Posts

148. Diana Jones: The New Management Model — Guarding Group Relationships

/0 Comments/in /by

Human action lies at the core of the application of Austrian economics to business: how do people act and how can we develop the best understanding of why they act that way. We apply that thinking to customers, and we can also apply it to business organizations. If we are able to answer these questions well, we can develop a profitable business model and an effective management model. Our guest Diana Jones has a distinctive perspective about the management model that’s based on understanding people’s personal and private experiences rather than their place in the hierarchy or their formal role in the process.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

Relationships are fundamental to all systems thinking, and to all business management. Sociometry is a tool to measure relationships.

Sociometry measures relationships between people and within groups. The unit of measure is distance. People can feel close to each other and other group members, and this closeness results in certain types of behavior. People can feel distant from each other, resulting in a different kind of behavior. They can also feel close or distant to concepts, like the company mission or the annual plan, and to institutions, like the Board of Directors or the HR department or a firm’s way of pursuing innovation. They can feel close or distant to colleagues in a meeting, or to the meeting purpose and agenda. Measuring and understanding relationship distance contribute directly to performance management.

Sociometry reveals the disproportionate importance of informal structures over formal structures.

It’s easy to think of the formal organization chart as the model for managing a firm. Planning descends from higher levels to lower levels, along with instructions on how to implement and what to do. It’s not how companies function in reality.

What makes companies work is relationships. People form bonds with each other, and the bonds they form shape the work that they do and how they do it. The bonds are often forged via sharing of knowledge and experiences that are private and personal rather than business and process knowledge. Productivity comes from people connecting on shared experiences, so that these personal and private relationships become more relevant to business operations than the formal structures, such as hierarchy. When relationships change, behaviors change, and vice versa. When relationships shift, the whole business system shifts.

Formal structures don’t work, at least not in the way top management thinks. And the titles associated with hierarchical position can be alienating and toxic to relationships, symbolizing and reinforcing distance rather than closeness.

Sociometry helps to focus on these informal relationships and especially on the most important ones that make a big difference: for example, to improve customer service.

There’s a role for leadership in this system of informal relationships, but it’s not the one that generally taught or written about.

Leadership can emerge amidst informal relationships, but it doesn’t come from authority. Leadership is not to be confused with position in the hierarchy. Leadership entails the communication of vision and helping people understand it, share it, and do the right things to achieve it.

The informal structure and its relationships make the formal structure work. The formal structure produces cynicism, anxiety, and reactionary behavior. The informal structure can eliminate these negative tendencies, unleashing untapped talent and enabling and refreshing the firm.

Leaders help people as guardians of these informal relationships: monitoring, empathizing, and nurturing.

Many people need help working in groups.

It’s typical practice in business management to assign people to groups: agile teams, project teams, product development teams, functional teams, and so on. It’s seldom questioned whether or not individuals understand how to work in groups. Usually, they don’t. They’re unsure whether to speak up or be compliant, or whether conflict is valued to arrive at consensus or is to be avoided.

This is one more element of Diana Jones’ thinking and method that tells us that the traditional thinking of business organization and management process is mostly wrong. Hierarchy and formal organizational models don’t work, titles and authoritative roles are counter-productive, and reporting relationships are irrelevant when compared to relationship distance / closeness. There’s a lot of the traditional management model blueprint we need to scrap.

The better route to exceptional team participation and team results is via empathy.

In Economics For Business, which is the application of the principles of Austrian economics to business management, we allocate great importance to the use of empathy as a tool, usually in the relationship between a business or brand and its customer. For example, we use empathic diagnosis to understand a customer’s dissatisfactions and unmet wants.

In Diana Jones’s model, empathy is an internal organizational tool. She deploys it in a sophisticated way that identifies four different types of application.

  • Cognitive empathy: imagining and understanding how a person feels and what they might be thinking.
  • Emotional empathy: accurately reading and sharing the feelings of another person, and reflecting on those feelings in a way that helps everyone involved.
  • Compassionate empathy: going beyond understanding to taking action that helps people deal practically with difficult situations about which they’re emotional.
  • Group empathy: the capacity to read the emotional tone of a group that’s sharing a challenging experience.

The core competency is the ability to read people and their emotional tone or state. Diana Jones gives the skill a name: interpersonal perception. It’s a skill that can be developed in a learning loop of experience, experimentation, curiosity, and intuition.

