Weekly Business Insights

Since the end of the Cold War the rich world’s corporate giants have been the dominant force in global commerce. Today consumers and workers in almost every country are touched in some way by the world-spanning operations of multinational firms from America, Europe and, to a lesser extent, Japan. These leviathans are now under threat, as Chinese firms in industries from cars to clothing expand abroad with startling speed. A new commercial contest has begun. Its battleground is neither China nor the rich world, but the fast-growing economies of the global south.

The expansion of Chinese business is taking two forms. One is through globalised supply chains. Greenfield foreign direct investment by Chinese firms tripled last year, to $160bn. Much of that was spent building factories in countries from Malaysia to Morocco. Less noticed is the fact that Chinese firms are also pursuing the 5bn consumers who live in the rest of the developing world. Since 2016, listed Chinese firms have quadrupled their sales in the global south, to $800bn, and now sell more there than in rich countries. For the West, attempting to deal with China’s rise, that holds uncomfortable lessons.

Chinese businesses are looking abroad partly because of slowing economic growth and ferocious competition at home. They are chipping away at the dominance of incumbent multinationals everywhere from Indonesia to Nigeria.

The precise shape of Chinese expansion is, however, a consequence of policies of governments in the West and China. As rich countries erect trade barriers to keep out Chinese goods, including solar panels and EVs, some Chinese firms are attempting to skirt restrictions by shifting production to the global south. At the same time, selling to emerging markets in their own right has become more attractive, too. The companies’ path has been smoothed by the efforts of China’s government to build diplomatic ties with the global south, notably by facilitating $1trn of infrastructure investment through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). As the West has turned inward, China and the rest of the emerging world have drawn closer.

At a time when globalisation is under attack, this holds an important lesson for policymakers: that trade can bring extraordinary benefits. Billions of lives will be enhanced by a wider choice of cheap, innovative and green goods.  Another lesson is how costly it is to shelter incumbent Western multinationals from competition. 

Domestic rivalries mean that Chinese firms, once derided for turning out shoddy copycat products, have mastered the knack of producing goods for low-income consumers in a way that Western companies never did. Chinese firms are now at the cutting-edge of EVs and batteries, precisely the sorts of industries rich-world governments coddle at home. The idea that Chinese brands lack global appeal has been shattered by companies such as Shein, a fast-fashion firm. Sales by Chinese companies in the global south have already overtaken those of Japanese multinationals. On current trends, they will pull ahead of European firms and be on par with American ones by 2030.

As in the West, local industries competing with Chinese companies will cite China’s fondness for subsidies and seek special protection. Already, Brazil has introduced tariffs on EVs, and some Chinese exports are facing levies in Indonesia. Yet to shut out Chinese products would deprive consumers of the benefits of choice and innovation, and shield unproductive and stagnant local industries from competition. But policymakers should also beware of being too lax. Some have already been burnt as BRI debts went sour. Much of the business being done by Chinese firms in the global south today involves only final assembly. Many firms are reported to bring in Chinese workers, rather than hire locally. For developing economies to truly benefit, they should press Chinese firms to employ more local workers, share technology and heed local environmental and labour standards.

And just as closer commercial ties enhanced the soft power of America and Japan in the late 20th century, so too may China wield greater influence in the global south.

The majority of people can now expect to grow older. By 2050, 1.6 billion people will be over the age of 65. The challenge—and opportunity—that comes with increased life expectancy is ensuring that those extra years are as healthy and productive as possible. It’s an attainable goal, asserts British economist Andrew J. Scott, if the global focus shifts from the notion of an aging society to that of a longevity society, anchored in prevention, innovation, and investment.

Scott is a professor of economics at London Business School, cofounder of the Longevity Forum, and coauthor of The 100-Year Life, which has sold more than a million copies. His latest book, The Longevity Imperative: How to Build a Healthier and More Productive Society to Support Our Longer Lives (Basic Books, April 2024), outlines what needs to happen across the public, private, and social sectors to stimulate what he calls an “evergreen economy.”

As part of the McKinsey Health Institute’s (MHI’s) Conversations on Health series, Scott recently sat down with Ellen Feehan, a McKinsey partner and coleader of MHI’s healthy longevity team, to discuss the meaning of healthy longevity and why it should be top of mind—regardless of age, geography, and industry.  The following is an edited and extracted summarized version of their conversation.

Ellen Feehan: In your view, what is healthy longevity?

