships that deliver their unit’s value
proposition, and the scorecard is a powerful tool for implementing and
monitoring the unit’s strategy. A balanced scorecard–based system,
therefore, provides both a template and a common language for assembling
and communicating information about value creation. (We refer readers
unfamiliar with the balanced scorecard framework to our book The Strategy-Focused Organization, Harvard Business School Press, 2000).
Most
of our writings have centered on implementing strategies for business
units, with their unique customers, competitors, technologies, and
workforces. More recently, corporations have applied the framework to
their corporate-level strategy to describe how the headquarters creates
value beyond what its individual business and support units generate on
their own. The corporate scorecard and map identify and measure the
sources of corporate value creation at each of four levels, or
“perspectives”—financial, customer, process, and learning and growth.
The financial perspective.
Even
diversified holding companies can create enterprise-level value by
instituting effective processes for resource allocation, for corporate
governance, for acquiring and integrating new business units, and for
conducting negotiations with external entities such as governments,
unions, capital providers, and suppliers. It is precisely by doing these
things well that companies create financial synergies. Enterprises with
holdings as diverse as those that make up Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and
General Electric add value through savvy acquisitions supported by
robust governance processes.
The customer perspective.
Corporate
synergies can also be generated by leveraging relationships across
multiple business units to offer common customers lower prices, greater
convenience, or solutions more complete than specialized competitors can
provide. For example, Media General implemented an effective
convergence strategy by sharing editorial processes and advertising
content among its regional television stations, newspapers, and
interactive online media properties. This cross-unit integration created
a unique value proposition for the common customers—advertisers and
subscribers—that was better than any single property could offer on its
own. Customer synergies also arise when retail companies like hotel
chains, consumer banks, or quick-service restaurants consistently
deliver the same value proposition across a geographically dispersed
network of retail outlets. Hilton Hotels and McDonald’s are good
examples here.
The process perspective.
The
third balanced scorecard perspective describes corporate synergies
gained when multiple business units reap savings by sharing common
processes, such as purchasing, manufacturing, distribution, and
research. More than a century ago, Standard Oil created a dominant
advantage through the scale economies of its large refineries and
distribution system. Today, megabanks like Citigroup and Bank of America
create scale economies by integrating and consolidating the back-office
operations and computer systems of the financial institutions they
acquire. Companies can also capture process economies of scope by
exploiting core competencies in specific technologies—such as optics,
miniaturization, or displays—across multiple business units. For
example, Canon incorporates its world-class optics capabilities into
products as diverse as cameras, binoculars, copiers, medical-imaging
devices, and semiconductor photolithography equipment.
The learning and growth perspective.
The
final perspective enables corporations to exploit their scope to create
enterprise-level value from activities related to human capital
development (including recruiting, training, and leadership development
activities) and to knowledge management (such as IT-based systems for
capturing, storing, and communicating knowledge and best practices
throughout diverse organizational units). By focusing on the career
development opportunities available in its far-flung product and
geographic units, for example, GE has created a formidable and hugely
valuable cadre of managers at all levels. Since intangible assets can
account for 80% of an organization’s value in today’s knowledge economy,
the corporate benefit from effective cross-unit collaboration—to
develop human capital, for example—is a huge driver of enterprise-level
synergies.
Putting It All Together: Strategic Themes
Implementing
a corporate strategy system based on the balanced scorecard is not as
simple as just requiring managers in all business and support units to
create individual local scorecards and then somehow adding them all
together. Nor should a corporate scorecard simply be replicated down the
organization without considering the different operating realities of
each unit.
Headquarters
aligns corporate and business-unit strategies by first articulating its
theory of synergy and then encouraging the business units to develop
strategies that contribute to those enterprise-level objectives while
simultaneously addressing their local competitive situation. It is here
that the bulk of the companywide systems currently used for measuring
performance and allocating responsibilities fail. Most such systems—take
the budgeting system, for instance—emphasize locally controllable
measures and actions. But this emphasis encourages business units and
functions to become silos that perform well on their local measures but
fail to contribute to divisional and corporate synergies. ABB’s
restructuring failures can be partially attributed to its continuing use
of the budgeting system as the primary coordinating mechanism for its
complex matrix structures.
By
contrast, the diversified company Ingersoll-Rand uses a corporate
strategy map and balanced scorecard to foster what CEO Herb Henkel calls
“dual citizenship,” in which all employees not only are members of
their individual business unit but also have a responsibility to
contribute to corporate priorities. That’s because every unit’s strategy
map and balanced scorecard are linked to the corporate scorecard. In
this way, managers in each unit have clear measures and targets that tie
their own activities to the enterprise value proposition.