Additional Resources

“Trust-Distance Matrix: Assessing the Cost of Distance in Business Relationships” (PDF): Download PDF

Leadership Levers: Releasing The Power Of Relationships For Exceptional Participation, Alignment, and Team Results by Diana Jones: Buy It On Amazon

Visit Diana’s personal website at Diana-Jones.com

147. Mohammad Keyhani: Strategic Entrepreneurship — The Smart Practice of Combining Business Theories for Marketplace Success

/0 Comments/in /by

Strategic management theories and entrepreneurship theories have diverged in academia. One perspective can’t recognize the other. Yet the most promising and successful new business approaches demonstrate an agile combination of both sets of theories. Professor Mohammad Keyhani joins Economics For Business to explain this phenomenon and help us point the way to the future of strategic entrepreneurship.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights.

In business school thinking, there is a dichotomy between strategic management and entrepreneurship.

In management scholarship, strategic management and entrepreneurship are distinct fields of study. Professor Keyhani calls them “two logics” of business.

Both logics have gained legitimacy from their origins in economics. As business theories, they base their arguments on models from the field of economics, which, of course, is older and more mature. By importing thinking from economics, these business disciplines are able to construct generalizable theories (as opposed to, for example, a case study approach). The most famous generalizable theory in strategic management is Michael Porter’s five forces framework, which borrowed from industrial organization economics. Most strategic management theories have been based on general equilibrium models of neo-classical economics. Strategic management became a theory of structures and constraints, and of imperfections in equilibrium (such as the concept of competitive advantage).

The entrepreneurship discipline has been more varied and diverse and less dominated by economic models. Entrepreneurship scholars look to Austrian economics, which is based on verbal logic rather than mathematical models. But Professor Keyhani, in his Ph.D. dissertation, found an integration route between strategic management and entrepreneurship using the framework of game theory, adding elements of time and dynamics (both critical in Austrian theory) and adding the innovation of computer simulation (to which more and more Austrian economists are open as a way of adding computable algorithmic rigor to verbal logic).

He established a way for strategic management and entrepreneurship to communicate with each other.

Strategic management is a theory of competitive structures.

Strategic management models are based on models of competition among players with similar value propositions, maybe with slightly different cost structures and other small differences, but all considered as competitors to each other. The models look at the nature of the competition, the structure of the competition, and seek insights into why some companies may have advantages over others.

Strategy becomes an approach of identifying and building on strengths, about sustaining and managing an existing system, about operations rather than innovation, and about control and prediction.

The consequence is a series of blind spots, mostly to do with the dynamics of action over time, the uncertainty that accompanies action, and the learning that results.

Entrepreneurship is a theory of dynamic value creation.

The question in entrepreneurship is how to create value and how to build a value creation system in the first place. The entrepreneur faces the questions, “Am I creating any value at all? Is anyone going to pay for this innovation and be happy with it? And will I be able to get more customers?” These questions precede the models that strategy and strategic management theory have been based on. Those models start off with the entrepreneur’s questions having been answered, so they are not useful at the value creation stage.

Based on Austrian economics, the entrepreneurship literature has provided mental tools and mental models for entrepreneurial thinking and an entrepreneurial approach to business. These include the emphasis on subjective value and customer sovereignty, and on uncertainty and unpredictability in business. There is value in action in the face of uncertainty, because it creates new information, which can support better decision-making. That mechanism is totally lacking in the equilibrium models of strategy.

Theories of entrepreneurial action to generate learning are useful not only for startups but also for larger companies, to help them think and act more entrepreneurially, and to counter the defensive and anti-innovative thinking of building on strengths and defending position. Managing an existing value generation system can result in losing the long-term perspective of innovation, adding new product lines, taking advantage of opportunities, and potentially building new strengths.

“Do both!” The best approach combines strategy and entrepreneurship.

Professor Keyhani argues that, ideally, firms think strategically and act entrepreneurially, and he recognizes that, in the real world of practitioners, this is what businesses do.

He uses blockchain as an example. No company can say that they have an existing strength in blockchain because it’s a new technology and the business concepts that utilize it are only just emerging. It’s a level playing field.

Are there any advantages a company could have? Maybe a company has a lot of computer scientists and mathematicians. That might be a slight strength. But getting into blockchain businesses is an entrepreneurial action, largely different than building on strengths.

The approach to innovation we support here at Economics For Business is “Explore And Expand”, and Professor Keyhani sees a good match between the explore-expand dichotomy and the entrepreneurship-strategy dichotomy. Exploration is a blind spot in strategic management theory and modeling — there is pretty much no exploration in the five forces framework or the RBV (resource-based view) framework. Exploration — acting for the learning value to open up options for more things that can be done in the future — is the entrepreneurial way of thinking.

Effectuation (covered in Episode #131) is another form of entrepreneurial logic. It recognizes that the entrepreneur faces so much uncertainty that it may not be possible to set specific objectives. But the entrepreneur knows that they want to do something, that they have knowledge and resources and relationships, and that they may be able to create some value from them. Effectuation is the “fuzzy front end” of value creation.