Andrew Scott: Something remarkable has happened. Global life expectancy is now over 70. In high-income countries, 50 percent of children are expected to live to their late 80s or early 90s. We’re living longer, but we’re not healthier for longer. We’ve also got to make sure we’re productive and engaged for longer. And that’s what I see as healthy longevity—how can we respond to this extra length of life that we’ve achieved to make sure that we’re not just living longer—but healthier, engaged, and productive for longer.

Ellen Feehan: Why healthy longevity and not healthy aging?

Andrew Scott: I don’t want to get too purist, [but] in general, I’ve got a problem with the word “aging.” I think we’ve medicalized old age; we see it only as a form of decline. And yes, it is of course about healthy aging, but if we’re going to think about longevity, we need to recognize that it’s also about the extra time we’ve got ahead of us. Whether you’re 20, 50, 70, or 80, you’ve got more time ahead of you than previous generations. So I think that focus on longevity, on that time you’ve got at whatever age you’ve got, is really important. What is healthy aging? I think people see that as something that happens—“Oh, I’ll do that later.” You can improve how you age at any time, but the earlier you start, the better.

Ellen Feehan: By 2050, 1.6 billion people will be over the age of 65. What is the opportunity in this demographic shift?

Andrew Scott: I’m glad you used the word “opportunity” because normally an aging society is seen as a bad thing—it’s like, “Oh God, we’ve got an aging society.” But it’s definitely an opportunity. And I think there are two ways of spinning that. One, you often hear people say, “Well, there’s an opportunity in all the things older people need.” But I think actually there’s a more profound change in play. I call it the evergreen society or the evergreen economy. We’re living longer, but we need to be healthier longer. We need to be engaged for longer. And what are the things you can do for me to help me do that.  

It’s true that if I get ill in later life and I get dementia, I will spend money to have someone care for me, but I’ll spend a fortune to avoid getting dementia. And that’s what I mean by the evergreen economy. What are the things I can do at 30, 40, 50, 60 to help me keep my health, keep my purpose, keep my sense of engagement. And that’s a huge opportunity—it’s the leisure industry, it’s the food and beverage industry, it’s about education and financial services, as well as, of course, health products. It’s an enormous market opportunity because, around the world, everyone is living longer and can expect to have more time ahead of them. So how they age is incredibly important.

Ellen Feehan: Can you speak to the importance of collaboration and partnership to drive impact in the healthy longevity space—hopefully in our lifetime?

Andrew Scott: I think longevity is a hugely important issue, up there with AI and climate change in terms of its importance. If you think individually and collectively, few things are going to be as important for our future as how we each age. It’s kind of obvious, isn’t it? But how we age is not a simple thing. It depends on lots of different factors. It’s going to depend on the products that I purchase. It’s going to depend on what my employer does. It’s going to depend on the environment, my community, and social norms. It straddles so many different areas. I think whether it’s individuals, communities, or governments, we’ve got to really focus on how we support these now-longer lives. That is going to require a lot of very technocratic changes about the economy, the financial sector, and health systems. But above all, it’s really a personal thing. We know that people who live longer are those who have a sense of purpose, a sense of community, and a sense of engagement. So adapting to longer lives is, in some sense, the ultimate collaborative activity.

The 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. established a crucial legal doctrine that required federal courts to defer to administrative agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The doctrine gave agencies significant power to interpret laws.

In June 2024, the U.S. the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This decision requires courts to use their “independent judgment” to identify the “single, best meaning” of an ambiguous statute rather than automatically deferring to any reasonable agency regulation.  The decision does not eliminate all agency influence on judicial decision-making. Loper Bright makes it clear that courts can still defer to agencies when a statute’s “best meaning” is that it gives the agency some discretion.  Statutes also confer upon agencies’ discretion to apply facts to the law. Loper Bright also makes clear that courts, in exercising their “independent judgment,” should still give weight to an agency’s interpretation of the statute, especially if the agency’s interpretation has been long-standing and consistent.

Nevertheless, Loper Bright marks a significant shift in how courts will evaluate agency regulations, giving them more flexibility in interpreting statutes and ending four decades of practice where agencies often had the final say in interpreting ambiguous laws.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright alters the balance of power between regulatory agencies and the companies they regulate, creating opportunities and challenges. What follows are three important takeaways for business.

