Extractive summaries of and key takeaways from the articles curated from TOP TEN BUSINESS MAGAZINES to promote informed business decision-making | Week 273 | December 2-8, 2022
Download this week’s edition in PDF
Download this week’s edition in Audio
Shaping Section : Ideas and forces shaping economies and industries
Why are boys doing badly at school?
The Economist | November 23, 2022
Around the world, girls are more likely than boys to get no education at all. But once they are in a classroom, boys usually do worse. The gulf is widest in reading: in almost all countries that collect sufficient data girls are better readers than boys at ten years old. These trends have long been starkest in rich countries, but are increasingly visible in poor ones, too—perhaps because the hurdles that long held schoolgirls back are gradually being knocked down. Why do boys do badly in school?
There is little evidence that boys are doing worse than they used to. Rather, high attainment by female pupils in recent years is showing that much more could be expected of their male peers. Some of the problems boys face are cultural. In workplaces around the world men still enjoy vast unearned advantages over women, including better pay and greater likelihood of promotion. As a result men are less likely than women to think that excelling in school is the only way to obtain the future they desire. Meanwhile, popular culture rarely presents studying as a manly pursuit. Parents do not help, either—surveys suggest that they spend less time reading with sons than they do with daughters.
How schools are run matters, too. Boys often lack studious role models there—male teachers are in the minority in most rich countries. A shortage of male teachers is a particular problem in places with lots of single-sex schools, such as the Middle East. Boys there are often taught by male migrants from poorer countries, who do not easily earn pupils’ respect. Boys also report higher rates of bullying at school than girls, and are more likely to say that it involves being punched or kicked. And they are more often beaten by teachers. Fear of violence increases the risk that boys will skip school or give it up early.
Some observers think differences in the rates at which boys and girls develop in adolescence contribute to the problem. In his book “Of Boys And Men”, Richard Reeves of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, cites research suggesting that parts of the brain associated with impulse control, forward-thinking and regulating emotions mature later in boys.
The costs of boys’ struggles are huge. They are more likely to repeat years of school, which is expensive and often counterproductive, because it increases the risk of pupils dropping out. That is through both lost earnings and knock-on effects—for instance, boys who drop out of school are more likely to commit crimes. Countries with lots of uneducated men are also more likely to breed gangs and suffer from unrest.
Unlike for girls, concerted efforts to improve outcomes for boys are uncommon, even where their needs are dire.
3 key takeaways from the article
- Around the world, girls are more likely than boys to get no education at all. But once they are in a classroom, boys usually do worse. The gulf is the widest in reading: in almost all countries that collect sufficient data girls are better readers than boys at ten years old.
- Some of the problems boys face are cultural, lack of studious role models because of increased female teachers, more often beaten by teachers, and biology as brain associated with impulse control, forward-thinking and regulating emotions mature later in boys
- The costs of boys’ struggles are huge in terms of often counterproductive repeat years of school and social unrest. Unlike for girls, concerted efforts to improve outcomes for boys are uncommon, even where their needs are dire.
Listen to the Extractive Summary of the Article
(Copyrights)
Topics: Education, Global Literacy, Developing Countries
How a Ruling Family Tipped Sri Lanka Into Economic Free Fall
By Matthew Campbell | Bloomberg Businessweek | December 1, 2022
Sri Lanka, only three years ago the World Bank classified its economy as upper middle-income, in the same category as Brazil and Turkey. On health metrics such as life expectancy, it was comparable to China or Poland. Today the United Nations estimates that as many as 7 million of its 22 million people require urgent humanitarian assistance, with many at risk of malnutrition.
The depth of the Sri Lankan collapse has been stunning. Like many developing economies, it relies on imports of food, fuel and fertilizer. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has constrained supplies and substantially raised the prices of all three, compounded by the surge in value of the US dollar.
But global trends were just the spark for an economic tinderbox that’s been growing more dangerous in Sri Lanka for more than a decade. For all but about five years since 2005, the country has been ruled by the Rajapaksa family, a sprawling political clan that has variously occupied the offices of the president, prime minister, finance minister and defense secretary. Spurning traditional allies in India and the US, the Rajapaksas reoriented Sri Lanka’s foreign and economic policy toward China and borrowed from its state lenders to pay for lavish infrastructure projects. They also ushered in what critics say was an era of operatic corruption, with billions of dollars in public funds siphoned off and secreted abroad.