Another way to combine entrepreneurship and strategy is speed of learning. The general capability to be more adaptive than competition, to go through the learning cycle faster, is a dynamic capability that can be strategic.

Competitive moats in the software world.

Is the structure-and-constraints approach of strategic management useless in the digital era we live in? Sustainable competitive advantage seems to be inapplicable when anyone can write software (or download it from Github), and access hosting and storage at scale from AWS.

But in fact, software entrepreneurs do think in terms of competitive advantage. The modern term for it is “moats”. Venture capitalists look favorably on businesses that can surround themselves with a moat to keep out competition.

The most discussed moat is network effects. This concept did not come from the neo-classical economics equilibrium models, but from the dynamic analysis of more users coming in to join existing users. The five forces framework suggests that advantages lie either in cost or differentiation, but a network effects advantage can be both.

Two-sided platforms with two-sided network effects add even more complexity. It’s strategic to achieve that status, but the theory did not emanate from traditional strategic management thinking.

Professor Keyhani introduces the next entrepreneurial strategy breakthrough: generativity.

We talked in Episode #104 about the new phenomenon of digital businesses identified by Professor Keyhani: generativity. Achieving generativity confers significant competitive advantage for any entrepreneurial firms who can develop it through technology. It’s an advantage that is not identified by existing strategy theories.

Generativity can be thought of as the automation of open innovation. Products and services can be designed to offer features that enable outsiders to innovate with them, and these outside innovations benefit the company. For example, the Google Pixel smartphone and the Apple iPhone are generative products or generative systems. With the tools these firms provide in the phones, outside developers can create new apps, that they offer on the Pixel or iPhone platform for other outsiders to use. The app developers make money, and so do Google and Apple, both from sales of outsider-developed apps in their app stores, and from in-app purchases. Google and Apple are not utilizing their own knowledge — they don’t know the problem the app is solving, or even who developed it or where they are. They don’t have to make the solution, don’t have to take the risk, and don’t have to pay salaries or development costs. Yet they profit from the innovation. It’s a huge competitive advantage for these two entrepreneurial companies.

Additional Resources

“The Strategic Management Model versus the Entrepreneurial Model” (PDF): Download PDF

“The Logic Of Strategic Entrepreneurship” by Mohammad Keyhani: Download Paper

“Was Hayek an ACE?” by  Nicolaas J. Vriend: Download Paper

The ultimate list of tools for entrepreneurs—”Entrepreneur Tools” by Mohammad Keyhani: https://entrepreneur-tools.zeef.com/keyhanimo

146. Luca Dellanna on the Power of Adaptation: Adapt or Die

/0 Comments/in /by

Ceaseless flux. Those are words Ludwig von Mises used to describe the perpetual change in business conditions that entrepreneurs experience. The consequent need, he told us, is for a process of constant adjustment. The current word for that process is adaptation. Economics For Business talks to Luca Dellanna, a leading business expert who advises companies of all sizes on managing the challenge of continuous adaptation.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

Adaptation is a necessary capacity of all businesses.

Adaptation is a necessity. The marketplace changes, customers change, technology changes. Change is the norm. Firms that don’t adapt will suffer and potentially die, so adaptation must become the norm for business. In complex systems theory, adaptation is the selection of strategies or actions that enhance survival or any other measure of success (or fitness, as its sometimes called) amidst swirling change. In business, adaptation means choosing your degree and pace of change.

Change will be externally imposed if it is not internally embraced.

Businesses can influence the level of change impact. They can critically examine their mental models, and assess their products, processes, beliefs, and people, to evaluate their fitness for adapting to market change. To avoid change being imposed from outside the firm — to avoid negative natural selection, in the evolutionary metaphor – all layers of the firm must embrace change, and proactively adapt. Eliminate unfit products and processes, pursue the development of new ones that are better adapted, and upgrade people resources through thoughtful hiring and active learning.

Adaptation is different than responsiveness — it’s embracing harm.

We talk a lot about a business’s responsiveness to customer wants and preferences, especially when those preferences are fluid and incompletely articulated and require interpretation. Responsiveness is critical — but it’s different from adaptation. It’s response to an external signal. Adaptiveness is embracing change inside the firm.

Luca Dellanna has a striking way of communicating this: he advises his clients to deliberately expose themselves to what he calls “harm” — new problems never before encountered. The exposure must not be to a problem that could overwhelm the firm, but one that can be addressed at a subsidiary level or component level or via adjustment in a shared mental model. Luca calls this “small harm” — specific problems (e.g., the price of a product or service compared to the customer’s willingness to pay). Proactively probe the problem, e.g., in a high pricing test, generate feedback and actively use the learning to adapt. Another word for “small harm” is stressors: situations that put stress on the firm. Set up systems to seek out these stressors so that adaptation is deliberate, and can be enculturated, rather than wait for a crisis that requires an emergency response.

