Embrace The Chaos: Why Businesses Must Rethink Strategy in a Quantum World

The world of physics has undergone a seismic paradigm shift. Gone is the clockwork universe of Newton, where everything moved predictably according to fixed laws. In its place, we have quantum physics and complex adaptive systems—a reality defined by uncertainty, fluidity, and sudden leaps to new possibilities. As Werner Heisenberg once said, this requires “a really different attitude toward the problem of reality.”

Businesses, however, are stuck in the old Newtonian mindset. Most still operate as if the world is predictable, controllable, and linear. They cling to rigid strategies, detailed plans, and hierarchical structures, hoping to eliminate uncertainty. But this approach is not just outdated—it’s counterproductive. To thrive in today’s dynamic environment, businesses must embrace the lessons of complexity science and adopt a looser, more experimental approach. It’s time to let go of control and learn to flow with the chaos.

The Flawed Quest for Control

Traditional business thinking is built on the idea that uncertainty is the enemy. Investors demand predictability, so companies respond with elaborate strategies, five-year plans, and top-down directives. Business schools teach these methods with fervor, promising that disciplined planning will deliver consistent outcomes.

But the real world doesn’t work that way. Markets, customers, and technologies are not mechanical systems—they’re complex, adaptive, and unpredictable. Trying to control them is like trying to control the weather. Complexity science shows us that rigid plans often backfire, stifling innovation and leaving companies unprepared for sudden shifts. In a world of constant change, the obsession with control is a recipe for stagnation.

The Power of Disorderly Change

Complexity science offers a different perspective. It tells us that businesses, like living organisms, are open systems—constantly exchanging energy, ideas, and resources with their environment. In such systems, moments of instability aren’t threats; they’re opportunities. These moments, known as bifurcation points, are where systems can leap to new states of higher performance, unlocking fresh waves of value creation.

Think of it as a phase change in physics—like water turning to steam. For businesses, this could mean a breakthrough product, a new market, or a reimagined business model. These leaps don’t come from meticulous planning but from disorderly, experimental action. Companies that embrace this approach—by fostering entrepreneurship, testing bold ideas, and maintaining a portfolio of innovative projects—create the conditions for their own transformation.

Dissipative Structures: Order from Chaos

This idea of thriving through disorder has a name in science: dissipative structures. Living systems, from ecosystems to human cells, maintain order not by avoiding chaos but by channeling it. They take in resources, experiment with new forms, and release waste, creating “islands of order” in a sea of disorder. Businesses can do the same. By encouraging experimentation and tolerating small failures, they can discover new ways to grow, innovate, and adapt.

This doesn’t mean abandoning all structure. It means recognizing that order and disorder work together. Just as a living organism grows stronger by metabolizing food and expelling waste, a business can evolve by testing new ideas and discarding what doesn’t work. The key is to create an environment where experimentation is constant, feedback is rapid, and adaptation is fluid.

The Kinetic Flow State Organization: A Blueprint for Entrepreneurial Flow

One powerful framework for creating this environment is the Kinetic Flow State Organization (KFSO). The KFSO is designed for the 21st-century business landscape, where rapid technological change, globalization, and shifting customer expectations demand agility and responsiveness. Complex systems achieve coherence through an interweaving of enabling constraints – directional influences that don’t constrict or limit the freedom to change and adapt to the environment. KFSO’s exhibit four organizational constraints.

  • Kinetic – designed to be always moving, always changing, at every level from individuals to teams to functions. Movement is designed in, and enables adaptability, which is often a considerable challenge for traditional organizations.
  • Organizational flow – KFSO’s follow the constructal law, a law of physics defined by Dr. Adrian Bejan, stating that all living systems evolve for easier access to the energy that flows through them. What flows through KFSO’s to facilitate value creation is knowledge – knowledge of the customer, of markets, of the business environment, of new technological possibilities, in short, every piece of knowledge that can be utilized to generate value.
  • Individual flow – while engagement is often cited as the metric for the effective contribution of individuals, flow is a much more powerful commitment; the flow state is one of complete absorption, where individuals are performing at their best.
  • Tensegrity – a structure in which components are held together by a balance of pushing and pulling is simultaneously stable and flexible, able to withstand external pressures while adapting to changing conditions. As a living system, an organization constructed with tensegrity can combine the pulling effect of shared purpose with the distributive effect of minimal constraints, so that the tension between freedom and alignment is resolved. The terminology from complex adaptive systems refers to the cohesive effect of competition between diversified single-component behavior (such as the diversified creativity of individuals) and the collective unifying behavior of the whole (such as a shared mission in which all individuals are engaged). That’s tensegrity.

Unlike traditional hierarchical models, which rely on siloed departments and slow decision-making, the KFSO is a dynamic, knowledge-driven system that prioritizes the free flow of ideas, energy, and innovation across the organization.

In a KFSO, the organization is in constant motion—adapting to market signals, customer feedback, and emerging opportunities. Teams are empowered to experiment, make decisions, and pivot quickly, unencumbered by bureaucratic red tape. This “kinetic” approach ensures that businesses remain vibrant and responsive, harnessing the entrepreneurial spirit to drive continuous value creation. By fostering a culture of exploration and expansion, the KFSO creates the conditions for the “flow of entrepreneurship”—where new ideas emerge, evolve, and scale organically, much like the phase changes in complex adaptive systems.