1. It should be easier to challenge agency regulations.  One clear implication of the Supreme Court’s decision is that businesses can be more aggressive in challenging unfavorable agency regulations (and other agency interpretations of federal statutes). Under Chevron, the party challenging the agency interpretation had to convince the court not just that the agency was wrong but that the agency was unambiguously wrong. Now, the party challenging an agency’s interpretation need only convince the court that the party’s reading of the statute is better than the agency’s.
2. Successful challenges will likely focus on statutory interpretations.  In considering a challenge, however, businesses should bear in mind that the benefits of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Chevron are strongest in the case of a pure legal challenge to an agency regulation. The Supreme Court’s decision has far less impact on a challenge to the agency’s application of the statute to a specific set of facts.
3. Regulatory compliance no longer guarantees statutory compliance.  Businesses should recognize that the Loper Bright decision does not hand them an advantage in all circumstances. For example, businesses cannot assume that their compliance with agency regulations will shield them from a claim that they violated the underlying statute. Challenges to agency regulations may come not just from businesses but from other interest groups. Regulations can, of course, be pro-business (as in Chevron itself) or at least provide welcome clarity in the face of ambiguity about a statute’s requirements. By making it easier to challenge regulations, the Supreme Court has cast some uncertainty on the validity of regulations that businesses have long taken for granted.

AI concerns overemphasize harms arising from subversion rather than seduction. Worries about AI often imagine doomsday scenarios where systems escape human control or even understanding. Short of those nightmares, there are nearer-term harms we should take seriously: that AI could jeopardize public discourse through misinformation; cement biases in loan decisions, judging or hiring; or disrupt creative industries. 

However, the authors foresee a different, but no less urgent, class of risks: those stemming from relationships with nonhuman agents. AI companionship is no longer theoretical— the authors’ analysis of a million ChatGPT interaction logs reveals that the second most popular use of AI is sexual role-playing. We are already starting to invite AIs into our lives as friends, lovers, mentors, therapists, and teachers. 

Will it be easier to retreat to a replicant of a deceased partner than to navigate the confusing and painful realities of human relationships? Indeed, the AI companionship provider Replika was born from an attempt to resurrect a deceased best friend and now provides companions to millions of users. Even the CTO of OpenAI warns that AI has the potential to be “extremely addictive.”

We’re seeing a giant, real-world experiment unfold, uncertain what impact these AI companions will have either on us individually or on society as a whole. Will Grandma spend her final neglected days chatting with her grandson’s digital double, while her real grandson is mentored by an edgy simulated elder? AI wields the collective charm of all human history and culture with infinite seductive mimicry. These systems are simultaneously superior and submissive, with a new form of allure that may make consent to these interactions illusory. In the face of this power imbalance, can we meaningfully consent to engaging in an AI relationship, especially when for many the alternative is nothing at all? 

As AI researchers working closely with policymakers, we are struck by the lack of interest lawmakers have shown in the harms arising from this future. We are still unprepared to respond to these risks because we do not fully understand them. What’s needed is a new scientific inquiry at the intersection of technology, psychology, and law—and perhaps new approaches to AI regulation.

One of the most effective regulatory approaches is to embed safeguards directly into technical designs, similar to the way designers prevent choking hazards by making children’s toys larger than an infant’s mouth. This “regulation by design” approach could seek to make interactions with AI less harmful by designing the technology in ways that make it less desirable as a substitute for human connections while still useful in other contexts.

You’ve probably seen the new face of China Inc. on your Facebook, TikTok or Instagram feed without even realizing it.  With their sleek websites, localized ads and social media campaigns featuring users who appear to be American or European, it would be easy for the casual scroller to miss that these are made-in-China products. They’re representative of a new cadre of Chinese consumer-goods manufacturers.

The first generation of Chinese exporters found success by fabricating cheap, unbranded products for Western companies: dinnerware sets for Walmart or T-shirts for Gap. The next wave produced higher-end goods—think digital cameras, designer handbags and cellphones—but still on behalf of big-name foreign clients, such as Apple, Nikon and Prada.

Over the past couple of decades, only a small group of Chinese consumer-product companies set out to win over US or European consumers under their own names. Appliance manufacturer Haier and computer marker Lenovo relied on acquisitions of well-known Western brands to do that, with mixed success, partly because of integration challenges.

