Editor's note: Every year, HBS Professor Clayton Christensen teaches students that well-tested academic theories can help them succeed not just in business, but in life. He expounds upon those lessons in his forthcoming book, How Will You Measure Your Life? Co-authored with James Allworth (MBA 2010) and Karen Dillon, the book uses meaningful corporate and personal anecdotes to extoll the value of theory in finding and creating happiness.
"You'll see that without theory, we're at sea without a map or a sextant," Christensen writes. "If we can't see beyond what's close by, we're relying on chance—on the currents of life—to guide us."
Christensen also believes that certain common business principles are misguided and even dangerous. In the following excerpt, he explains why focusing on marginal costs and revenues can lead to personal, professional, and moral failure.
The Trap Of Marginal Thinking
In the late 1990s, Blockbuster dominated the movie rental industry in the United States. It had stores all over the country, a significant size advantage, and what appeared to be a stranglehold on the market. Blockbuster had made huge investments in its inventory for all its stores. But, obviously, it didn't make money from movies sitting on the shelves; it was only when a customer rented a movie that Blockbuster made anything. It therefore needed to get the customer to watch the movie quickly, and then return it quickly, so that the clerk could rent the same DVD to different customers again and again. It wasn't long before Blockbuster realized that people didn't like returning movies quickly, so it increased late fees so much that analysts estimated that 70 percent of Blockbuster's profits were from these fees.
Set against this backdrop, a little upstart called Netflix emerged in the 1990s with a novel idea: rather than make people go to the video store, why don't we mail DVDs to them? Netflix's business model made profit in just the opposite way to Blockbuster's. Netflix customers paid a monthly fee-and the company made money when customers didn't watch the DVDs that they had ordered. As long as the DVDs sat unwatched at customers' homes, Netflix did not have to pay return postage-or send out the next batch of movies that the customer had already paid the monthly fee to get.
“As Blockbuster learned the hard way, we end up paying for the full cost of our decisions, not the marginal costs, whether we like it or not.”
It was a bold move: Netflix was the quintessential David going up against the Goliath of the movie rental industry. Blockbuster had billions of dollars in assets, tens of thousands of employees, and 100 percent brand recognition. If Blockbuster decided it wanted to go after this nascent market, it would have the resources to make life very difficult for the little start-up.
But it didn't.
By 2002, the upstart was showing signs of potential. It had $150 million in revenues and a 36 percent profit margin. Blockbuster investors were starting to get nervous—there was clearly something to what Netflix was doing. Many pressured the incumbent to look more closely at the market. "Obviously, we pay attention to any way people are getting home entertainment. We always look at all those things," is how a Blockbuster's responded in a 2002 press release. "We have not seen a business model that is financially viable in the long term in this arena. Online rental services are 'serving a niche market.' "
Netflix, on the other hand, thought this market was fantastic. It didn't need to compare it to an existing and profitable business: its baseline was no profit and no business at all. This "niche" market seemed just fine.
So, who was right?
By 2011, Netflix had almost 24 million customers. And Blockbuster? It declared bankruptcy the year before.
Blockbuster's mistake? To follow a principle that is taught in every fundamental course in finance and economics. That is, in evaluating alternative investments, we should ignore sunk and fixed costs, and instead base decisions on the marginal costs and revenues that each alternative entails. But it's a dangerous way of thinking. Almost always, such analysis shows that the marginal costs are lower, and marginal profits are higher, than the full cost.
This doctrine biases companies to leverage what they have put in place to succeed in the past, instead of guiding them to create the capabilities they'll need in the future. If we knew the future would be exactly the same as the past, that approach would be fine. But if the future's different—and it almost always is—then it's the wrong thing to do. As Blockbuster learned the hard way, we end up paying for the full cost of our decisions, not the marginal costs, whether we like it or not.
You End Up Paying The Full Price Anyway
Case studies such as this one helped me resolve a paradox that has appeared repeatedly in my attempts to help established companies that are confronted by disruptive entrants—as was the case with Blockbuster. Once their executives understood the peril that the disruptive attackers posed, I would say, "Okay. Now the problem is that your sales force is not going to be able to sell these disruptive products. They need to be sold to different customers, for different purposes. You need to create a different sales force." Inevitably they would respond, "Clay, you have no idea how much it costs to create a new sales force. We need to leverage our existing sales team."