Companies like Amazon and Google exemplify elements of this approach, with their relentless focus on experimentation and customer-centric innovation. But the KFSO model goes further, offering a structured yet flexible blueprint for any business to embed entrepreneurial flow into its DNA. It’s a practical way to operationalize the shift from control to chaos, enabling businesses to surf the waves of uncertainty with confidence.

Facilitating the Flow: The Role of Complex Adaptive Leadership

If the goal is to let go of control, where does leadership fit in? Traditional leadership—directive, top-down, and focused on enforcing plans—has little place in a complex adaptive system. Yet, complexity science suggests a different role: complex adaptive leadership. This isn’t about leading in the conventional sense but about facilitating the conditions for emergence. Leaders in this context act as catalysts, not commanders, creating environments where entrepreneurial action can flourish. They architect the conditions for flow, especially through the removal of barriers.

Complex adaptive leadership involves three key actions: fostering intentionality, ensuring coherence, and injecting resources. First, leaders set a clear purpose—such as prioritizing customer value—a constraint that aligns the organization’s efforts without dictating every step. Second, they promote coherence by encouraging collaboration and knowledge-sharing, ensuring that diverse experiments contribute to a unified goal. Third, they provide resources—time, capital, and tools—to fuel experimentation, allowing teams to explore new possibilities without fear of failure.

This approach requires leaders to relinquish the urge to control outcomes and instead trust the system to self-organize. For example, at a KFSO, leaders might establish rituals like regular all-hands meetings or structured feedback loops to maintain clarity and motivation, while avoiding rigid directives. By letting go, they enable the organization to adapt dynamically, much like a flock of birds navigating a storm through collective, emergent behavior. This facilitative role aligns with the principle of dissipative structures, where order emerges spontaneously from disorder when the right conditions are in place.

A New Way to Enable Flow: Practical Steps for Businesses

So, how do business leaders make this shift? It starts with a mindset change. Instead of striving for predictability, embrace uncertainty as a source of opportunity. Instead of enforcing rigid plans, foster a culture of entrepreneurial action within a framework like the KFSO. Here are three practical steps to get started:

1.  Build a Kinetic Flow State Organization: Restructure your organization to prioritize knowledge flow and agility. Break down silos, empower cross-functional teams, and create systems for rapid experimentation and feedback. Use the KFSO model to guide this transformation, ensuring that ideas and energy move freely across the organization.

2.  Facilitate, Don’t Dictate: Adopt a complex adaptive leadership approach by setting a clear purpose, promoting collaboration, and providing resources for experimentation. Replace top-down control with rituals and frameworks that encourage self-organization, such as regular feedback loops or automated performance reviews.

3.  Embrace Feedback Loops: In complex systems, small actions can lead to big outcomes through positive feedback loops. Listen to customers, monitor market signals, and iterate rapidly. This allows you to amplify what works and pivot away from what doesn’t, driving continuous adaptation.

This approach isn’t about abandoning goals or discipline. It’s about recognizing that the path to success is rarely linear. By creating a flow of entrepreneurial energy within a KFSO and facilitating it through adaptive leadership, businesses can navigate uncertainty and seize moments of transformation.

The Future Belongs to the Adaptive

The paradigm shift in physics—from Newton’s certainties to the fluidity of quantum systems—has rewritten our understanding of the world. Businesses must follow suit. The old model of strategy, planning, and control is no longer viable in a world defined by complexity and change. Instead, companies must learn to surf the waves of uncertainty, using frameworks like the KFSO and facilitative leadership to drive growth.

Those that cling to the old ways risk being left behind. But those that embrace the flow—welcoming disorder, fostering entrepreneurship, and adapting to new possibilities—will find themselves not just surviving but thriving. In a quantum world, the future belongs to the adaptive.

The Value Creators Podcast Episode #60. How to Master Entrepreneurship Through Imagination, Value Creation, and Market Disruption: A Conversation with Per Bylund

Listen to the episode here:

How does entrepreneurship truly drive economic growth, and why is it often ignored in mainstream economic models? What role does imagination play in creating market-changing value?

In this episode of the Value Creators Podcast, Hunter Hastings is joined by Per Bylund, professor, author, and one of the leading voices in Austrian economics. Per introduces a radically dynamic model of entrepreneurship based on his new book, Entrepreneurship and Evolutionary Economics.

Key insights include:

  • Why modern economics has pushed entrepreneurship to the margins—and why that’s a mistake.
  • The difference between creating knowledge and creating value.
  • Why entrepreneurial success depends on imagination, empathy, and experimentation.
  • How the infeasibility zone traps safe innovators—and how to leap past it.
  • Bylund’s three models of entrepreneurship, culminating in Model 3, where entrepreneurs reshape markets.
  • The importance of institutional support—and the dangers of policy overreach.

This episode redefines entrepreneurship not as a function of business plans or investment capital, but as an imaginative, value-creating force that reshapes the economy from within. If you want to understand how real economic growth happens, this conversation is essential.

