Hello, I just played my first Root game and I had a question regarding movement and ruling a clearing.
My friend moved 5 birds into a clearing that I ruled and then moved 3 of the birds from that clearing into a clearing passed it. The conversation that we then discussed was about how because he moved 5 birds into my ruled clearing of 1 cat and 1 building, he now ruled it. Then, because he still had movement he then moved 3 or the birds into my keep which then he proceeded to attack. It could not find anything in the rules that states anything about when a clearing is ruled during turn or phase.
I would have assumed that it would have been at the beginning of any phase, who ever controlled more units in the clearing would have been the ruler and not so much during movement as long as you still have more movement you become the ruler of the clearing in which you can then move again for free with out even fighting. Otherwise there isn't much point in defending any one clearing with 1 defender
I hope that I explained this well and if so can someone point me to the right direction? Thanks.

 * * * * * * * 

Of course conversion based metrics like CPA and ROAS have replaced CTR in recent years for lower funnel objectives. However, CTR is still widely used across my company (a big 4 agency) on mid-upper funnel campaigns.
In my opinion, there is ALWAYS a better option than CTR:
Low funnel/conversion objective: cost per conversion, conversion rate, ROAS (or iROAS), or cost efficiency of a pixeled action (CPA)
Mid funnel/consideration objective: completion rate/cost per completion for video/audio/CTV, and rather than CTR for display, pixel the landing page and optimize towards CPA with the action being an LP visit. Similar to CTR, but disregards most accidental clicks. Additionally, monitooptimize bounce rate to ensure quality visits. This can also be applied to video/audio. Engagement rate for rich media.
Top funnel/awareness: primarily awareness, with secondary KPIs of viewability, maximizing reach/minimizing frequency, brand safety %, fraud %. Potentially consider click throughs here, but use LP visits rather than CTR.
Am I missing anything? In what scenario is CTCPC optimal? I genuinely don’t see any application.
Edit: maybe the advertiser has a restriction against site pixels, or any other limitations preventing LP visits from being tracked. Otherwise, can’t think of anything

Hi
I have been running google ads for 4-5 years and I had great results with google search ads until recently when I have implemented consent mode v2 after I received email from google. It has been implemented from 6th May and my revenue dropped significantly. Clicks, ctr and other metrics are kind of the same but I keep getting fewer sales/conversions. Its about 40-50% less sales.
The changes that has been made:
-New conversion action - it includes new tag in google tag manager and I turned on enhanced conversions - this new tag runs completely via google tag manager and also counts different values of conversions (like 20 Eur order or 30 Eur order etc )
-Old conversion action was "terminated" and marked as "secondary". There was years of conversions history and it ran the simplest way possible - I just pasted the script on "thank you page" so every time somebody ordered the product it has counted the conversion. It counted only one fixed price as a conversion even if somebody ordered more expensive or cheaper product
-Installed consent mode via cookieyes, pop up not banner and there is 90% "allow all cookies "success rate
Is there chance of recovery or how long it takes to function "properly"? I want to have conversion rate like I am used to have but recently I feel really demotivated because of blowing money to google ads with lame returns. Also I dont use remarketing. I do pure search ads.

Ok, so, I used to live in a different (southern) state during my childhood than the one I live in now (I live in the Northern US, originally born in this northern state as well). I lived in this other state from the ages of 6 until I was almost 16, and throughout the entirety of my elementary and middle school years up until the middle of 9th grade (which was at the high school, some start at 10th grade instead of 9th).
There were 2 main bullies that I dealt with starting in 1st grade/first school year after moving to this state, and as the years went on, these two girls (let's call them Marie & Clarisse) would get their friends in on bullying me. I wasn't popular by any means, but my mother always had me in sports and extracurricular activities with these girls, so I could never really escape them. It was just as bad outside of anything school related as Marie has two younger brothers that my brother was friends with, so I had to pretend to be the 'best of friends' with Marie from 1st grade up until about the end of 7th grade since our families drifted apart from being "close friends".
As far as typical bullying goes in elementary school, I dealt with constant name-calling and cruel "pranks", mostly aimed towards my weight, I wasn't fat, but I wasn't skinny either despite being in sports and was always active. However, those incidents extended to my stuff being stolen, like my notebooks I'd use for schoolwork, or my box of pencils/pens/etc., forcing me to constantly borrow from the few friends I actually had or from the teachers. I used to be in band (which started in 6th grade in that school district), and I played the clarinet, my stepdad had bought me a very nice/sturdy and somewhat expensive tote bag to put my clarinet, music stand, and music binders in for easier storage and to keep my hands free when transporting my 'equipment'. Us band kids were allowed to keep our instruments behind the curtains of the stage in the school's cafeteria (the stage was against the farthest wall from the kitchen/lunch lines), and out of the ~20 kids in band, only my expensive/sturdy tote bag was stolen within the last 2 days of 6th grade, of course suspects were Marie & Clarisse (I saw Clarisse using my tote bag that summer, as my now-smudged name had been written in permanent marker on the straps and one of the sides of the bag). I left it be because I didn't want any conflict, my stepdad bought me another one after finding out the original one was stolen in the first place.
Middle school wasn't much better as the name calling got extensively more graphic and consisted of slurs (like the F slur, as I'm proudly part of the LGBTQ+ community, specifically AgendeNon-binary), furthering the self-hurting thoughts that had started in 3rd grade. I had continuously tried to tell my mom and stepdad about it, only for my pleas for help to go unheard until one week during the winter season in 7th grade. I had gotten sick for 2 days and stayed home an extra day to recover, but during those three days, Marie, Clarisse and their friends had made an Instagram account, posting very unattractive pictures of fellow classmates (i.e. purposely taking pictures with very unflattering angles, poor lighting, etc) and blamed it on me since they put my address in the private information into that account. My mom had found the account, immediately asking about if I was the one behind it, she unfortunately didn't believe me until *after* she ripped my phone from me to look through it for "evidence" that I made the account. When I returned to school the following Thursday after recovering from the small cold, I was constantly bombarded by fellow students about the account since Marie & Clarisse were the ones that spread the obvious false rumor that I made it. By the end of the day, I had finally snapped, yelling "I didn't make that f-cking account. Why can't everyone just stop bothering me about it?" Of course, that earned plenty of attention from the teachers and students within earshot (and thanks to the tiled floors and walls, my yelling echoed throughout most of the first floor and partly into the second floor of my school), I ended up having to talk with the counselor about the whole ordeal because of my frustrated outburst, which resulted with very little help from the staff, but after a few weeks, people seemed to forget that the account even existed since it ended up deleted within a few days after my outburst.
That following school year, 8th grade, was even worse. Sure, the slurs, the other name-calling and thievery of my belongings continued (more so the slurs/name-calling), but by this year, I was almost constantly committing the self-hurting since my mother was of no help, my stepdad was sympathetic but always working and the therapist my mother found for me was basically a deadbeat with bullying situations (she didn't seem to understand or even want to actually help me with the bullying as she was more of a family therapist than anything else). For the district curriculum, we are required to take health class in 8th grade, and as we were going over the unit that encompassed depression, self-harm, and su!c!dal thoughts/actions, I constantly had to have another staff member in the back of the classroom to watch over me and take me out of the class if any of the course material triggered an episode. Thankfully the staff member was that was there for me was the school's police officer, let's call him Officer Lennox, he was like a protective older brother, especially after finding out about how consistently I was bullied. Near the end of the unit, we had to watch Ronan's Escape (it's on YouTube), and since I was going through my own version of Ronan's situation, I ended up breaking down sobbing in class, only to be laughed at by some of the boys that were close friends with Marie & Clarisse. Officer Lennox snapped at them as professionally as possible while helping me out of the classroom to go sit with the nurse to have some downtime to stop sobbing before I was allowed back to my classes.
Another situation, which is the worst of it in 8th grade, was this one girl, let's call her Ava. She thought it would be hilarious to eavesdrop into my conversations with my best friend (we'll refer to her as Raven since that was a nickname she used) throughout lunch and shared classes, only to take our conversations completely out of context in order to string up a lie that Raven and I were planning to unalive the principle. Of course, this wasn't true, the principle was an a-hole to everyone, and Raven & I would discuss that we greatly disliked him. Ava mostly got away with spreading this lie as her mom was a higher-up in the school district, forcing Raven and I to entirely change our class schedules so we weren't in any classes with Ava, as well as almost being expelled. Thanks to Officer Lennox sticking up for both of us, we only had to have in-school suspension for 3 days instead of being expelled. Sadly, Ava got very little repercussions from this, but Raven and I grew even closer as best friends after "The Incident" as we still refer to it as almost 10 years later.
Summer rolled through without a hitch, leading to 9th grade, the start of high school. I was given more freedom from my mother (she's a helicopter parent and abusive/narcissistic) to dress in clothing that I preferred in comparison to always wearing brightly colored athletic wear. I completely changed my appearance, chopped my hair from just above the small of my back to a punk pixie-styled cut, and started wearing graphic t-shirts, ripped jeans, combat boots, and leather jackets. On top of that, I started becoming more confrontational/combative towards my bullies, since they still wouldn't let up, I earned a "bad@ass/bad b!tch" reputation, made friends with other rebellious and misfit types of people in the grades above me, and just fully became more of "me" despite the disapproval from my mother of the amount of change I undergone.
Despite being 14 at the start of 9th grade, I began dating, specifically one fellow student that was a very close friend and felon, he went to jail/juvie throughout the 2nd half of 7th grade and all of 8th grade. He came to the high school 3 months after the year started, and our friendship-turned-relationship sparked right back up as if he never left. I had kept my dating life secret from my family, mostly my mother because I know how bad her reaction would've been if I told her. With him almost always by my side (excluding classes we didn't share), my brand-new appearance, and my quickly attained delinquent/rebellious reputation, most of my issues dissipated much quicker than before. In spite of that, Marie & Clarisse kept making their remarks, trying to drag down my new confidence and constantly break my felon boyfriend (let's call him Collin) and I up. They got more degrading and verbally abusive with these antics, I eventually was completely fed up with it all. In the middle of the school year, within a couple weeks after Yule (Christmas for the non-pagans) & New Years Break, Marie, Clarisse and their group of friends had stopped me in the hallway, purposely surrounding me (there was about 30 of them in total) on my way to class, continuing with their shtick as usual, I slipped the pocketknife out of my pocket, flicking it open as I finally gave in and threatened to unalive them and everyone they care for if they don't leave me the f-ck alone. They saw the opened knife and knew then & there that I was 100% serious, I turned on my heels, shoving through them only to notice the principal and school's police officer (not officer Lennox) staring at me with concerned expressions, they also noticed the knife as there was a glint from the blade due to the blindly bright lights in the hallway. Not a word was uttered as they walked away, never sending a call to my mother or stepdad about the weapon or the confrontation as they had seen my progression in attitude and the amount of f-cks I had (which was none). After that day, those girls never spoke to me again, would barely glance in my direction, would purposely take alternate routes to class if they saw me in the hallway (or would keep to the wall if they couldn't move quick enough), and if we shared any classes, they'd be on the opposite side of the room from me and would do everything they could to never be partnered/grouped with me in class projects.
Everything was smooth sailing from then on, and now I'm 22 (as of late April this year), happily living with my bio-dad, my brother and my 2-year-old kitty, Ziggy. My mother is out of the picture entirely as she refuses to change her mindset and parenting style. I'm still confrontational towards anyone that tries messing with me, especially if they're anti-LGBTQ+/racist/abusive/etc. And thanks to my continuation of my drastic change from 8th grade to 9th grade, I'm now considered both the protector and the therapist to my friends, always there for them because I grew up knowing what it was like to not have that kind of support. I hope this story of roughly half my life can provide some sort of comfort or proof that it does indeed get better, even if it doesn't seem like it in the moment.

Mid 50’s male with mild to moderate hearing loss starting my journey to better hearing. I struggle hearing people during conversations in moderately busy areas, in meetings, on the phone, when eating, and quiet people. I also have constant high frequency hiss tinnitus that never stops in both ears.
I’m a bit of a techie and have an iPhone and I love music which I usually listen to with high quality IEMs at fairly low volumes now.
I’ve read a lot of good things on this subreddit about Costco and was going to try that first as my local Costco has a hearing center but my wife wants me to try UnitedHealthcare Hearing that she read about in one of the AARP magazines. I have BCBS insurance, not UHC, but found a provider that is on both lists close to where I live that is a licensed audiologist.
From what I’ve seen so far is the hearing aids on the UHC providers website are more than twice what they are at Costco.
Please guide me in the right direction. Thanks.

