The Trillion-dollar Difference. - Korn Ferry
The trillion-dollar difference.Although organizations obsess over technology and its promise,people hold huge, measurable value. And they can’t be neglectedin the future of work, Korn Ferry research finds.
A price tag onpeople’s real value.CEOs face the huge challenge ofmaking strategic decisions not onlyabout where to invest now but alsoabout where to lay the foundations fortheir organizations’ future success.That increasingly has required them to seekanswers to critical questions about the future ofwork—and about what role humans may play in it.This issue looms large over organizations becausetechnology has assumed such a dominant role inglobal workplaces, seeming almost to render peopleobsolete. Fully 65% of Americans said in a majornational poll that they believe that computers androbots will take over in a half century the workthat people now do (Smith 2016). Almost half ofcurrent US employment is at “high risk” of negativeeffects of computerization and the onslaught oftechnology, Oxford University experts say (Frey andOsborne 2013). Even as some economies are onlyjust recovering from the Great Recession of 200709, some futurists see the planet at a technologydriven tipping point where people will struggle in“a world without work” (Thompson 2015).Korn Ferry has sought to provide research-basedinsights on humans’ future in work, separatingscience fiction scenarios from economic realities.Working with experts from the Centre forEconomics and Business Research, the firm hastried for the first time to quantify the dollar valueof human capital relative to physical capital. Thisprovides a true picture of the value of peopletoday and of how human potential can bedirected to generate value over time. The firm alsocommissioned detailed opinion research to capturethe thinking, knowledge, and experience of 800CEOs, Chief Commercial Officers, and Chiefs ofStrategy around the world. They have illuminatedwhere they perceive value today and tomorrow andwhere people factor into their vision for success.2What’s inside.03 A new vision.04 Human capital’s trillion-dollar value.05 Human capital value, globally.06 How the numbers add up.07 CEOs’ blind spot.08 Have leaders and nations goneoverboard on tech’s promise?09 Sector insights on tech emphasis.10 Conclusion and next steps:unleashing people power.11 References.About this study.This study challenges the fundamentalassumptions that have put technology at thefore of the corporate mindset with beliefs thattangible assets are more valuable than thosethat are intangible; that people are bottomline costs, not top-line value generators; andthat technology, not humans, is essential toorganizations’ success in the future of work. Inthis study, CEOs will find crucial informationthat may alter their views as they seek tounderstand their greatest sources of value.Armed with this knowledge, they may rethinktheir technology-obsessed views on how tomaximize their organizations’ performance, nowand in the future. Korn Ferry sees this studyas a vital part of a 1,215 trillion answer to thequestion: Do people have a place in the futureof work?
The trillion-dollar difference. A new vision.The pressure intensifies by the day forCEOs to improve their organizations’performance and to capture elusivegrowth to generate shareholder value.As productivity lags and the global economycrawls, leaders find that they must scrutinize theirassets to discover where unrealized value can bechanneled to boost performance. Technology hasbecome a core focus of the collective vision forhigh-performance organizations, particularly inautomating processes traditionally undertaken byhumans, or in augmenting human tasks to createefficiencies. This isn’t new, but ask organizationstoday what’s different and they will say the tempoof change has accelerated exponentially. Companieshave been overwhelmed by a digital revolution, andthe transformation already has been profound (seeVickers et al. 2016, Binvel 2015, and Kingdom 2015).Further changes may be even more fundamental,as technology shakes the foundations of globallyshared beliefs about the nobility of labor and thefundamental idea that to work is human.Although companies have raced to embrace theconventional wisdom that technology will be thepanacea for all performance woes, the effect ofthe potential “invisible/human-less workforce” onorganizational performance is more nuanced andless clear. As they hasten to become tech titans, docorporations neglect the partnership that softwareand machines must strike with the people who usethem (Colella 2016) and reality that only people canserve as technology’s inventors, champions, users,and beneficiaries (Lennon 2016)? Do businesses losesight of how much value humans contribute whenthey create and apply digital and other advances tomachines and processes (Laouchez 2016)?Can technology alone deliver the performance gainsCEOs need to generate value (Crandell 2016)? Areglobal business leaders placing the right bets fortheir organizations, from customer technology andreal estate to workforce and brand? The easier gainsin performance, for example through outsourcingand offshoring, have been made. The challenge forCEOs now is to determine where value lies todayand where it will be in future, to distinguish betweentheir perception of value and the reality—withoutnew, shiny promises about technology cloudingtheir vision. Just because a source of value isn’treadily apparent doesn’t mean it’s not there.