Resources:

➡️ Learn What They Didn’t Teach You In Business School: The Value Creators Online Business Course

Read this episode’s Knowledge Capulse at thevaluecreators.com

Check out Per Bylund’s Latest Book: Entrepreneurship In Evolutionary Economics

Read Per Bylund’s Book: How To Think About The Economy

Read Per Bylund on The Economic Damage Caused by Regulation: The Seen, The Unseen And The Unrealized

Follow with Per Bylund on X: @PerBylund

Connect with Per Byklund on LinkedIn

Connect with Hunter Hastings on LinkedIn

The Value Creators on Substack

Knowledge Capsule:

1. Entrepreneurship Has Been Erased from Mainstream Economics

  • Modern economics focuses heavily on predictive models and statistics, which exclude the unpredictable, creative nature of entrepreneurship.
  • Historically, economists like Schumpeter and Baumol emphasized entrepreneurs as central to economic dynamics, but their insights are largely ignored (or misinterpreted) by mainstream economists today.
  • Entrepreneurship doesn’t fit cleanly into mathematical equations, so it’s often relegated to the “error term” in economic models.

2. Entrepreneurship is a Value-Creation Process, Not Just Innovation

  • Entrepreneurs don’t just produce new things—they create new value in ways that weren’t previously recognized.
  • Value is determined after the fact by whether consumers choose to purchase and use the product.
  • The true test of entrepreneurial success is consumer response, not just the act of creating something new.

3. Value is Discovered, Not Predicted

  • Entrepreneurs cannot know value ahead of time—they must imagine what could be valued by customers and test it in the marketplace.
  • Even with data and pattern detection, customer preferences are fluid and unpredictable.
  • Market value is revealed only after the product is offered and accepted by customers.

4. Imaginative Value Creation is Central to Entrepreneurship

  • Entrepreneurs use empathy and imagination to envision solutions consumers don’t yet know they need.
  • Great entrepreneurship often involves creating demand, not just responding to it (e.g., when Henry Ford offered customers a car vs. “faster horses”).
  • This imaginative leap defines true innovation and market disruption.

5. Disruption Happens Without Warning

  • Stable industries can be overturned by innovations that originate outside their traditional space.
  • Users once prized and used paper maps. Those have largely disappeared, replaced by GPS navigation systems in cars and on smartphones.Navigation systems are an “adjacent innovation”. These can render existing products obsolete overnight by meeting an important need in a new way.
  • Entrepreneurs must be on guard for disruptions—even when things seem stable.

6. Evolutionary Economics Must Include Imagination

  • Evolutionary economics values change and complexity but often overemphasizes knowledge accumulation. Knowledge accumulation is not enough.
  • Bylund argues that entrepreneurs create value, not just knowledge, and that value emerges from human imagination.
  • Economic progress is dynamic, driven by creative acts rather than predictable knowledge gains.

7. Bylund’s Three Models of Entrepreneurship

  • Model 1: Static production and consumption with price-driven resource allocation.
  • Model 2: Includes external (exogenous) changes like shifting resources or preferences.
  • Model 3: Fully dynamic and endogenous—entrepreneurs change the system itself through innovation. This is the entrepreneurial mode of economic growth.

8. The Infeasibility Zone and the Risk of Playing It Safe

  • Incremental innovation often keeps entrepreneurs in a crowded, competitive space.
  • Radical value creation requires leaping beyond conventional thinking, even when feasibility is uncertain.
  • The “infeasibility zone” is where ideas are too safe to stand out and too weak to disrupt.

9. Value Calculus: The Core Entrepreneurial Discipline

  • Entrepreneurs must understand the relationship: Value > Price > Cost.
  • Entrepreneurs don’t set prices by adding a margin to their costs (“cost-plus” pricing). They create a value for which the customer is willing to pay, and then choose costs that are compatible with making a profit.
  • They don’t price without first estimating value, and they don’t incur cost without first estimating the price the customer is willing to pay. This reverse logic is key.
  • Starting with cost-plus pricing leads to poor outcomes; entrepreneurs must begin with value imagination.

10. Institutions Enable or Restrain Entrepreneurship

  • Supportive institutions (e.g., private property, contracts, and keeping contractual commitments) create the environment for entrepreneurship to flourish.
  • Oppressive institutions and intrusive regulations distort markets and reduce entrepreneurial freedom.
  • Institutions are shaped by and evolve with entrepreneurial behavior.

11. Policy Cannot Create Value-Driven Entrepreneurship

  • Governments may fund large-scale projects, but these are often inefficient and lack market validation.
  • True entrepreneurial innovation happens in response to consumer needs, not top-down spending.
  • Opportunity costs of government spending are often ignored, diminishing true value creation.

12. The Market Process is Competitive, Creative, and Uncertain

  • Entrepreneurs constantly compete for resources by envisioning more valuable uses than others.
  • This drives a decentralized and dynamic allocation of capital toward the most value-generating activities.
  • The market, through price and consumer feedback, is the ultimate test of entrepreneurial imagination.

Organizing for emergence.

One of the most seductive assumptions in business is cause and effect. If we take action X (e.g. cut costs, or launch a new product) outcome Y (e.g. profit or market share) will be the result. This linear cause-and-effect mental model gives rise to another set of models, including strategic planning, budgeting and resource allocation. It has also been the source of the structural form of the firm: hierarchical layers of authority designed for executive management to implement cause-and-effect execution.

Overcoming the fallacy of causal control

But the world doesn’t bend to such simplicity. This mental model is wrong.

