The Evolving Role of the Business Leader: From Commander to Value Guide.

/in /by

In the past, the goal of the corporation was profit maximization. It became the singleminded focus of management and resulted in a specific kind of business leadership. Leaders were those with the superior command of strategy tools and tight stewardship of fiscal resources, which they allocated with precision through the mechanisms of planning and budget control. The organization structure that best fit this planning and control regime was the hierarchy of authority, implemented through rank and title. Leaders climbed to the top.

Today, the goal is value creation for customers and colleagues. Value creation is the emergent result of collaboration and interaction, bubbling up from all the talent and tools assembled within the firm, and those connected through external partnerships. Orchestration of a complex system replaces the command of the hierarchy.

The Value Creators is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In this mode, leaders are no longer directing, and can no longer act merely as strategic architects or fiscal stewards. They are called upon to facilitate and enable value creation throughout the enterprise network. They are no longer commanders of compliance but champions of contribution. Their role is Value Guide.

Philosophical Foundations: Austrian Economics and Decentralized Action

The philosophical shift from profit maximization to value creation is significant and welcome. It draws on the understanding of value from the 250-year tradition of the Austrian school of economics, particularly the work of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. In this worldview, value is not created by executives at the top but by customers – they are the ones who assign value to producers’ goods and services. Value is revealed via the interaction in the marketplace. Consequently, a primary value creation role is played by individual team members who are closest to the customer, the problem, and the possibility. Austrian economics classifies these roles as entrepreneurial – actively engaged in the pursuit of new value. Leadership becomes less about control and more about cultivating the conditions for value to emerge freely and authentically. As Hayek argued, knowledge is dispersed, and only when decisions are made locally can systems truly thrive (Hayek, 1945).

Contemporary Voices: Entrepreneurial Teams and Organizational Freedom

What is the function of leadership when value creation decisions and actions move to the edge of the organization where it interfaces with customers? What form would leadership take if every individual in the organization were trusted to think, decide, and act based on their interpretation of the purpose of value creation, rather than waiting for permission from authority?

The authors have explored new forms through the lens of Kinetic Flow State Organizations, where barriers to individual entrepreneurial behavior are removed, so that harmony emerges from the dynamic adaptation that’s enabled by individual autonomy to act (Béliczky, Hastings 2025).

KFSO’s are manifestations of a broad movement towards entrepreneurial organization with individual freedom given cohesion via the enabling guidance of purpose, value management, customer obsession, and the ambidextrous combination of impeccable execution within a purposeful system of exploratory experimentation.

Implications for Today’s Leaders

Value creation is a function of dynamic harmony. It can’t be fixed in best practices, or framed in established norms and reusable processes and methods. The exploration requires the role of guidance – knowing the way without being fixated on a lockstep march to a predefined destination, aware of the obstacles and pitfalls and equipped to navigate them, and sufficiently agile and capable to deal with unexpected new challenges.

What does this mean for business leaders today? It means stepping back from the illusion of control and leaning into the responsibility of freedom. It means creating ecosystems where trust is the currency and experimentation is the norm. It means recognizing that leadership is not a position but a presence—felt when leaders ask more than they tell and listen more than they speak.

Reframing The Leadership Role

A Value Guide is not the hero at the top. They are the designer at the center—framing conditions for others to lead, decide, and create. Their influence doesn’t come from authority—it comes from presence, clarity, and trust. They don’t seek control. They cultivate flow.

This shift is more than philosophical—it’s operational. It requires a fundamental rewiring of how leaders behave, how organizations function, and how value is defined and created.

Becoming a Value Guide requires four fundamental leadership shifts:

1. Recalibrate the Lens
Value Guides start by shifting how they perceive their role. They stop leading with certainty and start leading with curiosity. Instead of offering answers, they ask better questions. Instead of positioning themselves as the focal point, they become clarity-builders who help others connect purpose with progress. This lens invites discovery over direction and cultivates an environment where people feel safe to explore, challenge, and contribute.

Prompt to self: “Am I creating clarity—or just issuing direction?”

