Posts

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

The Accelerating Ascendancy Of Austrian Economics.

/0 Comments/in /by

We are entering an entrepreneurial age. Colleges and universities are teaching entrepreneurship, professors are researching it, and children’s books are being written about it. Policy-makers are appreciating it as a better way out of poverty than welfare. Large companies are striving to be more entrepreneurial. More and more young people are creating new entrepreneurial business models, utilizing easily accessible infrastructure from Google and AWS. Entrepreneurship is the zeitgeist.

In a recent article at entrepreneur.com, Per Bylund, who teaches entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University, suggested that every entrepreneur should become familiar with Austrian economics. What is that? It’s the method of economics that recognizes entrepreneurship as the driver of prosperity and provides the design blueprint for the system that best unleashes potential economic growth for everyone to enjoy.

Austrian economics is an unfortunate brand name. It reflects the origins of the tradition in the University of Vienna, but that’s a long way in the past. A better brand name would be entrepreneurial economics. However, we’re unlikely to be successful with that re-branding, so we won’t attempt it for now.

More important than the brand name are the knowledge, insights, and business tools that Austrian economics can deliver. Austrian economics is on-trend for business in the digital age.

Management Science Is Moving In The Direction Of Austrian Economics

in an essay titled The Logic Of Entrepreneurship, Mohammad Keyhani of the Haskayne School Of Business points out that traditional business school teaching of strategic management is based on the old economics, usually called neo-classical. This is an economics of mathematical models, with no sense of humanity. It studies non-existent states referred to as equilibrium, where theoretical competitive structures can be analyzed to identify whether any firms have an “advantage”.

The new management science is replacing mathematical modeling with human modeling: how do people act to create value for each other? This is not math, although it can be simulated in computers by giving virtual economic actors human values and projecting the outcomes. The new entrepreneurial business thinking draws from Austrian economics: human, creative, and focused on value creation. The entire business discipline is moving in this direction, replacing the concept of management with the concept of entrepreneurship.

In an earlier paper, the researchers Stephen Vargo and Robert Lusch were among the first to suggest that entrepreneurship should be elevated over management in business school. Management is a product of the now-past industrial age, tending to give us large bureaucratic firms driven by efficiency (avoiding waste) than effectiveness (creating new value), and emphasizing control in existing markets rather than the exploration of new ones. It’s time to abandon this whole way of thinking and organizing. Entrepreneurship gives us innovation, new value, and progress.

Austrian Economics Is Systems Thinking.

The newest advances of science in all fields are products of, or related to, systems thinking. This is true for economics, and Austrian economics has been called a type or branch of systems thinking. Brian Arthur of the Santa Fe Institute, the epicenter of the study of complex adaptive systems, developed the concept of Complexity Economics. The economy, industries, firms, and economic institutions are complex systems. They can’t be managed. there are too many elements, interactions, combinations, creative initiatives, and emergent outcomes for anyone to manage. He has documented the antecedents of this new economics, in which he includes the research work and theories of prominent Austrian economists F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, and the Austrian school in general.

Core Principles Of Austrian Economics Are Recognized In The Mainstream

The first principle of Austrian economics for entrepreneurs cited in Per Bylund’s article is consumer sovereignty. This term refers to the insight that the consumer or customer is the ultimate determinant of what is produced, what is profitable, what sells well and what doesn’t. The mechanism is buying or not buying. This simple insight explains why Google is the dominant search engine, why Amazon drives so relentlessly towards greater convenience, and why the conversion away from fossil fuels is not going as fast as the government wants.

Yet major corporations and their management teams have been utterly confused about this simple principle. They talk about shareholder value and stakeholder value and put them in conflict with customer value. Leading business writer Steve Denning is one of the leading edge commentators who is setting things straight and asserting that top management must change their fundamental assumptions and take the Austrian approach to the primacy of the customer.