This year, Sri Lankans pushed back, staging massive street protests against the family’s rule. For now, a caretaker government is trying to contain the economic fallout. Sri Lanka is in talks to restructure its more than $40 billion in foreign debt and expects to reach an agreement with the International Monetary Fund on a bailout by early next year. That may not help ordinary citizens in the near term, however. As their collapsed economy grinds into 2023, Sri Lankans are being forced to contemplate problems more commonly associated with the world’s poorest nations.
3 key takeaways from the article
- Sri Lanka, only three years ago the World Bank classified its economy as upper middle-income. Today the United Nations estimates that as many as 7 million of its 22 million people require urgent humanitarian assistance, with many at risk of malnutrition.
- The depth of the Sri Lankan collapse has been stunning. Like many developing economies, it relies on imports of food, fuel and fertilizer. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has constrained supplies and substantially raised the prices of all three, compounded by the surge in value of the US dollar.
- But global trends were just the spark for an economic tinderbox that’s been growing more dangerous in Sri Lanka for more than a decade. For all but about five years since 2005, the country has been ruled by the Rajapaksa family, a sprawling political clan that has variously occupied the offices of the president, prime minister, finance minister and defense secretary. Lavish infrastructure projects and graft infected government business of all kinds.
Listen to the Extractive Summary of the Article
(Copyright)Topics: Sri Lanka, Developing Countries, Corruption, Poverty
Robots are coming—and it doesn’t look pretty for workers. Get ready for long hours, less pay, and fewer jobs
By Will Daniel | Fortune Magazine | December 9, 2022
Americans who worry about robots taking their jobs are just “fearmongers” who’ve watched too many movies, right? Artificial intelligence, automation, and robotics will boost workers’ productivity and spur economic growth while creating new, higher-paying jobs—or at least that’s the argument. But new research shows the rise of robots may not be as beneficial for workers as some claim. Automation could have positive impacts on economic growth and productivity, according to economists, but workers might not reap the rewards.
“Exposure to robots had negative effects on employment, leading some workers to drop out of the labor force and increasing unemployment,” economics professors Osea Giuntella of the University of Pittsburgh, Yi Lu of Tsinghua University, and Tianyi Wang of the University of Toronto wrote in a National Bureau of Economic Research paper released earlier this month.
The economists examined the effects of industrial robots on the Chinese labor market using data from over 15,000 families and found that the workforce struggled to “adjust” to the dramatic changes brought by robotics. “Robot exposure led to a decline in labor force participation (–1%), employment (–7.5%), and hourly wages (–9%) of Chinese workers,” they wrote. “At the same time, among those who kept working, robot exposure increased the number of hours worked by 14%.”
China has leaned into robotics and the automation of jobs for over a decade, especially in the industrial sector. The country has more industrial robots than any other, and just this year, it overtook the U.S. when it comes to the number of industrial robots per capita, according to the International Federation of Robotics. But for Chinese workers, the rise of robots hasn’t always been beneficial. Take the example of Apple’s main iPhone supplier, Foxconn, which replaced over 400,000 human jobs between 2012 and 2016 with robots in an automation push.
The economists said that the evidence for short-term labor market woes caused by robotics in China is strong—and argued that’s especially bad news for developing economies. Nevertheless, there is still more research to do on whether long-term productivity improvements from robotics and automation will “translate into employment growth” someday, but for now, workers will likely continue to lose jobs to these new technologies.
3 key takeaways from the article
- Artificial intelligence, automation, and robotics will boost workers’ productivity and spur economic growth while creating new, higher-paying jobs—or at least that’s the argument. But new research shows the rise of robots may not be as beneficial for workers as some claim. Automation could have positive impacts on economic growth and productivity, according to economists, but workers might not reap the rewards.
- According to the study “robot exposure led to a decline in labor force participation (–1%), employment (–7.5%), and hourly wages (–9%) of Chinese workers,” they wrote. “At the same time, among those who kept working, robot exposure increased the number of hours worked by 14%.”
- The economists said that the evidence for short-term labor market woes caused by robotics in China is strong—and argued that’s especially bad news for developing economies.
