Sustention vs. Catalyzation
I’d give the textbook answer, that building our Lenderblock Corporation from its inception has been a journey of planning and discipline towards, and hyper-focus on our core value proposition; however, these mentioned virtues are likely not the most catalytic … although perhaps the most sustaining.
There tends to be anecdotal differentiation between sustention and catalyzation, and hence uniquely catered organizational mindsets must be cultivated to achieve either.
The proposed juxtaposition is contextually exemplified:
An entity incentivized to primarily sustain itself does so by gathering its compounded momentum in its strongest sectors of performance, which I call primary performance sectors, and ensuring via investment of the entity’s resources that these primary performance sectors remain ever-fruitful and ever-reapable. However, the investment of the entity’s finite resources to highly-localized homogeneous sectors (or in the extreme case, a single sector) may not poise the entity to take advantage of real-time opportunities presented in adjacent sectors to which they’ve laid no prior investment.
An entity incentivized to primarily catalyze new growth does so by establishing a primary sector of performance, ideally a sector with the highest potential for public impact and generation of usable resources (which often is an entity’s most difficult performance sector to catalyze). Ironically, in order to catalyze the primary performance sector, the entity must supplement this primary sector by the investment of resources into other adjacent sectors of potential performance geared to predictably earn lesser nearer-term resources such as revenue, brand influence, customers and content on a recurring basis; I call these supplementary potential sectors of performance, supporting performance sectors, as contrasted with primary performance sectors. The entity’s largest benefit reaped from its investment into these supporting performance sectors is their self-sustaining operation and intrinsic profitability … in principle, the supporting performance sectors absolutely must earn profit for provision to the primary performance sector in order to justify their continuation. Additionally, the investment of the entity’s finite resources to many supporting sectors may leave too few resources liquid for agile real-time adjustments, or, be allocated too sparsely to adequately establish and maintain these supporting performance sectors.
If an entity seeks to organically catalyze growth, a solitary primary sector of performance will not self-catalyze to achieve profitable sustention. Adjacently procured resources such as revenue, brand influence, customers and content must be fed to the primary performance sector from its supporting performance sectors to provide foundational supplementation as the primary performance sector nears sustainability. Interestingly, the realization of profitable sustainability of the primary performance sector will be inseparable from the supplementation of resources provided by its supporting performance sectors … the primary sector will always depend on the sustenance provided by its supporting sectors. This realization will trigger the entity’s transitioning from an entity incentivized to catalyze to an entity incentivized to sustain. Inevitably, the new phase of sustention will be followed by a reentry into the phase of catalyzation, likely triggered by newly present opportunities and/or decreasing momentum in several existing performance sectors, primary or supporting.
Therefore, deliberately set an entity’s phase within this cycle, and adjust the balance of the entity’s teetering across this juxtaposition to obtain and maintain the desired position for the given and foreseen period, within this sustention-catalyzation duality.