The language of the disruptive attackers was completely different: "It's time to create the sales force." Hence, the paradox: Why is it that the big, established companies that have so much capital find these initiatives to be so costly? And why do the small entrants with much less capital find them to be straightforward?
The answer lies in their approach to marginal versus full costs. Every time an executive in an established company needs to make an investment decision, there are two alternatives on the menu. The first is the full cost of making something completely new. The second is to leverage what already exists.
Almost always, the marginal-cost argument overwhelms the full-cost. When there is competition, and this thinking causes established companies to continue to use what they already have in place, they pay far more than the full cost—because the company loses its competitiveness. As Henry Ford once put it, "If you need a machine and don't buy it, then you will ultimately find that you have paid for it and don't have it." Thinking on a marginal basis can be very, very dangerous.
An Unending Stream Of Extenuating Circumstances
This marginal-cost argument applies the same way in choosing right and wrong: it addresses a question I discuss with my students: how to live a life of integrity—and stay out of jail. The marginal cost of doing something "just this once" always seems to be negligible, but the full cost will typically be much higher. Yet unconsciously, we will naturally employ the marginal-cost doctrine in our personal lives. A voice in our head says, "Look, I know that as a general rule, most people shouldn't do this. But in this particular extenuating circumstance, just this once, it's okay." And the voice in our head seems to be right; the price of doing something wrong "just this once" usually appears alluringly low. It suckers you in, and you don't see where that path is ultimately headed or the full cost that the choice entails.
“The marginal cost of doing something 'just this once' always seems to be negligible, but the full cost will typically be much higher.”
Recent years have offered plenty of examples of people who were extremely well-respected by their colleagues and peers falling from grace because they made this mistake. Nick Leeson, the twenty-six-year-old trader who famously brought down British merchant bank Barings in 1995 after racking up $1.3 billion in trading losses before being detected, suffered exactly this fate and talks about how marginal thinking led him down an inconceivable path. In hindsight, it all started with one small step: a relatively small error. But he didn't want to admit to it. Instead, he covered it up by hiding the loss in a little-scrutinized trading account. It led him deeper and deeper down a path of deception.
He lied to cover lies; he forged documents, misled auditors, and made false statements to try to hide his mounting losses. Eventually, he arrived at his moment of reckoning. He was arrested at the airport in Germany, having fled his home in Singapore. As Barings realized the extent of Leeson's debt, it was forced to declare bankruptcy. The bank was sold to ING for just 1 pound. Twelve hundred employees lost their jobs, some of them his friends. And Leeson was sentenced to six and a half years in a Singaporean prison.
How could hiding one mistake from his bosses end up leading to the undoing of a 233-year-old merchant bank, a conviction and imprisonment for fraud, and ultimately the failure of his marriage? It's almost impossible to see where Leeson would end up from the vantage point of where he started—but that's the danger of marginal thinking.
As soon as he took that first step, there was no longer a boundary where it suddenly made sense to turn around. The next step is always a small one, and given what you've already done, why stop now? Leeson described the feeling of walking down this dark road in an interview with the BBC: "[I] wanted to shout from the rooftops … this is what the situation is, there are massive losses, I want it to stop. But for some reason you're unable to do it."
100 Percent of the Time Is Easier Than 98 Percent of the Time
Many of us have convinced ourselves that we are able to break our own personal rules "just this once." In our minds, we can justify these small choices. None of those things, when they first happen, feels like a life-changing decision. The marginal costs are almost always low. But each of those decisions can roll up into a much bigger picture, turning you into the kind of person you never wanted to be.
I came to understand the potential damage of "just this once" in my own life when I was in England, playing on my university's varsity basketball team. It was a fantastic experience; I became close friends with everyone on the team. We killed ourselves all season, and our hard work paid off-we made it all the way to the finals of the big tournament. But then I learned that the championship game was scheduled to be played on a Sunday. This was a problem. At age sixteen, I had made a personal commitment to God that I would never play ball on Sunday because it is our Sabbath.
So I went to the coach before the tournament finals and explained my situation. He was incredulous. "I don't know what you believe," he said to me, "but I believe that God will understand." Every one of the guys on the team came to me and said, "You've got to play. Can't you break the rule, just this one time?"
It was a difficult decision to make. The team would suffer without me. The guys on the team were my best friends. We'd been dreaming about this all year. I'm a deeply religious man, so I went away to pray about what I should do. As I knelt to pray, I got a very clear feeling that I needed to keep my commitment. So I told the coach that I wasn't able to play in the championship game.