~What the fuck ?~
I will never understand the compulsion to belittle or intentionally misrepresent anyone for any reason- I am a very loving and understanding person and I extend that to those around me in every way I know how to. I have overcome some seriously messed up shit and I still try and shine my light to the world and to those around me and It's really disheartening to see it interpreted otherwise especially when it comes to those, I love the most.
Those people that I have tried time and time again to heal these relationships but at one point am I allowed to release responsibility to trying to tend to and mend relationships on my own? My person continually being vilified for expressing myself and my beliefs while continually being delt unwarranted disrespect.
So many times, in my life I have found myself standing up for myself only to be further attacked in a situation that didn’t call for extreme animosity. It’s weird to think that someone would interpret you defending yourself in a conversation as an excuse to deal personal attacks to someone just because we don’t agree with them.
I think it’s a disservice to not only myself but to those around them to allow them to see me allow myself to be treated in a manner that isn’t appropriate to my standard, and my standard alone. I think it’s quite liberating to free myself from the bondage of what other people think I should be or how I should act based on their jaded beliefs of what constitutes the appropriate way of existing.
I think allowing yourself the grave to not buckle under neath the ideology of other people can set the tone for the way other people treat you. If you continually allow people to run over you or treat you lesser than, belittle you, or even talk down on you, then you allow for yourself to receive poor treatment from people and their bullshit, especially when you don’t deserve it. People will always try and put words in my mouth trying to make me sound entitled, bratty, or hateful, but never actually put any logic or intelligence behind their argument against me. I’m never extended the same grace that I have continually given over and over again to those around me. I have never been met with the same empathy or sympathy given to others around me and any time I’ve called attention to that, I’ve been met with aggression or combativeness. No one has ever really acknowledged in a way that might say “Okay, I hear you, that wasn’t my intention” or even an apology for that matter.
I Find it kind of gross that I have been in so many treatment programs doing the work to combat my drug addiction and mental illness for countless years. Numerous therapists and therapy sessions that I have sat in completely unfolding and unpacking emotions and traumatic events that have taken place over the course of my life and it bewilders me to think that people that don’t even attempt to do that work are the first to throw out labels (Schizophrenic, Junkie etc...) But the moment you throw out “Hey I feel like you aren’t exactly treating me fairly” It turns into a complete rage fest. People are so enamored by these self-righteous personas they create in their heads that the moment any of that is disrupted, It’s like a volcano erupting. You’re instantly transported into a warzone of someone else’s design, trying to maintain a sense of integrity, reality, and sense of self in a place where none of that exists in a sensical way.
Character Assassination: You were on drugs!
You’re 30 (Just turned 29
People will use any method to diminish your character, minimize the things you’ve been through especially if it means justifying their poor or embarrassing treatment to you. When someone see’s that you have ripped away the mask they hide behind, they immediately try and dismantle you in the eyes of others. Anything they can say to rip away your credibility, they do it before they’ll pause, reevaluate the situation and consider and apology. Before they’ve even given themselves a moment to adequately process one thing that you’ve say, you’ve already been made the bad guy in the story, you’ve already been nominated as that person to take the blame. But never being given the grace that it takes to truly love someone outside of a superficial front. Never acknowledging the things that one has survived or overcame.
It’s a lot of secondary emotions that people feel in regards to reflecting on things that someone else has experienced from themselves & some people latch onto that and make it their entire personality being the family member of a person addicted to drugs, or being the family member of a person who we’re forgiving etc., and it becomes our entire personality “ watch how much tough love I can give you, even though it’s exhausting me & hurting our relationship, look at how easily I am capable of derailing your life over and over again. Look at how fragile your existence is that I can with the snap of my finger or the stop of my feet break everything.
This is especially damaging when it’s done at the hands of someone you care for. Looking into their cold eyes and no longer seeing the love they have for you, but instead the distain for the love that they have for you. It becomes completely about the debt you owe to them for loving you, even when they didn’t want to (even though they never actually showed you that in the first place). I think it’s incredibly selfish to always create a circus around family issues instead of having a decent conversation about amongst each other. This displays an exuberant lack of communication skills as a unit & no one is perfect, but the lack of concern toward things of that matter are the reasons families disconnect from one another.

STANDING UP FOR YOUSELF/ STANDING YOUR GROUND IS NOT DISREPECTFUL/ RESPECT YOUR SPACE
For whatever reason, people invite you into their homes to mistreat and abuse you and then think that you have to tolerate their mistreatment because of the things they do or have done for you in the past, yes ESPECIALLY parents. Our parents CHOSE to have children, children don’t choose to be brought into the world, so for a parent to use providing for s someone as a young person with no say in the matter is low hanging fruit and it doesn’t show any actual concern for the issue or the people that the issue effects in the long run.
I find it jarring to have people pick and choose when to accept mental health as an explanation for certain situations and not for others. Like whenever it’s adding to the way that they’ve misrepresented you to others, then its fine, but anything else, like when it’s actually affecting your life, they lose all concern for you and your mental health. It’s really weird and doesn’t foster good relationships. I think all of this boils down to again “I hate that I love you” mentality. People care for you out of the obligation to look good to society, not because they love you through thick and thin or will always have your back. It’s whatever looks best the outside world, not really the structure of the house.

Over the course of my 4 year marriage to my partner, I have arrived at the position that I was abused, manipulated, and functionally enslaved to a mentally ill partner.
In simplest form, the progression is apparently observable. She was diagnosed with cancer in October of 2019 while we were engaged. Due to the diagnosis, we moved up our actual marriage date (our wedding was still set for mid-April) to December 1, 2019. Her surgery was December 13, 2019. In my compassion for her, I agreed to move our wedding date up to offset her anxiety around who would be responsible for her if things went south with her surgical treatment.
Our first month of marriage was straightforward; she was on pain meds recovering from surgery, so the main engagement that occurred was me walking her up and down the hospital hallway as she recovered and trying to meet her base physical needs of hygiene, food, and presence. We stayed in the hospital for 2-3 weeks (with recurring hospital visits for complications).
Quickly after we figured out our marital living situation in her small 3-bed apartment with 2 roommates, our relationship devolved. Specifically, she was irritable because of the pain she was in, causing her to lash out at me with regular frequency for small things. If I didn’t put clothes away in the right place, didn’t anticipate her needs (without her communicating them), or ate the wrong food in front of her she would shout at me and decry me for my thoughtlessness.
These small, critical engagements were wounding and created a distance between us – and there was no upside. She was never kind, never paid mind to needs I might have, and started down a path of cultivating a root of bitterness in her soul. She quickly revealed herself to be venomous, hateful, and vindictive when she felt like she was wronged — and any observation of concern about our marriage resulted me in being accused of being mean or insensitive, even if I spent hours or days calculating the best way to share my concern (and I have a master’s degree in communication where I focused in studying disagreement — I know how to carefully package concerns).
During this time, I worked hard to provide for us, foreseeing a significant time period where I would have to be primary financial provider and caregiver. I increased my income each year we were married by around 25%, finishing our marriage at >$80,000 in yearly income, compared to starting our marriage at a modest $42,000 salary (including dramatically improving our healthcare). Frankly, I increased my income to provide for us in spite of the lack of support at home.
But to be clear: I don’t think it would have been particularly difficult to provide financially if I had an ounce of support at home.
However, the relentless criticism and expectation of mind-reading continued through the years. I rationalized this abuse for the first year of our marriage because of all the excuses to be cruel, she had a good one – she had cancer. I hung onto a hope that it would stop. Contrary to my hope, as the years went on – and our expenses climbed – and I continued to work myself to the bone – she continued to relentlessly critique and even started being more emotionally demanding, expecting me to take responsibility for her inability to cope with her emotions – I was drowning. She was asking too much of me. There was no deliverance from her abuse.
I was exhausted. In the peak of the abuse I endured at her hand, I was working multiple jobs, sleeping 10+ hours a night and napping frequently during the day around meetings and work, then coping with alcohol to numb myself to the abusive dynamic and fall asleep with no support from her. The only time I could approach her sexually was when I was intoxicated, with inhibitions lowered. The only time I could have a conversation with her was with a counselor in the room. Without something to mitigate opportunity for her to be cruel to me, either a mediator or self-medication, I was scared.
I lived at home in a constant state of alert and cognitive fatigue. No matter how I tried to make sense of my home life, I couldn’t. When she looked at or touched me, I would recoil in fear, anticipating some sort of incisive critique or demand expressed. Then she would criticize me for not responding warmly to her, exacerbating the cycle.
I couldn’t meet her needs – I was utterly exhausted. When I would tell her of the exhaustion I experienced in marital counseling, her responses were typically something along the lines of not believing me, denying what I was saying was true, or calling my exhaustion an ‘excuse’. I could interact happily with my friends… why not her?
I did not deny her demands were legitimate; rather, I expressed my inability to meet them because of how fatigued I was. I said ‘I can’t’ so many times. I realize her demands were small; affection, saying ‘i love you’, complimenting her. But it’s disorienting to be consistently berated and belittled by a person and then asked to compliment them and tell them you love them.
The push and pull of abuse is exhausting to a person who is not mentally because it does not make sense.
Further, in counseling I realized that I have forgotten that I have needs. I have lost the tools to even evaluate what my needs might be because, implicitly and explicitly in my marriage, I was told my needs don’t matter.
My marriage made no sense; I was obviously drowning, exhausted with the demands our life imposed on me. I was doing everything I could to get straight. I was in individual therapy, marital counseling, pastoral counseling, trying different antidepressants (4 in total – all with no effect), changing eating habits, trying to reduce my drinking, getting medical tests to see if I had health issues causing my fatigue, and being vulnerable in my friendships in an attempt to invite others in to process and move forward and figure out my marriage. I desperately shared everything I could about my marriage, hoping someone else would crack the code where I couldn’t.
None of my efforts worked. I could not get out of the exhausted state I was in. It’s worth noting here that within weeks of separating I almost completely cut out alcohol, got into a regular sleep schedule, was waking up at 6-7am every day and reading multiple hours (which I couldn’t do in marriage due to cognitive fatigue/distraction), and experienced a resurgence of energy. I have felt the duress I was under lift and lift and lift and the weeks and months have went on.
In retrospect, I was experiencing cognitive fatigue because I was taking the demands my wife was placing on me seriously, but no matter what I did I could not make sense of them. How could she not see that I was doing everything I could to make ends meet – the ends which she was imposing on me? I did not have additional energy left. She would ask me ‘Do you love me?’ and I didn’t know how to respond. How is my work not at least some symbol of love? My dream was to be a poor professor, which she knew – instead I was grinding myself to the bone, working in digital marketing with multiple freelance projects, picking up a bartending gig and a teaching gig on top of full-time employment.
The last straw was when she accused me of abuse. I took that accusation seriously, and weighed it against my experience. ‘Am I an abuser?’ I asked myself. I sorted through my behavior and how I treated her. I came to the conclusion that I may be a poor husband in serious ways; but I am not an abuser. And the abuse question opened the door to the question… ‘I may not be an abuser… but is there abuse in our marriage?’ And the answer quickly became ‘Yes.’
When we were married, I understood that she wasn’t going to work much for a while. However, she worked the bare minimum she could for 4 years, earning at most in a single year $18,000. As the years went on and my income climbed, our debt continued to climb as well. She was still contributing the same, yet spending frivolously on useless knick knacks for our home and a cat. As I packed up our home to sell, the majority of items were dozens of boxes of useless junk she’d accumulated.
She lived a life of mania around finances. We would go to marital counseling and she would regularly express, ‘I would rather be poor and happy than rich and sad’. We were poor and sad. Sure, my income was the highest it’d ever been – but we were still drowning, with debts climbing. At the end of our marriage, we’d accumulated about $20,000 in consumer debt between credit cards and personal loans.
It was traumatizing (and abusive) to go to counseling and be told by my partner she would ‘rather be poor and happy and than rich and sad’ when the factual scenario we were living was neither. She actively denied reality – both my lived experience and the reality of our finances – at my expense. It was killing me, trying to make sense of what we were going through but being unable to make sense of what I was being told and what I was experiencing.
Throughout this time, it is worth adding that she also leveraged my spiritual leadership to ‘set me straight’. I was in a conservative Evangelical space, believing that men are the ultimate provider in a family unit and primarily responsible for the status of the marriage. Because I was not doing what she wanted me to (lavishing her with affection), I was muscled into multiple groups and meetings where pastoral care intervened to restore our marriage. In the moment, I submitted to my pastoral care because of my trust for them and my faith in God. Now, I believe this dynamic was abusive; my pastoral care did not care in any sense for my soul; they only cared about fixing my marriage. No questions around ‘why’ my marriage was so bad were asked; only what was going on and how it could be fixed. I relish the thought of my pastoral care being held accountable for the abuse they exercised upon me during this time on judgment day, albeit through a shaken faith in a God that would enable this dynamic.
With my spiritual community, I shared that I felt like she was my tormentor; that she it felt as if I were on the ground due to exhaustion, and she was standing on my throat, telling me to ‘get up’ and ‘tell me you love me’; that our metaphorical life was a boat, sinking, and I was desperately bailing out water. All the while, she stood at the other end of the boat, desperately bailing water in and looking at me like I was a maniac.
And yet, because there was no adultery, there was no category for divorce. We had sworn an oath before God and were required to fix this.
As I reflect upon my marriage (and the ongoing divorce proceedings), a few things are clear.
She is an abuser. I don’t think she intends to be, but impact matters. She is mentally ill and unable to reckon with basic reality.
She is a manipulator. She manipulated my spiritual community against me. I was viewed as someone to be corrected while begging for help from my trusted friends and pastoral care, whom I now regret being vulnerable with due to their abuse and denial of my reality because I didn’t fit neatly into their thin theological categories.
She is an enslaver. In divorce proceedings, she is doing everything she can to get every dollar from me, leveraging student loans I did not co-sign, my continually increasing income due to my hard work, and denying every claim of dissipated assets she can.
It is truly a mind-breaking experience to see your compassion leveraged against you for money. I had to sit under an attorney proclaiming to a judge that, since I consented to move up our marriage date before her cancer surgery, ‘I knew what I was getting into’. That she is entitled to large sums of money (that do not exist; we never had more than $3000 in our bank account during marriage) due to that decision.
Even apart from the abuse, I did not know what I was getting into. Including the abuse, I am full of remorse for having invited such an evil, hateful person into my life.
This experience has been the most challenging to my faith. As I endured abuse from her, I trusted God in a few ways. That the compassion I showed would maybe be rewarded – or, at least not punished. That my spiritual community wanted what was best for me. That God was not a punitive, hateful God (like my partner). I do not believe this trust was well placed, but am open to shortcomings in my views here.
I struggle to consent to a God that allowed my experience to occur. I’m open and processing in some kind of faith, but I really don’t know what it looks like to find a place to put this pain and betrayal that I’m experiencing.
I am a survivor of abuse, and the abuse I endured was mind-shattering. I sacrificed everything to support a partner diagnosed with serious bodily illness, which drove her to hate me and deny my lived experience because she could not reconcile it with the hatefulness she cultivated over our marriage, choosing bitterness over any positivity for four years, poisoning my well-being in the process.
What I envisioned to be the most compassionate moment of my life — marrying a person with cancer and promising to support and love them — has become nothing but a symbol of pain and remorse. I envisioned a life where my partner and I would fight against the terror of cancer; instead she hopped to the other side, choosing her ongoing health issues as the ally and myself as the enemy.
It took me 4 years to realize it. And as she drags me through court to leverage every dollar out of me I can, my only regret is that I didn’t leave my abuser to her own devices sooner; self-pity, hatefulness, and a sheer disregard toward taking responsibility for anything.
I am grateful but drowning. As we are negotiating settlement, the end is near, and my abuser will soon be unable to execute any influence in my life.

