What happens when systems designed to succeed are actually built to fail? In today’s episode, we explore why growth-at-all-costs can undermine even the most well-intentioned organizations.
In this episode of The Agent of Wealth, co-host John Williams is joined by Eugene Theodore, strategist, former photojournalist, and author of Built to Collapse, to uncover the hidden forces shaping modern business, innovation, and leadership.
In this episode, you will learn:
- Why hard work alone isn’t enough — and how the systems around us often determine success or failure.
- How innovation and growth can backfire when metrics and incentives aren’t aligned with long-term sustainability.
- The risks of adopting technology trends, like AI, without considering systemic consequences.
- Three guiding principles — be of service, be sustainable, be of significance — that can help individuals and organizations thrive.
- And more!
Tune in for a thought-provoking conversation on the unseen pressures in business, the consequences of short-term thinking, and practical insights for creating lasting impact in your work and life.
Resources:
eugenetheodore.com | Built to Collapse | Bautis Financial: 8 Hillside Ave, Suite LL1 Montclair, New Jersey 07042 (862) 205-5000 | Schedule an Introductory Call
Disclosure: The transcript below has been edited for clarity and content. It is not a direct transcription of the full episode, which can be listened to above.
Welcome back to The Agent of Wealth Podcast, this is your co-host John Williams. Today, I’m joined by a special guest, Eugene Theodore.
Eugene is a strategist, former photojournalist, and the author of Built to Collapse. Eugene works at the intersection of power, profit, and people, helping leaders understand why modern systems often succeed in ways that make collapse inevitable.
Drawing on firsthand experience inside boardrooms, venture-backed startups, NGOs, and global institutions, his work explores the hidden costs of growth-at-all-costs and the erosion of trust, meaning, and human judgment.
Built to Collapse is a business novel inspired by real patterns, not theory.
Eugene, welcome to the show.
Thank you for having me.
Of course. We’re excited to dive into this topic. I think it resonates with almost anyone involved in business — or really, just in everyday life. And before we get started, I thought it’d be helpful to give our listeners a bit of background on what led you to focus on systems, incentives, and long-term sustainability.
Sure. It’s a bit atypical, but I’ll give you the quick New York one-minute version. I actually started off as a photojournalist. I was one of the few people in downtown Manhattan on September 11th with a camera. That experience launched me directly into seeing events firsthand and then tracking how they evolve over time.
Several steps after that, I fell into the corporate world, working for several CPG companies, producing everything from household goods to cars. Then, when I decided to return to my more creative, photojournalistic roots, the corporate and financial elements followed me. As I started getting creative briefs from clients, I realized that the foundations we were working from either weren’t there, were missing, or were just plain wrong.
So, to answer your first question, that was the initial impetus — the foresight of, “Okay, if something isn’t working, is it a symptom of that very specific request, or is it a symptom of something much more systematic?”
Over the last 10 to 15 years, if I were to balance it out — asking whether it’s a micro-level symptom or a systematic one — I’ve found that the problems not just businesses face, but various areas of human development face, are system-based. It’s kind of a first principle: you can always reduce everything to the system. And that’s how I got here.
Yeah, that’s a really interesting concept — the idea that everyone talks about hard work and grit, which are obviously important, but often, the system you’re in determines whether that hard work succeeds. I’ve heard people say, “I’ll take a really great system over a really hard worker any day.” It highlights the importance of working on the right things.
Just as a side note, we could probably have an entire podcast on your experience on September 11th. It’s one of those events that people old enough to remember exactly where they were when they first heard about it. I’m sure that was intense.
Well, I mean, the previous collective global human consciousness moment was the JFK assassination. People who were alive at that time remember exactly where they were. I don’t know what the next generation’s “human consciousness” moment will be. I’m a little fearful of what it might be, but for now, let’s hope it doesn’t come — or at least that it’s nothing as violent.
I share the same sentiment. And I totally agree — growing up, people would say, “I was sitting in my classroom when the teacher brought in the TV for JFK.” Usually, these events aren’t positive experiences.
So, Eugene, with your experience across Fortune 500 companies, venture-backed startups, and global organizations, I’m curious: have you noticed consistent patterns that keep showing up?
Of course. Anyone exposed to innovation — product innovation, service innovation, just inventing something new — has probably heard the well-worn quote that over 90% of new things fail.
The reason these things fail isn’t that they aren’t well-researched, well-marketed, or well-funded. It comes down to one overarching reason: a systematic reason. They didn’t have a right to exist in the first place.