Markets and customer preferences shift unpredictably, employee behavior defies management mandates, competitors rewrite the rules of the market, and technology evolves in unanticipated directions. Yet, the residual faith in management control leaves firms rigid and reactive in adhering to the cause-and-effect illusion despite the radical change going on all around them. They need to accept and embrace the world of emergence. The free interaction of individuals with each other and with multiple system components in subjectively specified contexts morph spontaneously into new patterns of outcomes that could never be predicted. The cause-and-effect model simply does not apply.

Complex adaptive systems: reframing the firm

Happily, we have new mental models available to us through the science of complex adaptive systems. A complex adaptive system is an open dynamic network of relationships and interactions between component parts (such as individuals and teams in a firm), and all the artifacts they use (such as computers and spreadsheets and machine tools and money) and the context in which they are embedded (defined by markets and service providers and partners and regulations and customers). A firm is a complex system, incorporating a set of sub-systems, and embedded in a larger ecosystem with multi-dimensional interactions at every level. There’s no linear cause-and-effect at work, and the system can’t be managed. It evolves in ways over which there is no control to be had.

As a consequence of this new understanding, the lens through which we view the firm must change from causes to context.  The firm is a dynamic and ever-changing kaleidoscope of relational patterns to be monitored but not managed. It’s not possible to control outputs through top-down directives or planned actions. We need another goal for organization. That goal is coherence: a constellation of concepts, values, perceptions and practices shared by a community that gives it a wholeness in the form of a particular pattern of relationships and is the basis for the way the community self-organizes.

Constraints: shaping coherence.

What are the organizational tools to shape coherence? They’re tools of design called constraints – soft touch tools such as cultural norms, values, conditions, and shared purpose. In the old paradigm, constraints were obstacles to remove, like bottlenecks on the production line. In the new paradigm, constraints provide a new cohesive living order, subtly aligning individual actions without explicit commands.

Constraints shape the possibility space for firms. They are conditions that limit some possibilities and enable others, actively reshaping the possibility space that’s open for the organization. They’re not causes that dictate outcomes, but they channel energy and behavior. A constraint such as a cultural and operational focus on customer service, for example, can nudge the organization towards a coherent engagement with evolving market needs. Constraints are intentionally designed to amplify desired patterns – like innovation or agility – while dampening dysfunction and dissent. 

Context is king.

Constraints can’t shape a system’s coherence in a vacuum. All systems are embedded in larger systems, and these affect what’s possible in the sub-system. They provide the context that is the ultimate shaper. Context includes industry and economic trends, competitor actions and patterns, societal shifts, cultural norms, technology trends, the talent and educational ecosystem and many more elements, all shifting and moving unpredictably. Coherence can’t survive a misreading of context, while an accurate and adaptive reading can point to opportunities to amplify some constraints and loosen others.

The two flavors of constraints

In context, constraints come in two broad types, each with distinct roles in organizational design.

Context-Insensitive Constraints: These are universal guardrails, unshaken by external conditions. For firms, they include the imperative to generate profit, compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks, adherence to accounting standards, and even basic operational necessities (e.g., maintaining cash flow). They’re the bedrock of stability, ensuring survival across contexts. But over-reliance on them breeds rigidity—profit-maximizing thinking can stifle long-term innovation.

Context-Sensitive Constraints:
These are dynamic, weaving coherence by linking actions to their environment. Experiments can generate a results matrix of what works and what doesn’t, narrowing the range of investment into a targeted sphere. A firm’s customer feedback loops can constrain product development to align with market needs, creating mutual dependence between teams and clients. Enabling constraints (e.g., cross-functional collaboration norms and external partnerships) spark coordination networks, amplifying energy flow—think of a sales team energized by real-time data from R&D. Constitutive constraints (e.g., a shared purpose and mission) define the firm’s identity, while governing constraints (e.g., cultural values) steer from above, like Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Together, they generate emergent behaviors—new strategies or products—without rigid structures.

Catalysts and Loops: The Engines of Coherence 

Constraints don’t just sit still—they iterate. Economic catalysts (e.g., a new technology) and feedback loops (e.g., customer reviews driving product tweaks) self-organize, creating self-governing systems that persist through repetition. Values play a starring role here: a commitment to sustainability, for instance, constrains decisions across a firm, from sourcing to marketing, forging a coherent identity. These loops amplify energy, turning individual efforts into collective momentum. For leaders, the lesson is clear: nurture feedback-rich constraints to sustain alignment.

Persistence: The Art of Enduring Coherence

Coherence is a patterned wholeness shaped by shared values, perceptions and norms. Coherent firms thrive for decades, not through static stability but “dynamic kinetic stability”—mutual dependencies held together by constraints. A firm’s processes, relationships, and culture store information, enabling coherence even as people come and go. Constraints align individual energy streams into relational states, freeing energy for innovation. Think of a retailer whose customer-centric ethos persists through staff turnover, emerging as a competitive edge. Persistence favors firms that balance stability and adaptability.

Maintaining Flow.

Constraints can calcify. Sedimented norms—think “we’ve always done it this way”—and entrenched practices (e.g., legacy tech systems) limit adaptability. Path dependence weighs heavily: a firm’s early focus on a specific market can bias future moves, blinding it to new opportunities. Firms must spot these traps, relaxing outdated constraints to keep the possibility space open.