“The digital world is fundamentallychanging the connections betweencompanies, their employees and theircustomers. In many ways, technology isstrengthening these connections—breakingdown structural, geographic and culturalbarriers to bring customers closer andlink up global colleagues. But CEOs mustkeep their eyes wide open to the potentialpitfalls of the digital revolution—askingtechnology to do all the work to theexclusion of people. When an innovationstrikes gold, the connection between thevalue that’s created and the team behindthe technology is often lost. In the future ofwork, leaders must recognize and capturethe value of all their resources to succeed.” Jean-Marc Laouchez,Global Managing Director, Solutions3
Human capital’strillion-dollar value.Even for CEOs in multinationalcorporations, accustomed thoughthey may be to dealing routinelywith sizable numbers, the value ofhuman capital might be surprising.An economic analysis commissioned by Korn Ferry1finds that human capital represents to the globaleconomy a potential value of 1,215 trillion. It is2.33 times that of physical capital, which includestangible assets like technology, real estate, andinventory. Physical capital, the analysis performedfor Korn Ferry indicates, should be valued at 521trillion. Although organizations put technologyin the spotlight in the future of work, it is, in fact,human capital that holds the greatest value fororganizations now and in the future.Human capital is also the greatest value creatoravailable to organizations: For every 1 investedin human capital, 11.39 is added to GDP, the KornFerry economic analysis finds. The return on humancapital—value versus cost—should give a clear signalto CEOs: Investing in people can generate value forthe organization over time that significantly exceedsinitial financial outlay.There are two key reasons why people representnot only significant financial value but also valuegeneration capability to organizations: potentialand appreciation. The performance of people canbe influenced; hence it has great potential. Bycreating the right environments, CEOs can raiseperformance and release discretionary effort—thehustle that a machine will never make. Meanwhilehumans, as capital, also do something that machinescannot: They gain experience and knowledge overtime. The more senior people become, the more4they grow their ability to generate further value.In economic terms: People, as assets, appreciate.This distinguishes them from physical assets, whichoperate at a limited maximum output and whichtypically depreciate over time. CEOs who areequipped with these insights should, as they look toinvest time and financial resources wisely to harnessthe value of both human and physical capital in thefuture of work, consider how to create a high-valuepartnership between technology and people.“The economic reality of human capitalvalue magnifies the importance ofattracting and retaining the right peoplenow and in the future. Technology alonecannot deliver the uplift in productivityand value every organization needs. CEOsmust now reflect on whether they have thepipeline of value multiplying talent theyneed to power their strategy.” Jeanne MacDonald, Global Operating Executiveand President, Talent Acquisition Solutions1To quantify the relative value of human and physical capital, Korn Ferrycommissioned the Centre for Economics and Business Research todevelop a robust economic model. The center’s economists determinedhuman capital value by developing a lifetime income calculation,encompassing the ability of people to perform labor and add productivevalue over time. Physical capital captures the value of tangible meansof production. It was calculated using the same principles that wereapplied to human capital’s value—potential earnings from the asset inuse. Meaningful parallels can be drawn between the value of human andphysical capital now and over time. Human capital is not deemed to bevolatile, and its relative value to physical capital, the economists say, willhold over at least the next five years (the forecastable future).
