A man purchased a piece of land with the intention to build a house their for his family, he then consulted the architect, hired the builders and finally the house got built after a tedious time of four months. The family lived in the house for years and kept on altering its parts as per requirements. After some 20 years when man’s children got grown up they found the house ‘old-fashioned’ so decided to demolish it, so the house was demolished in an instance.

Goodwill, with reference to its development has same criteria as it is for the construction of a house or a building. As a building takes months or years to get structured and constructed, goodwill requires a series of good deeds. ‘Good deeds’ are the building blocks of good will. These building blocks alone have no recognition, instead when they are kept in a series they make a string called ‘good will’. And this chain cannot be broken by any thing else than deed it self. Such deed is infact not a good one and acts a ‘cut’ in the string, with which the string breaks.
This phenomenon of goodwill is actually, a part of human nature. This is much followed strategy in social context. Societies remember an individual within them, only by his deeds, either good or bad. A good deed of one obliges him to continue same behaviour in future, and if he does so he’s awarded by ‘good will’ in the particular society, and if he happens to discontinue the chain with a ‘not so good deed’, the past chain of deeds is ignored and his ‘good will’ is kept no more with him.

Mathematically we can simplify this feature of societies in such a way thay one has undergone one hundred good deeds, i.e. +100, and after that he happened to undego a ‘not so good behaviour’, i.e -1, when this negative deed will get multiplied with previous 100 positive deeds, the product will be a negative figure.

Bad Management or Destiny?

Events in one’s life are predetermined and divine in nature, and sum of all the events of one’s life can be termed as ‘destiny’. The divine importance of ‘destiny’ cannot be ignored, but it’s also unjust to associate all the failures with life. Failure is infact nothing more that that of absence of ‘success’. Any success is the product of opportunity, management and execution of this managed opportuinity.

And where there is absence of success, it means any of the components of ‘success’ is missing. Let’s take the opportunity constant (as it is divine). Management can be effective and the execution can be positive if it is ‘good’ and can be defective and execution can be ‘negative’ if management is ‘bad’. In a nut shell, we can say that success depends on how effectively one manages an opportunity, or how effectively an event is handled, or how positively it is executed.

Now when people label any failure as ‘destiny’, it is not a rational behaviour, instead it slows down the enthausiams of an individual. One should keep in mind that only ‘events’ are predetermined, not the ‘way’ one selects to handle those events. Success and failure partially depend on the management capacity of an individual. For instance a village gets flooded and damaged; this event is predetermined or divine. But after the disaster, how effectively the villagers manage the available resources for their survival is their effort which will lead them towards either to success or failure.

Highlighting ‘management’ to this much extent doesn’t mean to ignore the ‘destiny’ at all, but it’s to maintain the difference between two. This difference makes one to understand the importance of both ‘management’ and ‘destiny’, and not to label any failure with wrong title.