The dominant pattern of history isn’t stability, but instability; the dominant pattern of business isn’t perpetuation of the incumbents, but triumph of the insurgents; the dominant pattern of capitalism isn’t equilibrium, but what Joseph Schumpeter famously described as the “perennial gale of creative destruction.” In a dangerous, turbulent world full of threats and disruptions, you need to “protect your flanks”—identify and protect against vulnerabilities that, if exposed or exploited, could kill or cripple you.

These companies were built, or in some cases rebuilt, with one goal in mind—to maximize human contribution. This aspiration is the animating spirit of humanocracy, and stands in stark contrast to the bureaucratic obsession with control. Both goals are important, but in most organizations, the effort spent on ensuring conformance is a vast multiple of the energy devoted to enlarging the capacity for human impact. This gross imbalance is dangerous for organizations, a drag on the economy, and ethically troubling.

While most CEOs acknowledge the virtues of free markets, the companies they run are typically structured like command economies. As in the former Soviet Union, decision-making power is highly concentrated at the top. Changing this is essential to making our organizations more resilient, innovative, and human. To see how this might be done, we need to understand the conditions under which markets outperform hierarchies and then try to imagine how these advantages might be replicated within our organizations.

The only disciplined message put out by the impromptu coalition of dreamers and discontents who “occupied” Wall Street and other global financial capitals in the wake of the financial crisis was something along the lines of “burn the rich.” But their efforts to highlight inequality didn’t do much to change public perceptions. Numerous subsequent research projects have revealed that people in the most unequal countries routinely underestimate the levels of inequality, while those in countries where the bulk of national wealth is in the hands of large middle classes tend to be more accurate and occasionally even overestimate inequality.

You have to integrate that into the company. The processes that you put in place to do that, they have to be very deliberate. It doesn’t happen by itself. What happens [naturally] is entropy. You have to leverage scale in a way that doesn’t disable entrepreneurialism, business ownership. It’s integrative. It’s not centralized. Centralized is a very different thing. This scale work is bringing the leaders of the businesses to work together towards a plan that not only optimizes the company, but in its best form, optimizes their category as well. As we approach a market, for instance, with multiple categories, the chance for success for each of them increases.” Going into a new emerging market with several complementary categories, rather than just one, for instance, can enable cost sharing and increase local influence, thereby increasing the chance of success in the region.