The trillion-dollar difference. Human capital value, globally.Although the structure and size of a country’s economy frames the relative value of humanto physical capital, the critical importance of people is clear to see, even in nations weightedtoward agriculture and industry.China’s services sector is growing.48% of its GDP output was generated from services in 2014 compared to 40% in 2000. However,52% of China’s output (in 2012) still was attributable to industry and agriculture. This is reflectedin its human- to physical-capital ratio (2.23), which is among the lowest in the eight countries thateconomists examined for Korn Ferry. This ratio mirrors the overall importance to China’s economyof its physical capital, in addition to its human capital.Service-based markets experience highest ratios.Markets with service-based economies experience higher ratios, meaning the value of human capitaloutstrips that of physical capital. GDP output in France (79%), the United Kingdom, and United States(both 78%) is, among the eight nations studied, most heavily weighted toward services. These countriesalso realize the three highest human- to physical-capital ratios.The ratio is greatest in the UK.In the UK, human capital is 4.23 times higher than physical capital. This echoes population trendsapparent in the country, such as above-average rates of post-secondary education (49.2% of thepopulation aged 25 to 34, compared to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) average of 42.1%). This reflects the big footprint in the UK of established, high value industries,including the financial services sector.Human capital value is greatest in the United States.The United States holds the human capital of greatest value ( 244tn). That is indicative of its hugeoverall economy, which is the largest in the world and which is followed by China at No. 2 ( 110tn).Service-based marketsexperience the highest ratios.GDP outputin France 79%GDP outputin the UnitedKingdom 78%HumancapitalvalueGDP outputin the UnitedStates 78%5
How the numbers add up.and industry, for example, gives it a relatively lowhuman capital ratio (2.23). Contrast that to theUnited Kingdom and United States, which areglobal leading service-oriented economies. Theirhuman capital ratios are much higher (4.23 and 3.92respectively). This graphic presents (in US dollars)the value of human and physical capital in the eightcountries included in this research, as well as therelative ratio between those values.What do the economic data tell us about therelative value of human and physical capitalin specific countries, notably eight nationsstudied by Korn Ferry?These measures are determined by the structureand size of a given nation’s economy. Wheremanufacturing and industry are the big drivers ofnations’ economies, the ratio between human andphysical capital typically runs lower. This showsthat the value of physical assets is closer to thatof human capital. China’s focus on agricultureHuman capital value, in alleight nations, exceeds thevalue of physical capital.UnitedKingdomHuman capital 27tnPhysical capital 6tnRatio4.23FranceUnitedStatesHuman capital 244tnPhysical capitalHuman capitalChina 24tnPhysical capitalHuman capital 8tn 110tnRatio2.93Physical capital 49tn 62tnRatioRatioIndia3.922.23Human capital 80tnBrazilPhysical capital 48tnHuman capitalSouthAfrica 32tnRatio1.67AustraliaPhysical capital 13tnHuman capitalHuman capitalPhysical capitalPhysical capital 7tnRatio2.48 4tnRatio1.77Note: Trillion dollar figures in the above graphic have been rounded off.6 12tn 5tnRatio2.31
The trillion-dollar difference. CEOs’ blind spot.Although this evaluation may beone of the most important theymake in the near future, CEOshave a significant blind spot in theway they perceive people, tendingto undervalue human capital.Instead, they put a higher value and degree offocus on technology and tangible assets, Korn Ferryresearch finds.There is a clear trend among them to magnify therelative importance of technology in the future ofwork: 67% of CEOs responding to the firm’s surveysaid they believe that technology will create greatervalue in future than human capital will; 63% of CEOssaid they perceive that technology will becometheir firm’s greatest source of future competitiveadvantage. But the economic reality differs sharply,with human capital, not physical capital, creatingthe greatest value for organizations.CEOs’ distorted perceptions demonstrate the extentto which people are being painted out of the futureof work—and the risk to organizations that do notrecognize the potential of people to generate value:44% of leaders in large global businesses told KornFerry that they believe that the prevalence of robotics,automation, and artificial intelligence (AI) will makepeople “largely irrelevant” in the future of work.Leaders may be demonstrating, in a big way, whatexperts call tangibility bias. Facing uncertainty, theyare