I have read the primary accounts of the Roman decline, the *Historiae* and the *Commentarii*. The pattern of internal decay, external pressure, and loss of cohesion does echo what we see in companies that outgrow their markets. The details, though, are what matter—each empire, each corporation has its own unique set of factors. What specifically about the Roman fall are you comparing?

Keeping the core mission alive is a slow, deliberate act. In Rome, when emperors started handing out provinces to loyal generals, the whole system fell apart because the original purpose was lost. In a company, I would first document the founding purpose in plain language and circulate it. Then every new venture should be asked: does it serve that purpose or simply chase a trend? If it does not, it is a sign to pull back. I prefer to keep changes incremental, to allow the culture to absorb them without forgetting where we began. That small, steady rhythm keeps the mission from drifting.