In so many ways, that was a small decision—involving one of several thousand Sundays in my life. In theory, surely I could have crossed over the line just that one time and then not done it again. But looking back on it, I realize that resisting the temptation of "in this one extenuating circumstance, just this once, it's okay" has proved to be one of the most important decisions of my life. Why? Because life is just one unending stream of extenuating circumstances. Had I crossed the line that one time, I would have done it over and over and over in the years that followed.
And it turned out that my teammates didn't need me. They won the game anyway.
If you give in to "just this once," based on a marginal-cost analysis, you'll regret where you end up. That's the lesson I learned: it's easier to hold to your principles 100 percent of the time than it is to hold to them 98 percent of the time. The boundary—your personal moral line—is powerful because you don't cross it; if you have justified doing it once, there's nothing to stop you doing it again.
Decide what you stand for. And then stand for it all the time.
Professor Christensen's position is the best articulated expression of the consequences of morale failure.
The slippery slope of 'just this once' is seen frequently when considering so many frauds; and, it appears again and again in non-business failures.
This is a rigorous standard and one that I have not consistently met but a standard that I aspire to.
I look forward to reading the full book when published.
The expediency of meeting short term targets while missing the big picture is all too common in our present environment. Your personal story eloquently illustrates the value of holding "true to your values". Thank you.
I like Henry Ford's quote, "If you need a machine and don't buy it, then you will ultimately find that you have paid for it and don't have it".
Classic !
I was reading about BP and how they had developed a management style which has made a "virtue of doing more for less".
Eventually they were cutting corners and taking excessive risks because the priorities had been financial, rather than organizational integrity.
As we know this resulted in a number of mishaps and disasters which were warnings to the road ahead.
Finally resulting in the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico.
BP were exposed to $70 billion in clean-up costs and lawsuits.
And the wrecking of its brand in the USA and worldwide.
I wonder how much their risky cost-cutting had saved them ?
And how much was eventually lost in destruction to property and family businesses ?
BP CEO Tony Hayward lost his job over the incident. So much for approving a risky management style.
Certainly not worth the costs whatever the numbers were.
I also wonder how many poor short term decisions came because of shareholder pressure ?
We have to change to way we think, and the way we work !
There do come occasions when we feel that we will not be caught if we very cleverly and intelligently commit a somewhat wrong action for big gain " just this once".
Yes, we may not be caught. There commences a vicious circle of repetition(s) for we start believing that our action(s) are catch-proof. Such actions finally snowball to an unmanageable level and there is a great fall.
This basic folly led to the failure of many large corporates which were rated very high untill their misdoings came to light. Thus, their top levels had to suffer badly and many are still in jails.
In hindsight, a short sighted action led to all this.
There is no alternate to being straightforward in the real sense. Greed kills, one must understand and be very wary of it.
Our life is measured by positives and not by negatives which one may try to cover by shininig robes as the robes wear out sooner than later.
"There is nothing to stop you doing it again"? How about yourself? Maybe not take the easy way out, but take the hard way and fight for your beliefs. While still being able to decide when a justified exception appears.
Yes, it's tempting to "break the rule" more often than necessary, but to never break them even if necessary just because you are lazy?
In the examples you gave, there wasn't a really necessary exception shown, so I don't want to say Nick Leeson should have lied in the first place or similar. But in the overall closing line, 98% may be harder to do, but it's also the "more right" thing to do.
...if you think about it, Leeson was more on the 0% side (or wich errors did he admit to make up for 98% of the errors?) and you obviously shouldn't be there.
Also looking forward to the book.
I am thrilled that Professor Christensen's message will now be delivered more broadly, and cannot wait to purchase this book.
As I have shared with my clients, you will have a number of spinning plates to juggle in your career, and there are two you can not ever let drop ; your core values , and your family. http://www.nosmokeandmirrors.com/2009/09/24/entrepreneur-best-practices-9-dont-let-the-two-most-important-plates-drop/
Making compromises to what you know is right is a death of 1000 cuts. Stay true to what is right and serve your market and your team with integrity and you will build a sustainable profitable organization.
Great content
Mark Allen Roberts
A moral, enduring commitment is different from a trivial, fleeting commitment. Nobody's moral compass should be defined by "playing on this basketball team".
"Decide what you stand for. And then stand for it all the time."
Excellent article! One of the best articles I've read this week. Thank you.
