Interestingly, while from the beginning the word utopia was used to refer to a desirable (perfect) society, etymologically it simply means a place that does not exist.
In contrast to dystopia, which is clearly a bad place.
etymologically it simply means a place that does not exist
This isn't true, I think? Assuming that it derives from the Greek τόπος (location), it literally means "good place" (εὖ-τόπος). The no-such-place translation in Greek would probably be ἄτοπος, but that's an existing word and uses one of the other meanings of τόπος (it means uncommon or absurd).
You may not find it by asking others. You will lose sense of time if you really want to get good at something. Sportsmen do not go on a quest in their childhood. They are playing in the middle while their peers are enjoying birthday parties.
The good thing is you are exploring a lot. And exploration never ends until you begin to enjoy getting tired.
That is what I am trying to contest here, a manager can also be an entrepreneur. One does not need to own a business to be an entrepreneur. I believe it is a mindset. Even a manager running P&L of a division can be an entrepreneur if one can deliver on ways to create products/ services to improve lives of customers/ users.
I think that the term "entrepreneur" is so fuzzy that there are many different meanings that may well contradict each other. Since your question was phrased very subjectively, I chose the destinction that I found most revealing.
In business, each of us first acts individually. The question is how we meaningfully identify roles in this context. "Entrepreneurs" und "managers" are perhaps not specific enough roles to provide us with valuable insights. Consider your criteria of being able to "deliver on ways to create products/ services to improve lives of customers/ users". This is in no way limited to people who we typically call entrepreneurs. Everyone who has a creative job or volunteer work does this or contributes to it. So if it is not sufficient to characterize an entrepreneur, is it at least required? -- I do not think that neither inovation nor success is a mandatory criteria for the general use cases of the term.
Nevertheless, it might be worth asking what an innovative and successful entrepreneur has in common with an innovative and successful manager and what might distinguish them from each other. As a thought experiment, we can imagine one and the same person (= one mindset) once as the owner and once as the manager of the same business. Would the business decisions always be the same?
Yes, sometimes even an incremental improvement can create great businesses. e.g. Freshworks, earlier known as Freshdesk, started as an economical version of Zendesk.
I agree that it requires one to lead and take decisions. I am not limited to the usual definition. I want to know if you agree or disagree with the usual definition.
By the way, leadership reminds me of an excellent essay, Solitude and Leadership by William Deresiewicz: https://theamericanscholar.org/solitude-and-leadership/
There is First Republic Bank that rewards edu loan repayments. If you close it early then it rewards you with cash as a percentage of interest that were yet to be paid. It believes that it will earn more from the customer in its lifetime.
e.g. if you repay a 10 year loan in 4 years. You will be rewarded with cash as a percentage of interest that were yet to be paid in next 6 years.
reply