Why didn’t they have a right to exist? Because launching them might cannibalize an existing business or portfolio, or actively compete with it. Essentially, it’s one step too far. But the system that promotes innovation is always: let’s do as much as we can, as quickly as we can — throw spaghetti at the wall, see what sticks.
If something sticks, we iterate and make it better. But that constant forward-looking attitude is driven by the overall system: we need to grow, make profit, advance. There’s no room for treading water.
Even in a $100 billion company, stagnation isn’t acceptable. They always have to grow. And growth requires creativity — but creativity through very specific lenses, usually restricted by profit goals or by metrics like increasing market share, portfolio share, or offering auxiliary services or products.
If those are the only metrics used, the result is often cannibalization and internal competition. This impacts all functions of a company. For example, imagine that $100 billion company with 50,000 employees. At year-end, employees need evaluations for promotion or salary increases. They’re told, “Show me one thing you did that fundamentally changed the business.”
If there’s just one product, imagine 50,000 people trying to pull that one product in 50,000 directions, each acting under the system: do something significant or you don’t count — you don’t get promoted, you don’t get a raise, you’re not valued, or you might even be fired. That one product can’t survive for long under those conditions.
And that’s where spectacular failures occur. You might remember the Tropicana packaging change. After 30 years of an iconic brand, the new carton left customers confused about what it was selling. That was the result of a system-incentivized process. Someone had to make a change, they did it, got the short-term approval, maybe even a promotion — but the long-term effect on the business, and the system it was meant to serve, wasn’t considered.
That’s really interesting. I mean, the energy of 50,000 people — most of whom, honestly, want to be successful and are working incredibly hard — can sometimes pull the company in completely the wrong direction. The incentives just aren’t aligned with long-term success.
Without necessarily naming companies, do you have examples of what this looks like? For instance, removing inefficiencies that were actually protecting aspects of the business, but in the process ended up harming it?
Sure. Since AI is such a hot topic, let’s look at a very common example: the average AI chatbot. Nowadays, you can’t interact with a company without at least encountering some sort of AI interface. It used to be a simple Q&A chatbot — you could always bypass it and speak to a human agent. Now, most of the time, you can’t even get that far. You get stuck in infinity loops.
Companies have looked at AI specifically within customer service to say: “Fifty years ago, we had American-based call centers. Then they went offshore, to India, to wherever. Now, AI can replace all of that.” The promise is efficiency: process more requests, handle more tickets, probably resolve most issues faster.
The problem is that most of these AI systems haven’t been developed in-house. No single company has expertise in every AI subfield — like customer service chatbots, technical service chatbots — each requiring specialized knowledge. So inevitably, companies outsource this to agencies. The agencies have their own systems: “Fill out this 10-page questionnaire, and based on our limited view, we’ll create your custom AI chatbot.”
Now, take a $100 billion fictional company. They have a chatbot for tech support, one for customer service, one for missed deliveries, one for logistics. Each system was built by a different agency, each with its own methodology, because outsourcing was cheaper than developing in-house. These systems were never meant to integrate. The result: as a customer, you get stuck. You can’t solve your problem, and you can’t reach a human who could actually help.
From a long-term perspective, customers will stop buying, leave negative reviews, tell friends not to use the company. One angry review on a site like TrustedPilot may seem minor, but these effects compound. And companies rarely account for this. Their systems don’t iterate with one another — they just don’t properly interact.
I’m glad you used that example — it’s in our faces every day. Part of the problem is the “hammer-nail” effect. There’s so much capital being invested in AI, everyone wants to use it because it’s the latest trend. Sometimes, it feels like companies have the solution first and are hunting for a problem, rather than identifying a problem and applying the right solution.
Exactly. And the resources required to maintain these AI systems are enormous. There’s a risk companies are deploying it at the wrong time, or in the wrong way.
I’d add that this isn’t just about AI — it’s a symptom of systemic thinking. Post-World War II, capitalist systems have emphasized innovation as a driver of progress. But when a new technology appears, everyone jumps on it, fearing they’ll be left behind.
The knock-on effects are huge. Look at the proliferation of data centers. Each major player builds its own cloud infrastructure. One commentator even said, “Data centers will become the new American shopping malls.” If you remember the decline of malls — empty stores, unused space — you can see the parallel. Amazon is turning empty malls into fulfillment centers, which is costly and, in some cases, unnecessary.
Even within five years, much of this infrastructure could be obsolete. Technology moves exponentially: quantum computing is already on the horizon. If the system says, “Jump on the latest tech,” without pausing to think strategically, companies end up with huge sunk costs.
And the human cost is significant. Massive layoffs, like the recent firing of 10,000 Amazon employees, create turmoil for minimal long-term benefit.