Several
organizations have adopted a particularly effective way to communicate
corporate priorities to business and supports units. They identify three
to five strategic themes
to describe the enterprise value proposition. Each theme consists of a
vertical chain of cause-and-effect relationships linking objectives,
measures, and initiatives that span the four balanced scorecard
perspectives. The collection of strategic themes articulates how
business and support units can work together to create the synergies
necessary to realize the enterprise’s value proposition. Local managers
use the themes to link their local strategies and determine the
cross-unit collaboration required to deliver on this value proposition.
To
see the power of a strategic theme, consider a large financial services
company whose value proposition is to offer a full range of affordable
products and services to the mass market. It might break down that
proposition into three distinct strategic themes: Lower the cost of
serving existing customers, acquire profitable new customers, and deepen
relationships with customers by cross-selling them additional products
and services.
The
exhibit “Mapping a Strategic Theme” shows how the cross-selling theme
is represented by linked objectives, measures, and initiatives
stretching across the four perspectives. Each objective and measure in
the theme is supported by one or more strategic initiatives. The
complete portfolio of strategic initiatives defines the resources and
actions required to implement the strategic theme. The theme’s learning
and growth objective, for example, involves developing new skills for
employees (relationship management and financial planning), introducing
new information systems (customer databases and financial-planning
systems), and aligning employees’ personal goals and incentives to
motivate them to achieve a process objective of investing more time with
high-potential customers. The theory underlying this strategic theme is
that if the learning and growth objectives are achieved, employees will
be able to cross-sell customers more complete financial solutions (at
the process level), which will increase the company’s share of the
customers’ financial transactions and investment dollars (at the
customer level), ultimately leading to higher revenues and margins (at
the financial level).
Mapping a Strategic Theme
A
strategic theme groups together different corporate-level objectives,
measures, and initiatives across the various perspectives of the
balanced scorecard framework. The first column shows for each ...
It’s
one thing to set down a number of themes on paper, another to actually
use them as the basis for corporate strategy. To do so, the company
follows several implementation steps. First, through the strategic
themes on its corporate-level strategy map, top executives articulate
the theory for corporate advantage—how the whole is more valuable than
the sum of the parts. Second, they assign a senior executive to be
responsible for each strategic theme. Typically, this executive also has
another line or staff position, since being a theme owner is a
part-time job. The theme owner’s role is coordination and monitoring;
the ultimate responsibility for execution remains with the business
units. Theme owners oversee and approve the way the theme’s objectives,
measures, and targets are applied to the operating units’ strategy maps
and scorecards. They convene periodic meetings, drawing on individuals
from all the affected business units, to review progress and initiatives
and revise action plans related to theme objectives. And they oversee
data reporting and use the data to hold fact-based discussions with
business unit managers about how well they are supporting the theme. In
this way, all business units are held accountable not only for their
local performance but also for their contribution to corporate-level
strategic priorities.
Third,
the executive team identifies the strategic initiatives (typically
those that span business-unit boundaries) that support each theme and
authorizes the resources—money and people—required to implement each
initiative. Executive theme owners, along with the top management team,
periodically review the performance of the initiatives and test each
one’s underlying theory. After all, corporate strategies and strategic
themes are just hypotheses about value creation. By translating the
hypotheses of a strategic theme into linked objectives and measures,
executives can test the strategy and determine whether the causal
connections really exist. If not, the corporate executives can and
should revise the themes intended to create corporate synergy.
A
balanced scorecard–based system for setting strategy and measuring
performance linked together by specific strategic themes gives
executives at corporate headquarters a way to communicate shared
priorities and motivate people to share them in even the most complex
businesses. In effect, the themes describe a virtual organization in
which decentralized units pursue their local strategies while
simultaneously contributing to corporate priorities. Let’s turn now to
look in detail at a couple of organizations that have used strategic
themes in this innovative way.
Overcoming Silos at DuPont
In
2000, the DuPont Engineering Polymers (EP) division had $2.5 billion in
sales and employed 4,500 people in 30 facilities around the world. EP,
like many multinational and multiproduct organizations, was having
trouble implementing a coherent strategy across its eight global product
businesses, three regions, and six shared service units. During the
five years before adopting the scorecard, EP’s profits grew at a
compound annual rate of 10%, but this was achieved mainly by cutting
costs and improving productivity, since annual revenue growth was
stalled at only 2.5%. Craig Naylor, DuPont group vice president and EP’s
general manager, saw that the balanced scorecard could align all
employees, business units, and shared services around a common strategy
involving not only productivity improvements but also revenue growth.