For example- my strong belief that the individual and the individual situation takes precedence versus another person who cannot see beyond their rule- and this causes hurt to a learner, rather than the growth that would be obtained when learning results in both inclusion and change- my principles remain to review both big picture and details and then to act accordingly with the understanding of "first do no harm" - what of the other party standing on princples that not only do not heal a situation but further negate any possible learning - I have kept this discussion abstract on purpose.
should be clear about one's core values and should never
violate those values in pursuit of worldly gain, if one is
looking for authentic happiness in one's life.
However, I find myself disagreeing with the personal example that Prof. Clayton Christensen has given to explain the concept.
During our existence on this earth, we go through 4 stages ( childhood, bachelorhood,marriage/householder & Old age).
Each stage has different challenges which we need to overcome to move to the next stage of our lives. Also, the
beauty of nature is such that at each stage of life, whatever
we enjoy and get attached to, has to be given up to move
to the next stage. So, the child has to give-up his dependence on his parents to become a responsible adult; the bachelor has to give up his independence to become a responsible householder and, to have a happy old age, the householder has to give-up his sensual pleasures, and in old
age one has to slowly give up his attachment to life, as
death requires him to give up on life itself ( to be born again, if you believe in re-incarnation). At each stage we evolve and have a better perspective on our life's actions. Our actions related to our religious rituals too should be re-
assessed as we go along; we must understand the intention behind the rituals and, as long as we do not violate the intent, I believe that we can reassess our response to the ritual itself.
The Life Coach in me could not but recall the story of "The
Mayonnaise Jar and Two Cups of Coffee" while reading the article. Here it is for those of you who have not heard this insightful story :
A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, he wordlessly picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and
proceeded to fill it with GOLF BALLS. He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was.
The professor then picked up a box of PEBBLES and poured
them into the jar. He shook the jar lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was.
The professor next picked up a box of SAND and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else. He
asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with an unanimous "yes."
The professor then produced TWO CUPS OF COFFEE from under the table and poured the entire contents into the jar effectively filling the empty space between the sand. The students laughed.
"Now," said the professor as the laughter subsided, "I want you to recognize that
1.This JAR represents your life.
2. The GOLF BALLS are the important things--your family, your children, your health, your friends and your favorite passions--and if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full.
3.The PEBBLES are the other things that matter like your job, your house and your car.
4.The SAND is everything else--the small stuff. "If you put the sand into the jar first," he continued, "there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life. If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff you will never have room for the things that are important to you.
"Pay attention to the things that are critical to your
happiness. Play with your children. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your spouse out to dinner. Play another 18. There will always be time to clean the house and fix the
disposal. TAKE CARE OF THE GOLF BALLS FIRST--THE THINGS THAT REALLY MATTERS. Set your priorities. THE REST IS SAND."
One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the COFFEE represented. The professor smiled. "I'm glad you asked. It just goes to show you that no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a couple of cups of coffee with a friend."
g they varied from their regular beliefs based on cirumstances) can mean all the difference in the world in being human and inhuman.
Is there an action item here? Or just an ideology?
Excellent article. Good to see most of your health challenges are behind you.
I don't suppose you'd do a course for us on leadership?
Values are individual - another theist seeing their deity/ies differently migt well have taken the court, figuring it was God's will they were there, they were fit and God would want them to have fun and play...whatever.
The general drift regarding ethics has merit, but it is worth noting that sociopaths can proudly claim they stand for certain values, all the time too.
For mine, Blockbuster is just another example of a company crippled eventually by its size. Too big to be flexible and found itself sinking in quicksand it never saw coming in any of its more than likely well polished five and ten year plans.
The type that pehaps Dr C is referring to here: "You'll see that without theory, we're at sea without a map or a sextant," Christensen writes.
Really? You would not likely get on a train if you had a specific destination in mind yet didn't know where it was going e.g. wanted to go to New York, yet the train could be heading to NY, New Delhi, New Hampshire.... wherever...and no one could tell you. You'd rather not take any train I'd suggest. Especially if the trains could take you to some undesirable outpost potentially, or have you back-track halfway across the planet to end up broke, months later, back where you started from.
Virtually all economic theory freely demonstrates (or should, post GFC) they don't have a clue where their trains are going, much less if they have brakes. But the argument "better something than nothing" is always trotted out. I'd rather walk and make it up as I go. Seemingly Blockbuster's competition walked and got lucky. However it remains to be seen if they go the same way.