2. Design for Flow
Friction is a leadership responsibility. Value Guides examine every process, policy, and pattern with one core aim: to free up energy. They rethink how time is used—starting with their calendar—and remove the legacy systems, rituals, and inefficiencies that slow people down. Flow isn’t just a state of mind—it’s an operating condition. And it can be designed intentionally.

Prompt to self: “What’s slowing us down that doesn’t need to be here?”

3. Distribute Autonomy
Agility doesn’t live at the top. It lives at the edge—where the real work, real context, and real insight reside. Value Guides trust the people closest to customers and problems with the autonomy to act with their own sound judgment. This requires more than freedom—it requires structural shifts in decision rights, open communication, and systems that reward initiative over compliance. Distributed autonomy is not chaos—it’s alignment without micromanagement.

Prompt to self: “Where have I held onto a decision that someone else is better equipped to make?”

4. Embody the Mindset
Lead with emotional clarity and grounded confidence. Don’t perform leadership—be real. People can sense when trust is authentic and when it’s just theater. Value Guides model humility, curiosity, and conviction in others’ potential. They don’t rely on charisma or authority—they lead through presence, coherence, and the courage to believe in people even before results are guaranteed.

Prompt to self: “What would I do right now if I truly believed in my team’s capacity to lead, decide, and create value?”

This isn’t a leadership upgrade. It’s a transformation. A Value Guide doesn’t scale themselves—they scale the system. They create clarity instead of control. They inspire ownership instead of compliance. And they define success not just by performance, but by a meaningful purpose, and outcomes that move people and missions forward.

The leaders who thrive in this era will be those who make this shift—not perfectly, but persistently. One decision, one conversation, and one act of trust at a time.

Value Creation as Competitive Advantage

When companies adopt this model of leadership, they don’t just perform better—they matter more. They become magnets for mission-driven talent and generate value that extends beyond shareholders to include customers, communities, and ecosystems. This is not a sacrifice of profitability but a redefinition of it. In a world where meaning drives performance, the most valuable companies are those that create meaning at scale.

Case Examples and Business Model Innovation

You can see this shift playing out in organizations that once would have seemed unlikely candidates. Morning Star’s self-management model – guided by the simple principles of the founder without formal structure or management – frees team members to initiate commitments and drive accountability without formal bosses. Buurtzorg, a Dutch home healthcare organization, has achieved global recognition for its decentralized, nurse-led model that delivers both quality patient care and team member satisfaction. W. L. Gore & Associates fosters innovation through lattice-based management, where teams self-organize around opportunities. And at Patagonia, team member agency and environmental purpose are deeply embedded in operational decision-making, sustaining both loyalty and profitability.

Historical Precedents of Value-Guided Leadership

History, too, gives us examples of leaders who operated as Value Guides long before the term existed. Think of Mahatma Gandhi, who led without formal authority, yet galvanized collective purpose. Or Eleanor Roosevelt, who redefined the role of the First Lady by championing justice, dignity, and human rights with relentless grace. More recently, Katrín Jakobsdóttir, Prime Minister of Iceland, has promoted trust-based governance and collective wellbeing as a national strategy, while Jacinda Ardern, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, became a global icon for empathetic, inclusive, and purpose-led leadership.

Cultural and Structural Shifts Required

The shift from commander to Value Guide is not without friction. It demands a willingness to let go of power and a readiness to embrace vulnerability. It requires rethinking incentives, redesigning systems, and redefining what success looks like. But for those willing to lead differently, the payoff is profound: cultures of trust, organizations that adapt rather than stagnate, and teams that thrive not because they’re told to—but because they want to.

Tactical Shifts for Business Leaders Today

To evolve into a Value Guide, business leaders will need to reorient their priorities and practices. Begin by reframing KPIs to reflect outcomes that matter to customers, colleagues and stakeholders—not just shareholders. Create spaces for team members to propose, test, and own initiatives without fear of punishment for failure. Rethink the role of meetings from decision platforms to listening sessions. Shift language from “managing people” to “enabling potential.” Recognize and reward contributions that advance purpose, not just performance. And most critically, embed feedback loops that surface value creation opportunities from every corner of the enterprise.

A Call to Value-Guided Leadership

As it’s often said—and widely attributed to Peter Drucker—“The purpose of an organization is to enable ordinary human beings to do extraordinary things.” That starts with leadership that inspires rather than imposes.

