Complex Adaptive Systems: The Daoism Of Western Science.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Western science, like all of our institutions, thrives on novelty. New theories and new sciences abound: quantum physics, computer science, network science, string theory. The lines of inquiry are always extending beyond yesterday’s boundaries.

One recently developed science is complexity and complex systems. In a reversal of the traditional reductionism in science – which looks for explanations at ever smaller micro-scales, from molecules, to atoms, and now to hadrons and quarks – complex adaptive systems theory looks at the world holistically as systems, including systems embedded in systems embedded in systems, and asks how they perform at the system level. The economy is a system, society is a system, a firm is a system, a city is a system, a brain is a system, and so on. A system can be contrasted with a collection of objects that are disconnected, like a bag of marbles or nails.

There’s a particular focus on Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS): a class of systems found in many fields such as economics, biology, and social sciences, characterized by a collection of individual agents acting independently and constantly reacting to what the other independent agents are doing. These agents interact locally with each other at the micro level in unpredictable ways, and through these interactions, system-level structures and patterns emerge without central control. 

The concept of emergence is key: unpredictable outcomes occur, without any traceable cause-and-effect links. The scientists’ favorite word in this context is non-linear. Their treasured linear equations are of no use in predicting future outcomes in a complex adaptive system. That means, for example, that the policies politicians and bureaucrats prescribe to fix what they perceive as economic and social problems are useless when viewed through the lens of efficacy, and damaging when viewed through the lens of the independent agents – people – interacting within the system. Their freedom of interaction, the essence of the system, becomes impeded by policy.

Complex Adaptive Systems open up another cause-and-effect problem in business. How can we celebrate the great achievement of hero CEO’s if outcomes emerge, rather than tracing back causally to the decisions and actions of the great business leader?

How do we deal philosophically with the idea that outcomes emerge, without any traceable cause? That’s anathema to Western science. Perhaps Eastern philosophy offers a better approach. In Daoism, the Dao is The Way. The focus is not so much on the outcome, more on the way or the path. There is no outcome, only constant change. The images of Daoism include water and river imagery: the river flows over boulders and pebbles, between mountains and banks, bends left and right, and becomes bigger and bigger, and never stops. Heraclitus famously said that a person never steps in the same river twice, because each time, the person has changed and the river has changed. Change is the essence of existence. The way is universal, we follow it – go with the flow.

Complex adaptive systems that constantly adapt to the changing environment and to the interactions of independent agents are said to be self-organizing. They follow The Way, as the way emerges. They exhibit dynamic change, never stepping into the same river twice. The appropriate observation point is holism rather than reductionism – interconnected Eastern thinking rather than analytic Western thinking.

The pursuit of the Dao – the Way – entails harmonizing with this process rather than controlling it. Embracing harmony is key for adjusting our philosophy. Thus, in CAS parlance, the trade-offs between different levels and agents within a system would need to be inclusive rather than controlling, for the classical concept of harmony is one in which diverse interests prevail in a dynamic balance. Harmony is understood as the ‘unity of any nonidentical objects’, which in their diversity allow for ‘the possibility of new things arising’. Translated into CAS, harmony is inclusive of discord but not overtaken by it. If discord does overtake the system, dynamic harmony loses its integrative quality and breaks up into chaos; alternatively, when it is stifled by uniformity, harmony ceases to exist.

Seen through the lens of business, CAS and The Dao require changes in standard business thinking. Control and prediction have been the twin pursuits of business management. But harmony results from balance, not control. Pursuing innovation in a linear fashion through R&D investment in projects can exclude “the possibility of new things arising” in an emergent way, because it uses reason and analytics to favor some investments and excludes others. Emergence is not even contemplated.

Western science and business management tend to prefer the identification of causal change – or that which we can attempt to control and seek to predict. The new science of complexity is less mechanistic than the standard model, and closer to Daoist intuitive thought. Complex Adaptive Systems, in its nonlinear treatment of change, provides a bridge between East and West, an integrative perspective.

Business Is Not A Set Of Practices Or Strategic Methods Or Planning Techniques. It’s A Mindset

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the current business era, there’s a lot that seems mandatory: using quantitative methods of strategy and planning, following documented IT-enabled processes, organizing fixed structures that can be captured in org charts, and complying with government-mandated rules and regulations. Even the acts of creativity that contribute to innovation are specified, documented, and captured in software. There’s a bias towards fixed cause-and-effect thinking: if a business takes action X, it will result in outcome Y. We are told that case studies will reveal this cause-and-effect linkage in hindsight, to be re-applied in future planning.