Keeping Constraints Agile

Too many constraints—or the wrong ones—threaten coherence. As contexts shift (e.g., digital disruption), governing constraints can lag, stifling response. Successful firms reconfigure their constraint regimes, using scaffolds (e.g., agile frameworks) and templates (e.g., decision protocols) that preset possibilities yet adjust over time. Evolution preserves the firm’s identity and unity while embracing change. Consider how Netflix pivoted from DVDs to streaming, retaining its customer-focus constraint while shedding operational relics.

From Chaos to Order: Many-to-One Dynamics 

Coherence emerges when disparate actions (“many”) harmonize into streamlined patterns (“one”). Social norms, trust, and networks within a firm reduce friction, aligning efforts toward shared goals. A sales team’s varied tactics, constrained by a unified value proposition, coalesce into a coherent market presence. This many-to-one shift isn’t forced—it’s sculpted by constraints, yielding qualitatively distinct outcomes like brand loyalty or operational efficiency. These are flow states in the context of the KFSO.

Beyond Hierarchy

Forget rigid pyramids. Firms thrive as interdependent dynamic wholes where autonomous teams are nested within larger systems. No single unit or level dominates. A firm’s culture constrains behavior top-down, yet without coercion; a project team self-organizes bottom-up, guided by shared norms. Adjusting constraints—tightening collaboration rules or relaxing approval layers—reconfigures the possibility space, unlocking emergent qualities like resilience or speed. This isn’t anarchy—it’s coherence that doesn’t require control.

Conclusion: Designing for Emergence

Traditional organizational design seeks to eliminate uncertainty. Designing for emergence flips the script: uncertainty is the valued raw material of innovation, shaped by constraints into coherent action. Leaders must become sculptors, crafting regimes that balance context-insensitive stability (profit, compliance) with context-sensitive dynamism (culture, feedback). The result? Firms that don’t just survive but evolve—persistent, adaptive, and whole. In a world where context changes everything, constraints are the key to unlocking what’s possible.

The Value Creators Podcast Episode #59. How to Build a Self-Managed Organization: A Conversation with Doug Kirkpatrick

Can companies operate effectively without bosses, titles, or hierarchies? How can organizations empower employees to take full ownership of their roles while maintaining accountability and productivity?

In this episode of the Value Creators Podcast, Hunter Hastings speaks with Doug Kirkpatrick, author of The No Limits Enterprise and a pioneer of self-management. Doug shares his experience implementing self-management at The Morning Star Company, a firm that scaled successfully without traditional managers or management.

Key insights include:

  • The two core principles that enable a self-managed organization: no coercion and keeping commitments.
  • How the Colleague Letter of Understanding (CLOU) replaces job descriptions and performance reviews.
  • Why bureaucratic hierarchies are outdated and how eliminating them enhances agility and innovation.
  • The evolving role of leadership as facilitators rather than controllers.
  • The connection between self-management, trust, and high business performance.
  • How AI and digital transformation are making self-management more relevant than ever.

For business leaders, entrepreneurs, and anyone looking to rethink traditional management, this episode offers a compelling look at the future of work. Discover how to transition from a control-based hierarchy to a high-trust, self-managed enterprise.

Resources:

➡️ Learn What They Didn’t Teach You In Business School: The Value Creators Online Business Course

Connect with Doug on LinkedIn

Read Doug’s Blog on “The Future of Work”

Get Doug’s Book The No-Limits Enterprise

Read Morning Star’s Success Story

Connect with Hunter Hastings on LinkedIn

The Value Creators on Substack

Knowledge Capsule:

1. The Concept of Self-Management in Organizations

  • Self-management eliminates traditional hierarchies, empowering employees to operate autonomously.
  • It shifts decision-making authority from managers to individuals who have the most direct information.
  • This model fosters a high level of accountability and engagement among employees.

2. The Origins of Self-Management at The Morning Star Company

  • The company was built on two core principles: no coercion and keeping commitments.
  • Employees negotiated their roles and responsibilities, replacing the need for managers.
  • The system proved highly effective, leading to The Morning Star Company’’s emergence as the leading self-managed enterprise.

3. The Traditional Management Hierarchy has outlined its usefulness

  • Modern corporate management evolved from 19th-century Prussian Military organization and rigid command-and-control methodologies designed to prevent railway accidents by taking away all judgment and discretion from operators.
  • Bureaucratic hierarchies, initially designed for efficiency, have become barriers to innovation and responsiveness.
  • Employees on the frontlines often have the best information but are constrained by rigid decision-making structures.

4. Individual Autonomy is the New Source Of Power and Energy in Business

  • Workers make complex life decisions (marriage, finances, education) without a boss—why not at work?
  • Empowering employees to act autonomously unlocks creativity, problem-solving, and ownership.
  • Organizations benefit from increased agility and reduced micromanagement.

5. Commitment is the key

  • Agreements between colleagues replace traditional job descriptions and performance reviews.
  • Employees voluntarily commit to responsibilities, creating accountability without the need for managerial oversight.
  • The key is to negotiate these mutual responsibilities in complete detail and precision so that each party knows exactly what is expected with no grey area.
  • A culture of trust and mutual reliance emerges from these agreements.