Human Action And Human Values

Rather than the algebraic symbolism of the mathematical models that make up mainstream economics, Austrian economics deals with human action and human values. What do people do and why? How do they feel their lives can be made better, and how do they identify and choose the best means to attain that goal? Austrian insights into the human values that drive human behavior and collaboration can be applied in multiple areas. Business management is one of them. The old mental is summed up by Derek and Laura Cabrera in their management book Flock Not Clock as Plan, Command, Control, and Utilize. In this traditional view, management produces rigid plans, which they communicate through the hierarchical organization with the command to the lower levels to follow, aided by control mechanisms such as process flow charts, and look upon the workforce as a resource to be utilized. The Cabreras offer a more human alternative that revolves around the sharing of a beloved vision and understandable mission in everyone’s mind, building the capacity for everyone to help execute the shared mission, and the learning loops from the market to continually improve. This is human values in action.

Diana Jones has captured this principle in her term Leadership Levers. The levers for management to generate high performance from an organization are not plans and commands and control mechanisms, but relationships, emotion, and empathy. These are the same elements that Austrian economics studies to understand systems like the economy, industries, firms, and customer groups. Empathy, for example, is identified as the number one skill of the entrepreneur, a tool to understand what customers want. Value is understood as an emotion, a feeling about whether an experience was valuable or not. And the relationship between producer and customer is a collaboration, a way to co-create those valuable experiences. Jones’ levers are Austrian levers.

An Ascendant Future

All these instances suggest a future in which more and more practitioners in more and more fields take inspiration from or draw ideas from Austrian economics and incorporate its principles into their thinking. As we say: Think Better, Think Austrian.

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

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

Don’t Accept False Dichotomies. Entrepreneurs Exercise Integrated Systems Thinking.

/0 Comments/in /by

We talk about politicians trying to divide us, but personnel consultants, business advisors, HR executives, and some psychologists are often worse in wanting to divide us into dichotomies. They tell us we’re either creative or logical, but we can’t be both. We are either intuitive or analytical. We have hard skills or soft skills. Some follow the heart, others the mind. The yin is the critical thinking, executive function, intellectual and cognitive side of us, and the yang is the emotional, prosocial, interpersonal side. Those consultants who exhibit a philosophical bent might talk in terms of Apollonian and Dionysian types of thinker – logic, rationality, and analysis versus intuition, feeling, and synthesis.

Some personality tests utilize multiple variables and combine them in characterizing individuals who are subjected to their question banks. The output is said to represent our strengths (versus weaknesses) or typology (we’re this type, not that type). They’re still ultimately dichotomies, arrayed via X and Y axes or 2X2 charts or high-low graphs.

The dichotomy is false. Either/or thinking of any kind is an error, and the error is magnified when classifying human beings. People are complex systems, a dynamic integration of learning, preferences, genetics, family background, experiences, job history, health, and many, many more elements. They can’t be divided into two piles.

The alternative approach is systems thinking. According to Derek and Laura Cabrera in Systems Thinking Made Simple, we all have it in us to be:

  • critical thinkers who can analyze and solve problems;
  • creative thinkers who can see new and innovative solutions to problems;
  • scientific thinkers who can recognize biases;
  • prosocial thinkers who can work well with others and build strong communities;
  • emotionally intelligent individuals, posessing a sense of self and what we offer to the world.

How do we achieve this balance? It’s an emergent property of practicing systems thinking. We can think about how we think, and therefore how we act and how we collaborate with others. Awareness about how we think is essential for the kind of balance and integration the Cabreras advise is possible.

  • Awareness that everything we think about, perceive and experience is the product of our own mental model which is an approximation of the real world. Self-analysis regarding our own mental model – how good or poor an approximation of the real world is it? – is always a good basis for integrated thinking.
  • Awareness of the role of our own emotions, motivations and preferences in the distinctions we draw, the choices we make, and the decisions we take.
  • Awareness that both our own thoughts and those of others are influenced by unique individual perspectives rather than objective analysis.
  • Awareness that there are many ways to organize and interrelate ideas and things and your current way of doing so is just one of many possibilities.
  • Awareness that cognition, emotion and motivation all influence our mental models and our behavior, and the ability to distinguish among them.