Lack of discomfort is a problem to avoid.

Identify the leading indicators that describe the conditions that will change the future.

Lagging indicators — such as revenue — are metrics that describe the past. There are leading indicators available such as number of customer contacts (describing what the pipeline might look like in the future), and satisfaction scores (describing future repeat sales). Luca recommends pairing one lagging indicator with one leading indicator to develop a metrics system.

This is not the same as popular consultant-proposed metrics systems such as OKR (Objectives and Key Results). Objectives are not leading indicators. The best leading indicators are behaviors, because these can be easily adjusted if observed to be in need of change. Falling behind on objectives does not yield an actionable response if not linked to a causal factor. Inadequate behaviors (e.g., conducting a sales call without following the proven process) can be addressed, especially if they are clearly linked to positive outcomes.

This is the same principle as Amazon’s focus on what they call controllable inputs, and Amazon knows a lot about driving business growth.

There are several strategies to pursue adaptation.

Redundancy (having more than needed): A focus on efficiency and “no waste” can be detrimental to adaptation if it leaves no resources for experimentation and exploration. Employees need time to work on new things, not just on current tasks and issues.

Bottom-up initiatives: Central command and control can’t run everything, anticipate every harm, or plan every experiment. Ensure entrepreneurial empowerment of front-line employees and functions so that they can initiate learning.

Avoid game-over: In experimenting, calibrate the risk to ensure that a negative result is not overwhelming, and, in regular operations, be aware of any possibility of a major crisis — a Black Swan event — and be sure that it will not destroy the firm or deliver a setback from which it will be hard to recover.

Never stop exploring, in a culture of anti-fragility.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb famously coined the term “anti-fragile”. The company that has the most well-developed capacity to learn from problems and harm is the most anti-fragile. The culture of anti-fragility is always to surface problems when they are encountered and address them at the source. Luca stresses that culture is built when everyone in the company can see a consistent set of actions in which the trade-offs of addressing problems are consistent with the stated vision. For example, a culture of safe operations will be reinforced when safety precautions are taken even when the cost, in time or money or both, is high.

The leading indicator is that every individual and every operation and sub-operation is following safe practices, and that the company readily commits resources when a new safety procedure or installation is proven to be effective. If the trade-off is made that the new procedure is effective but too expensive to install, the culture will be punctured because the company has acted contrary to its declared vision.

Additional Resources

“The Power Of Adaptation” (PDF): Download PDF

Read Luca Dellanna’s book, The Power Of Adaptation: Download PDF

Another application of adaptation, Teams Are Adaptive Systems: 12 Principles For Effective Management by Luca Dellanna: Download PDF

Visit Luca Dellanna’s website to find more resources: Luca-Dellanna.com

E-mail Luca at luca@luca-dellanna.com

145. Christopher Habig: How Understanding Subjective Value Will Revolutionize the Medical Care Industry

/0 Comments/in /by

The field of medical care is so ripe for new entrepreneurial solutions. As is always the case, solution design begins with understanding subjective value, both for customers (patients) and providers (doctors) Christopher Habig of Freedom Healthworks (FreedomHealthworks.com) joins Economics For Business to explain how an Austrian, subjective-value focused approach is bringing market freedoms to medical care.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

Step 1: Like many entrepreneurs, Chris Habig started a revolutionary business from a place of familiarity and existing knowledge.

The so-called effectual process in entrepreneurship begins with two straightforward questions: what do I know and who do I know? Chris Habig grew up in a family where both parents are physicians. This vantage point gave him the opportunity to observe the critical doctor-patient relationship first hand, as well as the way in which modern bureaucratized medicine imposes obstacles and complexities that strangle the value generation potential of that relationship.

Step 2: Assessing the subjective value gap.

From his Austrian analytical perspective, Chris was able to identify the subjective value gap. For customers (patients) it is the loss of the positive feelings that they associate with the doctor-patient relationship. Chris summarizes them as advocacy, access and affordability: my doctor is on my side and looking out for me; my doctor is always available to me; I will not be excluded for economic reasons. These feelings are negated by bureaucratic medicine.

There’s a subjective value gap on the physician side, too. Research shows that doctors are stressed, and no longer find fulfilment in their work. Their mental health declines and there is an increasing rate of defection (leaving the industry) and even suicide. It’s a sign of a dysfunctional system to exert such an effect on its human capacity.

Step 3: Identifying the barriers to remove.