The new cohort of young Chinese brands, such as Narwal (robot vacs), Boox (e-ink tablets) and Laifen (electric toothbrushes and hair dryers) is charting a different course. Their pitches are based on product performance, touting technical advances meant to make your life easier. Generally their products are still cheaper than US competitors’, but not always. (At $499, Boox’s Air3 e-ink notebook is priced $100 more than comparable Kindle models.) All three sell directly to consumers, as well as through third parties.

None of these manufacturers is big enough yet to have gone public, but they’re racking up sales, as well as positive reviews on consumer recommendation sites in the US and elsewhere. They’re also drawing the attention of private equity and venture capital firms.

M any of these brands are well known at home, where they’ve benefited from the upswing in consumer nationalism to build substantial businesses. But the world’s No. 2 economy is slowing markedly. Consumers are spending less, and companies have responded by aggressively cutting prices.  For many Chinese manufacturers, the only real hope for revenue growth—or even just to preserve current levels of profitability—is to take on established companies abroad. Brand owners from mainland China filed more US trademark applications in 2023 than all other foreign applicants combined.  But their ability to sell premium options into Western contexts is not just a market issue, but also a political one nowadays.  Hence, the companies are looking at the possibility of manufacturing some of their products in the US, Europe and other Asian countries, “to prepare for tariff and demand changes.”

“Soccer is 90 minutes of pretending to be hurt when you’re not,” Botha tells the author. “And rugby is 80 minutes of pretending not to be hurt, with blood spewing on your face.”

Botha—who’s now the head of Sequoia Capital, one of the oldest, largest, and most successful firms in venture capital—and rugby will come up again and again. Botha cites lessons from rugby in talks with founders and colleagues, and watches it devotedly while he exercises. The game has provided him with endless analogies about the value of teamwork and resilience—and some decent one-liners. 

While some soccer fans might quibble with the comparison, rugby is, indisputably, not for the faint of heart. Then again, neither is Botha’s other passion: venture capital. The industry that has become a financing pipeline for young, innovative, and risky companies is known for dramatic booms and busts—and it’s coming off a particularly harrowing cycle. A COVID-era bump in demand for all things tech helped VC funds raise and invest record amounts in 2021, as an unprecedented 340 new U.S. startups achieved “unicorn” status, or valuations of $1 billion or more. Then, in 2022, came a correction, triggered by high interest rates and a slumping stock market—a decline that bloodied balance sheets and left many people wondering whether the VC model itself was broken. 

Sequoia has led investments in tech titans including Apple, Cisco, and Google, plus newer names like Nvidia, Airbnb, DoorDash, and WhatsApp, minting billions in returns along the way. More than 25% of the overall market capitalization of the Nasdaq—more than $7 trillion, as of mid-July—is composed of Sequoia-backed companies. Sequoia’s kingmaker position is also evident in less quantifiable ways: Securing dollars from the firm is one of tech’s ultimate seals of approval. 

That stellar reputation is precisely what makes Botha’s job so hard. The task isn’t so much to fix what’s broken as it is to keep what works from breaking—and not to be the guy who ends a five-decade winning streak. And what’s kept Sequoia at the top in the past won’t necessarily keep it there—especially in a VC industry that’s scrambling to adapt. 

That said, there’s a reason Sequoia is the alpha: Its culture from the get-go has been one of near-paranoid competitiveness, ruthless honesty, and a constant need for change. Botha has become a paragon of these qualities: His probabilistic-thinking acumen and factual recall make him a force at decision-making time; his intense curiosity helps him question old ways of deciding. Partners credit him with reshaping the way Sequoia thinks—just in time for a moment of industrywide reset (not to mention an AI revolution). 

“We’re only as good as our next investment,” Botha and his partners like to say. But any fear of failure on Botha’s part is tempered with a relentless drive to master whatever he pursues, something he internalized as a boy in South Africa, and, yes, on the rugby field. 

As for his own success, he’s changed the metrics. It’s no longer his own goals, or the “10 to the power of 9” number in the corner of his notebook: It’s collective success that counts. “For me, it’s not personal winning now,” says Botha. “It’s the winning of us as a team.” And a tight-knit team is invaluable—because in venture capital, just like in rugby, another fiercely competitive scrum is always just around the corner.

The Summer Olympic Games in Paris is in full swing, and there is no shortage of inspiring stories and international controversy. The history of the games goes back around 3,000 years—held every four summers in honour of the Greek god Zeus. But modern companies can gain valuable lessons from the competition despite its ancient origins. The Paris Olympics reflects the unique hopes, dreams and challenges of the 206 territories that make up our diverse, imperfect and beautiful world.