Listen to the Extractive Summary of the Article
(Copyright)
Topics: Technology, Automation, Robotics, Employment
The Four Fastest Growing And Most Rapidly Spreading Skill Sets In The Job Market
By Jena McGregor | Forbes Magazine | December 7, 2022
With all the attention being paid to OpenAI’s ChatGPT—the chatbot that headlines are blaring could kill the student essay or offer a substitute for writers—the debate over whether robots are going to replace skilled jobs is getting revived again. Who knows what impact the chatbot will ultimately have. But a new report from Burning Glass Institute done in partnership with Business-Higher Education Forum and Wiley shows what skills should job seekers be focused on. The Institute’s research analyzed data from 228 million job postings over the past seven years, grouping roughly 30,000 skills—everything from welding to data engineering—into 444 “clusters” of skills, such as lean manufacturing or data analysis.
From that analysis, four skill clusters emerged as not only the fastest growing (those with the highest rate of growth since 2018) but also the widest spreading (those that show up in the broadest array of industries). Due to their rate of growth and reach, these four skill sets—artificial intelligence and machine learning; cloud computing; product management and social media—are the ones disrupting the job market and offering the biggest opportunities for workers. “These are the sets of skills that are most likely to get integrated into the work that you’re doing. In 2021, one in eight job postings required one of the four skill sets, the report found.
Despite signs of economic headwinds, “talent shortages are here to stay. “What we’re seeing actually is … an imbalance of people with specific sets of skills that the market needs.” Research shows that the average occupation has seen 37% of its skills replaced in the last five years “because of automation, because of technology and also because of the spreading of skills across the market.”
In addition, the report names skills that are “submerging,” or showing comparatively slow or negative growth. These include business consulting, specialized sales, database architecture and administration, and web design and development. Occupations that are declining include database administrators, personal financial advisers, and auditors.
3 key takeaways from the article
- With all the attention being paid to OpenAI’s ChatGPT—the chatbot that headlines are blaring could kill the student essay or offer a substitute for writers—the debate over whether robots are going to replace skilled jobs is getting revived again. Who knows what impact the chatbot will ultimately have.
- But a new report from Burning Glass Institute done in partnership with Business-Higher Education Forum and Wiley shows that the following four skill sets i.e., artificial intelligence and machine learning; cloud computing; product management, and social media—are the ones disrupting the job market and offering the biggest opportunities for workers.
- These skills are not only among the fastest growing and widest spreading skill sets across industries in the job market—but having them can mean workers get paid more, rather than less in their jobs.
Listen to the Extractive Summary of the Article
(Copyright)
Topics: Employment, Skills, Automation
Industry Insights Section
Global Banking Annual Review 2022: Banking on a sustainable path
By Miklos Dietz et al., | McKinsey & Company | December 1, 2022
First the pandemic, and now inflation, war, rising interest rates, supply chain disruption, and more: for banks globally, the combination of macroeconomic volatility and geopolitical disruption in 2022 overturned many assumptions and ended more than a decade of relative stability. One thing didn’t change, however: valuations. Banks overall continue to trade at a steep discount to other sectors, a reflection of the fact—confirmed once again in 2022—that more than half of the world’s banks earn less than their cost of equity.
Banks rebounded from the pandemic with strong revenue growth, but the context has changed dramatically. Now a series of interrelated shocks—some geopolitical and others lingering economic and social effects of the pandemic—are exacerbating fragilities.
Bank profitability reached a 14-year high in 2022, with expected return on equity between 11.5 and 12.5 percent. Revenue globally grew by $345 billion. This growth was propelled by a sharp increase in net margins, as interest rates rose after languishing for years on their cyclical floors. For now, the banking system globally is sitting comfortably on Tier 1 capital ratios between 14 and 15 percent—the highest ever.
Nonetheless, more than half the world’s banks in 2022 continue to have a return on equity that is below the cost of equity. For the second half of 2022, our analysis suggests that margin increases delivered returns above the cost of equity for just 35 percent of banks globally. And less than 15 percent of banks are earning more than 4 percent of their respective cost of equity.
The longtail effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are still being felt, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and heightened tensions over Taiwan marked the rude return of geopolitics as a disruptive force. Five resulting shocks are affecting banks globally:
- Macroeconomic shock. Soaring inflation and the likelihood of recession are sorely testing central banks, even as they seek to rein in their quantitative-easing policies.
- Asset value shock. These include steep declines in the Chinese property market and the sharp devaluation of fintechs and cryptocurrencies, including the bankruptcy of some high-profile crypto organizations.