Value generation often consists in the removal of barriers to the realization of the desired experience. Chris identified two major barriers: insurance and government. The current approach to medical insurance actually hampers the market for what customers truly desire, which is the positive feelings of the doctor-patient relationship. Now it’s a patient-insurer relationship: will my visit / test / procedure be covered? Will there be a big bill in the mail?

And, of course, the participation of government to enforce the current system through legislation and regulation perpetuates the barriers.

Step 4: The entrepreneurial solution.

The solution is to free the system from its constraints through entrepreneurship. The physician is the entrepreneur on the supply side. Via a new business model called Direct Primary Care (DPC), the physician-entrepreneur creates a new value proposition for customers. Access is provided via a subscription model, and this financial innovation enables the thriving of a practice composed of a small number of patients to whom the physician can devote more time per visit, more attention, and more personal and individualized care. The physician is networked into a web of complementary secondary and specialist services that can be orchestrated for the individual patient’s need. All the associated business services are clustered around the DPC practice, and the physician does not need to be bound by a hospital system bureaucracy.

The new financial model enables the customer to take charge of their medical expenses, paying cash for current needs and reserving insurance for catastrophic events, which is the way it should be used. Consumer prices are lowered throughout the system.

Lives are improved on both sides of the doctor-patient relationship.

Step 5: The support system for the entrepreneurial model.

We live in an age in which distributed entrepreneurship can be embedded in an enabling system of digital infrastructure. Part of the innovation that Freedom Healthworks brings to the renaissance of the doctor-patient relationship is the platform on which the DPC business model can run.

Chris has identified 158 steps for the set-up, operation, and maintenance of a DPC business model. These can all be hosted, enabled, and implemented on the physician’s behalf. Finance, technology, operations, marketing, and vendor relationships can all be systematized and partially or fully automated. The doctor can focus on the relationship component of interacting with patients.

Step 6: Scaling.

Can entrepreneurs build out a fully-functioning cash-based direct care system to rival and ultimately replace the government-insurance company nexus? It’s already happening. As each DPC practice proves itself, more entrepreneurial physicians will make the transition and momentum will build.

DPC is an important example of the future of entrepreneurial economics.

Additional Resources

“Enabling A Direct Primary Care Practice” (PDF): Download the PDF

“FreedomDoc Launch Process” (PDF): Download the PDF

Healthcare Americana podcast: View Podcast Archives

Visit FreedomHealthworks.com and FreedomDoc.care

144. Joe Matarese on Expectations and Building a Culture of Continuous Innovation

/0 Comments/in /by

Every company starts as an innovation. Thereafter, the unceasing challenge is to keep innovating because the market continues to change, technology continues to advance and, crucially, customer expectations continue to rise. Economics For Business speaks with Joe Matarese, Executive Chairman of Medicus Healthcare Solutions, about how to build a culture of continuous innovation and overcome the countervailing forces of the status quo.

Key Takeaways And Actionable Insights

Every company starts as an innovation. The challenge is to continue — and ideally accelerate — innovation without pause.

As Joe Matarese puts it, innovation gets you into the game. It’s how every company starts. There’s the identification of a gap in the marketplace and the operationalizing of a new innovation to fill the gap, better than any other competitor or rival entrant.

Innovation is seldom a great new invention or unprecedented leap. It’s more often the day-to-day incremental changes and improvements in products and processes to meet customers’ changing expectations.

The great challenge is to continue or even accelerate innovation as the company grows and expands.

Continuous innovation combines mindset, processes, technology, empathy, and organizational empowerment.

The world is complex and ever-changing. Innovation is necessary for all businesses to keep up or even move ahead. Innovation is not simple, and it’s not easy — in fact it’s a continuous struggle against opposing forces. Joe Matarese has directed innovation from three vantage points: big corporate, startup, and large growth company. To achieve the goal of continuous innovation requires attention to multiple factors:

Mindset: Innovation must be the commitment for everyone in the company. That means always asking the question, “How can we do better?” Such a mindset requires both tolerance of discomfort — since there’s never any rest — and humility in the face of feedback. Innovative companies hire people with these characteristics and cultivate constant vigilance throughout the firm.

Processes: Things get done through the implementation of processes. Innovative are always seeking to improve their processes — make them faster, lower cost, and more efficient in their use of inputs, especially the use of people’s time. Innovation itself is a process, and process improvement is a form of innovation.

Technology: Irrespective of how innovative any one company may be, technology is progressing at an increasing rate of change with potential to render all processes faster, lower cost, and capable of higher quality and fewer errors. One way to ensure continuous innovation is the rapid adoption and early implementation of new technologies as they become available.