On the wealth management side, I try to warn clients about this. NVIDIA is at the forefront, but if you think back over the past 48 years — AOL, Blackberry, the internet — the technology cycle moves so quickly. Things need time to settle before the next disruption comes.
Right. Even Hollywood made movies out of those early technological moments — it was that novel.
Stepping back, I want to touch on profitability. I believe in capitalism’s strength, but too much can become disruptive. I’d love your perspective on how pursuing profitability and growth too quickly creates blind spots.
Sure. Let’s define profitability. At its strictest, it means that after covering all costs to bring a product or service to market, you make at least one cent above cost. Growth or hyperscale growth, however, isn’t about profit — it’s about timelines. Can you achieve a certain return by a certain date?
Post-World War II capitalism was about building responsibly: identify a problem, create a solution, sell at a marginal profit, reinvest earnings. Everyone wins.
The problem arises when the growth system is layered onto capitalism. Now, the metric isn’t, “Go from 1% to 2% profit.” It’s, “Go from 1% to 100% by tomorrow.” The system becomes a pressure cooker. Principles and responsibility are forgotten because speed and returns dominate. The journey no longer matters — only the destination.
Executives know they may not even be around for the long-term consequences. An interim CEO tasked with doubling the business before an IPO might act with short-term priorities. Decisions are made for the next three CEO generations, not for sustainable growth.
This mindset devalues compounding returns and long-term thinking. Few people today are trained to take a 30-year view; the system actively discourages it. When mentoring businesses, I face resistance — not maliciously, but because the culture trains people to think quarter to quarter, promotion to promotion. Employees pull in 50,000 directions because that’s how success is measured.
Even within a single company, departments — product design, sales, market strategy — often operate on conflicting systems. When these clash, the result can be catastrophic. Take Enron: pre-booking profits, inflating numbers for immediate gain, ultimately leading to collapse. They ignored long-term pipelines in favor of short-term metrics. These dynamics are precisely what I explore in my work.
Yeah. And as you’re talking about this — which makes a ton of sense — that power, that complexity… sometimes you see someone do something that seems incredibly wrong, yet they’re a good person, a really smart person. But there are so many layers here. It’s not just the company; it’s also the individual.
I have some personal experience with this. At a certain point in my career, I remember noticing that management might have been aligned with certain objectives, but employees often know what’s really going on — or at least sense it. For instance, someone is told to do something, like pushing a product a certain way.
Let’s call it “selling the widget.” You’re told, “Go sell it this way.” And you think, Well, that’s not right for the company. You’re forced to work really hard on something you know is wrong — or at least suboptimal. You might say, “I’ve been doing this for 12 years. We should be focusing on this instead.” You relay that to your manager, but they’re hearing, “Sell it this way.” They may understand your point, but ultimately, they say, “It doesn’t matter. We need to sell it this way.”
There are layers of management, and at the personal level, I think that’s part of why people sometimes feel their hard work isn’t making a difference—not just in terms of profit, but in doing the right thing.
I can only imagine — probably more times than we want to admit — that employees experience this frequently. Do you have any feedback or insights about that?
Absolutely. When I’m brought in, it’s often for what I call “firefighting.” A business or family office sees a symptom and says, “Can you help us treat this?” Inevitably, I don’t have to dig far before uncovering a deeper systemic issue. It might be fundamental to their existence or a core operational problem — exactly the type you’re describing.
In some cases, the company culture doesn’t truly accept feedback. If a slightly more conscious or proactive employee offers input, it’s quickly dismissed, ignored, or shut down.
Unfortunately, companies like this don’t disappear. Many are dinosaurs that survive due to sheer size and economic power, but they endure through high employee churn. The more capable, aware, and responsible employees often leave. They might stick around for a paycheck, but if a better opportunity arises, they’re the first to jump ship.
This leads to the PETA principle: the least capable people in an organization often rise fastest. The good employees get frustrated and leave. Those who remain are frequently mediocre or low performers. Over time, large legacy companies may be staffed primarily by people who survived attrition — not by those who challenged the system or innovated. I’m not judging good or evil; I’m talking about positive impact — whether profit, growth, or meaningful contribution. The question is: under what terms, in what ways, and on what timeline?
With that said, I want to pivot a bit and talk about governance. What role does it play in either protecting or undermining capitalism — or just the resilience of a business?
Governance is multi-layered. It exists in companies, family offices, and financial firms. You have a board, an executive team, stakeholders, or in a family office, family members who may be more or less involved.