6. The Colleague Letter of Understanding (CLOU)

  • The CLOU is a self-negotiated document detailing an employee’s responsibilities and decision-making authority.
  • It aligns personal goals with company objectives, reinforcing the principles of self-management.
  • This system builds a resilient, adaptable organizational structure.

7. The Elimination of Bureaucracy

  • Traditional bureaucratic layers create inefficiency and stifle innovation.
  • Self-managed companies reduce or eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens.
  • Compliance with external regulations remains, but internal red tape is minimized.

8. Leaders don’t control, they facilitate

  • Leaders in self-managed organizations act as mentors and facilitators rather than decision-makers.
  • They focus on creating environments where employees thrive rather than directing their work.
  • This shift enhances problem-solving capabilities and employee engagement.

9. Self-Managed Enterprises Work Because of Trust

  • Trust is fundamental to successful self-management, replacing control-based oversight.
  • Employees must honor their commitments, fostering a culture of reliability and performance.
  • Organizations that master trust-building gain a significant competitive advantage.

10. Self-Managed Organizations are High-Performance

  • Companies with strong self-management principles achieve high performance and resilience.
  • Employees take ownership of their roles, improving efficiency and innovation.
  • The model enhances customer satisfaction by empowering employees to make direct decisions.

11. Self-Management is right for the Age of AI and Digital Work

  • Traditional management structures will struggle to keep up with AI and digital transformation.
  • Self-managed systems integrate seamlessly with AI tools, leveraging technology for individual decision-making.
  • The future of work is shifting toward more decentralized, autonomous structures.

12. How to Implement Self-Management in a Traditional Organization

  • Start with a small experiment or a single business unit before scaling.
  • Secure leadership buy-in and ensure alignment with core company values.
  • Foster a culture of transparency, trust, and accountability to support the transition.

The Value Creators Podcast Episode #58. How to Recognize and Overcome Selfish Leadership: A Conversation with Josefine Campbell

What if the traditional view of leadership—an individual who is assertively bold, visionary, and all-powerful—was actually harmful? What if leadership is not about commanding authority but interpersonal relationships, collaboration, self-awareness, and authenticity?

In this episode of the Value Creators Podcast, Hunter Hastings speaks with Josefine Campbell, international business coach and author of 12 Tools for Managing a Selfish Leader: Unlocking Authenticity for Resilience. Josefine shares how toxic leadership dynamics can damage organizations and individuals—and how employees and leaders alike can protect themselves and build resilience.

Key insights include:

  • Why the traditional leadership myth is outdated and how a more human-centered approach is needed.
  • How selfish leaders manipulate employees and erode company culture.
  • The role of energy management in maintaining resilience against toxic leadership.
  • Why self-awareness and authenticity are essential for outstanding leadership.
  • The importance of corporate culture in preventing toxic leadership behaviors.
  • Practical tools like the Awareness Matrix and Values Lighthouse to help individuals navigate difficult leadership situations.

Whether you’re a leader striving to improve or an employee dealing with a challenging manager, this episode offers valuable tools to foster authenticity, resilience, and ethical leadership. Learn how to protect yourself from toxic leadership and embrace a leadership model that works for the 21st century.

Resources:

➡️ Learn What They Didn’t Teach You In Business School: The Value Creators Online Business Course

Visit josefinecampbell.com

Connect with Josefine on LinkedIn

Sign Up To Josefine’s Newsletter

Check Out Josefine’s books:

12 Tools for Managing a Selfish Leader

Power Barometer: How To Manage Personal Energy For Business Success

Connect with Hunter Hastings on LinkedIn

The Value Creators on Substack

Knowledge Capsule:

1. Rethinking Leadership: Moving Beyond Traditional Views

  • Traditional leadership is often portrayed as visionary individuals with bold strategies guiding organizations.
  • This myth creates unrealistic expectations and often leads to toxic leadership styles.
  • True leadership is more collaborative, human-centered, and rooted in interpersonal relationships.

2. The Role of Personal Presence in Leadership

  • Leadership is personal—your voice, demeanor, and authenticity impact how people follow you.
  • Strategies and visions only succeed if they are effectively communicated and embraced by people.
  • Leadership is not about enforcing authority but about inspiring and motivating individuals.

3. The Persistence of Hierarchy in Business Organizations

  • Despite experiments with alternative structures, hierarchy remains the dominant organizational model.
  • Matrix structures, self-managed organizations, and agile methods have been explored but come with their own challenges.
  • Future organizational models need to balance flexibility with the need for clarity and coordination.

4. The Pitfalls of Decision-Making in Leadership

  • Leaders must make tough decisions under uncertainty, often facing disagreement.
  • Data-driven decision-making is important but insufficient; intuition and empathy play critical roles.
  • Leaders must navigate complex trade-offs and avoid becoming emotionally detached.

5. The Problem of Selfish Leadership in Organizations

  • Some leaders prioritize personal gain over team success, leading to manipulation and toxic work environments.
  • Selfish leaders lack genuine empathy but can be highly strategic in influencing others.
  • They negatively impact company culture, employee engagement, and long-term business performance.

6. The Impact of Selfish Leadership on Team Members

  • Employees often feel trapped in toxic leadership environments, leading to stress and disengagement.
  • Recognizing manipulative behaviors is crucial to protecting personal well-being.
  • Employees can develop resilience and coping strategies to navigate difficult leadership dynamics.