Hi
I am starting to sell a condo in west loop (City/downtown) in June or July, the area is growing and people are buying somewhat in the area. I'm down to three agents after discussing with them and would like to hear what others think. All three are agents my colleagues have used to sell/buy and referred me. I plan to be out of the condoby early June and leave my furniture for showings/photos
Agent One

• Comes from a large company (compass/@properties/remax)
  
• 15 year experience, 30 sales last 12 months. 500 total.
  
• He has sold in the area but the area of expertise is north west in Bucktown.
  
• He went through the process with me, seemed canned of here is what you should do to get prepared and so forth
  
• He indicated that he would do two open houses and that the place would never be shown unless he or someone on his team was available to show the place.
  
• He wanted 5% fees (assuming buyer agent) and 3% if unrepresented agent.
  
• He said no cancellation fees.
  

Agent Two

• Comes from a small-medium company
  
• 9 years experience, 4 sales last 12 months. 70 total.
  
• Originally said he was not available for June timeframe (I indicated early June initially), but offered to have a conversation to give me advice/gotchas as a interviewed a real estate agents. When I told him on the phone July would be more likely, he said to reach out if I hadn't selected an agent by memorial weekend and he'd likely be able to represent me by then.
  
• He seems to be more of a renting real estate agent and mentioned his current load was ~15 rentals he was closing and 2 properties he was closing. This is validated by zillow data. He said the paperwork is a bit more for closing but more or less the same process in his eyes (showings, photos, paperwork/negotiations).
  
• He works across the city, and his knowledge is not in depth as Agent 3 of West Loop. His pricing is comparing another unit in my building with similar specs and I think it seems a little high for market by like 5% (20k). He mentioned that we should pick numbers in 50k bucket ranges.
  
• He was very up front on what I should expect fee wise from other agents and how that process worked. Mentioned that photography should cost $150, floor plans $100, and that I should ask for marketing, office and listing fees.
  
• He even said legislation has passed in Illinois that changed the fee process and no longer required sellers to give buyer agents a percentage, which he said was usually 2.5% seller and buyer agent. He told me I should consider negotiating and putting a lower buyer percentage like 1.75% after said legislation.
  
• He gave advice that a prospective buyer should aim for 10% down for those getting a mortgage at a minimum and that less than that the lender could do more due diligence into condo association health. (I mentioned high HOA fees and tuckpointing happening on the facade of the building)
  
• After he realized I said July that as a courtesy to my colleague referral (he indicated he doesn't market and only handles traffic through referrals), he'd offer me 2% buyer rate and no marketing/office/photography/floor plan fees (that would be part of his rate). Suggested a 1.75% rate for seller if I were to go with him.
  
• His process would leave a lockbox and key and would not be there at every showing. He said open houses in general were not as useful nowadays and is used more to drum up business for agents and other unrepresented buyers.
  
• Provided a netsheet of what I would expect financially.
  
• Provided references of folks I can use to do repairs/clean/paint.
  

Agent Three

• Comes from a large company (compass/@properties/remax)
  
• 10 years experience, 14 sales last 12 month. 200 total.
  
• He has experience in West Loop and it is a focus area.
  
• Gave a different pricing strategy to pick 25k buckets, and go slightly lower than expected value to drive traffic and have multiple offers to negotiate
  
• Marketing would be via open house and major real estate websites
  
• He has colleagues that would cover if he couldn't be there to show the unit. He'd want someone there from the agency, but indicated he would be working to make sure he could be there.
  
• Said the fee would be 5%, 2.5 to buyer and seller. Did not feel it was right to lower the fee for seller though said it was negotiable.
  

TLDR: I'm leaning towards Agent Two or Three. Two is because he was upfront about the numbers/fees and process of what to expect with other agents, and the fee would be 3.75% vs 5% which is like $10,000 more in my pocket. Agent Three since he is more familiar with the area and had a better pricing initial pricing strategy.

Budget/needs:

• shooting for a 1 ton minisplit for a sunroom with some bad windows in nebraska.
• going to self install as much as i can including electrical and call somebody to pull vacuum, etc.
• budget is around 1k for a unit that requires professional help, but i could also spend a few hundred more on a mrcool since the cost would equal out a bit.
• the room has radiant heat from a boiler which could be used to take over for the few weeks that things get truly cold.

Situation:

I'm at that point where i've done an unhealthy amount of research for this project, but even now i keep finding new brands, new conversations and new theory crafting by civilians like myself who think that if we just do more research we will somehow get something that lasts 10 years at half the price.
My house has a goodman furnace and AC in it, installed by a really trustworthy, old time, hvac teacher type, but I've read many posts that talk about the brand's problems and misgivings so I'm not some sort of consumer fanboy for them.
That said, I've also read that since being bought by Daikin, their minisplits are likely using a lot of the same DNA and might be worth looking into.
It seems like a lot of wholesalers have their gear up at essentially 'half off' right now, minus the line set and i was wondering if there is anything I'm missing or should consider before seriously considering them.
Here's the unit i'm looking at as a reference.
Thanks for your help and advice!

Background: Husband (34) and I (30) are in the process of recovering after about 8 years of his serial lying and cheating. We have two small kids, built a wonderful life for ourselves, and I really pride myself on our family unit.
After his last bout of lying about women a little over a year ago, he started DBT therapy and took it very seriously. He ACTUALLY seems to have changed. He recognizes his past trauma that was unhealthy. He is an Army veteran and so there’s definitely a lot to unpack there, which he’s finally doing. He’s been working so, so hard for about 10 months. I see the effort and I HAVE seen some really positive changes as well. I want to give him credit for that because it did take so much work for him to get the help he needed. He’s doing great, for the first time ever.
However, I had to leave for a military obligation (I also am serving) and have been gone for about 6 months. We all visit at least once a month…but that’s where all the problems came to my attention.
I’m not that happy to see him whenever I do. It’s not that I’m unhappy or that I dread it…he’s just kind of a guy that’s in my house with the kids. I don’t miss him. I’m happy to see my children and miss them painfully every single day, so I don’t think I’m emotionally entirely broken. But when my husband and I reunite, I can’t even remember to kiss him and when I do it’s just so I can check it off my checklist of stuff I know “normal” couples do. I don’t feel like I can really be intimate (I’ve tried. It feels like I have to talk myself into it every time.) I don’t feel any desire or attraction. I can’t imagine making out with him. It’s almost like I still am living in a “me vs him” mentality and being intimate would be like sleeping with the enemy. How fucked is that?
We have almost nothing to talk about and everything, to me, seems so forced and awkward. He tries to keep them going because he’s trying to connect with me, but I just never feel like having a fake conversation. He never makes me laugh. I’m super silly, but I don’t feel like we can play together or joke or really do anything. We just talk about the kids and then ask each other dry questions about our day before I can’t take it anymore and make up an excuse to stop talking. It’s all taking a toll and I feel like he doesn’t even know who I am. I struggle to even care enough to want to know who he is now. I thought I knew him, but apparently I had no idea.
He says he feels unwanted because he’s always missing me and happy to see me but I’m cold and physically unavailable. I don’t even hug him. I told him that if he feels unwanted that he should try being me…I’ve always been 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place to whatever girl he was trying to be with at the moment. I can’t get these types of thoughts out of my head. I don’t think he loves me even though he shows me every day with how hard he’s working in therapy.
He sends me gifts, flowers and seems to think of me often, but when it comes down to it I struggle to meet him halfway. I almost look at his kind gestures like he doesn’t mean it…it’s only just so he can say he’s tried. I say thank you but I don’t feel anything…
I don’t know why I can’t bring myself to loosen up or to love him again. For the first time, he’s actually trying. He’s doing everything I needed from him the entire time. I’m frustrated with myself.
I’m away until at least January and he’s home with the kids, so divorce isn’t an option. I’d love to use this time away as a way to try and build us back up. I can’t help but feel like I’m the problem now. He’s doing all this work and I’m just so shut down I can’t even really feel the results for myself.
I WANT to want him. I want to laugh and like him. I want to get lost in conversation…I wish he was my friend again but I just cannot get myself to allow him to even see me be goofy. It feels too vulnerable. My trust is so far gone that I don’t even CARE if I’m being lied to or not (I don’t think I am, for the record). I just live day to day and try not to think about it all.
Has anybody been through anything similar? I want to reconcile. I want to recover. But I’m in my own way. How can I get through this? I don’t even know who I am…who he is…how can I help myself? Are there any specific methods you used to love again? Any thought processes that particularly helped you? Books? Podcasts? Talking points? I am open to anything.

I realize everyone reacts differently but figured I'd post here to see.
So a bit about me... I'm 36, 6ft tall, and approximately 223 lbs.
I work out (weight lift) 4 days a week for about 45 minutes each time.
It's obvious that I work out as people mention it in conversation, but I'm no where near a "meathead" type guy.. Just wide shoulders, large arms, ect..
I feel as though I carry most of my weight in my belly and am self conscious about it. I don't have a beer belly look by any means, but I have love handles.. Nearly a dad bod, but not quite...I'll call it a built dad bod 😂.
I have tried loosing weight by calorie deficit and cutting sugar but was only able to drop down to 210-213lbs...it wouldn't budge anymore. I do realize my biggest issue isn't necessarily calories... rather portion size.
I was talking to my Dr about this who ordered a very large blood panel. Other than slightly high cholesterol and slighty low T, he said I'm pretty squared away.
He mentioned Semaglutide which I have heard about before and we decided to give it a shot. He sent in a prescription to a compounding pharmacy who shipped a 2.5ml bottle of Sema to me a week later.
I'm prescribed 10 units once a week (Monday) for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, the dosage bumps up to 20 units for 2 weeks.
This Monday will be my 3rd dose but I haven't noticed any change. I've had a very very light headache after the first dose and have pretty sever fatigue and possibly getting fuller sooner, but it's hard to tell.
Is this normal?
I have been working on portion control since starting.

In this post I'm only talking about countries that officially use the metric system but measure human height in feet and inches.
During the process of metrication, lots of different imperial/local units were phased out and replaced with metric ones. However, human height is one glaring exception (not necessarily the only one, but this post is going to focus on it).
Here is a post from an Australian sub where they talk about using the metric system for virtually everything besides human height. It isn't just Australia, but it seems to apply to most countries that are part of the British Commonwealth. Kenya, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, etc. from what I know all exclusively measure human height in the imperial system despite adopting the metric system decades ago and using it for everything else. There also doesn't seem to be any signs that the younger generation in those countries is going to make the switch to metric units for human height and it looks like they're going to continue measuring it in imperial units indefinitely.
So what would you say is the main reason that human height measurement was retained from the imperial system when the majority were phased out? What needs to be done to get human height to be measured in imperial units instead among countries that officially adopted the metric system at least? And why do you think that hasn't been done given that these countries made an effort to adopt the metric system that was mostly successful otherwise?

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been the standard measure of economic growth since World War II. It is widely believed that accelerating economic growth as measured by the GDP will translate into improved living standards. However, this view is being challenged with the argument that it is better to focus on measures of wellbeing than GDP because, despite robust economic growth over the past several decades, there are still millions of citizens living in poverty.Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been the standard measure of economic growth since World War II. It is widely believed that accelerating economic growth as measured by the GDP will translate into improved living standards. However, this view is being challenged with the argument that it is better to focus on measures of wellbeing than GDP because, despite robust economic growth over the past several decades, there are still millions of citizens living in poverty.

Besides, GDP measures perpetual growth, which is unattainable. Because GDP is an outdated proxy measure of economic growth, wellbeing, which is a multidimensional approach of measuring the most important aspects of people’s life, is gaining popularity.