Taken together, this integrated awareness constitutes what the Cabreras call metacognition: thinking about how we think. It’s often referred to as emotional intelligence. Insight into our own thoughts is key to high achievement in all domains.

In business, we refer to the individuals who exhibit integrated, balanced, and systems thinking at the highest level as entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurs, those who think about how to create new and higher levels of value for customers, are systems thinkers at their core:

  • They practice empathy, which is the building of mental models of others – i.e. customers – and the running of imagined value propositions through these models to understand their potential to generate a preferred experience that will result in a business success.
  • They translate the insights from these models into a deliverable service, an act of design that calls for the assembly and combination of multiple components, making choices from the customer’s perspective to decide on which elements to include and which to discard.
  • For service delivery to be accepted by customers, entrepreneurs identify all the possible perceived barriers to purchase from the customer’s point of view, and remove them by conceiving of the best-performing mechanisms.
  • They set up, monitor and resond to feedback lops, which is the essence of adaptive systems thinking.

There is no dichotomy in entrepreneurial thinking. It’s not mediated by strengths and weaknesses, and it’s dominated by neither emotion nor reason, but incorporates both. It’s creative and practical, objective and subjective, empathic and self-aware. Entrepreneurs consciously build their own mental models and continuously test them against the reality of the world of economics. The only dualism that’s relevant is what works and what doesn’t in the world of commerce, and these two possibilities are processed together as learning. The goal is durable success, and entrepreneurs exhibit no ambiguity in their assessment of results.

When the consultants and psychologists want to test you to ascertain whether you exhibit the entrepreneurial personality, it’s best to politely decline. There’s nothing of advantage to learn.

Better to focus on and sharpen your systems thinking:

  • Always thinking of the customer first, assessing their system and their place in it, all of the influences on their choices, and all their desires, preferences and dissatisfactions;
  • Working to translate your customer understanding into a deliverable service, which requires you to consider all the elements and components that make up that service, and how to combine them and integrate them in a single value proposition;
  • Identifying all the potential barriers to purchase – whether the barriers are feelings, insuffiicent knowledge, better alternatives, price or lock-in to existing choices. Removing all barriers requires identifying them – and how they work together – first.
  • Setting up feedback loops and adaptive mechanisms so that you can always respond to customer inputs. Develop an adaptive system.

By focusing on these rules, you’ll build an entrepreneurial system that gets stronger and stronger over time.

There’s no dichotomy. it’s not win-lose or strong-weak or logical-emotional. It’s an integration of components and elements into an entrepreneurial system that learns and consistently improves progress towards a goal.

Group Of Nations Embraces Inclusive Entrepreneurship To Reduce Global Poverty.

/0 Comments/in /by

In The Ethics Of Capitalism, leading economist Jesus Huerta de Soto argues that the most just society will be the society that most forcefully promotes the entrepreneurial creativity of all the human beings who compose it. When we think of a global society, we can then understand that entrepreneurship is the path away from injustice, and from poverty, for all the world.

At the G7-G20 Solutions Through Inclusivity Virtual Summit on Nov 17, 2021, I’ll be making this case along with my colleagues Dr. Dale Caldwell from Fairleigh Dickinson University and Professor Scott Livengood from Arizona State University.

Entrepreneurship is a philosophy of universal individual creativity and capability. Everyone has a sense of how the world can be made better, and entrepreneurship is the universal method of achieving that betterment. It starts with an attitude that all people share: a continual eagerness to seek out, discover, create or identify new benefits, and better conditions. Economists use the term value – a feeling that the new circumstances suit people better than the status quo. People aim at experiencing value.

Entrepreneurial creativity is a shared activity of consumers and producers. It’s hard to say where it begins, and the co-creation never ends. We might say that consumers or customers initiate the process by expressing dissatisfaction – the feeling that things could be better, and they’re not better yet. They don’t know the solution to their dissatisfaction, and they may not be able to articulate it very well, but they have the feeling. Every human being feels it in some way, every day, everywhere in the world. Dissatisfaction is a universal resource for entrepreneurial initiative.