Getting noticed.  The Olympic ceremony launched with extravagance and controversy.  Most marketing goes unnoticed. For marketing to be effective, it needs to evoke an emotional response. A positive emotion is ideal, but any emotion is better than apathy. Now, that doesn’t mean being controversial for the sake of controversy. Getting noticed can be as simple as making a stand, choosing a common enemy or telling a story. The Beijing (2008) and London (2012) Olympic opening ceremonies are still talked about today because they made people feel something. What would your brand’s opening ceremony look and feel like?

Niche Subplots.  Historically, the Olympics could only be viewed through a handful of official TV broadcasters that secured the licensing rights. But in 2024, the most exciting and eccentric coverage is happening on TikTok. Fans are getting direct access to life in the Olympic Village from their favourite athletes. The spontaneous nature of the content makes it more human, relatable and engaging than the official programming from NBC Universal, BBC or Eurosport.  The democratization of media has a the unfolding of several unexpected subplots.

Long-term Vision.  The emergence of China is an untold Olympic story. In the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, the USA won a whopping 44 Gold Olympic medals, in contrast to China’s 16 Gold medals. The Beijing Olympics announced China as an economic, political and sporting superpower on the international stage. China finished the Beijing 2008 Olympics ranked first with 48 gold medals. What is perhaps less documented is China’s strategic plan since the 1980s to become an Olympic heavyweight. The masterplan began with a shortlist of sports with the highest potential for a gold medal.  This was known as Project 119—named after the number of gold medals available in the events—which included track and field, swimming and water sports. Finally, since 2008, China has targeted more internationally popular sports.  China invested in 3,000 state-run sports schools and more than 400,000 students were enrolled in sports schools in 2005 ahead of the 2008 Olympics. It combined centralized investment and grassroots development to identify, develop and train the best talent in the country. Unlike China’s long-term vision and investment, many companies operate under the tyranny of quarterly results. If China made decisions for the next Summer Olympic Games rather than future generations, its results would be vastly different.

Although most managers believe that they give each of their team members equal attention, respect, and consideration, four decades’ worth of empirical research says otherwise. Studies show that nearly all bosses have—or are seen to have—in-groups with whom they have warmer, more personal relationships and out-groups with whom they operate more transactionally. Evidence also suggests that when employees find themselves on the wrong side of these divides, engagement, job satisfaction, commitment, and ultimately collaboration, innovation, and performance suffer.

No matter the function, organization, industry, or geography, subordinates pay close attention to how they’re treated in comparison with colleagues of equal talent, work ethic, and status. They quickly pick up on differences in leaders’ tone, sincerity, body language, style, emotional support, flexibility, criticism, and praise. And when they see or feel that a manager is less likely to solicit their views, build on their suggestions, encourage their initiatives, notice their efforts, or consider their needs and preferences—as if they work for, not with, the person—they often become disillusioned, distressed, and even hostile. 

So it is critical that managers first acknowledge these issues and then work hard to head off or repair conflicts. Those who don’t, risk losing key contributors, exacerbating the challenges presented by underperformers, ruining team performance and morale, and hurting their own reputations.

For each direct report, ask yourself three simple questions to gauge the strength of your relationship. 1. Did you seek the person’s company? Did your interactions extend beyond immediate tasks to discuss big-picture issues or to engage in social conversation? 2. Did you acknowledge the person’s capabilities? Did you elicit input (opinions and suggestions) in meetings or defer to the subordinate’s ideas?  3. Did you assist the person’s growth? Did your words or actions contribute to learning and development, such as through stretch assignments, coaching, or constructive feedback?

If the answer to even one of these questions is no—particularly if that happens two or three weeks in a row—you must address the deficit. To build greater rapport, reach out and identify common ground you may have overlooked (for example, children, hobbies, or upbringing). Perceived similarity is a strong driver of liking. To make your people feel more competent, invite their suggestions or ideas, and give them a chance to tackle problems their way. Acknowledge their expertise and accomplishments and stay open to explanations if they underperform. To foster growth, discuss their career aims and give them challenging tasks, upward visibility, and public praise for successes.

Even when the relationship seems beyond repair—you can temper your employee’s negative emotions and possibly turn the situation around. We recommend three steps:  prepare for the conversation (Role-playing with a coach, a trusted colleague, or even an empty chair can help.), minimize the power differential so that skeptical subordinates feel they can safely talk about their out-group pain, spell out what’s critical to each person and commit to changes.