Perpetual Growth

Stagflation is simultaneous economic stagnation combined with high inflation. In the long run, economic growth is dependent on two drivers; productivity and labor (Dolar). Productivity is affected by multiple factors. Improvements in many facets of productivity growth have decreased or reversed since the global financial crisis. The foremost factor is the demographic crisis of western countries that threatens the growth of GDP. Developed countries have experienced deceleration of working-age population, stabilization of educational attainment, and expansion into various forms of production. Furthermore, labor reallocation from less productive to more productive sectors has decelerated since the global financial crisis. Besides, radical disruptions to education and income losses are likely to affect human capital negatively. The waning demographics of western countries imply that acceleration of productivity growth is needed. The McKinsey Global Institute projected that 80% productivity growth is required to mitigate the effects of changing demographics (49). This projection is unlikely to be achieved given the dwindling working-age population in western countries. On the contrary, productivity growth is likely to continue decreasing because of the significant changes in the demographics unless the working-age population begins to grow again.

Perpetual Growth

GDP as a measurement is very outdated because it does not measure wellbeing. It is a statistical tool used to measure how well the economy is performing. However, it neglects important factors that determine the wellbeing, such as inequality and environmental services (Gallup). GDP as a proxy measure of economic growth ignores certain aspects that do not involve monetary transactions, does not assess changes in human capital, does not discriminate activities that enhance welfare from activities that reduce welfare, does not account for cultural difference, and omits the environmental costs and rates of depletion of resources (Giannetti et al. 14). The Measure of Economic Welfare is one of the alternatives for a gross domestic product as it measures consumption in the economy as a proxy for economic welfare. It adds up the benefits of goods and services consumption and subtracts the costs associated with the consumption, such as environmental pollution, providing a picture of economic welfare. Other economic welfare measures were developed after the Measure of Economic Welfare, such as the Index of the Economic Aspects of Welfare which incorporates environmental costs in estimating economic welfare (Giannetti et al. 15). Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare is an index developed to account for the current environmental issues while addressing the long-term ecosystem and natural resource sustainable use. More indices were developed with recent ones such as the State of Global Well-Being, the Better Life Index, and the Global Well-Being Index measuring a myriad of aspects of wellbeing. The Gallup Global Well-Being measures the behavioral economics of gross domestic product growth. It estimates the percentage “thriving,” “struggling,” and “suffering” of individuals in different countries and regions (Gallup). The indexes focus on the percent thriving in at least elements of wellbeing such as purpose (liking what they do), social (supportive relationships), physical (good health), community (liking the surrounding community), and financial (managing economic life well) aspects.
One in six adults worldwide are considered thriving – or strong and consistent — in at least three of the five elements of well-being, as measured by the Gallup-Healthways Global Well-Being Index. For example residents of the Singapore score quite low at the 19%, while New Zealand leads in Asia – Pacific with 67%.
The Gallup Global Well-Being measures have opened up new opportunities to study issues that affect people in different communities around the world in ways that GDP would not. For example, life satisfaction aspects of the Gallup World Poll data have been exploited to measure inequality in the distribution of subjective wellbeing (Gluzmann & Gasparini 2). Measuring inequality in subjective wellbeing might be complementary to the various approaches aimed at computing unfairness in a society because it may in some way have benefits over the usual income inequality measurements. Some perceived income inequalities may arise due to personal choices if all constraints are observed thus cannot be considered unfair. A case in point is when two individuals facing similar opportunities make different choices. One choice might lead to a better, healthier lifestyle while the other subjects the individual to poverty. Free choices resulting in socially acceptable income inequality should not be regarded as unfair. The assessment of subjective wellbeing is less likely to be susceptible to such differences. Under evaluation of subjective wellbeing, differences in perceived happiness may better estimate social unfairness rather than income unfairness (Gluzmann & Gasparini 4). Gallup World Poll provides data that can be used to compare wellbeing in different countries. It cures one of the most significant problems associated with compering inequality across countries and regions, namely, the generation of homogenous information. The poll poses the same question across all countries in all areas, which significantly reduces spurious differences in estimating comparisons. This reduces sources of measurement error significantly. It is noteworthy that people may not interpret and answer the standardized questions the same in different countries, leading to additional errors. However, the advantages of estimating subjective wellbeing and its rising popularity imply that improvements in the measurements will yield better results.

Technological Revolution

Usually, information and communication technologies are considered a key driver of economic growth and productivity. Different reviews indicate that technological effects tend to be positive at the organizational level (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD 34]). However, it has been reported that productivity tends to drop as economies entrench technologies in every sector. In other words, the rapid digitization of economies has not translated into strong productivity. On the contrary, productivity growth appears to have stunted over the past few decades, with the slowdown more pronounced in developed countries and also in developing countries (UNCTAD 34). This is a productivity paradox because as technological advancement and use have increased, productivity growth has decreased, which is contrary to popular expectations (Remes et al.). The digitization of economies into digital economies has thus far not translated into increased productivity. The paradox in the digital economy is attributed to different reasons. A more pessimistic perspective considers the technological effects on productivity as having fewer impacts on productivity growth than the revolutionary technological advances of the past (UNCTAD 34). A more optimistic view links the slow growth of productivity to the time lags between the time the technologies are introduced and the time actual effects are felt (European CEO). As a result, more visible impacts on productivity will occur when technologies are adopted widely within the economy. An additional contributing factor to the productivity paradox is the difficulties associated with measuring the digital economy. The slow growth in productivity might be explained by the lack of proper recording of technological activities in that in overall GDP estimation. Consequently, the proper measurement would be reflected in increased productivity. In developed countries, demographic factors associated with the aging population are also linked to the slow growth in productivity (UNCTAD 34). Therefore, the productivity paradox related to the technological revolution arises from multiple factors.

Quality of the GDP

Measuring economic growth in purely quantitative categories diminishes the significance of “high-quality growth.” High-quality growth encompasses increased technological self-reliance, significant production and welfare transformation, the establishment of a comprehensive safety net for the citizens, enhancement of quality healthcare, education, and employment, and reduction of inequality across regions and various demographic characteristics (Wärtsilä). It reflects a policy change that focuses on investment areas that guarantee increased productivity, such as production, consumption, healthcare, and education (Pfeffer). The concept of high-quality growth is being advanced by China to reorganize the economy in a way that focus on increased domestic consumption and investing in productive sectors to drive the overall economic growth. For example, after decades of heavy investments in infrastructural projects and the manufacturing sector, the country realizes that roads and bridges are not productive but rather facilitates productivity. Policy change to shift investment into more productive sectors of the economy might bring sustainable economic growth and wellbeing. At the sectorial level, administrative job control is one of the main factors impacting the health of the employees (Pfeffer). The return of line of sight to the work, workplace flexibility, autonomous fusion teams, fluidity in work practices, and organizational health can elevate the personal wellbeing of the employees. The functional organization provides an environment with less stress caused by micromanagement demands from the employees. Therefore, wellbeing is a product of economic policy at the national level and the contribution of the private sector in nurturing the wellbeing of employees.

Conclusion

The failure of GDP as a measurement proxy of economic growth is less effective in contemporary society. It assumes that an economy will experience perpetual growth, which is a difficult achievement. Even where economies have experienced phenomenal growth over the years, the economic expansion failed to transform the lives of millions of citizens. The technological revolution also has been unable to expand the GDP as it was initially believed despite the fact that the significant impacts technology has had on society. It led to the conclusion that GDP has limitations as a measure of economic growth because it does not account for the non-monetary aspects that matter to people. As a result, new indexes such as the Gallup Global Wellbeing have been developed and are experiencing rising popularity due to their ability to compute wellbeing. In particular, the estimation of subjective wellbeing creates opportunities for improved measurement of social inequality. Furthermore, the realization that wellbeing is important to citizens is supporting new ideas of measuring national economic growth. China’s shift to the assessment of the quality of economic growth indicates a paradigm shift where countries focus on national statistics that reflect their economic realities.

References

Dolar, Veronika. “Why stagflation is an economic nightmare – and could become a real headache for Biden and the Fed if it emerges in the US.” The Conversation (2022). https://theconversation.com/why-stagflation-is-an-economic-nightmare-and-could-become-a-real-headache-for-biden-and-the-fed-if-it-emerges-in-the-us-179036. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022.
European CEO. “Giving a voice to the digital revolution’s silent majority.” (2019). https://www.europeanceo.com/industry-outlook/giving-a-voice-to-the-digital-revolutions-silent-majority/. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022.
Gallup. “2014 Country Well-Being Rankings.”
Giannetti, Biagio F., et al. “A review of limitations of GDP and alternative indices to monitor human wellbeing and to manage ecosystem functionality.” Journal of cleaner production 87 (2015): 11-25.
Gluzmann, Pablo, and Leonardo Gasparini. “International inequality in subjective well‐being: An exploration with the Gallup World Poll.” Review of Development Economics 22.2 (2018): 610-631.
McKinsey Global Institute – “Global growth: Can productivity save the day in an aging world?” page 49
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. “The overlooked essentials of employee wellbeing.” McKinsey Global Institute (2018). https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/the-overlooked-essentials-of-employee-well-being. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022.
Remes, Jaana et al. “Solving the productivity puzzle.” McKinsey Global Institute (2018). https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/regions-in-focus/solving-the-productivity-puzzle. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022.
Wärtsilä. “Going beyond GDP: China targets a new path to growth.” (2021). https://www.wartsila.com/insights/article/going-beyond-gdp-china-targets-a-new-path-to-growth. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022.
Authors

Paul Lalovich

Organizational Effectiveness and Strategy Execution Practice

Tesha Teshanovich

Organizational Effectiveness and Strategy Execution Practice

Innovation is the lifeblood of business growth and development. Without it, your organization will fall behind its competition and eventually die out. However, innovation is expensive, and many small and medium-sized organizations can’t afford to innovate unless they get financial help from external sources.

Investments in bio-engineering can be risky, as many startups and early-stage companies may face regulatory hurdles, intellectual property challenges, or other barriers to success. However, for investors with a long-term outlook and a strong appetite for innovation, bio-engineering can offer significant opportunities for growth and returns.
Venture capital is one of the most common sources of financing for organizations that want to invest in innovation. Venture capital is a type of dedicated financial help that funds businesses to make a capital gain until publicizing them or even selling them outright. A distinguishing feature of venture capital involves screening, monitoring, and advising on a portfolio of its businesses. These non-financial services enable venture capitalists to choose businesses with high growth potential and make them succeed. The three distinctive features discussed before add to the venture capital’s edge over other types of financing that are not as dedicated (Sorensen, 2007).
Venture capitalists normally select companies that they can exit fast enough. This means that they select innovative organizations whose ROI is expectedly high. Therefore, such organizations are those that use knowledge to generate innovative capabilities to create profit in the short term.
Innovation is a process of continuous improvement and growth. It leads to the creation of new value or business ideas, which in turn contributes to the growth of any organization. The ability to innovate helps in increasing the revenue and profit margins of an organization by making it competitive in its industry.
Venture capitalists are interested in investing in innovative startups because they believe this will help them achieve their financial goals faster compared to the companies that do not invest in innovation. Venture capitalists want their investment to grow fast so they can exit quickly after making their money back at a higher rate than what they invested initially into it.
In the age of the knowledge economy, innovation is a main source of competitiveness (Daghfous, 2004). Based on what is known as the knowledge-based vision, the performance of the organization lies in its capacity to create, blend, recombine, and make use of knowledge (Grant, 1996). Therefore unstated, knowledge is indispensable to the capacity of an organization to innovate and favorably compete with others, causing it to be a strategic resource (Ibarra-Cisneros et al., 2021). The knowledge inside a firm is normally formed internally or by the outward acquisition of information and know-how. Accordingly, the knowledge absorptive capacity (AC) of a firm is vital for the creation of value inside a firm (Xie et al., 2018).
According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), knowledge cannot be completely dispersed without the backing of absorptive capacity. At the same time, the transfer of knowledge within a firm will come up as a main hindrance without the backing of absorptive capacity, inserting value on the significance of absorptive capacity within firms (Wuryaningrat, 2013).
Absorptive capacity has been described as the capacity of an organization to acknowledge the value of fresh outward information, integrate it, and implement it for business goals. Besides, it has become amongst the most dominant research scopes in business management. Huang et al. (2015) also note that absorptive capacity refers to a group of organizational practices that need to recognize and use knowledge, stressing the significance of absorptive capacity in the process of managing knowledge.
Most studies back the idea of absorptive capacity directly or indirectly prompting innovation and organizational financial outcomes (Tseng et al., 2011). The procedures of absorption of outward knowledge have grown into key aspects for innovation in organizations, making them to better adjust to transformations within the competitive atmosphere. Because of this, there are still many opportunities for research within the scopes of relational learning, absorptive capacity, as well as the attainment of a competitive edge (Tseng et al., 2011).
According to Xie et al. (2018), two vital gaps restrict deep hypothetical and empirical progresses in the management of absorptive capacity. Foremost, some programs of research have considered diverse proportions of absorptive capacity, while this dimensional separation of the construct and its function is not clear, conceptually and practically. Nonetheless, some studies have concentrated on the relationship between the diverse measures of absorptive capability and the innovation performance of a firm (Yaseen, 2020). Absorptive capacity is a tacit and intricate concept, making it challenging to measure. Learning the connection between venture financing and absorptive capacity can hence enhance our comprehension concerning how the source of financing impacts the innovation tactic of entrepreneurial organizations.