Unsure what theory shapes, but doubtlessly practice shapes outcomes. And also too a pronounced outcome bias. And quickly. But Doctor C's ethos of focusing on the decision, not the outcome is sound enough.
We have no clue as to the extent of the short term/long term nature of the outcome. An example might be a rogue trader type who gets away with it, retires from larcenous trading, buys an expensive car, only to be crippled in it 5 years later in an accident that would not have happened to him in a far less fast vehicle.
At least when you behave ethically, you get to enjoy the day - the outcome long term is fate's call. Trying getting a bell curve or your firm's 5 year plan to show you that little lesson.
For example - when driving age was lowered to 16, there were fears this would get us on a path to irresponsible kids driving cars - "slippery slope" concerns, of the kind expressed in this article. And yet we all knew to draw the line at 16 and not let, say, 10 year olds drive cars.
Many marginal cost decisions are just that, marginal cost decisions. They're not all taking us down "a slippery slope". How do you tell them apart?
I developed this theory of ethics back in my teens when I often observed adults stating one thing and doing another. As I have grown and experienced life to my mid 40s, I find it rare for anyone to practice 100% ethical behavior. I don't believe anyone can hold to your principles 100% of the time. I do believe you can strive to meet your principles. If on the rare occasion you do falter and cross the line in the sand (your personal ethical boundary), as long as you recognize you crossed the line and strive not to do so again, the line in the sand remains. However if you justify your crossing of the line in the sand, the line in the sand of what is considered unethical shifts to a new location of what that person now percieves as unethical. Each subsequent crossing and justification will see that line continue to shift further and further into what that person would have once considered truly unethical behavior.
Witness RIM, their OS didn't change for years, and the '02 version is fundamentally the same as today- and 2 ceos later they still think everything is fine, say hi to radio shack and blockbuster, nortel and nokia, lucent, novell, and all the other people who think R&D is overrated.
It's actually an easy fix but so many ignore it and it goes like this-
Innovate, if you cannot, buy them early.
Psychology Of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things
Chana Joffe-Walt and Alix Spiegel
Many of the 'lessons' we learn in life (on reflection) are often from such memorable and unpleasant experiences involving tough decisions - or mistakes and hardships we have experienced as we grow up and our decision making faculties are not fully matured. Education, relationships, work, sport & social life, and religion, all play a part as we develop.
All parents - and I assume many Coaches & CEO's - will talk of these 'learning' experiences. Its a theory vs practice discussion, whereas once upon a time it was more just the practice.
There is an industry of books to advise us these days but the challenge remains the same - do what you know is right. Having clear values will help you to trust yourself to make more intuitive and value- based decisions. This can only help support the theoretical and financial framework necessary for expert decision making in business.
Adaptability is necessary for keep going on. Standing for what you believe and your principles is good, but at the same time you should accept changes if it is for good cause.
Sandra
Do you not feel that the cause for the collective activity of which we are a part is above the personal beliefs. My personal beliefs should be known to my team mates and coach right in the beginning or else one should not take part in activities which may force you to compromise with your personal beliefs.
We tend to bend over backwards to the point we cannot turn around because we fire all our shots at once. That is to say we give in to what the business partners believe is right, even when we know it does not match up to our value system. I have thought that our own abilities and ethics are no longer a concern as long as everyone makes money. This is fundamentally against our own well being we have started to put others so far in front of ourselves I feel it will be almost impossible to get back to the point where everybody's input is no longer taken into the analysis what we have instead is more a long the lines of a dictatorship in business where if your ethics do not allow you to do something you think is wrong your arguments are washed away by the "just do what you are told" mindset.
This reason alone makes me wonder when we finally do reflect on how we presented ourselves to both business and personal relationships will we be able to say we were effective in our lives. Success cannot be measured in monies but in having said I regret nothing. This cannot be accomplished if we do things merely because they are legal. We have to get back on track and do things because it is the right thing to do. It is time to put respect back into the work place. In a nut shell we need to be ethical and honest, legal has been confused over the last 5-10 years with ethical. Just because it is legal it does not make it ethical it is time for American business again to hold this principal up. We need to get away from the backroom deals which make a select few wealthy monetarily but bankrupt ethically.
When it comes to investments (like Blockbuster), you compare expected costs and benefits. Blockbuster didn't do that, probably thanks to advice from some of these "innovation experts."