There appears to be no room for individualism, spontaneity, unpredictable interactions, or rebellion. Those concepts are insufficiently objective for today’s business executives, consultants, professors and executives. The goal in business is primarily stability: to make a plan and achieve it, to set targets and hit them, to predict quarterly earnings with accuracy, to define processes in the knowledge that they will be followed unfailingly. The goal is to turn business into a science, with hard numbers, laws, and data-driven methods.

But in excess, this objective approach does not support the primary goal of business, which is value. 

The purpose of all firms is to generate value for customers and value is not objective or measurable or amenable to design or planning. Value is a feeling – a feeling of well-being or satisfaction experienced by customers. Different customers experience more value or less value than each other even when using the same product. Value occurs when the customer has used the product or service and compare the consumption experience with their going-in expectations. Value is subjective from beginning to end – from the search for potentially satisfying experiences to the realization in use to the evaluation after use. 

In fact, it is not the firm’s job to create value. It’s the customer’s role to find the most effective solution to their wants and needs. They can express some doubt or uncertainty that there’s anything available to them that exactly meets their need, although they might buy something that the best available option, even though their satisfaction is incomplete. They’re always looking for the discovery of something better. This is the role of the customer – the genius role of insisting on something better, thereby stimulating innovative action among producers to respond with new value propositions. Together, the producer and the customer imagine a new future value via a new or improved service or product; the producer can help the process along with product enhancements and advertising and PR and perhaps prototypes to help the customer’s imagination along.

If the customer’s imagination is piqued, the firm must commit resources to assemble the product capacity that will put an actual, purchasable offering into the marketplace for consumption. There’s no guarantee that this will be profitable or successful. The customer has the final decision. There’s no planning, predictive modeling, sales goal targeting or quantification of any kind that can eliminate or overcome this uncertainty. The customer will choose between all the alternatives available, including to buy nothing at all. It’s all contingent, and there are infinite possibilities. Firms choose their path towards facilitating the customer’s value experience, but there are no objective certainties.

So if business is not objective, quantifiable, or plannable, how would we describe it?

The philosophical word is subjectivism. Businesses would be better equipped for marketplace success if they followed subjective methods. They’re dealing with people and their emotions and their interactions with others in a complex social system. There’s no hard science, no spreadsheets, no data set that can predict the outcomes. 

That raises the question, what are the skills for business, if they’re not numeracy and hard science and mathematical economic. The answer is empathy. The skills of empathy – the ability to see inside customers’ minds and simulate a view of the world as they see it, to imagine what they are imagining, to reconstruct their mental model as opposed to imposing your own – are the most important in every business, and for every individual in every position and every function in business. Everyone must display customer empathy. What is the experience they are having? What’s imperfect about it from their point of view? What might result in a better experience for them, a potentially greater satisfaction for which they might be willing to pay. This empathy is best exercised at the level of the individual customer. If a business can get the empathic diagnosis right for one business, then they can investigate how it scales. Every customer is different, but there might be some patterns of response and interaction that spread out among a population of customers. 

Empathic diagnosis can reveal customers’ intent. What ends are they aiming for? What’s the highest value they seek? How can the firm’s proposition stimulate them to believe that it might contribute to that highest value? Uncovering the customer’s intent can indicate what experiments to run to find out whether any of the propositions a firm is able to get customers to imagine a future where new value is a possibility for them. Experiment is a key word: there’s no certainty in advance. Possibility is another key word: there is a wide range of possible outcomes. But by running the experiments and responding to feedback, the number of possibilities, the range of uncertainty, can be narrowed.

Once the results of experiments are in, then the firm can start unleashing its quants to do the economic calculation. How much will the customer pay based on these experimental results? How many customers might there be? How frequently will they buy. How much advertising budget should I spend to make the value proposition more widely known. Quantification is appropriate for these questions, once the empathic diagnosis is authenticated. 

Of course, the quantification can’t be accurate, and circumstances will change. It’s subjective calculation – the right method for an uncertain and subjective world.

In Business, Aim At Benefits Not Goals.