putting a priority in their thinking, planning, andexecution on the tangible—what they can see, touchand measure.CEOs excel at this, of course. They want metrics tohelp them chart the best course. But organizationsalso are least likely to measure human factors,with just 4% of respondents to a Korn Ferrysurvey seeing revenue per employee as a criticalperformance indicator; 46% of responding leaderssaid their organizations don’t understand how tomeasure workforce performance, and 40% saidtheir organizations lack an executive with specificresponsibility for the performance of people.Without laser-focused leadership time dedicated torealizing people’s potential, how can CEOs unlocktheir workforces’ value? Great performance doesnot happen by accident.“Leaders are placing a high emphasis ontechnical skills, technological prowess,and the ability to drive innovation in theirnew senior recruits—elements criticalfor modern organizations. However, thefinancial reality proven by this study—that the value of people outstrips that ofmachines by a considerable distance—mustgive CEOs pause for thought. So-called‘soft skills,’ such as the ability to lead andmanage culture, will become critical factorsof success for companies in the future ofwork as they seek to maximize their valuethrough their people.” Alan Guarino, Vice Chairman,CEO and Board Services7
64%40%of leader-respondentssaid that they seepeople as a bottomline cost, not a topline value generator.of respondentshave experiencedshareholder pressureto direct investmenttoward tangibleassets like technology.Source: Korn Ferry survey with 800 responses from top leaders in eight nations.Meantime, 64% of leader-respondents toldKorn Ferry that they see people as a bottom-linecost, not a top-line value generator. Are today’scorporate accounting principles, which classifypeople as an expense rather than an asset, causingorganizations to under-allocate strategic focus,capital, time, and other resources to people, theirprimary value generator?Technology does not create itself. It does notprompt greater efficiency in isolation. Butorganizational leaders and corporate investorsare not making the connection now betweenpeople (their workforce) and value generation,between tangible assets and their activation bythe workforce. Korn Ferry’s research supports thecritical finding that CEOs can value the workforcemore and, by understanding its great worth andpotential, they can focus on releasing it.Have leaders and nations goneoverboard on tech’s promise?Have CEOs become too enamored withtechnology’s promise? Korn Ferry data show theyhave become so focused on tech, perhaps becauseof shareholder pressures, that they may ignore thevalue of other assets, to the potential detriment oftheir organizations.CEOs consistently rate technology as theirorganizations’ most valuable asset now and infive years’ time. They cite both back-office andcustomer-facing technology as key drivers of value.Leaders say tech has become so central to theirthinking and execution that it occupies 40% to60% of their priorities on strategic focus, financialinvestment, and C-suite time. Although leaders toldKorn Ferry in a survey that culture and innovationare among their top five priorities, the workforceoverall did not rate at all.8Korn Ferry research finds a possible source ofCEOs tech obsession: 40% of the firm’s surveyrespondents said they have experienced shareholderpressure to direct investment toward tangible assetslike technology. When the firm examined the topfive areas of emphasis in annual reports and otherinvestor relations materials, three of the top fivewere based on technology—to the exclusion ofother critical strategic value drivers.The way organizations are dealing with talentalso suggests that tech’s prominence will persist.Leaders told Korn Ferry that their top five priorityareas when recruiting new executives includedunderstanding transformation through technology,tech knowledge, and tech capability (those rankedas priorities one, two and four, respectively).Leaders are also seeking capability in finance(ranked fifth) and innovation (ranked third).Understanding culture and how to managepeople were CEOs’ lowest priorities whenrecruiting leaders.Nations, too, have gone all in with wagers abouttechnology’s promise and value. Korn Ferryanalyzed the priority and emphasis that CEOs giveto strategic resources from customer channels andsupply chain to workforce and brand. Australia andChina are placing the largest bets on technologyin all aspects of decision-making. South Africanand Brazilian CEOs are prioritizing operations(including supply chain, real estate and inventory),and leaders in the US and India have zeroed in oncustomer improvements. The firm found that UKCEOs place the most emphasis on people factors(including workforce, top team and culture).Australia and China are placingthe largest bets on technologyin all aspects of decision-making.