Empathy: Even more powerful than technology is the capacity to tap in to customers’ expectations. This is the source of knowledge about future requirements. Customers are experiencing new technology, are absorbing innovation from other firms in the market (whether they are firms that are competitive to yours or simply adjacent), are experiencing change, and their expectations are changing and becoming more demanding by the moment. By sensing their changing expectations, the innovative firm is in position to be a first responder or an innovator before the expectation has even hardened or matured. Being ahead of expectations is a powerful place to be.

Empowerment: People in front line sales and service functions are closest to customers and their expectations. Line operatives are closest to process implementation. Supply chain managers are closest to business partners and vendors. It is these front-line positions that are best placed to deliver information about expectations and what’s changing. They are also best placed to sense dissatisfaction and unease, and to make real-time changes and adjustments. If they are empowered to make changes and to both suggest and implement improvements — even if what they try doesn’t work — they will be more highly motivated and more likely to serve as an internal engine of innovation.

Tools: Joe shares how his company, Medicus, has developed tools for innovation. Internally, all employees have access to communications tools that ensure the customer data they collect, and the ideas they generate as a result, are widely circulated and responded to. Externally, doctor whom Medicus reimburses for services have access to a tool to record their time that is administratively simple and generates fast payment, addressing two measures of unease.

Our Econ4Business.com platform curates many tools for entrepreneurs. One example relevant to this episode is the “Continuous Customer Expectations Monitor” (see Mises.org/E4B_144_PDF2). It guides entrepreneurs through the continuous process of tracking and keeping up with changing customer expectations.

There is a constant counterforce to innovation that the innovative company must recognize and overcome.

There is an innate human resistance to innovation and change. Consider this from a leading brain scientist and psychologist:

When information streams in through our sensory systems, it first stops off at our amygdalae, which are there to ask the question, “Am I safe?” We feel safe in the world when enough of the sensory stimulation coming in feels familiar. When something does not feel familiar, however, our amygdalae tend to label that unfamiliar thing as dangerous, and they respond by triggering our fight-flight-or-play-dead fear response. —Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D., Whole Brain Living (Mises.org/E4B_144_Book)

It’s natural in humans to resist change. It may not be safe. It may threaten my job, or my comfortable routine, or generate unwanted uncertainty. Fear of change is real. The function that exercises the fear response in companies is bureaucracy. Bureaucracy exists to ensure compliance with existing rules, and their consistent and uniform implementation. Bureaucracy is anti-innovation.

When a business leader commits to improving a product or process, he or she is undoing what someone else in the firm had championed and nurtured and maintained. It’s a constant battle that must be waged between change and the maintenance of the status quo.

The adoption of new technologies is an effective technique of innovation, but it can also trigger a fear response.

Technology is the continuous innovator’s weapon. It advances at its own pace, as a form of evolutionary advance. Every technological innovation spurs new applications in the marketplace. The adoption of these new technology applications is a catalyst for continuous innovation in the firm, supporting both product and service improvements and the incremental efficiency of processes — faster, leaner, lower cost.

The fear mechanism exhibits itself as employees worrying about their jobs. Perhaps the application of technology will reduce the number of people supporting a particular process from 5 to 4 to 3 or 2 or even one or none. They fear that progress will punish them. They adopt a defensive mindset. The innovator’s goal is to change the mindset to one of anticipation of rewards for progress.

Basic economics tells us that resources which are no longer utilized in a process that is rendered more efficient are thereby released for higher and more productive uses. Innovation leaders can communicate that, and make sure employees know they will be rewarded for progress via new and better opportunities for them to contribute more through the higher productivity that innovation brings.

The greatest resource for continuous innovation comes from customer intimacy and empathy that senses customers’ escalating expectations.

When we talk about a changing marketplace, we are really talking about customer expectations. Innovation elevates customer expectations and thereby triggers the next round of innovation in a never-ending cycle.

For example, now that many people carry iPhones and other smartphones, they’ve become used to unprecedented levels of convenience, interconnection, functionality, and intuitiveness. Their expectations for every other piece of technology they encounter, and every interface they navigate, are raised to a new level. There’s a marketplace of expectations and every new technology raises the bar.

The way to keep pace, and to have any chance of anticipating and meeting the next level of raised expectations is to get as close to the customer as possible, to be with them when they’re using your product or service or technology and listen and empathize when they express a wish (or expectation) that the experience could be easier, better, faster, less frustrating, more enabling. “I wish it were as easy as my iPhone” is the expression of an expectation that everything should be as easy as the iPhone.

Innovating firms build in mechanisms that make continuous innovation not only possible but likely.