EP’s
senior management team, with the assistance of consultant Francis
Gouillart, built a divisional balanced scorecard strategy map that
contained five strategic themes describing how the units could align
their actions to deliver the financial objectives of revenue growth and
cost reduction. Specifically EP would:
- Deploy process improvement tools such as Six Sigma to deliver significant productivity improvements.
- Through logistics excellence, reduce the order-to-cash cycle and shorten lead times for customers.
- Focus
on producing and selling existing products and applications with the
highest margins, and introduce new products and applications.
- Bring
complete solutions to targeted customers by offering a unique package
of robust products, low cost, and excellence in supply.
- Devise entirely new ways of reaching and servicing end-use customers.
The
sequence of themes corresponded to the time frames required for
successful implementation: Improving operating processes and logistics
would deliver results in the near term (nine to 15 months). It would
take two to three years to create new portfolios of products that could
provide more complete customer solutions. Realizing the benefits of
developing and installing an entirely new business model to reach new
customers would take three to four years.
DuPont
EP viewed the five themes as the DNA of its strategy, the code that
would be embedded in every business unit and shared service unit. It
developed strategy maps and assigned a senior manager for each theme
(the maps for each are shown in the exhibit “Mapping Corporate Strategy
at DuPont”). It then cascaded the high-level strategic themes down the
organization. Each major geographic region and product unit built its
own scorecard, which highlighted its unique objectives and initiatives
for local strategy but also made clear how it would implement the five
themes locally. This approach made opportunities for synergy across
business units far more visible. And all six support units built their
scorecards to further the business units’ strategies.
Mapping Corporate Strategy at DuPont
DuPont’s
Engineering Polymers (EP) division created a corporate-level strategy
map that consisted of five distinct themes, each represented by a
vertical chain of cause-and-effect relationships that ...
EP,
however, faced a classic conflict. The local units and their employees
wanted to focus on running their businesses efficiently day-to-day. It
was difficult to get them to pay attention to initiatives relating to
EP’s five new strategic themes amid all the other programs already under
way. So EP “encouraged” its local managers to halt any project that was
not contributing to one or more of the five themes. By cutting down the
clutter of daily operations, EP freed up space for new (but still
local) initiatives that would support the divisional strategic themes
and embed them in employees’ routines.
The
new attitude soon manifested itself in EP’s interactions with one of
its largest customers, a manufacturer of plastic moldings. The fourth
theme required EP’s product managers to better align themselves with
their customers so they could transform a previously transactional
relationship, in which price was the principal topic of dialogue, into a
strategic partnership. Accordingly, EP’s product managers from several
units participated in a workshop with the large customer to build a
balanced scorecard that described the benefits that could accrue from an
improved relationship between the two companies.
In
the course of the workshop, the plastics manufacturer expressed
frustration with its own product design processes, particularly the long
time required to fix problems detected in early prototypes. The
workshop concluded with a decision that DuPont should take over the
process of developing new plastic parts inside some of the customer’s
facilities. The manufacturer felt that EP would do a better job because
DuPont had a more holistic understanding of plastic materials and their
manufacture. This initiative was a clear success for the theme of
building complete solutions for customers.
An
often fatal weakness of a matrix organization is the endless debates
among business units, functional departments, and geographical regions
about resource allocation. EP reported that the clarity of the five
strategic themes, cutting as they did across units, regions, and
functions, highlighted corporate priorities effectively and made it
easier to understand why resources were allocated the way they were.
This led to more productive discussion and dialogue based on a shared
understanding of the fundamental drivers of overall business
performance. Individuals used the scorecard architecture and measures to
gain support for agendas and projects. Enthusiasm and constructive
discussions pervaded the organization because of that shared
understanding of strategy.
Coordinating Diversity in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Public
sector enterprises also find strategic themes powerful for getting
their diverse units to cooperate so that they can achieve outcomes
collectively beyond what the units would accomplish independently. The
approach is particularly well suited to this sector, where organizations
are often hugely diverse and at the same time are limited politically
in their freedom to experiment with structural change.
Mapping
strategic themes is particularly well suited to the public sector,
where organizations have limited political freedom to experiment with
structural change.
Consider
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with its 23,000 employees and a
C$3.3 billion annual budget. The RCMP operates at four
levels—international; national; provincial/territorial; and local (over
200 municipalities, hundreds of rural communities, including 566
aboriginal communities). In 2000, the RCMP faced several challenges.
There were budgetary constraints, and its resources were still not
adequate for the policing environment of the twenty-first century. A new
RCMP commissioner, Giuliano (Zack) Zaccardelli, felt passionately about
improving management; he had a vision that the RCMP could become a
strategically focused organization of excellence. Even with his strong
centralized leadership and vision, however, Zaccardelli faced the
challenge of getting all RCMP units, scattered across an enormous land
mass, to align with, and contribute to, corporate-level priorities.