Now is the moment to lead with intention. To champion agency, not authority. To measure success not by how many people follow orders, but by how many are free to create.

This is the new leadership frontier—a place where business is humanized, where value flows from every level, and where legacy is built not through control, but through contribution. If you are a business leader, the question is no longer whether this shift is coming. It’s whether you are ready to make it.

The future belongs to those who free their teams to lead, to question, to co-create. If you embrace the role of Value Guide, you won’t just lead organizations—you’ll spark movements.

Step forward. Be the reason someone says, ‘I get to do work that matters.’ Be the one who shows that purpose and performance are not at odds—they’re inseparable.

Co-Authors: Mark Beliczky and Hunter Hastings

References

Béliczky, M. (2025, April 5). Unblocking the flow: A leadership guide to eliminating organizational friction in the 21st century. LinkedIn.

Béliczky, M. (2025, March 4). How to enable a Kinetic Flow State Organization. LinkedIn.

Hastings, H. (2025, March 4). Episode 57: How to enable a kinetic flow state organization[Podcast episode]. *Value Creators*.

The Value Creators
Episode #57. How to Enable a Kinetic Flow State Organization: A Conversation with Mark Beliczky
How can businesses shift from rigid, hierarchical structures to agile, fast-moving organizations that adapt to change effortlessly? What if businesses could remove bottlenecks, eliminate bureaucracy, and enable knowledge to flow freely—boosting innovation and engagement…

Listen now

4 months ago · 2 likes · Hunter Hastings

Hastings, H. (2025, April 3). The need for a new organizational model in the 21st century. The Value Creators Podcast / Substack. In Organizing for emergence [Series]. Retrieved from

The Value Creators
The Need For A New Organizational Model In The 21st Century.
The 21st-century business environment is defined by rapid technological advancements, globalization, and shifting customer expectations. These are exogenous changes, not brought on by the activities of any individual firm but a change in the environment surrounding firms. Firms are tasked with responding to and adapting to these changes. It is discomfit…
Read more
9 months ago · 7 likes · 4 comments · Hunter Hastings and Mark Béliczky

Hastings, H. (2025, March 4). Episode 57: How to enable a kinetic flow state organization: A conversation with Mark Beliczky. The Value Creators Podcast / Substack. Retrieved from

The Value Creators
Episode #57. How to Enable a Kinetic Flow State Organization: A Conversation with Mark Beliczky
How can businesses shift from rigid, hierarchical structures to agile, fast-moving organizations that adapt to change effortlessly? What if businesses could remove bottlenecks, eliminate bureaucracy, and enable knowledge to flow freely—boosting innovation and engagement…

Listen now

4 months ago · 2 likes · Hunter Hastings

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

The Value Creators is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

AI Will Be Great at Brand Building: The Empathic Future of Marketing

/in /by

Brands are one of the greatest value creation innovations. They are the most valuable artifacts of marketing. They deliver value consistently to back up the promise of the value proposition of improving customer lives. They provide a focus for love and loyalty and gratitude.

The Value Creators is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Entrepreneurship is action, and marketing is the action of brand building. Marketing history extends over decades of continuous refinement of identifying, understanding and meeting customer needs, using the tool of empathy as both the diagnostic and the design.

Now the marketing world is entering its AI age, and people are worried. Will automation and data distillation strip away the human soul of branding, leaving us with cold, formulaic campaigns? The skeptics worry that AI’s reliance on algorithms will churn out generic ads, devoid of the creative spark that communicates how brands are unmatchable and unforgettable.

In fact, the opposite is likely to be true. AI promises to become the ultimate brand-building tool—not by replacing human empathy but by amplifying it. With its unmatched ability to uncover customer insights, design hyper-personalized experiences, and forge emotional connections, AI can create brands that don’t just sell but inspire love and loyalty. In a recent conversation with Stephen Sakach, founder of Zero Company and a pioneer in empathic AI and marketing, for a recent Value Creators podcast episode, we explored how this vision is already becoming reality.

Overcoming the Creativity Fear

Let’s address the elephant in the room: the fear that AI will stifle creativity.