There’s a quote in the book Working Backward, about continuous innovation at amazon, to the effect that “Good intentions don’t work, mechanisms do”. The intent to improve a process or product is not enough; people already had good intentions in the first place. Mechanisms turn intentions into actions and achievements. Some of the mechanisms Joe Matarese recommended are:

Mechanisms for taking in data from and about customers: Customer intimacy has a mechanism, in the form of frictionless and unstructured data collection. Give front line employees and the technology they use the unfiltered capacity to gather customer information about their dissatisfactions and report it back.

Let people experiment: The E4B technique of explore and expand applies to everyone in the organization. Elevate experimentation over compliance. That’s the way learning happens.

Eliminate bureaucracy that is not mission-supportive: Every company eventually builds bureaucracies in order to support consistent application of business rules. Innovators differentiate between bureaucracy that is mission-supportive and bureaucracy that is mission-obstructive. HR is often a department where bureaucracy grows. If HR is helping to recruit talented people who will contribute to innovation, then the bureaucracy is mission-supportive. If HR imposes rules that unnecessarily impede innovation, then that part of the bureaucracy should be shut down. The goal is to liberate the value-generating creativity of everyone in the organization, and not to impede it.

Decentralization and entrepreneurial empowerment: Decentralization is a mechanism of innovation. The goal is for your organization to consist of hundreds of individuals thinking creatively and solving problems for customers. You want them all to think and to learn! They must know that the firm cheers them on for doing so.

Additional Resources

“Designing An Organization For Continuous Innovation” (PDF): Download PDF

“Continuous Customer Expectations Monitor” (PDF): Download PDF

Medicus Healthcare Solutions: MedicusHCS.com

Econ4Business.com

Whole Brain Living: The Anatomy of Choice and the Four Characters That Drive Our Life by Jill Bolte Taylor: Mises.org/E4B_144_Book

143: Per Bylund: How Austrian Entrepreneurs Succeed

/0 Comments/in /by

Successful entrepreneurs are Austrians, they just don’t know it yet. This is a famous assertion from Dr. Per Bylund, and we dissect its meaning in the latest Economics For Business podcast.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

Success starts from a deep understanding of subjective value (see Mises.org/E4B_143_PPT).

What’s the value of a successfully completed Google search? What’s the value of the feeling of satisfaction that results from having cooked an excellent meal enjoyed by your family? What’s the value of the PowerPoint template you utilized to make a well-received boardroom presentation that may boost your corporate career?

Austrian entrepreneurs know not to ask the question in that form. First, value is not measurable; it’s a feeling or experience in the mental domain. It may have great intensity, it may have long duration, but it can’t be measured in dollars or with any other number.

Yet the generation of customer value is the entrepreneur’s goal. How can the goal be achieved when the understanding of value is so challenging and its measurement is impossible? This is the brilliant advantage of the Austrian entrepreneur.

The customer learns what a value experience feels like.

A customer can’t describe the value they are seeking or what goods and services will deliver it. The value process is not one of demand and supply. As Ludwig von Mises understood, customers feel a sense of unease — “things could be better” — and begin to explore possible avenues to relieving their unease. Of course, this exploration takes place within a complex system of needs: individual and personal goals, family comfort and security, job success and economic status. Customers sort through possibilities with incomplete information and in the context of uncertainty. The gap between feeling unease and finding the best good or service to address it is large. They might try multiple potential solutions with varied cost/benefit profiles before they arrive at one that seems best, or better than alternatives. In other words, they learn: value is a learning process.

The entrepreneur helps their customers to learn.

The customer’s value thinking is constrained: in the present, they can’t imagine a solution that they haven’t yet tried or that has not been available to them. The entrepreneur innovates around the constraint, by providing and communicating new means that the customer could utilize in the future.

Entrepreneurs can’t directly shape the customer’s choice. It’s a fallacy to believe that advertising or promotions or presentation of features and benefits can accomplish that. The customer’s context is too complex for such a simple mechanism to work. The entrepreneur creates a tomorrow in which the customer will feel better off, and provides the means to facilitate the experience, a means for the customer to learn what a better tomorrow feels like. They meet customers in a market that doesn’t yet exist.

Austrian entrepreneurs have a unique value generation tool.

The complexity of the customer’s value system — all the components of value interacting and changing in time — can be simplified with the use of a key that Austrians call the hierarchy of values. Every individual has a set of goals or values they pursue in life. Some of these are more important than others — we call them the highest values. For example, people who engage in sport and athletic activities may have several values for doing so: for fitness and health, for social reasons, for self-improvement, and so on. One value may be the most important in their own individual hierarchy — for many people it is the sense of achievement. By improving their speed or time of running or bicycling, by winning a tournament or a league or playing on a winning team, the individual can experience a sense of personal achievement that is rare, valuable, and fulfilling.