Absorptive Capacity and Innovation

Companies are working within a very competitive setting and need great measures of knowledge, which has turned into one of their most vital resources (Lian and Wu, 2010). To compete favorably, organizations cannot depend only on their external knowledge web but must progress their absorptive capacities to dynamically source new knowledge (Sancho-Zamora et al., 2021). This imposes methods that enable learning, allowing them to disperse and use the knowledge that will offer them fresh organizational innovations. Furthermore, the merging of this acquired knowledge is decided by an organization’s absorptive capacity. Hence, firms are required to possess and create, internal absorptive capacity to enhance innovation performance. This is vital since this form of capacity can impact the efficiency of innovation actions.
The first parties to describe absorptive capacity as the ability of an organization to assess fresh knowledge from outside, integrate it, and use it for commercial reasons were Cohen and Levingthal in 1990 (Wuryaningrat, 2013). A firm can obtain and efficiently utilize external and internal knowledge that will impact its innovation. This style looks at absorptive capacity as an outcome of not just research and development activities but similarly the variety or depth of the knowledge base of an organization, its former learning encounter, a mutual language, the presence of cross-functional points, and the mental frameworks, as well as problem-solving capability of the members in an organization (Camison and Fores, 2010). In this manner, absorptive capacity is vital for organizations to utilize outward knowledge and hence trigger inner innovation (Dutse, 2013).
Knowledge has become the most vital resource for organizations; outward knowledge concerning markets and technologies is thought to be key for generating inner knowledge in research and development units. Using absorptive capacity, organizations can change outward knowledge into innovative capabilities. Originally, absorptive capacity begins with gaining knowledge from the environment and it culminates by getting the best out of it (Saebi and Foss, 2015). This dynamic ability enables organizations to be in a better place to grow any form of innovation. Organizational learning theory recommends that an organization’s innovation actions are an outcome of its knowledge base.
Earlier research discovered that organizations having a greater absorptive capacity were more predisposed to undertake product, process, organizational, or even marketing innovations. In the same way, Calero-Medina and Noyons (2008) mapped programs of research connected to absorptive capacity and its connection to diverse domains, identifying substantial relations between absorptive capacity and innovation within the organization.
More current work, like the one by Chen and Chang (2012) discovered that the more the level of absorptive capacity of the organization, the more the level of innovativeness within the organization. They also discovered within their systematized literature review that most prevailing research concerning innovation literature accentuates the capacity to use outward knowledge. Moreover, this relation with fresh external knowledge enhances the absorptive capacity.
According to a research program undertaken by Liao et al (2007), empirical proof was given that innovation stems from the necessity for sharing knowledge, instigated by its absorptive capacity. When absorptive capacity progresses, it becomes very simple for anyone to form a noteworthy innovation grounded on acquired knowledge. Indarti (2010) similarly notes that absorptive capacity can be observed as a procedure by which a certain entity establishes innovative business goals (Wuryaningrat, 2013).
Notwithstanding the proof connecting absorptive capacity to innovation, this notion has developed in due course. The most comprehensive reconceptualization was suggested by Indarti (2010). They connected the idea to a set of company-wide routines and strategic procedures by which organizations acquire, change, and utilize knowledge to establish an active organizational capacity.

Dimensions of Innovation Capacity

Innovation is a vital element of the research enterprise, is very developed, and exists in all business procedures (Alshanty and Emeagwali, 2019). Nonetheless, the function of innovations, a main driver concerning a venture’s performance, has transformed in the latest years because of globalization and improved foreign competition (Pustorvrh et al., 2017). As a result, we comprehend innovation as the capacity of a firm to use knowledge and create novel products, services, and processes. Nonetheless, innovation typically encompasses some level of risk, which explains why outcomes are not always satisfying.
Various studies have demonstrated that innovativeness allows organizations to attain results, for instance, enhancement of the organization’s performance; growing exports; making a competitive edge; and or adding to the growth of the business. Generally, innovation assists organizations to react to competitive difficulties in globalized settings.
Innovativeness is an intricate capacity through which fresh knowledge and ideas are constantly used to attain excellent business performance using the integration of new offertories, product innovation, and the development of new processes for creating and distributing those novel offerings, and process innovation. These improve or sustain their efficiency and competitiveness. Process innovation concentrates on enhancing the efficiency and inner operations of an organization’s procedures to produce, bring together, or deliver the product. In this manner, another process can lessen the expenses or bring about extra production ability for an organization. Product innovation, conversely, is where an organization can present improved, distinguished, or even new products to the market to satisfy the needs of the consumers. Product innovation concentrates on the market and depends on robust abilities like quality, efficiency, speed, and flexibility, whereas process innovation has its place within the space of technical innovation. Both forms of innovation are closely connected and make up intricate procedures that normally encompass all functional sections of the organization.

References

Alshanty, A. M., and Emeagwali, O. L. (2019). Market-sensing capability, knowledge creation and innovation: the moderating role of entrepreneurial-orientation. J. Innov. Knowl. 4, 171–178. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2019.02.002
Calero-Medina, C., and Noyons, E. C. (2008). Combining mapping and citation network analysis for a better understanding of the scientific development: the case of the absorptive capacity field. J. Informetr. 2, 272–279. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.09.005
Camisón, C., and Forés, B. (2010). Knowledge absorptive capacity: new insights for its conceptualization and measurement. J. Bus. Res. 63, 707–715. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.022
Chen, S. T., and Chang, B. G. (2012). The effects of absorptive capacity and decision speed on organizational innovation: a study of organizational structure as an antecedent variable. Contemp. Manag. Res. 8:7996. doi: 10.7903/cmr.7996
Daghfous, A. (2004). Absorptive capacity and the implementation of knowledge-intensive best practices. S.A.M. Adv. Manag. J. 69, 21–27.
Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Dutse, A. Y. (2013). Linking absorptive capacity with innovative capabilities: a survey of manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 12, 167–183. doi: 10.1386/tmsd.12.2.167_1
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge based theory of frim. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/2486994
Huang, K. F., Lin, K. H., Wu, L. Y., and Yu, P. H. (2015). Absorptive capacity and autonomous R&D climate roles in firm innovation. J. Bus. Res. 68, 87–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.05.002
Ibarra-Cisneros, M., Demuner-Flores, M. R., and Hernández-Perlines, F. (2021). Strategic orientations, firm performance, and the moderating effect of absorptive capacity. J. Strateg. Manag. doi: 10.1108/JSMA-05-2020-0121, [Epub ahead of print].
Indarti, N. (2010). The Effect of Knowledge Stickiness and Interaction on Absorptive Capacity. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Liao, S. H., and Wu, C. C. (2010). System perspective of knowledge management, organizational learning, and organizational innovation. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 1096–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.109
Pustovrh, A., Jaklič, M., Martin, S. A., and Rašković, M. (2017). Antecedents and determinants of high-tech SMEs’ commercialisation enablers: opening the black box of open innovation practices. Econ. Res. 30, 1033–1056. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2017.1305795
Saebi, T., and Foss, N. J. (2015). Business model for open innovation: matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. Eur. Manag. J. 33, 201–213. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2014.11.002
Sancho-Zamora, R., Peña-García, I., Gutiérrez-Broncano, S., and Hernández-Perlines, F. (2021). Moderating effect of proactivity on firm absorptive capacity and performance: empirical evidence from Spanish firms. Mathematics 9:2099. doi: 10.3390/math9172099
Sørensen, Morten (2007) ‘How Smart is Smart Money: An Empirical Two-Sided Matching Model of Venture Capital,’ Journal of Finance, 62 (6), 2725–2762.
Tseng, C. Y., Chang Pai, D., and Hung, C. H. (2011). Knowledge absorptive capacity and innovation performance in KIBS. J. Knowl. Manag. 15, 971–983. doi: 10.1108/13673271111179316
Wuryaningrat, N. F. (2013). Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity and innovation capabilities: an empirical study on small and medium enterprises in North Sulawesi. Indonesia. Gadjah Mada Int. J. Bus. 15, 61–77. doi: 10.22146/gamaijb.5402
Xie, X., Zoub, H., and Quick, G. (2018). Knowledge absorptive capacity and innovation performance in high-tech companies: a multi-mediating analysis. J. Bus. Res. 88, 289–297. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.019
Yaseen, S. G. (2020). “Potential absorptive capacity, realized absorptive capacity and innovation performance,” in International Conference on Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies 2019, AISC 1018. ed. Ahram (Cham: Springer), 863–870.
Authors

Emilija Vukovic

Business Architecture Practice

Paul Lalovich

Organizational Effectiveness and Strategy Execution Practice

An attractive alternative to traditional rewards for outstanding performance

Synthetic equity refers to a collection of strategies and instruments frequently used to provide employees with financial advantages of share ownership without actual shares changing hands. It is a potent instrument that practically all advanced investment organizations may utilize to attract, retain, and reward competent employees.
The favorable economic qualities of equity are embedded into synthetic equity plans, also known as equity alternatives, without the financial obligations coming from purchasing shares from the initial owner. Instead, synthetic equity programs often develop into cash payments to the employee and a corresponding deduction for the employer. Since it represents compensation, synthetic equity may be easily adjusted to handle almost any scenario.
The following scenarios exemplify the situations in which synthetic equity is an optimal solution:

• An employee desires ownership-like benefits but is unable or unwilling to assume the financial risk of purchasing and paying for company equity.
• An employee aspires to ownership but lacks the credentials or licenses required for a role of a full equity partner in the company.
• Employees feel uncomfortable providing personal guarantees or accepting responsibility for credit lines, office leases, payroll-related expenditures, or the commitments made under buy-sell or continuity agreements.
• A company owner wants to share the economic worth of equity rather than the actual equity. This includes owners not interested in supporting this transaction with seller financing.
• A company owner wishes to motivate an employee to work on increasing the company’s value but also wants to discourage them from leaving and creating competition for the business, engaging in client solicitation, or performing other actions that might harm the company.
• An owner planning to leave the company in the following 5-year period wishes to reward one or more critical workers at the time of the sale without requiring them to purchase and pay for equity.

Tokenization of business and individual performance

The above method has been known for decades. The critical challenge in the modern business world is ensuring that innovation and productivity are rewarded equitably across an organization. At the same time, executives must be compensated for creating these conditions.
However, rewarding innovation and equitably delivering executive-level incentives and rewards across the organization from the top to the shop floor is the alternative made possible only by deploying smart contracts and blockchain technology — tokenizing business and individual performance.
The tokenization of business elements such as performance and innovation is one of the newest ways to drive planned outcomes. The process is about moving your business to blockchain. Although it may seem complicated and challenging to implement, almost any entrepreneur can tokenize the building blocks of their business. Tokenization is simply transforming a company’s value into a digitized resource in the form of tokens.
Tokens represent a value within the organization in a transparent and auditable way. They can be cashed in upon completion of the vesting period if both company and individual targets have been met. What makes Synthetic Equity on the chain unique is its transparency, auditability of incentives, and most notably, equitable distribution of tokens corresponding to each employee’s job size.

The Mechanism Behind Synthetic Equity

For synthetic equity to produce favorable results, a profitable, successful firm with a proper entity structure is necessary. Corporations and LLCs can use the tools relating to synthetic equity. In some situations, they may also be used by sole proprietorships, albeit in a slightly different form.
To fully grasp the idea of synthetic equity, it might be helpful to understand the mechanism behind equity in general. Understanding how equity functions allows those interested in synthetic equity to utilize some of the tools used in working with actual equity.
For example, investing in an independent advisory company generally offers the following considerable advantages:

• The right to vote
• Participation in the corporate governance system
• Access to the company’s financial documents
• Limited liability
• A proportionate cut of the revenue
• Sale-related long-term capital gains tax rates
• Capital growth potential

SyntheticEquity.io app is changing how we think about incentives and rewards.
These advantages have a monetary value. Therefore, purchasing equity carries a price, and awarding employee equity has tax repercussions. A tiny ownership share in a fee-based firm might cost several hundred thousand dollars. In these types of businesses, the stock is often acquired and paid for after tax, and the equity partner or shareholder usually expects to obtain the entire set of rights in return for taking on the investment risk.
The rights can be unbundled, meaning that the current owner does not have to sell or provide the full bundle of rights to an employee or investment advisor. To fulfill specific goals, each of the rights mentioned above can also be further divided or redefined in as much detail as necessary. For example, one or two rights from the total package might be provided, such as the opportunity to grow the company’s worth or a percentage of the profits.
By allowing someone to own a portion of the rights in the bundle rather than all of them, synthetic equity generates an advantage. These unique rights or benefits are often described in a plan document and frequently provided via individual award agreements between the employer and employee. A wide range of flexible options for creating a solid and profitable company are produced when equity-like benefits and a long-term remuneration strategy are combined.
Synthetic equity plans often come in one of the following three forms:

• Full-value plans can result in a substantially big payment to an employee since they pay both the value of the underlying stock and any appreciation that is gained over a certain period.
• Performance unit plans swap out equity as the value metric for another metric like sales growth or profitability.
• The value of any growth in the underlying stock value over a specific period following the date of the award is typically paid out under appreciation-only plans.

These kinds of plans are like conventional non-qualified plans insofar as they offer a possibility of discrimination and a significant risk of forfeiture that often lasts until shortly before the benefit is awarded to the employee.
Essentially, synthetic equity is a type of delayed compensation that links a worker’s financial incentive to the company’s performance. By striking the correct balance between the danger of losing a valuable employee and the potential future cost to the employer, each plan is specifically created to meet the advisor’s needs. The plans are intended to reward employees for contributing to the company’s success, but they also ensure that no payment is due if either the company doesn’t develop as expected or the employee doesn’t uphold their end of the deal by quitting their job to work for a rival company or starting their own.

