You'll be immediately drawn into a classic ethical dilemma, making you confront your own gut reactions to saving lives. The clip then brilliantly introduces a subtle twist that will likely make you completely second-guess your initial moral stance, even when the numbers remain the same. You'll get to hear people struggle to explain why their intuition shifts so dramatically, which really makes you think about the hidden rules you apply to moral choices. Finally, the speaker introduces two fundamental types of moral reasoning—consequentialist and categorical—helping you understand the deeper philosophical concepts behind your conflicting feelings. So the first thing to understand is that your personal brand is simply a reflection of who you are, what you stand for, what you're known for, and what you're not known for. If you don't know who you are and what you stand for and what you're known for, then it's hard to then build a personal brand around something that you don't even know exists. According to the speaker, what is the fundamental nature of a personal brand? What does the speaker suggest is a prerequisite for building an effective personal brand? Which aspect is NOT mentioned as part of what your personal brand reflects? You'll be absolutely floored by the Philip Morris example from the Czech Republic, where a cost-benefit analysis suggested the government actually gained from citizens smoking due to healthcare and pension savings from premature deaths. It really highlights the dark side of monetizing human life. The Ford Pinto case will make you cringe as you discover how the company explicitly put a dollar value on human lives to decide if it was 'worth it' to fix a fatal flaw, leading to a shocking internal calculation that prioritized cost savings over safety. You'll hear students grapple with a profound ethical question: is it ever morally acceptable to assign a monetary value to human life for decision-making purposes, or does that fundamentally misunderstand what human life is worth? You might find your own perspective challenged. This clip challenges you to consider if, and when, economic efficiency and 'the greater good' can ethically override the intrinsic value of individual human lives, prompting reflection on how far utilitarian logic should extend in real-world policy. So for me, the first thing is about getting that commitment from everybody in the team, that we want to move from an individual to a team performance. If you don't have that commitment, you can bring the best methodology, you can bring the best tool, it will not work. According to the speaker, what is the crucial first step for improving team performance? What does the speaker state will happen if a team lacks commitment, even with the best tools and methodologies?