Answer Yourself! A blog by Sukhpreet Singh

In October 8th issue of TIME, I read this:

$500,000 is the amount the Iraq war costs per minute, according to a joint analysis by a Nobel-prizewinning economist and a Harvard scholar, who noted that the amount spent on war each day could pay for health care for 423,529 children.

President Bush recently vetoed SCHIP - State Children’s Health Insurance Program - bill. SCHIP currently covers about 6 million children in families that earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid program for the poor, but not enough to afford their own, private health insurance. The bill the president vetoed would have added $35 billion to the program over the next five years — enough to cover about 10 million children total.

One of his reasoning is:
“This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn’t sound poor to me.” This is not true - SCHIP would cover up to families earning $60,000 - a family of four.

The point is that he willing to splurge on Iraq War but if a program goes out to help an extra 4 million kids, thats not acceptable. Here is simple math that shows that the amount spent on war for an extra 9.45 days will be enough to get those 4 million kids the health coverage they need, which the President doesn’t agree with.

423,529 children can get health care by => 1 day’s worth of expenditure on Iraq war,
6,000,000 (6 million) children can get health care by => 14.2 day’s worth of expenditure on Iraq war , and
10,000,000 (10 million) children can get health care by => 23.6 day’s worth of expenditure on Iraq war.

So to cover extra 4 million kids, its gonna take 9.45 day’s worth of money allocated towards Iraq war.

Is he trying to do things right or is he trying to do the right things?

What is the foundation of SUCCESS? What does it take to be successful? Is it character or personality that forms the basis of success? When i use the word ’success’, i mean success in every sphere of life - material, emotional, intellectual and spiritual.

CHARACTER ETHIC Vs. PERSONALITY ETHIC

To quote from Stephen Covey’s book, “The 7 habits of highly effective people”, Character Ethic is

things like integrity, humility, fidelity, temperance, courage, justice, patience, industry, simplicity, modesty, and the Golden Rule… Character Ethics are basic principles of effective living, and that people can only experience true success and enduring happiness as they learn and integrate these principles into their basic character.

Personality Ethic on the other hand can be summed as -

Success due to Personality Ethic is more a function of personality, of public image, of attitudes and behaviors, skills and techniques, that lubricate the processes of human interaction.
There are other parts of the personality approach that are clearly manipulative, even deceptive, encouraging people to use the techniques to get other people to like them, or to fake interest in the hobbies of others to get out of them what they wanted, or to use the “power look” or to intimidate their way through life.

I believe that character traits are like the foundation of a home and personality traits are like the look-and-feel of the home. Though both traits are needed, the primary trait is the character. If the foundation of the home is strong, the owner can live in peacefully trusting that the home will be able to protect him from harsh elements of nature even though it might not be appealing to look at. But if the home is appealing to look at and doesn’t have a strong foundation, it becomes unpredictable and you never know when it might collapse. You can’t trust your home.

If I try to use human influence strategies and tactics of how to get other people to do what I want, to work better, to be more motivated, to like me and each other - while my character is fundamentally flawed, marked by duplicity and insincerity - then, in the long run, I cannot be successful. My duplicity will breed distrust, and everything i do - even using so-called good human relations techniques - will be perceived as manipulative. It simply makes no difference how good the rhetoric is or even how good the intentions are; if there is little or not trust, there i no foundation for permanent success. Only basic goodness gives life to technique

To focus on technique is like cramming your way through school. You sometimes get by, perhaps even get good grades, but if you don’t pay the price day in and out, you never achieve true mastery of the subjects you study or develop an educated mind. So if there isn’t deep integrity and fundamental character strength, the challenges of life will cause true motives to surface and human relationship failure will replace short-term success.

There are of course people who have strong character traits (honesty, modesty, courage etc.) but they lack communication skills, and that undoubtedly affects the quality of relationships as well. But the effects are still secondary.

Many people with secondary greatness - that is, social recognition for their talents - lack primary greatness or goodness in their character. Sooner or later, you’ll see this in every long-term relationship they have, whether it is with a business associate, a spouse, or a friend. It is character that communicates most eloquently. As Emerson once put it, “What you are shouts so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you say.

This is so true. There are some people that I can trust absolutely because I know their character. Whether they have good people skills or not, whether they are well educated or not, I know I can rely on them and work successfully with them. These are the kind of people whom if I ask for advise, they will give it without any motive, whether its in their favor or not - no manipulations. And I can be pretty sure about the genuineness of their advise. Now, there are techniques whereby if they study a person enough and take appropriate actions, they can gain anyone’s trust to achieve their ultimate motive - harmful or harmless. But over time, it will show that these people are motive-driven and distrust and distance will creep in. Both are not good ingredients for success.