The role of the entrepreneurial producer is to sense this dissatisfaction. The entrepreneur’s antennae are always up and quivering, scanning the environment for dissatisfaction they can utilize as the source of an idea. There’s a skill for doing this well: we call it empathy. Empathy is the ability to think as if you were inside the customer’s mind, feeling what they are feeling, experiencing their emotions. Empathy can be refined as a business skill, but it’s inherent in everyone. It’s how the human race gets along. It’s the principle behind every trade and every exchange. The entrepreneur understands how to make the customer feel less dissatisfaction, and more satisfaction through trade. The closer the entrepreneur and customer are connected – the deeper the empathy – the better the producer becomes at satisfying the need, and the happier the customer becomes in the confidence that their needs can and will be met.

All of these feelings, this empathy, and this creativity come naturally to people all over the globe. Entrepreneurship is the human condition. It’s the social coordination function of matching people’s most important wants with the available resources and goods and services that fulfill those wants.

Where people might need some help is in implementation of this coordination function. That’s where the concept of Entrepreneur Zones or EZones comes in – the idea that Dr. Caldwell and Professor Livengood and I are presenting to the Group Of Nations. The word “Zones” implies a physical location – and that’s exactly what we envision. An EZone can be located anywhere in the world, and it’s particularly appropriate for the energetic uplifting of a place that is currently in need – a developing nation, for example, or an underdeveloped inner-city in any of the developed countries, or a community anywhere.

One of the steps in EZone development is training – encouraging the entrepreneurial mindset and communicating the steps of the entrepreneurial process. It’s a knowledge process and the requisite knowledge is available to all: it’s subjective (we all have individual knowledge); practical (how to help people); it’s exclusive because it’s individual and that has immense economic value; tacit, meaning it’s not well articulated, but we can draw it out of people through encouragement; and it’s creative, i.e. doesn’t require any resources, it’s developed out of nothing. When people understand the economic worth of their own knowledge, then we can teach them how to apply that knowledge in helping others to improve their lives. There are many pathways available to them. The formal technique is the value proposition, which includes a precise identification of the customer and their wants, and a precise description of what offer the entrepreneur will develop to assuage their wants. This proposition is easily testable – we can teach that, too.

A tested value proposition requires a business model and a development process to bring it to market. The process is also teachable and demonstrable. Part of the process is assembly of resources, including capital, but also supportive services and supply chains. We can teach the assembly methods, and make connections to all the resources, including how to negotiate, contract and collaborate in win-win arrangements.

Professor Livengood teaches entrepreneurship at the university level in the USA, and he has also gained first-hand experience with transferring and recalibrating that training for the poorest displaced refugees in camps in Africa. He discovered that the principles, processes, and practices remain the same, and that language and communication must be fine-tuned to the specific audience, in order to give them the confidence that successful entrepreneurship is in their reach. Dr. Caldwell is an active pastor as well as a university professor, and he has intimate first-hand knowledge of the entrepreneurial potential of people in deprived communities. Both Professor Livengood and Dr. Caldwell exemplify the multi-level applicability of the entrepreneurial method to the pursuit and achievement of prosperity for everyone.

Entrepreneurship is the best path upwards for every community. It’s moral, ethical, and economically sound. Entrepreneurship is the engine of prosperity and growth. It’s exciting and energizing for everyone in the community. The economic gains are broad and deep. Families are strengthened through both shared purpose and reliable income. The kids are better nourished and perform better at school. Violence and anti-social behavior are reduced because people are concentrating on economic opportunity. Jobs are created so that everyone in the community feels their own part of the opportunity. New services are drawn to the EZone, improving the quality of life. Larger companies come to town, attracted by the high-energy workforce and the quality of life in the community. The entrepreneurial community connects to the world and serves markets all over the globe while receiving new inbound services. Improved technology comes to town. Churches enjoy more attendance and their pastors feel renewed. The uplift is general and universal. There’ll be more communities looking over, liking what they see, and jumping on the bandwagon.

You can see the agenda for the Group Of Nations Summit here, register to attend here, and read more about the Solutions Through Inclusivity Summit here.