7. Managing Energy as a Defense Against Toxic Leadership

  • Energy management is essential for resilience, as dealing with selfish leaders is emotionally draining.
  • Leaders and employees must maintain energy balance through rest, nutrition, and positive activities.
  • Recognizing personal energy levels helps individuals stay focused and avoid burnout.

8. The Power of Self-Awareness in Leadership

  • Self-awareness is a key factor in effective leadership and emotional intelligence.
  • Leaders who reflect on their behaviors and decisions foster healthier work environments.
  • Employees can use self-awareness to recognize when they are being manipulated and respond accordingly.

9. The Importance of Authenticity in Leadership

  • Authentic leaders align their actions with their values and beliefs.
  • Discovering and embracing core values helps leaders make better decisions and inspire others.
  • Authenticity fosters trust, collaboration, and long-term effectiveness in leadership roles.

10. Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in Leadership

  • Leaders often face situations where they must compromise values or make morally challenging decisions.
  • Understanding one’s values and ethical boundaries is crucial for maintaining integrity.
  • Having the moral courage to stand by ethical principles is essential for long-term success.

11. Corporate Culture as a Defense Against Toxic Leadership

  • Organizations must establish clear behavioral norms and expectations for leaders.
  • Companies with well-defined cultural values (e.g., IKEA, Novo Nordisk) are more resistant to toxic leadership.
  • Aligning leadership evaluations with company culture ensures accountability.

12. Practical Tools for Overcoming Toxic Leadership

  • Tools like the Awareness Matrix help individuals navigate difficult leadership dynamics.
  • The Values Lighthouse Exercise aids in identifying and prioritizing personal values.
  • Developing self-awareness, adaptability, and resilience helps individuals manage workplace challenges effectively.

A new model of business organization: the sentient enteprise.

Co-authored with Mark Beliczky.

The 21st-century business landscape is characterized by complexity, volatility, and rapid change. Traditional hierarchical corporations, structured as rigid bureaucracies, often struggle to adapt to the demands of a digital, hyper-connected, and AI-driven world. The Sentient Enterprise represents a paradigm shift in organizational design—integrating real-time sensing, decentralized decision-making, and continuous learning to function as a living, intelligent ecosystem (Beer, 1972; Morin, 2008; Alsagheer et al., 2023). 

This essay explores the Sentient Enterprise as a breakthrough concept in organizational design and delves into the technological, cultural, and strategic shifts necessary to build and sustain such enterprises, providing business leaders with actionable insights that challenge conventional wisdom and redefine the future of enterprise strategy. An original Sentient Enterprise Framework (SEF) is introduced to serve as a conceptual foundation for organizations aspiring to evolve beyond traditional structures (Laloux, 2014; Kwasek et al., 2024). 

Theoretical Foundation of Sentient Enterprises 

Sentient Enterprises are rooted in theories of organizational cybernetics (Beer, 1972), complexity (Morin, 2008), and self-organizing systems (Prigogine, 1997). Unlike traditional command-and-control structures and even more recent networked systems, they are informed by principles from system dynamics, non-linear adaptation, and real-time data intelligence. By leveraging artificial intelligence, behavioral economics, and neuroscientific insights, Sentient Enterprises establish a decision-making model that parallels biological cognition (Kauffman, 1993; Vincent, 2021). This positions them as the next evolutionary step beyond agile organizations and networks of competence (Bonabeau, Dorigo, & Theraulaz, 1999; Tang, Walters, & Zeng, 2004). 

Natural Systems Are Sentient and Adaptive  

The best models for modern organizations come not from outdated corporate structures but from nature itself. Sentient Enterprises resemble dynamic, self-regulating systems such as neural networks, swarm intelligence, and ecosystems.

  • Neural Networks: The brain constantly rewires itself based on experience and feedback loops, mirroring how Sentient Enterprises absorb, distribute, and act on knowledge dynamically (Holland, 1998; Dobre & Hăhăianu, 2016).
  • Swarm Intelligence: Just as birds adjust their flight paths without waiting for commands, Sentient Enterprises enable teams to act autonomously while remaining aligned with the enterprise’s core purpose (Bonabeau et al., 1999).
  • Ecosystems: Natural systems adjust to shifts, and similarly, Sentient Enterprises adapt to market conditions, customer needs, and technological evolution (Kauffman, 1993). 

Expanding the Sentient Enterprise Framework

The Sentient Enterprise Framework (SEF) consists of five interdependent components: 

  1. Continuous Sensing & Intelligence: Organizations must develop an infrastructure capable of continuously collecting and interpreting data from internal and external sources. AI-driven analytics, IoT, and cloud computing play crucial roles in enabling real-time situational awareness (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Althati, Malaiyappan, & Shanmugam, 2024).
  2. Decentralized & Adaptive Decision-Making: Decisions emerge and authority shifts from hierarchical oversight to distributed nodes of expertise. Leveraging decentralized autonomous systems and blockchain technologies ensures that decisions are made at the closest point of relevance, enhancing agility and responsiveness (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2016; Alsagheer et al., 2023).
  3. Continuous Learning & Evolution: The ability to self-correct and evolve based on past decisions and market conditions is key. Implementing reinforcement learning algorithms and digital twins enables organizations to simulate, learn, and iterate continuously (Mitchell, 2009; Bhuvan, 2024).
  4. Human-Centric & Emotionally Intelligent Individuals: Organizational culture will need to align with principles of freedom, collaboration, and trust. Team member engagement and innovation autonomy lead to enhanced resilience and sustained competitive advantage (Pink, 2009).
  5. Networked & Fluid Organizational Structures: Traditional command-and-control structures give way to fluid, cross-functional teams that form and dissolve as needed. Drawing from agile methodologies, Sentient Enterprises use dynamic work networks to facilitate responsiveness and innovation (Laloux, 2014; Badmus et al., 2024). 