ENRON CEO - KENNETH LAY

Kenneth Lay was born into a poor family in Tyrone, Missouri. When he was a child Ken delivered newspapers and mowed lawns. He later went on to become one of America’s highest-paid CEOs, earning a $42.4 million compensation package in 1999. In December 2000, Lay was mentioned as a possible candidate for President Bush’s Treasury secretary. With his strong personality traits - a born salesman, risk-taker, and extremely pragmatic - he reached great heights in corporate America. While managing Enron, he took actions to bolster his public image,

Enron, was a groundbreaker in prohibiting smoking inside its shimmering high-rise office tower. So when you drove down Smith Street and caught sight of those nicotine addicts exiled to the sun-scorched pavement, the scene seemed to augur something new and advanced — a better way to live than that proffered by the old wildcatters who liked their whiskey, cigarettes and handshake deals. So Ken Lay held on to his public reputation as a good guy.

But what happened eventually to a man who didn’t have strong character foundation? Lay dumped large amounts of his Enron stock in September and October of 2001 as its price fell, while encouraging employees to buy more stock, telling them the company would rebound. Lay liquidated more than $300 million in Enron stock from 1989 to 2001, mostly in stock options. Would a man with strong character traits like integrity, honesty, courage and justice do what he did? No.

As one of his former executives, Mike Muckleroy, noted in his testimony, Mr. Lay tended to shade the truth under pressure as a businessman; As the lead prosecutor, Sean Berkowitz, pointed out, the trial wasn’t a litmus test of whether Ken Lay was a good person; <b>it was about his character at Enron</b>. Maybe Ken Lay will never be able to see himself for who he was, but by the time the jury took to their deliberations, most people in Houston felt they knew Ken Lay all too well.

Last five years of his life, he was under extreme stress and finally died of heart attack. And what do people still wish for him - hatred. What do people regret - that he died an easy death. What’s the legacy he left behind - a corrupt, selfish, greedy businessman who destroyed livelyhood and life-saving of thousands of people.

The Personality Ethic is illusory and deceptive. And trying to get high quality results with its techniques and quick fixes is just about as effective as trying to get to some place in Chicago using a map of Detroit.

Strong Character Ethic is the foundation of success.

 Loading …

How do you compete with free products or with products that are already established before yours?

Get out there and do the work! Work to find how can you add value to consumers who use your product or service. Here are a couple of examples where a product or service compete against “free” or already established product or service.

1) Bottled water vs. free tap water. Bottled water is $16 billion industry. But we have free water available so what are we paying $16 billion for? We’re buying the convenience. Bottled water goes with us to meetings, sport events, road trips, is by our bed at night, is with us on treadmill at the gym, and gives us company in our cubicles at work. Its convenient to pick one up and carry it around where ever you go.

2) Private schools vs. free public school education. According to a report published by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 2002, in 1999-2000, approximately 27,000 private schools accounted for 24 percent of all schools in the US. According to the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS), the median tuition for a private day school in 2005-2006 in the United States was about $14,000 for grades 1 to 3, $15,000 for grades 6 to 8 and $16,600 for grades 9 to 12. Where as education at public schools is free. So why would parents pay over 14 grand per child per year? The reason is private schools usually add more value to the consumer (child and parents). Private schools usually have well-balanced class size, good safety reputation, special academic programs and much more to offer than a public school. And parents are willing to pay for that “extra” service and security.

3) iPod vs. any-other-mp3-players (cheap or expensive). Apple was not the first in the market with an mp3 player or even first one to come out with a hard drive based mp3 player. Then what made it a big blockbuster product?

Joswiak credits the company’s ease of use—both with the music player itself and with the iTunes software that connects the iPod to either a Mac or a PC. The total package only became stronger when Apple added digital music sales via the iTunes Store, launched in 2003.

Soon iPod’s trendy looks became a status symbol that lead to increased loyalty. Same (convenience) holds true for iTunes’ 99-cent songs vs. free downloads from peer-to-peer networks. The convenience and smooth integration of the killer-product (iPod) with a killer-app (iTunes) was meant to capture the market like none other.

4) Clocky vs. gazillion other clocks. “The Clocky requires you to do more than stick your arm out and tap something,” said Dr. Todd Swick, a sleep specialist at the Houston Sleep Center in Texas. “It will recruit more of your senses–actually getting up, finding it and shutting it off–and convince you to start the day.” When the alarm clock goes off and the snooze button is pressed, the Clocky rolls off the bedside table and onto the floor. It rolls on until it finds a suitable spot to hide and rest. When the alarm sounds again, the sleeper has to get out of bed and search for the clock to turn it off. By now the person is fully awake. Thus, Clocky performs better than other alarm clocks in ensuring that you get out of bed on time and of course its fun to see your partner run after a clock.

So do you have a product or service that is more convenient, performs better than other products in its category, has good usability features, is easier to use and adds more value to its user? Find “the need” that has not been fulfilled yet and fulfill it.

“Make yourself necessary to somebody.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson (American Poet, Lecturer and Essayist, 1803-1882)