- Energy and food supply shock. Disruptions to the energy and food supply, related to the war in Ukraine, are contributing to inflation and putting millions of livelihoods at risk.
- Supply chain shock. The disruption of supply chains that began during the first pandemic lockdowns continues to affect global markets.
- Talent shock. Employment underwent major shifts during COVID-19 as people changed jobs, began working remotely, or left the workforce altogether to join the “great attrition”—shifts with no sign of easing.
The consequences differ across and within regions, notably in emerging markets. As the economy slows, the divergence between banks will widen further. Four dimensions explain why and how banks end up where they do: geography, specialization, customer segmentation, and scale.
Over the next five to ten years, market pressures and shifts, including technological changes that disrupt traditional banking, will amount to fundamental structural breaks. Banks will need to improve their short-term resilience and invest in the long term to innovate and prepare the path for future profitability, increased growth, and higher valuations.
2 key takeaways from the article
- First the pandemic, and now inflation, war, rising interest rates, supply chain disruption, and more: for banks globally, the combination of macroeconomic volatility and geopolitical disruption in 2022 overturned many assumptions and ended more than a decade of relative stability. One thing didn’t change, however: valuations. Banks overall continue to trade at a steep discount to other sectors, a reflection of the fact—confirmed once again in 2022—that more than half of the world’s banks earn less than their cost of equity.
- Over the next five to ten years, market pressures and shifts, including technological changes that disrupt traditional banking, will amount to fundamental structural breaks. Banks will need to improve their short-term resilience and invest in the long term to innovate and prepare the path for future profitability, increased growth, and higher valuations.
Listen to the Extractive Summary of the Article
(Copyright)
Topics: Banking, Technology, Global Economy
Strategy & Business Model Section
Preparing Your Company for the Next Recession
By Donald Sull and Charles Sull | MIT Sloan Management Review | December 06, 2022
Winter is coming: Inverted yield curves, rising interest rates, and a rash of layoff announcements have convinced many economists that the global economy is headed for a downturn. Recessions are bad for business, but downturns are not destiny.
The worst of times for the economy as a whole can be the best of times for individual companies to improve their fortunes. But not for all. How can the same recession cause some corporate empires to rise and others to fall? The short answer is that uncertainty surges dramatically during recessions — increasing roughly threefold at the company level compared with the relative calm before or after a downturn.
“Chaos isn’t a pit,” explains Petyr “Littlefinger” Baelish in Game of Thrones. “Chaos is a ladder.” The chaos of a recession, however, is both a pit and a ladder. In the face of uncertainty, some companies retrench. They abandon attractive customers and promising markets, offload valuable assets at fire sales, cut prices, and seek new partners to bolster cash flow. Others start climbing. They seize opportunities and improve their fortunes.
The authors’ research has identified three fundamental ways to manage uncertainty: resilience, local agility, and portfolio agility. Leaders can take a series of steps, such as building a strong balance sheet or diversifying cash flows, to boost an organization’s resilience and ability to withstand environmental shocks. Local agility is the ability of individual business units, functions, product teams, and geographies to respond quickly and effectively to changes in their specific circumstances.
Portfolio agility is an organization’s capability to quickly and effectively shift resources across different parts of the business. While local agility enables individual teams to spot and seize opportunities, portfolio agility enables the company as a whole to double down on its most promising investments. Portfolio agility is, by some estimates, the largest single driver of revenue growth and total shareholder returns for large companies.6 Quickly and effectively reallocating resources is valuable at any point in the business cycle, but it’s decisive during downturns, when internal cash flows dwindle and access to external funding dries up.
3 key takeaways from the article
- Winter is coming: Inverted yield curves, rising interest rates, and a rash of layoff announcements have convinced many economists that the global economy is headed for a downturn. Recessions are bad for business, but downturns are not destiny.
- The worst of times for the economy as a whole can be the best of times for individual companies to improve their fortunes. But not for all. How can the same recession cause some corporate empires to rise and others to fall? The chaos of a recession, however, is both a pit and a ladder.
- The authors’ research has identified three fundamental ways to manage uncertainty, The companies should be good at resilience, local agility, and portfolio agility.