Case Studies: The Evolution of Sentient Enterprises in Action 

The evolution of Spotify’s squad model demonstrates how decentralized, autonomous teams can drive rapid product innovation while maintaining coherence within an overarching enterprise structure (Kniberg & Ivarsson, 2012). Netflix’s AI-driven personalization algorithms exemplify real-time learning, where customer behaviors inform iterative content adaptation and recommendation engines (Hastings, 2020). Toyota’s adaptive production system showcases the power of continuous improvement, where frontline team members have the freedom to implement efficiency changes dynamically (Liker, 2004). Temu and Nvidia’s AI-driven logistics and design automation highlight real-time adaptation and efficiency through deep learning applications (Huang, 2022). Buurtzorg’s self-managed teams in healthcare redefine how patient-centered care can scale efficiently through decentralized decision-making (de Blok, 2018). 

Addressing Criticisms: Sentient Enterprises vs. Networks of Competence 

Critics may argue that Sentient Enterprises risk diluting expertise in pursuit of speed, leading to potential decision instability in regulated industries (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). However, their fundamental advantage lies in the ability to dynamically redistribute expertise where needed in real time, eliminating reliance on predefined knowledge hierarchies (Holland, 1998; Wang, Huang, & Zhang, 2019). In contrast, Networks of Competence require periodic reconfigurations of expertise networks, limiting their ability to pivot at high velocity (Snowden & Boone, 2007). 

The Future of Sentient Enterprises 

The trajectory of Sentient Enterprises extends beyond corporate management into public sector governance, education, and global policymaking. Future iterations will likely integrate biologically-inspired AI, quantum computing, and edge intelligence, allowing organizations to function as fully autonomous, self-evolving entities (Mitchell, 2009; Makropoulos & Bouziotas, 2023). Research will need to continue in AI governance, predictive analytics, and ethical decision automation to ensure sustainable adoption (Sutton & Barto, 2018). 

Conclusion 

The transition to Sentient Enterprises is no longer a futuristic aspiration but a strategic imperative. As industries face unprecedented complexity and disruption, organizations will need to rethink how intelligence, decision-making, and learning function within dynamic business ecosystems. Those that embrace real-time intelligence, fluid adaptability, and human-centric autonomy will define the next frontier of competitive advantage. 

Co-authors: Mark Beliczky and Hunter Hastings

References 

Alsagheer, D., Diallo, N., Karanjai, R., Xu, L., & Shi, L. (2023). On decentralized governance of machine learning and AI. Retrieved from 

Althati, C., Malaiyappan, J. N. A., & Shanmugam, L. (2024). AI-Driven Analytics: Transforming Data Platforms for Real-Time Decision Making. Journal of Artificial Intelligence General Science. 

Badmus, O., Anas, S., Arogundade, J. B., & Williams, M. (2024). AI-driven business analytics and decision making. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 

Beer, S. (1972). Brain of the firm. Wiley. 

Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., & Theraulaz, G. (1999). Swarm intelligence: From natural to artificial systems. Oxford University Press.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company. 

Bhuvan, S. (2024). The impact of AI and ML on organizational structure. ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts. 

Dobre, T., & Hăhăianu, F. (2016). Increasing organizational intelligence – A technology-based learning model. eLearning and Software for Education. 

de Blok, J. (2018). Buurtzorg: Humanity above bureaucracy. Routledge. 

Hastings, R. (2020). No rules rules: Netflix and the culture of reinvention. Penguin.

 Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. Oxford University Press.

Huang, J. (2022). The rise of AI-driven design and logistics at Nvidia. AI & Technology Review. 

Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press. 

Kniberg, H., & Ivarsson, A. (2012). Scaling agile at Spotify: The squad model. Agile Journal. 

Kwasek, A., Kocot, M., Kocot, D., Maciaszczyk, M., & Rogozinska-Mitrut, J. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence in agile organization management. European Research Studies Journal. 

Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by the next stage of human consciousness. Nelson Parker. 

Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill. 

Makropoulos, C., & Bouziotas, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence for decentralized water systems: A smart planning agent based on reinforcement learning for off-grid camp water infrastructures. Journal of Hydroinformatics. 

Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford University Press. 

Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. Hampton Press. 

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press. 

Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books. 

Prigogine, I. (1997). The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. Free Press. 

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–76. 

Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction (2nd ed.). MIT Press. 

Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. Penguin. 

Tang, Z., Walters, B. A., & Zeng, X. (2004). A framework of intelligence infrastructure supported by intelligent agents. Idea Group Publishing. 

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Harvard Business Review Press. 

Vincent, V. U. (2021). Integrating intuition and artificial intelligence in organizational decision-making. Business Horizons. ` 

Wang, H., Huang, X., & Zhang, Z. (2019). The impact of deep learning on organizational agility.