The trillion-dollar difference. Sector insights on tech emphasis.Do various business sectors differ in howmuch they emphasize technology andpotentially undervalue people?Korn Ferry analyzed responses from businessleaders in the technology, manufacturing, industrial,life sciences, professional and financial services, andconsumer sectors.Although these areas vary little and generally tendto put a low emphasis on people, some notabledifferences exist in how CEOs prioritize resourcesto generate value and save costs. How muchCEOs value people varies according to the specificchallenges their sectors confront.Financial and professional services leaders believetechnology will generate greatest value for theirbusiness, with 55% of them rating tech No. 1—that’s7% more than any other sector. CEOs in the sector—searching for new revenue streams in increasinglycommoditized markets—also put a high priority oninnovation, which 73% of them ranked No. 1 whenrecruiting leaders; 56% of this sectors leaders toldKorn Ferry they will direct financial investment toresearch and development as their top priority inthe next five years.By contrast, consumer companies, which wereamong the first to digitally integrate and thereforemay have fewer related changes ahead, seetechnology as their key to saving costs: 57%of leaders responding to Korn Ferry’s surveyrated this aspect No. 1, 8% more than any othersector. Manufacturers, meantime, see their bestopportunities in cost-cutting in the workforce, with57% of respondents rating this option No 1. Leadersin this sector say they already have achievedefficiencies through automation.The industrial sector, striving to appear moredigitally enabled, put a striking focus on technology.This emphasis was most pronounced in sectorleaders’ plans for communications and executiverecruiting: 72% of industrial CEOs rated techperformance as a top priority in their internal andexternal communications, while 73% rated techknowledge as the most important factor whenrecruiting for C-suite roles.72% of industrial CEOs ratedtech performance as a toppriority in their internal andexternal communications.CEOs’ view on the top five most valuableassets novation5(back-office infrastructure)(product, customer channels)CEOs’ view on the Top five most valuable assetsin five and4Real Estate5(product, customer channels)(including offices, factories, owned land)CEOs’ view on the most prized qualitiesin leaders.Understanding of organizationaltransformation through technology1Knowledge of technology2Innovation capability3Technical capability4Financial capability/understanding5Sales excellence/growth6Understanding of customer7People and culture capability/understanding89
Conclusion and next steps:unleashing people power.If leaders recognize the greatvalue and potential of people,as underscored by Korn Ferryresearch, how do they unlock it toensure their organizations thrive?To increase performance and generate optimumvalue in the future of work, CEOs first need to changetheir perspective. They must close the gap betweentheir perception that technology will be a greatervalue creator in the future than human capital andthe economic reality that people are organizations’most valuable asset. Enlightened CEOs will partnertechnology and people—maximizing the performanceof both of these assets to generate value.There is a worrying lack of confidence in leaders’own ability to improve human performance,however, with 62% of CEOs telling the firm that theybelieve they can’t materially influence their people’sperformance. Korn Ferry, through research and longpractice, has shown that workforce performancecan be boosted, in part by giving people the tools,conditions, and structure they need to do greatwork. Organizations that get these elements andconditions right can release discretionary energythat generates significant value (Lewis and Hezlett2016). This can ensure that people remain top-linevalue multipliers, not bottom-line expenses.10Although familiarity can blind leaders to this reality,it is the partnership of people and technology—not just technology alone—that holds the key toperformance. Humans will play a critical role in thefuture of work, inventing, using, consuming, andbenefiting from technology. As a result, people willbe, as they long have been, the most significantdriver of organizational performance.“How to measure return on people haslong been a challenge for leaders. Facedwith an information vacuum, leaders aremistakenly concluding that, because theycan’t easily measure the value generatedby people, it’s not there. The currentapproach taken to managing peopleas a bottom line cost will, in the valueparadigm of the future, fail to create ahigh-performance team. People are thecornerstone of superior performance, butorganizations are not investing the timeor resources needed to unleash it.” Tania Lennon, Senior Client Partner