Synthetic Equity Benefits

Synthetic equity is meant to be an equity-related instrument that helps a company find, reward, and keep hold of valuable people.
Synthetic equity benefits are:

• Synthetic equity inspires employees to adopt an owner’s perspective and put development and shareholder value first.
• There is no debt since important participants do not buy phantom shares like full equity stockholders do.
• If a participant’s job terminates before the designated vesting date, they typically forfeit any benefits under the plan.
• Participants normally do not have voting rights or a vote in corporate governance and may or may not be entitled to collect profits from the company.
• Synthetic equity programs provide flexible vesting timelines; vesting can take place over time, depending on the accomplishment of certain quantifiable company or individual goals.
• If the company’s growth is slower than expected and the stock price does not rise, nothing is exchanged.
• When a synthetic equity grant is issued, owners of genuine equity are not adversely affected by a dilution of their ownership percentages.
• Compared to S-Corporations, which are often more restricted, more freedom is provided in terms of stock class and shareholder count.
• The advising business’s shareholders’ or members’ agreement and associated buy-sell provisions do not immediately apply to synthetic equity.

Synthetic equity options’ versatility comes with many benefits but may also have many drawbacks. The companies need to make decisions regarding what valuation technique will be utilized, what vesting rules will be implemented, how liquidity problems will be addressed, what eligibility conditions will be imposed, and what rights to participate in corporate governance will be granted due to the wide range of possible directions for designing synthetic equity plans.

Conclusion

In the hands of a forward-thinking business leader, synthetic equity is a potent instrument. It may be utilized to solve the difficulty of attracting, rewarding, and maintaining top talent to create a great practice or viable business without the challenges of selling and paying for an actual ownership stake.
Like full stock, synthetic equity may refocus the employee’s attention and motivate them to contribute to a flourishing and profitable company.
Authors

Paul Lalovich

Organizational Effectiveness and Strategy Execution Practice

In the ever-evolving landscape of modern business, companies face a critical choice when it comes to rewarding and motivating their key talent.

The debate between adopting traditional token distribution models and embracing Synthetic Equity with deferred cash payments based on performance continues to shape the compensation strategies of organizations worldwide. This expository essay aims to shed light on this important decision-making process, offering insights into the advantages and pitfalls of each approach.

Token Distribution:

Pros:

1. Immediate Ownership: Token distribution provides immediate ownership, aligning team members with the project’s success from the outset.
2. Strong Incentive: Tokens are potent incentives, as their value can soar if the project prospers.
3. Transparency: Blockchain-based tokens often offer transparency and traceability in ownership and transactions.
4. Avoiding Ownership Dilution: Tokens allow companies to avoid diluting their cap tables.
5. Payment Efficiency: Salaries and performance-based bonuses in token form can conserve cash reserves, with employees seeking liquidity in the market.

Cons:

1. Market Volatility: Token values can be highly volatile, creating uncertainty for team members.
2. Limited Liquidity: Token liquidity constraints make converting tokens into cash challenging.
3. Tax Implications: Transferring token value can trigger income tax obligations.
4. Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Issuing tokens, especially in countries like the US, often involves legal, financial, and administrative hurdles.
5. Access to Top Talent: High-caliber talent may be hesitant to accept tokens due to market volatility.

Synthetic Equity:

Pros:

1. Performance-Driven: Synthetic Equity and deferred cash payments link rewards directly to individual or team performance, fostering a strong work ethic.
2. Predictable Rewards: Cash payments offer stability and predictability compared to volatile tokens.
3. Flexibility: Synthetic Equity and cash incentives can be customized to align with specific performance metrics and goals.
4. Avoiding Ownership Dilution: Tokens allow companies to avoid diluting their cap tables.
5. Value for Investors: High-performing organizations often deliver greater value to shareholders.
6. Utility Token: Synthetic Equity tokens, being a derivative of work, carry no inherent value, making them utility tokens with fewer legal implications.
7. Bottom-Line Impact: Additional payments are derived from bottom-line growth, directly rewarding employees for business expansion.
8. Tax Implications: Specify payouts such as “time certain” and separation of service, all of which are 100% compensation expense for tax purposes. Have the lowest predictable cost to the company based on after- tax cash flow.

Cons:

1. Performance management system set up: Synthetic Equity requires strong expertise in establishing performance management and incentive structures.
2. Delayed Ownership: Synthetic Equity lacks the immediate ownership associated with tokens.
3. Administrative Complexity: Implementing and managing a comprehensive incentives program can be administratively intricate.

SyntheticEquity.io combines innovative compensation strategies designed to simulate the value of actual equity shares.
Synthetic Equity offers an alternative to the traditional token issuance model, integrating performance management seamlessly. It aligns stakeholder and shareholder interests, encourages innovation, and rewards high performance. Furthermore, it addresses a common challenge faced by startups—creating and measuring key performance indicators (KPIs). Our unique performance plan methodology enhances teamwork, promotes a healthier work environment, and ensures individual productivity by emphasizing collective success.
Synthetic equity is ideal for companies committed to thriving and nurturing top talent. Individuals who meet their KPIs are rewarded, while those failing to contribute positively to the business unit’s performance forfeit part of their compensation.
The decision between token distribution and Synthetic Equity hinges on an organization’s objectives, risk tolerance, and the preferences of founders and team members. Some organizations may choose a combination of both to balance immediate ownership and performance-based incentives. Legal, regulatory, and tax considerations, as well as project dynamics, must be carefully weighed. Consulting with legal and financial experts can prove invaluable in crafting an effective and compliant compensation strategy.
Synthetic equity is a powerful tool for attracting, retaining, and rewarding top talent, especially in owner succession planning. However, many business owners and advisors possess only a rudimentary understanding of synthetic equity and its design. This essay defines synthetic equity, explores its appropriateness for specific capital and tax structures, illustrates its flexibility and benefits in owner succession, and showcases its potential through a compelling case study.
Synthetic equity, unlike traditional equity plans, is a compensation approach that grants executives and contract-based employees the right to a defined portion of enterprise value without requiring them to invest their own capital. It offers exceptional versatility and can be tailored to meet specific criteria related to who receives what, when, and under what conditions in terms of value sharing.
Outlined below are six fundamental examples of synthetic equity programs:

1. Phantom Stock:
   • An executive is entitled to a percentage share of the company’s value. (For example, Joe holds 5% of the company’s value expressed as phantom stock.)
2. Phantom Stock Over an Owner’s Threshold:
   • An executive has the right to a percentage share of the company’s value beyond an initial fixed threshold value or formula. (For instance, Joe has 5% of the company’s value above $10 million.)
3. Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs):
   • Executives are granted the right to share in a set percentage of the company’s value exceeding its value at the time of the grant—similar to employee stock options. (For instance, Joe has 5% of the company’s value above the current valuation of $20 million.)
4. Value Band Plans:
   • Executives are entitled to a graduated percentage share of the company’s value based on predetermined thresholds. (For example, Joe has a baseline right to 3% of the company’s value and can earn an additional 1% for every $10 million in growth, with a maximum share of 7%.)
5. Sales Bonus in Event of Change of Control:
   • Executives are entitled to a percentage share of the company’s value payable exclusively in the event of a change of control. (For example, Joe has 5% of the company’s value expressed as phantom stock, payable only if a change of control occurs.)
6. Simulated Equity Plan:
   • Executives are entitled to a percentage share of the value of a specific division or segment of the company, determined by a predefined formulaic breakup value of the company. (For instance, Joe holds 5% of the European division’s value based on a preset formulaic breakup value of the company.)

These diverse synthetic equity programs offer flexibility and the ability to tailor incentive structures to meet specific business objectives and circumstances.
The possibilities are virtually endless. Synthetic equity is akin to a sculptor’s clay for incentive structures—it can be molded into a wide array of forms to suit a business owner’s preferences. It can transform from a tracking stock to a pure performance-based incentive.
Of significant significance to business owners, synthetic equity operates independently of the company’s shareholders’ agreement and related buy-sell terms. This independence grants a high degree of flexibility, particularly concerning payout. Synthetic equity agreements must adhere to IRS code section 409A, which outlines rules governing plan payouts. According to 409A, synthetic equity plans can be triggered by six permissible events or plan termination. The three events that cannot be predicted are death, disability, and unforeseeable emergencies, while the three strategic triggers are change of control, time certain, and separation of service. Consequently, business owners have the authority to determine when executives can realize the value of the plan. This contrasts with a typical employee stock option plan, where executives decide when to “exercise” their stock options independently. In summary, synthetic equity plans provide business owners with enhanced control and flexibility in terms of plan design and payout.
In conclusion, synthetic equity stands as a compelling option for organizations seeking to optimize cash resources, empower succession, and reward high performance. It offers a robust and flexible framework, ensuring that top talent remains motivated and aligned with organizational goals. Embracing Synthetic Equity can truly set a company on the path to sustained high performance and success.
Authors

Paul Lalovich

In today’s evolving and competitive landscape, the value of innovation is shifting from the traditional closed systems approach to a more open, decentralized, and community-driven approach. Paul Lalovich and Tesha Teshanovich from Agile Dynamics outline what is driving the trend, its implications for organizations, and how leaders can successfully operate at the forefront of the shift.
Innovation transcends the mere conceptualization of fresh ideas; it is the actionable process of enhancing existing products or conjuring entirely new offerings. While there is a strong correlation between R&D and innovation – with the former serving as a wellspring for pioneering thoughts – the journey from groundbreaking research to practical utility can be intricate and protracted.
However, it’s worth noting that innovation isn't solely tethered to structured R&D. It can spontaneously arise from sheer curiosity, a spark of inspiration, or even the simple act of refining or tweaking existing methodologies.
Firms might invest in R&D to catalyze innovation, but they can also harness external advancements – referred to as ‘spillovers’. After all, groundbreaking knowledge isn't always the exclusive domain of its creators, making external inspirations invaluable.
Emerging from a robust foundation of innovation, soft power presents tangible advantages. Leaders in technology often establish benchmarks that others deem beneficial to adopt. As a result, global standards lean favorably toward those pioneers. Moreover, countries recognized for their innovative acumen become prime territories for patent filings. These innovation hubs magnetize not just domestic but international investments and capital.
Perhaps the most profound testament to their soft power is the allure they hold for top-tier talents. For instance, Silicon Valley has evolved into a global nexus, drawing in exceptional minds from the realms of information, communication, and digital technologies. Such concentrations of talent can significantly influence a nation’s trade dynamics.

Tech monopolies slow down innovation

In the arena of global economic dominance, competition emerges as the cornerstone, propelling nations to the forefront of innovation and growth. While Chinese strategies appear to have adapted, embracing the dynamism of competitive markets, the United States stands at a crossroads. Some of its tech behemoths promote their size and market leadership as pivotal for cutting-edge innovation.
Yet, it is crucial to discern the nature of this innovation and whose interests it truly serves. Does it prioritize shareholder returns, or is there a broader, national interest at play? As smaller, agile firms emerge, emphasizing true boundary-pushing innovation, one must ponder: Is the spirit of unbridled competition – a force that once fueled the American economy – being overshadowed by the looming giants?
In the nuanced interplay between governmental oversight and market forces, recent actions within China's technology sector provide a captivating study of regulatory boundaries. This phenomenon, aptly termed ‘de-tycoonification’, captures a deliberate effort to harmonize enterprise innovation with centralized checks.
A leading digital commerce platform in China encountered regulatory attention. The swift determination that its practices were anti-competitive, accompanied by a significant financial penalty, symbolizes a broader intent to redefine market paradigms. Prompt official communique following these events conveys a clear perspective: monopolistic behaviours can inhibit the holistic evolution of a market-based economy.
This stance also emphasizes that thoughtful regulations, rather than restricting growth, might actually serve as pillars to stabilize and nurture it. The regulatory web further ensnared another major digital entity in China, underscoring the principle that technological ingenuity should operate within established ethical and legal frameworks. Such internal checks within China challenge certain dominant narratives in global tech centres.
The notion that maintaining a robust market stature acts as a shield against global tech adversaries comes under scrutiny. The introspective regulatory steps within China necessitate a broader re-evaluation of such assumptions.
The tech landscape today is unmistakably marked by the towering presence of Big Tech, but what underlies this dominance might point towards a concerning reduction in competitive intensity. For two decades, the profits raked in by American tech behemoths have remained unparalleled, with market valuations suggesting this trend is expected to continue, if not amplify, in the coming years.
Such sustained, sky-high profitability isn't typical in a genuinely competitive market. In such a setting, rivals and newcomers usually exert downward pressures, ensuring no single entity retains an overwhelming edge for extended periods. The tech industry's trajectory further points towards a rising penchant for consolidation. This is evidenced by the substantial acquisitions of budding companies by the tech titans.
Data sourced from Mergermarket underscores an uptick in acquisition activity by these colossal tech firms, particularly post-2010. The symbiotic relationship between persistent high profits and a trend toward industry concentration suggests that the tech market might be veering away from the vibrant competitive arena it once was.

