he deconstructionist group of professors and writes clearly note every business needs destructive change to remain competitive. Seeing as how many people  make their living at taking things apart without anyway of putting businesses back together I give my sicerest apology. On the other hand, they really are not important in keeping American business competitive.

Years ago, way back in 1982 the Harvard Business Review published an articleon the cycle businesses followed from initiation to collapse. Here's my explanation:

1. The entrepreneur, with vision on the horizon (a deconstructionist saying) brings forth the new market and products making people's lives better. New machinery, new methods of distribution,new marketing, and new everything else. Things march along and the company grows. At some point the entrepreneur is outgrown by the company size or the entrepreneur retires.
2. The board must find a replacement, the point destruction begins. Entrepreneurs are born and, in reality, very few exist. Even fewer are capable of taking a large company and creating a new future the board wants.
3. Boards look around and usually settle for a manager. Managers rarely look to the horizon, as noted in many books on leadership, but rather look to the bottom line. In fact, to many CEO's come from the accounting side of the business world. Now personally I like CFO's and like to read CFO Magazine( I learned what happened to Enron from CFO Magazine).But if you need a business to reinvent itself every five years the board has set itself up for long-term failure. Note: the five year rediscovery was well know before professors claimed they discovered creative destruction.
4. Before long the financial based CEO is looking to sell or merge his or her company with another comparable company. Soon we have companies too big to fail although they are failing.
5. People like Carl Icahn and Warren Buffet love these failing companies. But those of us whose tax dollars pay for their inefficientcies or failures shouldn't be happy at all.
6. Defining and finding entrepreneurs is difficult and as they tend to not be the most stable mental people you ever met, hiring them is an issue. Books think you can teach entrepreneuring; really you can only enhance their perceptions.
7. Most normal peole are more concerned with their families than with their place of employment. Their most important job is keeping their job. A real entrepreneur just ignores everything except their "horizons". Maybe you remember Steve Jobs as a perfect example. 
8. A last point: as a business grows so does its value. If an entrepreneur wants to be part of the ownership he cannot afford to buy in and the talent is wasted. I'm looking at how to keep capital gains out of the partnership issue. Perhaps instead of the value of the business being in rising value, the ownership takes their share out of cash flow. On the other hand, we are sure boards will continue to put in management guaranteeing failure.