Even casual watchers of the Paris Olympics can appreciate the competitors’ athleticism. Those who’ve followed the stories of U.S. gymnast Simone Biles and countless other Olympians know the role that mental wellness plays in their success. What’s become increasingly apparent to the author is the way some Olympic athletes are models of emotional intelligence.  Emotional intelligence, sometimes known as an emotional quotient or EQ, is that potent mix of self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills that allows people to manage their own emotions and connect with others. 

Leaders need look no further than the current summer and previous Olympic Games to see how some of the world’s best athletes–especially those on teams–exhibit emotional health and well-being. Here are three examples.

High performers can be confident and empathetic.  In this delightful New York Times article, table tennis players in Paris explained how common it is for casual Ping-Pong players to think they can beat the Olympians. “You’ll meet someone, and their first reaction is, ‘I bet I can beat you, let’s play,'” Lily Zhang of the U.S. team told the Times. “I don’t think you’d really say that to anyone in another sport.  Rather than being insulted, the players in the article shrug off strangers’ boasts–a great example of managing one’s feelings or reactions. And Zhang was empathetic, suggesting that the prevalence of tables in suburban rec rooms and community centers may explain the wannabes’ misplaced confidence.

Fierce competitors know when to ignore the competition.  While competing in the men’s gymnastics team competition, Paul Juda, Frederick Richard, Asher Hong, Stephen Nedoroscik, and Brody Malone could sometimes be seen in a group huddle. During an appearance on the Today show after winning bronze in the event, Malone explained what was going on. “After every event we did a huddle to remind ourselves to stay in our bubble,” he told Today. “We made it a big point to not watch any of the other teams, to just focus on what we could control, which is our gymnastics.”  According to Inc. columnist and EQ expert Justin Bariso, avoiding comparisons with others is a key component of emotional intelligence. 

Disappointment can be a good motivator.  Former pro point guard Sue Bird, who helped the U.S. women’s team win gold medals in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016, is one of the winning players in American basketball. However, she has faced her fair share of disappointment off the court. Bird told Fast Company’s Jeff Beer that despite her superstar status, she often saw major brands shy away from partnerships with female athletes or women’s sports.   Bird, eager to see change, teamed up with media veteran Jessica Robertson and fellow athletes to launch Togethxr, a media and commerce company dedicated to highlighting women’s sports. Bird and others are starting to see results.

The difference between business survival and striving for success often boils down to one factor — your mindset. Whether you’re an aspiring entrepreneur or a seasoned executive, your actions are always inspired by how you look at things. This ultimately affects your results and dictates what you can further bring to the table.  The following five approaches helped the author’s company reach a significant milestone in just a year.

1. Expect the unexpected.  Get used to things not going as you would expect; it’s part of the journey. If your plan A doesn’t succeed, make sure you have 25 more up your sleeve.  There is no perfect roadmap for your business, as each business and founder is unique in the way we approach growing and servicing customers. Accepting a business’s unpredictable nature helps you stay nimble and adaptable, and flexibility allows you to pivot when necessary and capitalize on unexpected opportunities.
2. Outsource early and often.  Outsource every possible task as soon as possible. This approach will force you to create Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) before you become too busy. If you don’t do this earlier, you will find scaling to be very difficult, which will hinder you from generating the revenue needed to support a full-time team.  Consider outsourcing as a way to buy time. An entrepreneur’s main goal is to reinvest time into assets that drive growth as early as possible. Focus on the more critical aspects of your business rather than getting bogged down in routine tasks.
3. Invest in a business coach.  No matter where you are in your business lifecycle, you can’t afford not to have someone who will help you work through challenges and offer perspectives and ideas that will help you not get stuck in the mess. Get a coach at each level of your business.  Don’t be afraid to take what you need and move on. Don’t get hung up on the cost if it helped you move past an area that is causing friction or if it gave you an “aha moment.”
4. Get comfortable with public failure.  The sooner you get comfortable with publicly failing, the quicker you can get back up and learn from your mistakes. If you consistently pay attention to the details or let what others may perceive you as get on your nerves, you’re setting yourself up for disaster.
5. Surround yourself with like-minded people.  They say, “You are the sum of the five people you spend the most time with. Your network significantly shapes the way you think and perceive things.