Early AI tools were clunky, spitting out predictable outputs that felt more like templates than masterpieces. But today’s AI, like the advanced systems Stephen Sakach leverages at Zero Company, is a different beast. It’s not a creativity-killer; it’s a creativity-multiplier. Through abductive reasoning—hypothesizing the best explanation for complex data—AI can synthesize vast datasets, from X posts to customer reviews to reddit rants, to uncover patterns humans might miss. It can propose novel campaign ideas, test thousands of creative variations, and refine them in real time to maximize impact.

Take Zero Company’s work with San Francisco’s BART, the fifth-largest rail transit system in the U.S. Their multi-channel campaign, blending Display, Search, Facebook, and retargeting, drove 83,000 users, 111,000 sessions, and 50,000 newsletter sign-ups in just weeks. AI didn’t churn out generic ads; it analyzed the ridership funnel, identified emotional triggers, and crafted a sweepstakes campaign that resonated deeply. As Sakach shared in our podcast, this empathic precision is what turns clicks into connections. AI doesn’t replace the human spark—it scales it, enabling brands to create “Purple Cow” experiences that stand out in a crowded market.

Deeper Insights, Deeper Understanding

At the heart of great branding is understanding what customers feel – not just what they buy, but why they care. AI is an insight machine, capable of processing millions of data points to reveal emotions, values, and aspirations. It can analyze X posts to detect sentiment shifts, parse reviews to uncover pain points, or map purchase patterns to shared values like sustainability or community. This goes beyond traditional demographics or psychographics. It’s about attitude and the human experience.

Sakach’s B.L.I.S.S. ethos—Build Love Into Scalable Systems—embodies this. At Zero Company, AI helps tailor strategies to clients’ unique needs, resulting in a 7-10X lower churn rate and near-100% client retention. By understanding customers at a granular level, AI enables brands to craft messages that feel personal, not mass-produced. For example, imagine a coffee brand using AI to discover that one customer segment values ethical sourcing while another craves adventure. AI can craft distinct campaigns—say, a video highlighting fair-trade farmers for the first group and a rugged, outdoor-themed ad for the second—each hitting the emotional bullseye for their specific target.

Hyper-Personalized Branding

The most distinctive and differentiating characteristic of marketing today is hyper-personalization – the capacity to target, reach and engage individuals based on their personal preferences and idiosyncratic behavior. AI’s ability to segment audiences with precision enables hyper-personalized branding that feels genuinely customized. AI can dynamically adjust content—ads, emails, videos, promotional offers, pricing—based on real-time data, ensuring every touchpoint resonates. A fitness brand, for instance, could use AI to detect rising stress levels in X conversations and launch a mindfulness app tailored to that need, creating a new revenue stream rooted in empathy.

This hyper-personalization extends to the entire customer journey. AI can optimize touchpoints from awareness to advocacy, ensuring each interaction feels meaningful. Retargeting ads can evolve based on a customer’s emotional state—shifting from excitement to reassurance if they hesitate—while personalized video series can showcase customer stories that reflect local cultures or personal milestones. As Sakach emphasized, this is about scaling love, not just data, turning customers into enthusiastic brand ambassadors.

The Emotional Edge

Great brands are not just products and services; they evoke feelings—joy, trust, belonging. AI’s ability to analyze sentiment with 80-90% accuracy (per recent NLP studies) gives it an emotional edge over human analysts, who are limited by time and bias. By mapping emotional drivers to brand messaging, AI can craft campaigns that resonate deeply. For example, a modern retailer might use AI to identify nostalgic feelings among its audience, and design a campaign that evokes childhood memories, complete with retro visuals and heartfelt storytelling.

This emotional edge is why Sakach’s work at aiCMO.io focuses on embedding empathy into AI systems. In our podcast, he shared how AI can enhance the human element by identifying unmet needs—like a sense of community—and inspiring campaigns that foster connection. The result? Brands that customers love not just for what they offer but for how they make them feel.

Gaining Trust in an AI-Driven World

As AI reshapes marketing, trust becomes a differentiator. Consumers, wary of fakes and data misuse, demand authenticity. Can this be a product of AI? Yes. Brands that use AI transparently and responsibly—prioritizing privacy and aligning with values like compassion—will win loyalty just as well as their predecessors. Sakach’s emphasis on integrity at Zero Company is a model here. By ensuring AI both understands and serves human needs, brands can build trust that endures.