Listen to the Extractive Summary of the Article
(Copyright)
Topics: Strategy, Business Model, Recession, Resilience, Agility
Moving the Needle on Sustainability
By Goutam Challagalla and Frédéric Dalsace | Harvard Business Review Magazine | November–December 2022
Practically every day one company or another announces a new sustainability commitment or launches an ad campaign about how it’s helping people and the planet. Many of those initiatives focus on improving the sustainability of products and operations in legacy or adjacent markets or on achieving sustainability gains by exploring new markets with a more diverse set of products. This is a variation on the classic “where to play/how to win” strategy, familiar to most executives. Fewer leaders, however, are exploring an important new frontier in sustainability, in which brands actively partner with customers to achieve ongoing impact.
In this article, the authors describe a practical framework for creating sustainability strategies that take into account both dimensions—markets and customer engagement. Developed in discussion with Reckitt, the $16 billion consumer-packaged-goods giant, the model lays out the four key ways that legacy companies can nurture growth in their sustainability efforts: fertilizing, in which a brand stays in its existing market but adds a sustainability “nutrient” to the product or service; transplanting, in which a brand serves new customer needs by extending the sustainability benefits of current offerings or related new ones into adjacent markets; grafting, in which customers are incorporated into the brand’s current sustainability strategy by changing how they use the product or service; and hybridizing, whereby companies adopt a new sustainability purpose to drive a major repositioning of the brand in new markets while asking customers to change too.
Each of these strategies has unique requirements and will have ripple effects across and beyond the business, from R&D and marketing communications to supply chain operations and partnerships. Embarking on this journey is demanding, but as brand leaders such as Reckitt (whose portfolio of health and hygiene brands includes Lysol, Air Wick, and Finish), along with Schneider Electric, Mahindra Group, and others have discovered, the payoff in sustainability benefits and business performance is worth it.
Not every strategy will be appropriate or feasible for every brand. It’s important to understand the requirements and challenges of each in order to pick the strategy that will deliver the greatest sustainability impact and business gains for the brand. Firms can clarify their thinking by imagining the four strategies as quadrants in a 2×2 matrix, with markets along the horizontal axis and customer engagement along the vertical axis.
3 key takeaways from the article
- Practically every day one company or another announces a new sustainability commitment or launches an ad campaign about how it’s helping people and the planet. Fewer leaders, however, are exploring an important new frontier in sustainability, in which brands actively partner with customers to achieve ongoing impact.
- A practical framework for creating sustainability strategies is to take into account both dimensions—markets and customer engagement.
- Four key ways that legacy companies can nurture growth in their sustainability efforts: fertilizing, a brand stays in its existing market but adds a sustainability “nutrient” to the product or service; transplanting, a brand serves new customer needs by extending the sustainability benefits of current offerings or related new ones into adjacent markets; grafting, customers are incorporated into the brand’s current sustainability strategy by changing how they use the product or service; and hybridizing, whereby companies adopt a new sustainability purpose to drive a major repositioning of the brand in new markets while asking customers to change too.
Listen to the Extractive Summary of the Article
(Copyright)
Topics: Strategy, Leadership, Sustainability, Environment
Leading & Managing Section
This Is the Simple 5-Question Template You Need to Make Better Decisions
By Laura A. Cooper | Entrepreneur Magazine | December 8, 2022
According to the 2019 Nobel Prize winner in economics, Daniel Kahneman, all decisions are made with partial information due to the systemic cognitive biases people bring to the decision-making process. However, decisions don’t require perfection to be effective. For corporate leaders bearing the pressure to make tough calls, asking the right questions is a systematic approach to gathering information that avoids the pitfalls in pursuit of perfection.
In a decade-long longitudinal study of over 2,700 leaders, Harvard Business Review found that too many leaders were shrinking from making difficult decisions, and delays often did more damage than they sought to avoid. The bigger an organization gets, the less decisive it becomes. There is a better formula to weigh the information that first helps discern which — a rapid or slow decision — is required: First, ask who, what, when, where, why and how.
Who? Identifies all the parties involved, impacted stakeholders and who will carry out any action. Asking this question reveals who needs support and who has further information or insight. This can also highlight the relevant managers for other delegations.
What? This question offers a summation of the issues presented, not a long narrative. It describes the event or chain of events leading to the problem and shows what type of decision is necessary.
When? This offers a timeline of events and a timeframe for a needed outcome, displaying whether a fast or slow decision is required.
Where? Identifies the location of the issue or bottleneck within the organization and whether a decision crosses international borders or relates to just one set of laws. The “where” provides a snapshot of the blast radius of any decision.