Cardwell’s law

The tech landscape’s evolution, in its relationship with innovation, is witnessing a palpable shift in entrepreneurial motivation and vision. Historically, the fervour of pioneering something transformative, encapsulated in the ‘moonshot thinking’, drove entrepreneurs. This audacious spirit envisioned groundbreaking entities akin to the tech luminaries of the late 20th and early 21st century. Yet, today’s entrepreneurial aspirations seem more tempered.
Instead of fostering ambitions of building the next revolutionary tech empire, there’s a growing inclination towards securing an acquisition by an existing tech colossus. This shift in sentiment dims the likelihood of a new tech juggernaut rising to challenge the incumbent titans. Post the era of computer-centric, web-driven, and smartphone-related innovations, a cloud of uncertainty looms over the emergence of new tech powerhouses.
Notably, the promising technological domains of the upcoming decade – be it autonomous vehicles with their exorbitant R&D costs, virtual or augmented reality's significant development expenditures, the data intensity of artificial intelligence, or drones and the Internet of Things with their challenging profit margins – present formidable entry barriers.
These hurdles, combined with a changing entrepreneurial landscape, cast a shadow on the future dynamism of tech innovation. Cardwell's elucidation on the patterns of technological evolution offers a poignant lens through which to view the current landscape dominated by Big Tech.
Donald Stephen Lowell Cardwell’s seminal work from 1972 suggests that technological vigor within societies is not an enduring flame, but a fleeting burst of brilliance. Within the European context, as one nation's innovative energy began to wane, another would rise, ensuring a consistent relay of progress across the continent.
Visualize this relay of innovation as a torch, brilliant yet intense. Historically, regions such as Northern Italy, Southern Germany, Spain, and Portugal, and later Holland, Britain, the United States, and Germany, took turns in holding this torch, leading the march of innovation. Yet, no single society clung to this leadership for extended durations. The relay ensured that as one nation's innovation diminished, another took up the mantle, propelling the collective forward.
This phenomenon, coined as ‘Cardwell’s Law’ by Joel Mokyr, posits that when left in isolation, a society’s technological creativity is but a brief spark. Over time, conservatism’s stifling grip, intent on preserving existing structures of power and privilege, often curtails this innovative drive.
This is where the analogy becomes particularly relevant for the Big Tech landscape. In today’s digital age, a few colossal entities dominate, much like the leading nations of old Europe. Yet, as these tech giants solidify their positions, they risk becoming victims of the very conservatism Mokyr speaks of.
Instead of being conduits for continual innovation, their sheer dominance and entrenched positions could lead to a stagnation in technological creativity. As they grow in size and influence, there is an increasing tendency to preserve the status quo, which inadvertently suppresses the innovative spark found in smaller, more agile entities.

Decentralization and open innovation

In the contemporary milieu characterized by the overwhelming dominance of Big Tech monopolies, the paradigms of decentralized innovation and open innovation emerge as potentially transformative alternatives.
The concept of distributed strategy borrows from nature, suggesting that in the same manner that organisms such as trees maximize their efficiency by creating multiple self-similar structures like leaves instead of solely relying on a single core trunk, businesses too need to shift their focus from purely scaling their core processes to nurturing multiple iterative strategies at the organizational peripheries. This can be encapsulated in the mantra of ‘Think Local, Act Global’.
In essence, companies must attune to the nuanced demands and opportunities of each local market, while simultaneously integrating these learnings into a broader global strategy. This is particularly evident in industries undergoing rapid transformation; for instance, the automotive industry's evolution from merely selling cars to offering comprehensive mobility solutions, a shift that is predicted to significantly alter its revenue structure by 2035.
In parallel, in our data-driven age, there is an increasing realization that the sheer volume of data is less crucial than its meaningful interpretation. Organizations need to pivot from prioritizing data accumulation to developing advanced algorithms capable of drawing insights from fragmented, patchy datasets. In the rapidly shifting landscape of today's global business environment, numerous established multinational corporations find themselves at a perplexing crossroads.
The crux of their predicament stems from a foundational dilemma: how to juxtapose traditional scale-driven strategies with the emergent imperative of Distributed strategies. To dissect this conundrum, one must appreciate the inherently divergent organizational philosophies underpinning scale and distributed strategies. Transitioning from a scale-centric model to a distributed-oriented one is not merely about implementing a series of organizational modifications, no matter how profound.
The shift demands a comprehensive reimagining of the organizational ethos and operational mechanics. Moreover, it is a fallacy to view these strategies as mutually exclusive. In actuality, they exist on a continuum, each holding its unique value. The challenge for modern enterprises lies in striking an optimal balance between harnessing the benefits of scale and the agility of Distributed strategies. Regrettably, the journey to this equilibrium is riddled with pitfalls, and many companies, even with their vast resources and global reach, have faltered in this endeavor.
Contrary to scale-centric entities that depend on static assets, with streamlined yet inherently slower supply chains, Distributed organizations harness networks characterized by adaptability and continuous transformation. These networks are primed for swiftly addressing specific local requirements and seizing niche market prospects.
Such frameworks incorporate a blend of proprietary micro-production facilities, possibly utilizing innovations like 3D printing; leasing assets from providers offering asset-on-demand services; and coordinating flexible ecosystems of regional digital collaborators. The overarching aim is twofold: continuously devise innovative solutions tailored for local clientele and escalate them to various markets with optimal speed.
Distributed-oriented organizations prioritize decentralization, contrasting with the top-down hierarchies commonly seen in scale-driven entities. Within these structures, decision-making isn't confined to a centralized corporate core. Instead, considerable authority is delegated to customer-centric teams positioned away from the primary headquarters. This design fosters agility, allowing for a rapid response to localized demands and new opportunities.
Some multinational corporations have observed marked improvements in their performance metrics after such decentralization. They empowered regional leaders with financial oversight, decision-making rights, streamlined communication channels to the central office, and enhanced access to market analytics.
Another trend, seen in the case of an appliance industry giant, involves an even more radical shift. This entity introduced a unique organizational framework aimed at minimizing the distance between the enterprise and its customer base. In a bold move, an entire level of middle management was eliminated, redistributing power to numerous newly-formed, semi-independent, customer-aligned business segments. These units operate in synergy, linked by a unified digital platform.
Further reading: Knowledge and venture capital as a driver of innovation.
Meanwhile, ‘Open Innovation’ offers a complementary model, championing a departure from insular corporate research and development approaches. Instead, it advocates for the amalgamation of external insights, be they from academia, startups, or independent innovators, into the innovation process. This synergistic approach addresses the often-criticized inertia inherent in large tech monopolies, promoting a more dynamic and collaborative innovation ecosystem.
Both these paradigms, however, necessitate a significant cultural shift within organizations, demanding a more flexible, adaptive, and outward-looking ethos to truly harness their potential in countering the inertia often associated with tech giants.
The rise of open innovation, propelled by reduced communication costs and advancements in memory and computation capabilities, has ushered in significant changes in market dynamics and societal interactions. Unlike the traditionally centralized, firm-driven innovation models, open innovation champions a decentralized, peer-based approach that emphasizes intrinsic motivation and societal benefits.
Indeed, the literature has delved into the nature of these peer innovation communities, understanding their social structures and intricacies.
However, the repercussions of this shift towards open innovation on established and emerging firms remain inadequately explored. Current organizational and strategic theories don't fully encapsulate the nuances of community-driven innovation. Despite the transformative potential of open innovation, its influence on mainstream organizational and strategic discourses has been somewhat muted.
As we progress, it becomes imperative to develop a more comprehensive understanding of firms in this new context, addressing the interaction between traditional organizational structures and emerging community-based innovation paradigms.