Consumers prefer brands that align with their values. AI can amplify this by identifying those values with great detail and depth, and weaving them into every campaign. Whether it’s a mid-size business or a Fortune 500, AI-driven brands that show they care—through actions like ethical data use or purpose-driven campaigns—will stand out.

Where This Leads

The future of brand building is exhilarating. AI will enable:

• Hyper Personalized Micro-Campaigns: Tailored ads for niche audiences as small as one individual, from the eco-conscious millennial to the adventure-seeking Gen Xer.

• Emotion-Driven Innovation: New products born from emotional gaps and unfulfilled or lightly tapped feelings. AI can do this better than humans (as evidenced by all the failed pre-AI product launches out there).

• Seamless Journeys: The customer journey concept was always a bit staged, but AI-optimized customer experiences can feel personal at every step.

• The End of Generic Marketing: Brands will compete on individualized emotional resonance, not budget size that spreads the same appeal thinly across a broad customer universe..

As Sakach and I discussed, AI isn’t here to make marketing robotic—it’s here to make it more human. It’s a tool for amplifying empathy, turning insights into experiences that inspire. The brands that thrive will be those that use AI to build love into their systems, creating connections that last.

____________________________

Want to dive deeper? Check out the Value Creators podcast with Stephen Sakach, where we unpack empathetic AI and marketing. Visit zerocompany.com or theblisspodcast.com for more, and share your thoughts—how can AI help your brand build love?

The Value Creators is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Designing The Enterprise As A Living, Learning System

/0 Comments/in /by

Co-Authors Hunter Hastings and Mark Beliczky

Imagine an enterprise that behaves more like a living being than a machine—a system that senses its environment, processes signals, and responds with coherence and purpose. As a team member in a system you experience intelligent collaboration rather than command-and-control authority. The organization senses your presence, adapts its behavior, and aligns its internal functions accordingly. That’s the future Béliczky and Hastings envision: not an organization with a brain at the top and subordinates below, but a living system where cognition is embedded everywhere (Béliczky & Hastings, 2025).

This shift in metaphor—from hierarchy and central planning to distributed intelligence and responsive systems—is more than aesthetic. It’s foundational. In this new world, we don’t isolate the brain as a privileged locus of strategy. Instead, we treat every part of the organization as a signal processor, capable of interpreting and acting on the value signals that flow continuously from the environment.

Béliczky and Hastings’ critique of legacy organizational models is well-placed. The top-down, mechanistic structures of the industrial era, with their bureaucratic inertia and slow response times, simply can’t keep up with today’s complex and rapidly changing market environments. Rather than seeing organizations as machines, they propose a view grounded in complex adaptive systems (Snowden & Boone, 2007; Wheatley, 2006, Holland, 2014). These systems are constantly in motion, always learning, always reshaping themselves through interaction with their environment.

At the heart of this new worldview is a focus on signal processing. Customers, markets, and ecosystems are continuously sending signals—needs, desires, shifts in behavior—and the organization needs to detect, interpret, organize, and respond to these signals in real-time. The organization becomes a vast network of signal processors, each with its own specialty. Like organs in a body, these processors are not isolated but interconnected. Some are especially tuned to detect customer needs, others translate those needs into product development, while others coordinate delivery and communication.

The Sentient Enterprise Reimagined

Strategic sentience emerges from this dynamic interplay. It’s not about having a grand plan; it’s about evolving the capacity to understand, reflect, and choose. A strategically sentient organization can sense its own state, perceive what’s happening in the environment, and reconfigure itself accordingly—not through top-down command, but through distributed intelligence and cognition (Clark, 2013).

Communities of Specialization and Signal Intelligence

One of the most important elements of this new model is the concept of Communities of Specialization, or COS. Each COS is like a highly specialized organ, formed to interpret and act on a specific kind of signal. These communities consist of human agents supported by AI—blending insight and data processing to generate high-quality, adaptive responses. The marketing COS, for example, is not just a department. It’s a living node in a network, interpreting customer signals (empathic diagnosis), translating them into product concepts, and passing those refined insights along to innovation and production COS.