Why? This helps us understand the necessity of choice by briefly deconstructing the problem and the context of events. It also illustrates the chain of responsibility for the problem and the solution.
How? Reveals what circumstances culminated in bringing the issue about and why it made its way to the executive level. This step may offer the cause and effect of the problem and the solution.
3 key takeaways from the article
- According to the 2019 Nobel Prize winner in economics, Daniel Kahneman, all decisions are made with partial information due to the systemic cognitive biases people bring to the decision-making process. However, decisions don’t require perfection to be effective. For corporate leaders bearing the pressure to make tough calls, asking the right questions is a systematic approach to gathering information that avoids the pitfalls in pursuit of perfection.
- Asking the right questions. When you have a decision to make, asking who, what, when, where, why and how offers the minimum information needed to make an informed decision while avoiding data overkill.
- Asking for copious amounts of data before risking a decision becomes an endless cycle. But determining the who, what, when, where, why and how is a very simple, practical and valuable tool that can save businesses time and resources.
Listen to the Extractive Summary of the Article
(Copyright)
Topics: Decision making, Data
Entrepreneurship Section
Everything About How Startups Succeed Is Changing in 2023 – How 3 events created a perfect storm of profitability.
By Joe Procopio | Inc Magazine | December 7, 2022
There’s a reason why a lot of the news articles and thought pieces you read about startup success all sound the same lately. It’s because the threads binding the strategy of unicorn-valuation growth are unraveling at a quickening pace. Over the last five years, several massive changes in the startup universe have changed the traditional growth path, and possibly permanently. At least four are being shared:
- Web3 Crimped Funding. Ten years ago, cryptocurrency was a game for nerds and libertarians. The premise was solid, on paper. The execution left a lot to be figured out. Resultantly a once intriguing web3 promise turned into a daily documenting of thefts, scams, and bankruptcies. As the dominos continue to fall, a lot of new and traditional VCs find themselves crushed under the weight. It’s not just about the loss of available venture capital, it’s about the loss of faith in new technologies and their potential.
- The Pandemic Shuffled Talent. The global pandemic and its shock waves and various responses changed a lot of things for a lot of people, but two particular shifts impacted the startup and innovation world the hardest. Mainly, people started to say to themselves: I’m not wasting my life doing something I hate and I’m certainly not doing it in a place I don’t want to be. The result was a new emphasis on working on whatever from wherever. Platforms, tools, infrastructure, and protocols that allowed for distance collaboration and production quickly matured to meet a forced demand. Regardless of where that talent eventually lands, those tools and platforms aren’t going away. And the companies that aren’t facing a reckoning of their own crap culture find themselves outperforming their behemoth peers.
- Inflation Brought a Return to Profitability. As billions of dollars continue to be wiped out on bad web3 bets and billions more dollars in pandemic-response bills come due, well, it was only a matter of time before we faced an historical inflationary wave. Tighten your belts. The investor calls for a return to profitability are as unsurprising as they are late. Yes, risk needs fuel and air to become reward, and that will always be the case, but how many did we need to prop up before we realized that cults of personality didn’t pay salaries and rents?
- It’s That Last One That Matters. Every shiny new startup trend – from 1980s garage-built computers to 2000s dot-bombs to 2020s NFTs – has a short shelf life and a false front. The only thing that doesn’t change is the strategy of making and selling something for more than it costs to make, then scaling in a sustainable way. In 2023, every startup possibly will be 100% focused on EBITDA, profit, burn, and runway. Just like we were in 2022.
2 key takeaways from the article
- There’s a reason why a lot of the news articles and thought pieces you read about startup success all sound the same lately. It’s because the threads binding the strategy of unicorn-valuation growth are unraveling at a quickening pace. Over the last five years, several massive changes in the startup universe have changed the traditional growth path, and possibly permanently.
- At least four are being shared: Web3 Crimped Funding that resulted into not just about the loss of available venture capital but also the loss of faith in new technologies and their potential. The global pandemic and its shock waves and various responses have not only reshuffled the talent but also pushed the development of platforms, tools, infrastructure, and protocols that allowed for distance collaboration and production which are here to stay. Inflation Brought a Return to Profitability. And scaling the business in a sustainable way.
Listen to the Extractive Summary of the Article
(Copyright)
Topics: Startups, Entrepreneurship, Disruption
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.