/0 Comments/in , /by

The beauty of Austrian economics is that it can understand the joy of an individual successfully making a sale as well as the computation of GDP, and the despair of losing a job as well as the calculation of the unemployment level in the economy. This is subjectivism: the understanding that the things that matter are subjectively determined by individuals and their interactions with others. The outcomes may be observed and aggregated but that doesn’t change what’s important to people.

Such an understanding should change how we think about the economy. The purpose of the economy is not to produce GDP, but to produce well-being. That’s a feeling, not a number. It can’t be quantified or expressed in dollars. The state of the economy is how people feel about their economic and personal well-being. It’s possible that some kind of a directional indicator could be produced by a survey – asking people how they feel and monitoring the trend (feeling better or feeling worse). The University Of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment attempts to do exactly that, and may be our best indicator of economic conditions.

There are broad implications of the subjective approach – let’s call it the people-first approach – to economics 

Mathematical economics is all wrong. In the twentieth century, the study of economics was hijacked by mathematics. The route to getting an economics Ph.D. or any kind of a degree, the route to formulating economic policy, and the route to managing businesses were all mathematicized. Mathematical laws of cause-and-effect were conceived as applying to human economic interactions. If an equation could be solved, then we could understand the underlying economic issue and take appropriate economic action. This whole approach omits the human element. There’s no equation for well-being.

Economic policy making is all wrong. Economic policy making aims at economic outcomes to be achieved through top-down planning. It’s government intervention in the economic interactions of individuals. Whether it’s taxation or tariffs on trade, or industrial policy (which industries government favors and those it restricts), or anti-trust, or money supply, or income redistribution, or government spending of any kind, it’s all directed at numerically-defined goals using input equations to predict numerical outcomes. That there is even a category of behavior designated as economic policy is a horrible distortion of the reality of the sources of economic well-being.

Our concepts of business management are all wrong. When commentators and the business media aim to assess companies’ performance, or their quality, or their merit, it’s always couched in mathematical terms, whether that’s stock price trends or revenue growth or profits. When CEO’s and executives and managers talk about their achievements, it’s also demonstrated through numbers. It’s rare to hear a CEO talk about the feelings of their customers. Yet it’s those feelings that should be the drivers of corporate behavior and the logic of corporate decision-making.

All of these errors involve goals. We set goals, we aim at goals, we measure whether we met, exceeded or fell short of goals, and by how much. These are all mathematical calculations, numerically enumerated. There’s no subjectiveness or well-being. This kind of calculation has its place in science, which has the extrinsic perspective of trying to understand and predict the material world we live in. We look for scientific laws to explain what has happened in the past and predict future happenings. But this kind of scientific method is inapplicable to the individual, personal, emotional, illogical interactions of humans in their economic dealings with each other. if a shopper feels that a store has an attractive price for potatoes but refuses to shop there again when the checkout clerk is rude, the outcome can’t be modeled. Will the shopper pay the price for potatoes and tolerate the rudeness? Or pay more for potatoes elsewhere, where the level of friendliness and politeness is higher? Will they tell all their friends about the rude service and aim to persuade many more people to change their shopping habits? Will they change their mind at a later date and return to the first store to shop because they eventually decide that low price overcomes rudeness at the checkout? None of this can be modeled and mathematicized.

The solution is to substitute benefits for goals, and to aim at delivering those benefits rather than numerical outcomes. Value is a subjective experience for users, and the idea of benefits is to facilitate that experience by describing the betterment available from accepting a value proposition – feel more chic in new fashions, enjoy speed and safety and green credentials driving a Tesla, make your business operations more efficient and effective using new software, take new confidence in your organizational design with this sound consulting advice. Businesses are better advised to aim at delivering the right benefits rather than aiming at revenue or unit sales goals or returns on investment. These results will be outcomes, but they shouldn’t be goals.

If businesses were benefit-focused, they’d concentrate on knowing their customers as well as possible, on understanding those customers’ needs and wants and preferences. They’d aim at facilitating well-being in individual lives and therefore in the economy.

The Financialization Of The Economy Distorts Our Understanding Of The Entrepreneurial Ethic.