A
senior-level project team at the RCMP launched a process to translate
the mission (“safe homes, safe communities”) into something operational
that could be understood by the highly motivated but also very tactical
police officers throughout Canada. The heart of the strategy for
delivering on the mission was contained within a set of five overarching
corporate-level strategic themes that formed part of the process
perspective and went beyond everyday policing activities:
- Reduce the threat and impact of organized crime.
- Reduce the threat of terrorist activity in Canada and abroad.
- Reduce and prevent youth involvement in crime, both as offenders and as victims.
- Effectively support international operations.
- Contribute to safer, healthier aboriginal communities.
The
five themes required national-level strategic coordination.
Accordingly, the RCMP developed a separate strategy map for each, with
its own initiatives, targets, and measures. Each theme was assigned a
senior RCMP executive owner, who organized periodic meetings of local
and national managers to review progress against the theme’s targets.
Once the strategy maps and scorecards for the corporate-level strategy
and the five strategic themes were completed, the cascading process to
local units could commence. Each local divisional unit selected up to
ten objectives for its own strategy that customized the high-level
themes to the specific realities of its operations. In addition, the
local strategy maps incorporated the division’s normal policing
responsibilities.
Because
no single organizational unit had complete ownership, responsibility,
or accountability for any of the themes, the process promoted
cooperation and integration among previously independent local,
provincial, and national policing units, allowing them to share lessons
learned and best practices. In one case, for example, a central
functional group—the Criminal Intelligence Directorate—contributed to a
theme in a way it would never have done before to reduce drug traffic in
several aboriginal communities. Initially, the strategic theme for
making aboriginal communities safer focused on building better relations
with them in order to meet their specific needs. But when the Criminal
Intelligence Directorate was brought into the strategy, it identified a
need to focus as well on identifying criminal threats that were preying
on the communities. Accordingly, in 2005, the RCMP undertook a major
investigation that disrupted the delivery of drugs to several isolated
northern aboriginal communities. Prior to identifying “safer, healthier
aboriginal communities” as a strategic theme, the central group would
probably not have concentrated efforts toward what otherwise might have
been considered a lower-level street drug–trafficking problem.
Not
every unit contributes to all themes equally, of course. In the
Northwest Territories, for instance, the threat of terrorist activity
would be low, so its strategy map does not contain objectives supporting
this strategic theme. But the unit could certainly play a vital role in
reducing youth involvement in crime and creating healthier aboriginal
communities. Conversely, an RCMP unit based in Toronto may not be able
to make a great contribution to aboriginal communities but would be a
central player in reducing threats from organized crime and terrorist
activity. In this way, all units played a role in delivering on RCMP
strategic priorities beyond their day (and night) job of local policing.
Collectively, the results of initiatives outlined in the strategy maps
were impressive, as the exhibit “Measuring Satisfaction with the
Mounties” demonstrates.
Measuring Satisfaction with the Mounties
Since
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police instituted its balanced scorecard
approach to realizing its broad vision of “safe homes, safe
communities,” the public’s level of satisfaction with ...
• • •
Both
DuPont EP and the RCMP were able to use corporate scorecards and
strategy maps organized around strategic themes to realize the enormous
value that their portfolio of assets, people, and skills represented. As
a result, they did not have to endure the rigors of a painful series of
changes that simply replaced one rigid structure with another. They
realized that a more flexible and less disruptive approach was to create
a management system to serve as the interface between strategy and
structure. Of course, motivating business units around strategic themes
is not the only way of doing this—nor for some corporations will it be
the most appropriate way. But there’s no doubt that a strategic theme’s
vertical links across balanced scorecard objectives, measures, and
initiatives creates an extraordinarily powerful system for uncovering
opportunities for value creation, for communicating corporate priorities
to local units, and for facilitating reviews of resource allocation,
strategy, and management effectiveness. As companies look for ways to
implement corporate-level strategies, they now have a new tool to
consider.
Was this article helpful? Connect with me.
Follow The SUN (AYINRIN), Follow the light. Be bless. I am His Magnificence, The Crown, Kabiesi Ebo Afin!Ebo Afin Kabiesi! His Magnificence Oloja Elejio Oba Olofin Pele Joshua Obasa De Medici Osangangan broad-daylight natural blood line 100% Royalty The God, LLB Hons, BL, Warlord, Bonafide King of Ile Ife kingdom and Bonafide King of Ijero Kingdom, Number 1 Sun worshiper in the Whole World.I'm His Magnificence the Crown. Follow the light.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.