Conclusion

In an evolving landscape where tasks are increasingly modular and knowledge about solutions becomes more widespread, the traditional closed systems of innovation shift towards open, community-driven models. The implications are profound: we can no longer rely solely on conventional understandings of innovation rooted in cost efficiency, control mechanisms, and external incentives.
As innovation gets embedded in a spectrum ranging from strictly internal processes to open community collaborations, our conceptualization of firms and their boundaries need revisiting. This doesn’t negate the value of traditional models, but it requires a hybrid approach where both internal and open strategies coexist.
A pivotal question arises: under what circumstances should firms toggle between these different modes of innovation? The answer, it appears, lies in understanding the nature of the product and the distribution of problem-solving knowledge.
For products that are inherently integrated and where specialized knowledge is centralized, the conventional in-house R&D model, bolstered by a strong innovation-centric culture, remains relevant. Here, innovation is typically cocooned within the firm's boundaries, spanning from distinct functional divisions to intricate, ambidextrous designs.
However, when a product can be broken down into modular components and the requisite knowledge is dispersed, the limitations of a closed innovation system become evident. In these contexts, the power dynamics of innovation are reshaped by the principles of openness, collaborative sharing, intrinsic motivation, and community engagement.
The challenge, then, for modern enterprises is to discern when to internalize and when to externalize, ensuring that they harness the best of both worlds while navigating the complex terrain of innovation.In today’s evolving and competitive landscape, the value of innovation is shifting from the traditional closed systems approach to a more open, decentralized, and community-driven approach. Paul Lalovich and Tesha Teshanovich from Agile Dynamics outline what is driving the trend, its implications for organizations, and how leaders can successfully operate at the forefront of the shift. Innovation transcends the mere conceptualization of fresh ideas; it is the actionable process of enhancing existing products or conjuring entirely new offerings. While there is a strong correlation between R&D and innovation – with the former serving as a wellspring for pioneering thoughts – the journey from groundbreaking research to practical utility can be intricate and protracted. However, it’s worth noting that innovation isn't solely tethered to structured R&D. It can spontaneously arise from sheer curiosity, a spark of inspiration, or even the simple act of refining or tweaking existing methodologies.
Firms might invest in R&D to catalyze innovation, but they can also harness external advancements – referred to as ‘spillovers’. After all, groundbreaking knowledge isn't always the exclusive domain of its creators, making external inspirations invaluable. Emerging from a robust foundation of innovation, soft power presents tangible advantages. Leaders in technology often establish benchmarks that others deem beneficial to adopt. As a result, global standards lean favorably toward those pioneers. Moreover, countries recognized for their innovative acumen become prime territories for patent filings. These innovation hubs magnetize not just domestic but international investments and capital. Perhaps the most profound testament to their soft power is the allure they hold for top-tier talents. For instance, Silicon Valley has evolved into a global nexus, drawing in exceptional minds from the realms of information, communication, and digital technologies. Such concentrations of talent can significantly influence a nation’s trade dynamics. Tech monopolies slow down innovation In the arena of global economic dominance, competition emerges as the cornerstone, propelling nations to the forefront of innovation and growth. While Chinese strategies appear to have adapted, embracing the dynamism of competitive markets, the United States stands at a crossroads. Some of its tech behemoths promote their size and market leadership as pivotal for cutting-edge innovation. Yet, it is crucial to discern the nature of this innovation and whose interests it truly serves. Does it prioritize shareholder returns, or is there a broader, national interest at play? As smaller, agile firms emerge, emphasizing true boundary-pushing innovation, one must ponder: Is the spirit of unbridled competition – a force that once fueled the American economy – being overshadowed by the looming giants? In the nuanced interplay between governmental oversight and market forces, recent actions within China's technology sector provide a captivating study of regulatory boundaries. This phenomenon, aptly termed ‘de-tycoonification’, captures a deliberate effort to harmonize enterprise innovation with centralized checks. A leading digital commerce platform in China encountered regulatory attention. The swift determination that its practices were anti-competitive, accompanied by a significant financial penalty, symbolizes a broader intent to redefine market paradigms. Prompt official communique following these events conveys a clear perspective: monopolistic behaviours can inhibit the holistic evolution of a market-based economy. This stance also emphasizes that thoughtful regulations, rather than restricting growth, might actually serve as pillars to stabilize and nurture it. The regulatory web further ensnared another major digital entity in China, underscoring the principle that technological ingenuity should operate within established ethical and legal frameworks. Such internal checks within China challenge certain dominant narratives in global tech centres. The notion that maintaining a robust market stature acts as a shield against global tech adversaries comes under scrutiny. The introspective regulatory steps within China necessitate a broader re-evaluation of such assumptions. The tech landscape today is unmistakably marked by the towering presence of Big Tech, but what underlies this dominance might point towards a concerning reduction in competitive intensity. For two decades, the profits raked in by American tech behemoths have remained unparalleled, with market valuations suggesting this trend is expected to continue, if not amplify, in the coming years. Such sustained, sky-high profitability isn't typical in a genuinely competitive market. In such a setting, rivals and newcomers usually exert downward pressures, ensuring no single entity retains an overwhelming edge for extended periods. The tech industry's trajectory further points towards a rising penchant for consolidation. This is evidenced by the substantial acquisitions of budding companies by the tech titans. Data sourced from Mergermarket underscores an uptick in acquisition activity by these colossal tech firms, particularly post-2010. The symbiotic relationship between persistent high profits and a trend toward industry concentration suggests that the tech market might be veering away from the vibrant competitive arena it once was. Cardwell’s law The tech landscape’s evolution, in its relationship with innovation, is witnessing a palpable shift in entrepreneurial motivation and vision. Historically, the fervour of pioneering something transformative, encapsulated in the ‘moonshot thinking’, drove entrepreneurs. This audacious spirit envisioned groundbreaking entities akin to the tech luminaries of the late 20th and early 21st century. Yet, today’s entrepreneurial aspirations seem more tempered. Instead of fostering ambitions of building the next revolutionary tech empire, there’s a growing inclination towards securing an acquisition by an existing tech colossus. This shift in sentiment dims the likelihood of a new tech juggernaut rising to challenge the incumbent titans. Post the era of computer-centric, web-driven, and smartphone-related innovations, a cloud of uncertainty looms over the emergence of new tech powerhouses. Notably, the promising technological domains of the upcoming decade – be it autonomous vehicles with their exorbitant R&D costs, virtual or augmented reality's significant development expenditures, the data intensity of artificial intelligence, or drones and the Internet of Things with their challenging profit margins – present formidable entry barriers. These hurdles, combined with a changing entrepreneurial landscape, cast a shadow on the future dynamism of tech innovation. Cardwell's elucidation on the patterns of technological evolution offers a poignant lens through which to view the current landscape dominated by Big Tech. Donald Stephen Lowell Cardwell’s seminal work from 1972 suggests that technological vigor within societies is not an enduring flame, but a fleeting burst of brilliance. Within the European context, as one nation's innovative energy began to wane, another would rise, ensuring a consistent relay of progress across the continent. Visualize this relay of innovation as a torch, brilliant yet intense. Historically, regions such as Northern Italy, Southern Germany, Spain, and Portugal, and later Holland, Britain, the United States, and Germany, took turns in holding this torch, leading the march of innovation. Yet, no single society clung to this leadership for extended durations. The relay ensured that as one nation's innovation diminished, another took up the mantle, propelling the collective forward. This phenomenon, coined as ‘Cardwell’s Law’ by Joel Mokyr, posits that when left in isolation, a society’s technological creativity is but a brief spark. Over time, conservatism’s stifling grip, intent on preserving existing structures of power and privilege, often curtails this innovative drive. This is where the analogy becomes particularly relevant for the Big Tech landscape. In today’s digital age, a few colossal entities dominate, much like the leading nations of old Europe. Yet, as these tech giants solidify their positions, they risk becoming victims of the very conservatism Mokyr speaks of. Instead of being conduits for continual innovation, their sheer dominance and entrenched positions could lead to a stagnation in technological creativity. As they grow in size and influence, there is an increasing tendency to preserve the status quo, which inadvertently suppresses the innovative spark found in smaller, more agile entities. Decentralization and open innovation In the contemporary milieu characterized by the overwhelming dominance of Big Tech monopolies, the paradigms of decentralized innovation and open innovation emerge as potentially transformative alternatives. The concept of distributed strategy borrows from nature, suggesting that in the same manner that organisms such as trees maximize their efficiency by creating multiple self-similar structures like leaves instead of solely relying on a single core trunk, businesses too need to shift their focus from purely scaling their core processes to nurturing multiple iterative strategies at the organizational peripheries. This can be encapsulated in the mantra of ‘Think Local, Act Global’. In essence, companies must attune to the nuanced demands and opportunities of each local market, while simultaneously integrating these learnings into a broader global strategy. This is particularly evident in industries undergoing rapid transformation; for instance, the automotive industry's evolution from merely selling cars to offering comprehensive mobility solutions, a shift that is predicted to significantly alter its revenue structure by 2035. In parallel, in our data-driven age, there is an increasing realization that the sheer volume of data is less crucial than its meaningful interpretation. Organizations need to pivot from prioritizing data accumulation to developing advanced algorithms capable of drawing insights from fragmented, patchy datasets. In the rapidly shifting landscape of today's global business environment, numerous established multinational corporations find themselves at a perplexing crossroads. The crux of their predicament stems from a foundational dilemma: how to juxtapose traditional scale-driven strategies with the emergent imperative of Distributed strategies. To dissect this conundrum, one must appreciate the inherently divergent organizational philosophies underpinning scale and distributed strategies. Transitioning from a scale-centric model to a distributed-oriented one is not merely about implementing a series of organizational modifications, no matter how profound. The shift demands a comprehensive reimagining of the organizational ethos and operational mechanics. Moreover, it is a fallacy to view these strategies as mutually exclusive. In actuality, they exist on a continuum, each holding its unique value. The challenge for modern enterprises lies in striking an optimal balance between harnessing the benefits of scale and the agility of Distributed strategies. Regrettably, the journey to this equilibrium is riddled with pitfalls, and many companies, even with their vast resources and global reach, have faltered in this endeavor. Contrary to scale-centric entities that depend on static assets, with streamlined yet inherently slower supply chains, Distributed organizations harness networks characterized by adaptability and continuous transformation. These networks are primed for swiftly addressing specific local requirements and seizing niche market prospects. Such frameworks incorporate a blend of proprietary micro-production facilities, possibly utilizing innovations like 3D printing; leasing assets from providers offering asset-on-demand services; and coordinating flexible ecosystems of regional digital collaborators. The overarching aim is twofold: continuously devise innovative solutions tailored for local clientele and escalate them to various markets with optimal speed. Distributed-oriented organizations prioritize decentralization, contrasting with the top-down hierarchies commonly seen in scale-driven entities. Within these structures, decision-making isn't confined to a centralized corporate core. Instead, considerable authority is delegated to customer-centric teams positioned away from the primary headquarters. This design fosters agility, allowing for a rapid response to localized demands and new opportunities. Some multinational corporations have observed marked improvements in their performance metrics after such decentralization. They empowered regional leaders with financial oversight, decision-making rights, streamlined communication channels to the central office, and enhanced access to market analytics. Another trend, seen in the case of an appliance industry giant, involves an even more radical shift. This entity introduced a unique organizational framework aimed at minimizing the distance between the enterprise and its customer base. In a bold move, an entire level of middle management was eliminated, redistributing power to numerous newly-formed, semi-independent, customer-aligned business segments. These units operate in synergy, linked by a unified digital platform. Further reading: Knowledge and venture capital as a driver of innovation. Meanwhile, ‘Open Innovation’ offers a complementary model, championing a departure from insular corporate research and development approaches. Instead, it advocates for the amalgamation of external insights, be they from academia, startups, or independent innovators, into the innovation process. This synergistic approach addresses the often-criticized inertia inherent in large tech monopolies, promoting a more dynamic and collaborative innovation ecosystem. Both these paradigms, however, necessitate a significant cultural shift within organizations, demanding a more flexible, adaptive, and outward-looking ethos to truly harness their potential in countering the inertia often associated with tech giants. The rise of open innovation, propelled by reduced communication costs and advancements in memory and computation capabilities, has ushered in significant changes in market dynamics and societal interactions. Unlike the traditionally centralized, firm-driven innovation models, open innovation champions a decentralized, peer-based approach that emphasizes intrinsic motivation and societal benefits. Indeed, the literature has delved into the nature of these peer innovation communities, understanding their social structures and intricacies. However, the repercussions of this shift towards open innovation on established and emerging firms remain inadequately explored. Current organizational and strategic theories don't fully encapsulate the nuances of community-driven innovation. Despite the transformative potential of open innovation, its influence on mainstream organizational and strategic discourses has been somewhat muted. As we progress, it becomes imperative to develop a more comprehensive understanding of firms in this new context, addressing the interaction between traditional organizational structures and emerging community-based innovation paradigms. Conclusion In an evolving landscape where tasks are increasingly modular and knowledge about solutions becomes more widespread, the traditional closed systems of innovation shift towards open, community-driven models. The implications are profound: we can no longer rely solely on conventional understandings of innovation rooted in cost efficiency, control mechanisms, and external incentives. As innovation gets embedded in a spectrum ranging from strictly internal processes to open community collaborations, our conceptualization of firms and their boundaries need revisiting. This doesn’t negate the value of traditional models, but it requires a hybrid approach where both internal and open strategies coexist. A pivotal question arises: under what circumstances should firms toggle between these different modes of innovation? The answer, it appears, lies in understanding the nature of the product and the distribution of problem-solving knowledge. For products that are inherently integrated and where specialized knowledge is centralized, the conventional in-house R&D model, bolstered by a strong innovation-centric culture, remains relevant. Here, innovation is typically cocooned within the firm's boundaries, spanning from distinct functional divisions to intricate, ambidextrous designs. However, when a product can be broken down into modular components and the requisite knowledge is dispersed, the limitations of a closed innovation system become evident. In these contexts, the power dynamics of innovation are reshaped by the principles of openness, collaborative sharing, intrinsic motivation, and community engagement. The challenge, then, for modern enterprises is to discern when to internalize and when to externalize, ensuring that they harness the best of both worlds while navigating the complex terrain of innovation.

I (27M) have been with my bf (28M) for coming up on three years in July. We were long distance for the first year, he moved to my city and we lived separately for a time, and have now lived together for about a year.
Over the past few months, without realizing it, I've started to fall out of love with him. I have now spent the last month contemplating if I should try and work things out, or if the relationship has run its course and we should break up.
The main reason for this issue is intimacy. Due to his previous tramas, he has a lot of trouble initiating anything. I can count on one hand how many times he has in the three years. But I have also been having trouble, as over the past few years I've gained a bit of weight, and it has severely effected my self image and confidence. This has also made me feel gross about my body and not want to do anything with it. His lack of affection towards me has only worsened this problem. I have had many conversations over the years, telling him how his lack of affection has had a major effect on my own confidence and image. He then will initiate once in the following day or two, then it goes right back to normal. During these conversations I have acknowledged it is not a one sided issue, and that I am to blame as well. But I've just been reaching a breaking point with it.
This does not only apply to bedroom intimacy. I am the one cuddling him, I am the one who puts my hand on his leg while driving, etc. It's the small things that I do, that he never does, that also weigh heavily on me.
Another issue, which I think is a stupid reason, but nonetheless has eaten away at me for some time. That reason being FOMO. Before moving in with my bf I lived with my family. I am extremely close to my family, i love them to death, and i would not have it any other way. I had stayed living at home due to being in university, and then stayed after until I was comfortable enough to move out. But I moved from my parents house straight into my bf's place. I have never once lived on my own. When living at home my parents were a bit strict, always needing to know where I was at all times. They have definitely loosened up a bit with my younger siblings, but being the oldest I got the brunt of their strictness. The idea and desire to be independent and on my own has taken up a lot of space in my thoughts over the past few months. I am now in a financial position where I can do that and live comfortably, and I think about it constantly.
I feel as though I have not had the opportunity to find out who I am as an individual person. I have only been part of a unit, without the freedom to discover.
There is also the side of me that keeps saying to myself that the grass isn't always greener on the other side. That maybe I will never find a partner that I can be as compatible or attracted to as I once was with him.
While there are other small issues that have arrisen, these two are the biggest in my mind and causing me the most grief. It's come to a point with my bf that what I once thought were cute mannerisms I now find annoying. I have trouble staying positive and happy around him, because when I look at him, my mind immediately goes to wishing he would just break up with me to make this all easier.
I feel like a complete asshole for having these thoughts, and it's extremely unfair to him. But there is part of me that is holding out hope. That maybe this is a phase and I'll get over it. That if I can just get over these feelings, it can go back to what it was a year ago and I won't have to tell him anything.
He sacrificed to move to live with me in my city. And now that he is here, my family loves him so much, and my friends love him, and his friends love me. I can be a people pleaser, and it causes me stress knowing other people have negative opinions of me, or that I have inconvenienced or made someone upset. These are also reasons I have yet to end things. I would have trouble facing those people that I know love him too, that I have removed him from their life.
These is also a part of me that worries what he will do to himself if I break up with him. I don't want him to harm himself in any way.
Over the years I have brought up all these points separately, and he is aware these are things I have trouble with. But they all seem to be now converging in my mind at once, and I am having a lot of trouble.
I do have therapy scheduled for June. I won't be making and rash decisions or anything until that is done. But i also understand that it is unfair and mean to leave my bf like this without having some sort of discussion on my feelings. I don't have many friends that I can talk about these kinds of issues with and I really needed to get this off my chest, so I appreciate all those who read through my story.
TL:DR. I have fallen out of love with my bf due to intimacy issues and FOMO, and I'm unsure if the relationship is salvageable.

Many CPU designs use 4-to-1 multiplexers in place of logic gates in the ALU. That enables the CPU to configure which logic operation. When you understand how that works, you start to realize there are 16 different possible truth tables.
You use some type of logic to make a small ROM on the board to provide all the truth tables you need. You likely want to make your own ROM due to the speed requirements. So maybe use a unary decoder, a resistor pack, and some diodes. The resistor pack is to pull up the "data" lines (think of them as the columns), and the diodes are to pull down the data column at whatever selected row.
In a control unit, the above ROM gives the muxes the truth tables for the 4 inputs. So the opcode sends the operation bits to the decoder. The selected decoder line uses the diodes on that line to pull the data lines low (the ones without diodes stay high). The "data lines" go to the mux inputs, providing the "answer" for the selected rule.
For instance, for an AND, you set the input bits from 00 to 11 in this order (assuming the lowest bit is A and the upper bit is B), the inputs are set to 0001. That means if the selectors B and A are both 0, the first input is used, and it is 0. Then for BA=01 where A is high and B is low, the corresponding input is 0 too. Then if BA=10 (high B, low A), it's input is also 0. Now, if BA=11, the last input line is selected and set to 1
Expanding that, OR would be 0111, and XOR would be 0110. Then you have the complements of NAND (1110), NOR (1000), and XNOR (1001).
Those are likely the 6 most important logical operations that work with 2 inputs. There is room for 10 more.
Unconditional Acceptance would be 1111, and Unconditional Denial would be 0000.
There are also IMPLY, NIMPLY, Converse IMPLY, and Converse NIMPLY. That would be when you invert one of the inputs of an AND/ONAND/NOR operation.
The remaining 4 should be A-Only, B-Only, Inverse A-Only, and Inverse B-only. Those can be useful in an ALU since they could be used to copy to the accumulator. Inverted B is good for subtraction in conjunction with an adder.