Marc Steuer of Syntex says that the following revealing exercise opens up the be segment of the Taoist cycle, and takes ten minutes or less.

Section off a couple of pieces of paper with decade headings: “Birth to 9”; “10 to 19”; and so forth. (We suggest that you take it to the outer limits - “90 to 99.”) Then do a Who’s Who description of each decade. Each entry can be as brief as “Born in New York, bored at school, got decent grades, enjoyed sports.”

If you do it right now, you will better appreciate some of the class results.

1. Core Values: the handful of rules defining the culture, which are reinforced through your People (HR) systems on a daily basis.

1. Core Purpose: the top leader’s regular stump speech to keep everyone’s heart engaged in the business.

3. Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG®): the 10- to 25-year goal that provides constant context for all of the decisions made throughout the organization.

1. Priorities/Themes: a handful of three- to five-year, one-year, and quarterly priorities, which require repeated review on a daily and weekly basis to keep them top-of-mind.

Because the process of achieving high-level objectives is necessarily iterative in this sense, the path to these objectives is bound to be oblique.

When you cannot measure something, said Lord Kelvin, ‘your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind’.

The intentions are admirable. But why should we measure human development in this particular way? Some people might suggest that a measure of human development should include personal freedom, or the strength of religious belief (or its absence), or environmental awareness. Why? Or why not? Even if we agree that health, education and income are the relevant criteria, should we measure them in this way, and weight them in this way? Why? Or why not? The problem is not just that these are questions on which people might disagree. The problem is that it is difficult to see any criteria by which their disagreements might be resolved. The supposed objectivity of the measurement of human development— which is calculated to three places of decimals— is spurious.

My critique of GDP measurement in practice relates to its inability to report sufficiently accurately what it is intended to measure: the value of economic output. And pronouncements based on such data about long-run trends in income or the rate of increase of productivity should be taken with a grain of salt – or several. When pundits fret over whether the latest figure for GDP growth is an annual rate of 1.8 per cent or 1.9 per cent, they are fussing over differences that are insignificant in relation to the fundamental and inescapable uncertainties in the data they are citing.