/0 Comments/in , /by

We have been led to think of the economy in financial terms: the stock prices of the largest companies, their quarterly earnings reports, trends in GDP, mergers and acquisitions, central bank money-printing and the prices of homes. This phenomenon is a reflection of the expansion of the financial sector of the economy – the investment banks, the brokerage houses, the stock markets, the hedge funds and the ETF platforms. But when the financial sector expands, it does so at the expense of the productive economy. More and more smart and talented people are engaged in trading certificates and designing derivatives and fewer and fewer are engaged in production of real goods and services.

Financialization makes the case that business and management are all about driving stock prices up, conducting arcane financial maneuvers like manipulating debt offerings, and finding new ways to trade financial instruments. It even has its own ideology: maximizing shareholder value.

For example, the notion of stock buybacks has become popular among the high-flying companies of this financialized age. Apple is a prime example. There are years in which Apple has spent more than 100% of its net earnings on buying back stocks from shareholders, thereby providing those individuals with a major cash bonus. Of course, a significant group to benefit from this action are those members of management who hold stock grants or stock options, which they buy back from themselves at a high return. 

Stock buybacks are self-serving stock price manipulation.

As Professor William Lazonick has pointed out, very famously in an article in Harvard Business Review under the title Profits Without Prosperity, but also in many books, papers, and an open letter to the SEC, this action of stock buybacks undermines capital formation – companies spend their earnings on stock buybacks that help share traders, and underinvest in the capital that makes workers more productive and generates value for customers. Financialization in the form of maximizing shareholder value through dividends and share buybacks has distorted the true purpose of the firm, which is to facilitate value for customers, earn cash flows in return via the customers’ willingness to pay for that value, and to reinvest the earnings (cash flow minus cost) in more capital to facilitate more customer value.

Since it is so lucrative to manage a company that’s traded on a stock exchange, this form of financialization has led to a second-order distortion. Start-up businesses funded by venture capital and private firms seeking to monetize their growth by sprinting toward an IPO, i.e. for their stock to be traded on an exchange. The business model is to grow at a fast pace, at the expense of maturing a business model, or refining the value proposition through customer feedback. These companies “burn cash” – i.e. make operational expenditures far in excess of cash flow from sales to customers – in order to establish a price for their privately traded shares that could be translated to be a successful IPO. Examples like Uber, WeWork and Peloton show the many ways this financialized approach can fail, when growth is not underpinned by true customer value creation.

The True Entrepreneurial Ethic.

The greatest damage that financialization has done to capitalism is to distort our views of the entrepreneurial ethic that underlies the system. Many young people think that capitalism is exploitative and cynical, which is not an irrational view when confronted with corporate executives who award themselves stock grants and then implement stock buybacks to cash in on the stocks they awarded themselves. 

The reputational damage to free market capitalism is worsened by the association of the term “entrepreneurship” to the burn-cash-in-a-dash-to-IPO tactics of startups and Silicon Valley unicorns. Their behavior is not that of entrepreneurs. True entrepreneurship is the identification of a market opportunity defined as an unmet customer need: a customer’s unease about the status quo, the feeling that things could somehow be better than they are, without a specific idea of how to realize that betterment. The entrepreneurial business is the one that comes up with the welcome new way to relieve that unease, and to actually make the customer’s life better, as defined by their own subjective evaluation. If the entrepreneur gets it right, and does so better than any competitor in the eyes of the customer, then they trigger a willingness to pay for value received. Willingness to pay becomes cash flow, and if the cash flow is greater than the entrepreneur’s cost, there is profit to be reinvested in capital for more and even better services in the future. The ethic is to serve customers, and to accept the rewards of the market for doing so. 

If the owners and managers of the entrepreneurial firm get rich, it’s from an abundance of customer satisfaction, not from stock manipulation through share buybacks. They’ll accumulate capital, because capital is defined as assets that produce customer value. The more customer value they facilitate, the greater the value of the entrepreneur’s assets. That’s why entrepreneurial businesses reinvest most of their business’s profits to create more capital value in the future.

This entrepreneurial “flywheel” (as it’s characterized at the very entrepreneurial business known as Amazon) can be a virtuous cycle: serve more customers with more and better offerings, receive more cash flow, and reinvest the profits in new capital formation in order to serve more customers in better ways. Entrepreneurship raises all boats, and does so through the explicit purpose of serving customers’ needs.

The financial sector and the stock traders and stock sellers who think of business only in financial terms do entrepreneurial capitalism a great disservice.