Signals don’t just flow from the outside world. They move internally as well—from COS to COS—helping the system continuously refine and adjust its performance. When a particular signal is misread or fails to yield value, that pathway is corrected. What emerges is a process of natural selection for organizational responses. Valuable outputs survive and spread; ineffective ones are abandoned. Over time, this process leads to increasing specialization, greater value coherence, and faster adaptive cycles — a value network (Friston, 2010).

COS are not static. They evolve, merge, and dissolve as needed. Some are closer to the customer boundary, directly interacting with external signals. Others operate within the company, creating the internal conditions for success. But all are part of the same living system, responding to the same imperatives: to sense value, create value, and learn from outcomes.

Distributed Cognition and Talent+AI

This living system does not run on human intelligence alone. Every COS is supported by what Béliczky and Hastings describe as Talent+AI operators. These agents are responsible for optimizing the interplay between human capabilities and artificial intelligence within each COS. Think of them as cognitive performance coaches—helping each COS, and the entire network, make smarter decisions, faster.

The real magic happens not in any one COS, but in the connections between them: the better the interconnections in and between COSs, the greater the signal and interpretation flow, the greater 2-way traffic, and the stronger the value creation capacity.. As each COS refines its signal processing and shares its learnings, patterns begin to emerge. Strategy is no longer a plan crafted in the boardroom. It’s a pattern that arises from the flow of signals, the feedback from action, and the shared intelligence of the entire network (Hutchins, 1995; Simon, 1969).

Rethinking Leadership and Organizational Design

In this model, leaders don’t command—they orchestrate and curate. Their role is to shape the environment in which COS can emerge, evolve, and interconnect. They act more like neurologists than generals, enhancing the enterprise’s overall cognitive health and ensuring signal pathways remain open, fluid, and coherent. Their success is measured not by how well they dictate outcomes, but by how well they foster emergent strategy from the bottom up.

This is where Hayek’s foundational insight from The Use of Knowledge in Society proves invaluable. He emphasized that knowledge is inherently dispersed across individuals in society and that no central authority can fully aggregate or utilize this knowledge effectively (Hayek, 1945). This understanding aligns directly with the architecture of a strategically sentient enterprise, which does not attempt to centralize decision-making but instead creates dynamic systems that allow localized, context-rich knowledge to emerge and flow throughout the organization. In this view, the enterprise becomes a mechanism not for control, but for enabling the distributed intelligence of its agents to drive adaptive and value-creating action.

From Static Planning to Living Intelligence

In the end, the metaphor or mental model matters. We need to stop designing organizations as if they were machines—or even just brains—and begin designing them as ecosystems of intelligent agents. These agents, organized into COS, interpret signals, generate value, and learn together. Strategy arises not from a single mind, but from the integration of many specialized minds in conversation.

This isn’t a hypothetical future. It’s already happening—in emergent teams, in agile networks, in learning organizations that prioritize adaptation over control. But we need to name it, design for it, and elevate it. We need to stop thinking about thinking as a central function, and start thinking of it as the outcome of a living, learning and adaptive system.

The future of enterprise is not just sentient. It’s strategically sentient. And in that future, every agent, every COS, every signal counts.

Like this idea? Let’s co-design the next evolution of value creation—adaptive, intelligent, and alive.

Co-Authors: Mark Beliczky and Hunter Hastings

References

Béliczky, M., & Hastings, H. (2025). The Emergent 21st Century Sentient Enterprise: A New Model for You. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/emergent-21st-century-sentient-enterprise-new-model-you-mark-béliczky

Clark, A. (2013). Mindware: An introduction to the philosophy of cognitive science. Oxford University Press.

Denning, S. (2005). The leader’s guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of business narrative. Jossey-Bass.

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138.

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Klein, G. (2013). Seeing what others don’t: The remarkable ways we gain insights. PublicAffairs.

Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: Second generation lean product development. Celeritas Publishing.

Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an uncertain world. Doubleday.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press.

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

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

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

/0 Comments/in /by

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.

Organizing for emergence.

/0 Comments/in /by

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.

A new model of business organization: the sentient enteprise.

/0 Comments/in /by

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.