It is a commercially strong behavior to appeal to this highest value among customers. Nike does this for example with its “Just do it” appeal. To simply undertake the athletic activity is achievement: you’ve done something. And, of course, Nike wearables help the process of experiencing the highest value.

All entrepreneurs can appeal to customers’ highest values, and the Austrian entrepreneur has deeper insight into this action.

Austrian humility is a success factor.

So much of business success is projected as heroic implementation of superior strategy. Austrian entrepreneurs do not suffer from such hubris. They take a humble approach to business, understanding that the customer is often engaged in searching and learning without a clear outcome in mind, and that, therefore, the entrepreneurial business cannot be certain of any future results. Entrepreneurs humbly follow, letting the searching customer take the lead, and accepting the customer’s terms of service.

This is how entrepreneurs learn how to facilitate value — often from the harms they suffer from getting their value proposition out of alignment with the customer’s preferences. If the value proposition is wrong, or the price is too high, or the convenience not to the customer’s liking, then no transaction is made, and the entrepreneur must — humbly — adjust. The most successful entrepreneurs are able to maintain their attitude of humility at all points in the value cycle.

Austrian entrepreneurs take the role of fitting in to the customer’s value system. It’s a flow, not a plan.

Conventional business planning is anathema to Austrian entrepreneurs. The linear process of producing and selling to generate transactions with the goal of meeting a targeted volume or revenue in a fixed period of time is not appropriate for the humble, learning, exploring business of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurial success stems not from good planning but from adaptively fitting in to the evolving value system we call the market — a system that is different for every individual customer, and into which many overlapping and competing entrepreneurial value propositions are also trying to fit.

Planning is not a good tool for this purpose. Creativity, imagination, and adaptiveness are called for. The dynamic of learning from the customer and adjusting to changing signals calls for responsiveness not plans. The entrepreneurial journey with the customer is a flow, sometimes through white water. In this context, the Silicon Valley concept of pivoting is appropriate, although not quite as the West Coast gurus see it. Their pivot is a one-time major shift in direction, perhaps to a new business model when the original one proves inadequate. The Austrian pivot is continuous and flowing, adjusting the boat to the subtle and frequent signals sent by customers.

Explore, Realize, Then Keep Exploring.

We’ve talked in the past about an “explore and expand” model for entrepreneurial value generation. The entrepreneur co-explores various paths to value with the customer, and when one emerges as productive of significant value, the entrepreneur can expand the allocation of resources to that path and drive revenue growth, through selling more to the same customers, or recruiting new customers or both.

Professor Bylund added some nuance to this: the entrepreneur never stops exploring. When an exploration results in substantial value realized, there remains a lot of further exploration to understand the value experience of the customer in greater depth and detail, and continuous monitoring of changes and adjustments in the customer’s system and value network. The entrepreneur is continuously tested.

The entrepreneurial ethic is an ethic of service; profit is a shared outcome of consumer and producer choices.

Entrepreneurial firms are in business to serve customers. This principle may be appropriately expressed via mission statements and expressions of purpose; it remains the core of all entrepreneurship. Profit is an outcome of two collaborative choices: the exchange price the consumer is willing to pay for the value they anticipate receiving, and the choice of costs the entrepreneur considers proportionate to the value he or she expects to generate for the customer. There are many entrepreneurs in the market for resources bidding on costs at the same time, and so the individual entrepreneur’s choices are conditioned by those made by others. Profits emerge from this system.

Cash flow is a better indicator of the capacity of the entrepreneur’s business model to convert resources into exchange value for customers (although not the artificial cash flows of engineered P&L’s — rather, the true cash flow of the customer’s eagerness to exchange for the newly produced offerings from the entrepreneur).

There’s a distinctly Austrian approach to entrepreneurial business.

In a famous paper called “Inversions of Service-Dominant Logic,” professors Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch called for inverting “old enterprise economics or neoclassical economics” in favor of a new perspective. One of their proposals was an inversion of “entrepreneurship and the view that value creation is an unfolding, emergent process” to a position “superordinate to management”. Business schools, they stated, teach a management discipline rooted in the industrial revolution. There’s an emphasis on centralized control and planning. Vargo and Lusch sought to replace this approach with value creation as “an emergent process within an ever-changing context, including ever-changing resources; it is, by necessity, an entrepreneurial process”.

The distinctive Austrian entrepreneurship approach captures and expresses the emergent process, and provides entrepreneurs (and managers) with the tools and methods to help them shape thriving businesses as they discover new solutions to relieve customer unease.

Additional Resources

“Explore and Realize (and Keep Exploring): How Austrian Entrepreneurs Generate Value on the Path to Business Success” (PowerPoint): Download Slides

“Inversions of Service-Dominant Logic” by Stephen L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch (PDF): Download_PDF