The Value Creators Podcast Episode #3. Jason LaBaw: Culture And Technology Amidst High-Speed Change

/0 Comments/in , /by

You need two types of knowledge to succeed in the business world: specialized technical knowledge and deep customer knowledge. This will allow you to create uniquely valued experiences tailored to your customers and thus build a thriving business.

Jason LaBaw, as the founder and CEO of Bonsai Media Group and a pioneer in web development, AdWords, Google Analytics, and Umbraco development, has accumulated over 18 years of industry experience, client service, and strategic leadership in the digital world and has become an expert in combining technical and customer knowledge to scale.

In this episode, Jason touches on how he believes the future will look and what principles he is certain will be invaluable to thrive in a futuristic economy, such as empathy, planning, and budgeting.

Show Notes:

0:00 | Intro to Entrepreneurial Management

1:56 | Introducing Jason Labaw

3:10 | Businesses Coping with Technology

7:11 | Ways to Engineer Technology

8:32 | How to Work & Run a Business These Days

10:31 | End-user Experience

11:52 | User testing

12:35 | Secrets of Empathy

14:49 | Getting into Depth with Bonsai Media Group

21:01 | Trends: Augmented Reality 

24:40 | Storytelling as a marketing

25:20 | Story about the Future

27:39 | Gamifying Work

29:30 | Risks of Technology to Entrepreneurs

31:52 | Learn More About Bonsai Media Group

Knowledge Capsule:

Combining customer knowledge and tech knowledge.

One of the Value Creator’s mantras is to combine deep customer knowledge with specialized technology knowledge to create uniquely valued experiences for customers and thereby build successful businesses.

Jason LaBaw has done this successfully at the company he formed, Bonsai Media Group. He illustrates how it’s perfectly viable to start simply and advance quickly.

  • An early example of a project is one where the company, in customer service mode, transformed a trivia app request from a client into a social contest that engaged users and immersed them in the brand’s story.
  • This evolved into various combinations of the digital and physical worlds through scavenger hunts – which became an exploration of the potential of AR and VR.
  • AR and VR can be further combined with 3D product imaging. It turns out that 3D experiences are hugely beneficial for conversion rates. 
  • Combining his experiences in both the digital and physical realms, he began envisioning ways to create immersive experiences that merge AR and the real world: to make exploring the world as fun as playing a video game, using technology to encourage people to get out and explore the real world around them.

Simple steps towards a complex future.

With these relatively simple business steps, Jason has now advanced to become a futurist of AR, VR, and AI. While some believe these technologies have been overhyped, Jason believes they have tremendous potential to transform human experiences. He emphasizes the importance of human connection and expresses his hope that future generations won’t be locked in virtual worlds. He sees augmented reality, AI, and voice-enabled technologies as key drivers for positive change. For instance, he envisions a scenario where augmented reality glasses enhance meetings by providing contextual information and augmenting reality with relevant data.

The discussion also touched on the concept of gamification. Jason explains how gamifying networking events can facilitate connections and conversations by using augmented reality cues to identify shared interests. He believes gamification can also be applied to work, where incentives and rewards can be used to motivate employees and create a more engaging and efficient work environment.

There are basic economic principles underlying this futuristic scenario.

Empathy

Empathy remains the essential skill for businesses, no matter how futuristic or high-tech. Jason emphasizes the importance of having conversations and conducting in-person interviews with various stakeholders, including frontline workers, managers, and customers. This qualitative data gathering allows businesses to uncover valuable insights and understand how customers perceive their brand and experiences. Jason recognizes the value of quantitative data, such as analytics and user testing, in making informed decisions and improving products, but it’s best when it is in addition to qualitative data,

This way businesses can focus on their customers’ needs, goals, and preferences to create competitive advantages. He suggests that companies can provide value by enabling customers to perform tasks online, like paying bills. 

Planning and budgeting

Planning, allocating budget, and continuously iterating based on customer feedback and analytics are crucial for adapting to change

Jason suggests a general formula for coping with technological change, starting with a budget-focused approach. By analyzing different options and making design and technical decisions based on budget and return on investment (ROI), businesses can adapt to changing technologies. He emphasizes the need for clarity and defining a project’s ROI from the start. By allocating budget or accruing it, businesses can invest in technology iteratively over time, improving functionality, and user interfaces, and switching components when necessary.