The confusion on the part of this "expert" is further evident when he mixes up how to make personal (moral) decisions in our daily lives.
It is not uncommon for business gurus to write a book attaching a well established theory arguing that they have found the magic bullet to solve all (worldly and otherwise) problems, only to be proved wrong by
another "guru" subsequently.
I actually had a friend who wrestled with the same issue over Sunday cricket in the West Indies. He made the very opposite decision to yours and his life has still turned out marvelously.
What is often perceived and practiced as a moral principle, is often constrained by culture, personal development, family values etc. The white Southerner father - the Southern Baptiste church - taught generations upon generations of American "peculiar morals."
In a globalized world, the human person has to grow, has to change, has to evolve, and surprisingly we'll discover that this "new human being" has to co-evolve a new moral calculus. In summary, we have to manage - not only for external market-based disruptions, but personally manage for "internal disruptions," also.
God bless those of us that try shortcuts, there is generally a piper to be paid.
Over the last 20 years there were so many instances I had to exercise this judgement. I never broke that rule. As a teenager I have stayed away from friends who used to smoke cigars, alchohol, pubs. Rule is pretty stright -before you consume check if it has alchahol (or list of no go substances) in it, if so avoid at any cost. I was fooled by a friend - he mixed vodka and coke, I felt disgusted after knowing this,but decided it's not my fault so I stuck with the rule. There were many socially awkward situations but I always found ways to manage those situations.
My rule is to 'never break the rule first time'. If you break the rule for the first time then you know how it tastes like. That taste effect would cascade to the urge I already have and I would break the rule again. second time, third time and so on and on. The first time rule breaking is very important as the author pointed out.
Same rule I applied to casinos when I visited there first time I felt that if I make money it should be my hard earned not with luck or stealing someone elses- So no lotto tickets or casinos, poker, gambling.
Problem with the marginal thinking is - it is more like black or white- yes or no. there is no middle ground/nutral. If you steal once or a million times you are a thief. So better enforce the rule for the first instance then there wont be second instance in your life. In some aspects of my life I did bad things without prior thought, but when I did realize it was a bad thing I have set this rule to that aspect and avoided breaking it.
I am far from perfect (as my wife would tell me) but somehow I failed to implement this rule to address some of my bad habits such as my laziness and excess news paper reading.....
Look forward to reading the book
Second part of article: Stick to your decisions no matter what even if unforeseen opportunities tempt you to contradict them. You should never adapt to changing circumstances.
I admire and respect Professor Christensen's commitment to his values and principles.
Of course my personal take .......
Teaching students to fly helicopters is in part about the discipline to do it right, follow the checklist, don't take short cuts "just this once" - because if you do and get away with it fuels this misguided myth that you can take short cuts, with no consequence.
When flying helicopters,
as in life it's what you do when no one is watching that becomes the sum of who you become.
A very impressive article, ideas well crafted in words. Elaboration of case study adds charm to its presentation. Looking forward for more from you. :)
I told anyone that would listen immediately after the '08 economic meltdown that this kind of philosophy and the associated activities and thinking would be the one positive outcome of that mess.....serving as a bright light within a very grim environment. Here we are four years later and I obviously could not have been more wrong. .
Everyone should read this book and share with others. Sooner or later we just may get it right. As Churchill so keenly noted: "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
Every life/ individual has two possessions of his own
1. Physical body :which needs all the pleasures of possession of the material things in the world. As these possessions increase we want to have these more, so we are never satisfied with these. This is the way for development/ progress, till we do it ethically.
2. Soul : inside the physical body, which always strive for happiness, peace and spritual/ moral possessions.
Most of the crimes/ financial crimes are happening becuase of the un-ethical im-moral activities of the individuals.
For all physical / intellectual achievments we have so many institution taking care of it.
But I think now we need more dedicated institutions for spritual and moral development of society to reduce these regularly increasing crimes/ financial crimes.
Moral / Spritual education must also be a regular part of our school/ unniversity curriculam if we want reduce the moral degradation which induces all these crimes.
"100 Percent of the Time Is Easier Than 98 Percent of the Time"
Inspiring article that should help me live a life of purity and holiness. God bless you and more power!
unsound actions have a subtle but pervasive effect on all practitioners who subsequently read the medical record of the patient being inadequately treated.
i
We were surprised by the inertia at the time for what could have been a relatively low risk trial that would have bought an option on a future market opportunity.