The trillion-dollar difference. MethodologyIn August and September 2016, Korn Ferry interviewed 800 business leaders in multimillion-dollarglobal organizations on their views on the value of people in the future of work. The respondentsincluded CEOs, Chief Strategy Officers, and Chief Commercial Officers. These leaders were in theUnited Kingdom, China, the United States, Brazil, France, Australia, India, and South Africa.Respondents represented six sectors: technology; manufacturing; industrial (automotive, energy, oiland gas); life sciences and pharmaceutical; financial and professional services; and consumer (FMCG,media, retail, and travel).Korn Ferry also commissioned the Centre for Economics and Business Research to create amacroeconomic model to quantify the value of human capital in relation to physical capital. These werecalculated based on a lifetime earnings approach, estimating the value of assets in use. The analysiswas based on information from the OECD, the UK’s Office of National Statistics, Barro-Lee EducationAttainment data, and academic literature. All values are expressed in dollar purchasing power parity(PPP) terms. This means market exchange rates between two currencies were adjusted to allow theexchange to be equal to the purchasing power of each country’s currency. International PPP rates—allin National Currency Units (NCU)/ —came from World Bank data. More detailed information about theeconomic model is available on request.ReferencesBinvel, Yannick. 2015. Accelerating Change: an Automotive Leadership Wake-Up Call. Korn Ferry: Los Angeles.Colella, A. 2016. The Tech-People Partnership. Korn Ferry: Los Angeles.Crandell, S. 2016. Pivotal People. Korn Ferry: Los Angeles.Frey, C., and Michael A. Osborne. 2013. The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs toComputerization. Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford: Oxford, UK.Kingdom, S. 2015. Help Wanted: Talent to Tackle the World’s Most Pressing Problems. Korn Ferry: Los Angeles.Laouchez, J-M. 2016. Valuing the Creators. Korn Ferry: Los Angeles.Lennon, T. 2016. Why the Future of Work Is Human. Korn Ferry: Los Angeles.Lewis, J., and Sarah Hezlett. 2016. Charged Up: the Value of Discretionary Energy in the Workplace and How toHarness It to Achieve Superior Performance. Korn Ferry: Los Angeles.Smith, A. 2016. Public Predictions of the Future of Workforce Automation. Pew Research Center: Washington, DCThompson, D. 2015. “A World Without Work.” The Atlantic.Vickers, F., Kai Hammerich, Dana Landis, James Lewis, David Zes, Julio Romero, and Bárbara Ramos. Leaders fora Digital Transformation. Korn Ferry: Los Angeles.ContributorsJean-Marc LaouchezGlobal Managing Director,SolutionsTania LennonSenior Client PartnerAlan GuarinoVice Chairman, CEO andBoard ServicesJeanne McDonaldGlobal Operating Executiveand President, TalentAcquisition Solutions11
ABOUT KORN FERRYKorn Ferry is the preeminent global people and organizationaladvisory firm. We help leaders, organizations, and societiessucceed by releasing the full power and potential of people.Our nearly 7,000 colleagues deliver services through ourExecutive Search, Hay Group and Futurestep divisions.Visit kornferry.com for more information.ABOUT THE KORN FERRY INSTITUTEThe Korn Ferry Institute, our research and analytics arm, wasestablished to share intelligence and expert points of view ontalent and leadership. Through studies, books, and a quarterlymagazine, Briefings, we aim to increase understanding of howstrategic talent decisions contribute to competitive advantage,growth, and success. Korn Ferry 2016. All rights reserved.
Human capital’s trillion-dollar value. Even for CEOs in multinational corporations, accustomed though they may be to dealing routinely with sizable numbers, the value of human capital might be surprising. An economic analysis commissioned by Korn Ferry1 finds that human capital represents to the global economy a potential value of 1,215 .
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
On behalf of our Board and all of our Korn Ferry colleagues, thank you for being a Korn Ferry stockholder and for your continued support of Korn Ferry. Sincerely, Christina A. Gold, Chair of the Board August 12, 2020 Korn Ferry 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 552-1834 i 2020 Proxy Statement
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
monitors, and flexible seating to accommodate small group, large group, and individual work. The classroom has a maximum capacity of 36 students. Figure 1 shows the classroom before and after redesign, and Figure 2 shows three views of the new ALC. Participants Faculty and students who had taught or taken at least one