Additionally, Jason highlights the significance of having a contingency plan to deal with unexpected events or disruptions. He shares an example of a company that had to pivot quickly when a technology vendor was acquired. Being prepared with alternative vendors or technologies enables businesses to adapt swiftly.

Entrepreneurship: The most important – and misunderstood – economic function for all businesses.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Entrepreneurship is often misunderstood as starting a new business from scratch, or sometimes as owning and operating a so-called small business. Entrepreneurship is not usually understood by most people as a function within big business. 

In fact, entrepreneurship is not only a function of all businesses of all sizes and all levels of maturity, from new to established, it is their most important function. Entrepreneurship gives businesses their most critical success factors.

Customer Value Creation

All the buzz in the business press and the financial sector is for shareholder value maximization. This doctrine holds that the purpose of business is to please and reward shareholders first. That’s mistaken on multiple fronts. Firstly, customers are the only reason a firm exists – without customers, there is no business. The only way to grow is to add more customers and increase the revenue that existing customers are willing to generate by buying the firm’s products and services. They do that when they experience value – the feeling that they’re better off having made the purchase and experienced the benefits than they would have been had they not done so. The experience must meet their prior expectations otherwise they won’t come back. Successful businesses pursue customer value maximization, not shareholder value maximization.

Customer Centricity

The process of Entrepreneurship is one of working from the customer backwards. It defines the purpose of any business firm of any size as pursuing new value for customers, and receiving the market’s rewards for doing so. At the core of entrepreneurship is choosing which customers to serve and developing an understanding of them and their preferences and wants so deep as to constitute a competitive advantage over all rivals. 

There are examples of brands and companies forgetting about their customers. The recent controversy over the Anheuser Busch brand Bud Light’s wading inappropriately into transgender politics seems to be a result of them insulting their own customers (whom they referred to as fratty). Those customers responded with a boycott.

Knowledge-building

Entrepreneurship is not magic and it’s not luck and it’s not purely the result of pouring venture capital into new tech ideas. It’s a function of knowledge-building. Specifically, it is the combination of two kinds of knowledge: customer knowledge and technical knowledge. Entrepreneurial firms are unceasing in their investment in acquiring customer knowledge to develop a unique and competitively advantaged understanding of customers’ needs, preferences, hopes and fears and dreams. They combine this knowledge with an equally deep and detailed mastery of a particular technical solution to deliver on these customer needs and preferences. It’s the combination of the two kinds of knowledge that results in commercial solutions that win in the marketplace. Entrepreneurship is accumulated and polished knowledge.

Innovation

Entrepreneurship exhibits the property of never standing still. There is no end point. There is only endless improvement, demanded by customers who are continuously learning what’s possible for them, and competitors who are striving to earn that customer’s dollar. In business terms, this means that innovation is imperative – always making the customer’s world better, always investing in new capital, new technology, new designs and new presentations. 

Many large companies exercise this form of entrepreneurship – we can think of Apple and Amazon but also of Ford and Boeing and Procter and Gamble. But maybe we exclude companies like Mars who continue to present customers with their horribly unhealthy candy bars while innovators like Lily’s are exploring and experimenting with non-sugar sweeteners to deliver a new kind of experience for sweet-toothed, health-conscious consumers.  Big corporations can be entrepreneurial, but not all are committed to the pursuit of new value.

Decentralized organization

Entrepreneurship is built on individual creativity and imagination. It can be achieved in teams of people working together, and therefore in firms and corporations that prize individual contributions and empower them to collaborate in agile, self-organizing teams that cross-functional silos and don’t respect hierarchical control. This is very difficult for conventionally structured corporations, but the new innovative firms of the digital era start from concepts of flat, networked organizational structures that enable the unobstructed high-speed flow of information. Tesla/SpaceX is a leader in this type of management. Steve Denning, writing at forbes.com, describes Tesla/SpaceX as 

  • A firm where all managers and staff are expected to work as entrepreneurs, 
  • With no budget limits or constraints on spending. · 
  • No job descriptions. · 
  • No approvals needed. · 
  • Performance reviews done by the staff, not by bosses. · 
  • Practically no managers.

This is how entrepreneurship replaces conventional forms of management.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2023/06/12/how-world-domination-is-within-teslas-grasp/

Entrepreneurship is not only the most important economic function for business, it’s the pointer to the future of business and value creation for all companies.