Governance comes down to two things. First, the level of engagement with the intent of the entity. For an NGO, the intent might be doing good. For a financial firm, it might be creating value for clients or investors. Second, time horizon. Even the best plans and intentions can be crippled if compressed into an unrealistic timeframe — six months versus six hours, for example.
If you’re trying to save someone from a burning building with only six minutes, you prioritize that person over the building itself. But if you enforce that kind of compressed timeline systematically, you end up breaking every structure in your path. You strain employees, disrupt supply chains, and create ripple effects — similar to our AI chatbot discussion — that compound over time.
Ultimately, the two pillars of governance — intent and time horizon — apply everywhere: from the chairman of the board to an employee working on a tiny project. Even if the project doesn’t contribute directly to profit, it still requires consideration of purpose and timing.
I know that’s a massive topic — you could write a book on it — so I really appreciate you breaking that down. A lot of these concepts come down to values and principles. You’ve mentioned three principles you put forward:
- Be of service, not selfish.
- Be sustainable, not short-term focused.
- Be of significance, not shallow.
Could you explain how those guide your day-to-day decisions and where they came from?
Sure. A bit of background: over the years, as I’ve been firefighting client problems, I developed a methodology underpinned by first principles — understanding the kernel ideas behind everything. From that perspective, I distilled three overarching principles: be of service, be sustainable, and be of significance.
Individually, each principle can make you good. Taken together, they can make you great. Many companies or individuals trip up when these principles aren’t respected.
So, what do they mean in practice?
First, be of service, not selfish. I’m reminded of the animated movie Robots from the early 2000s — Mel Brooks and Ewan McGregor voiced characters. The leader of the robot community had a motto: “See a need, fill a need.” Simply put, notice what others need and act to help them.
In business, it’s easy to put yourself first. You might cure cancer, but if your primary motivation is to make billions for yourself, that’s selfish. Being of service means prioritizing the problem over personal gain.
Second, be sustainable, not short-term. Sustainability means ensuring your efforts are regenerative and capable of enduring. This is true across ESG, climate, energy, or just in terms of business longevity. If you compress timelines or force immediate results, you break systems that could otherwise thrive.
Third, be of significance, not shallow. This is the stretch goal. Helping someone cross the street is nice, but if the road itself is broken, fix it so you can help many more people. Impact should be meaningful, long-lasting, and measurable — not fleeting attention on social media.
You might start by helping 10 people in a fundamental way. If done well, that impact can grow exponentially — but in a qualified, deliberate manner, not for virality or hype.
Take pharmaceuticals, for example. Some diseases affect only a hundred people globally. Many companies ignore these because the investment isn’t profitable. But if their stated mission is to improve humanity, they should apply resources to even these small pockets of need.
These three principles — from service, to sustainability, to significance — move someone from good to great. Skip them, and you end up with companies like Enron or WeWork. These principles underpin my thinking across business, finance, and even humanitarian work.
I’m picturing a Venn diagram: greatness is at the intersection. And yes, for Meatloaf fans, “two out of three ain’t bad,” but here, you need all three.
This has been an amazing conversation. Thank you for sharing your expertise, your experience, and your book. Built to Collapse is fiction based on real concepts. And you have a new book coming out — nonfiction, correct?
Yes. A quick journey: I started with a five-page ebook for startups, meant to provide quick guidance during mentoring sessions. That turned into a 500-page manual due to the depth required by my Pathfinder methodology — 10 steps tied to these three principles.
I extracted the principles into Built to Collapse, a business fiction story about a VC fixer hired to make portfolio companies profitable. Along the way, he realizes the systems he’s fixing aren’t sustainable or aligned with his values.
Book two continues this journey in nonfiction: here’s how to implement these principles. There are case studies, exercises, and guidance to help anyone — business owners, employees, family office managers — identify their strengths, understand what problems they can solve, and communicate effectively to positively impact others. This is about impact in a measured, sustainable, and meaningful way — not fleeting social media attention.
Excellent. Before we go, how can listeners connect with you and get a copy of your books? And when does the new book come out?
The new book comes out in May. The easiest way to reach me is www.eugenetheodore.com. You’ll find all the information — books, links, and ways to continue the conversation. I’m happy to engage with anyone this discussion sparked ideas for, or just for a friendly exchange.
Great. We’ll link to that in the resources section of the show notes. Thanks again, Eugene. And thank you to everyone who tuned into today’s episode. Don’t forget to follow The Agent of Wealth on the platform you listen from and leave us a review of the show. We are currently accepting new clients, if you’d like to schedule a 1-on-1 consultation with our advisors, please do so below.
Bautis Financial LLC is a registered investment advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investments involve risk and unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed herein. Past performance is not indicative of future performance.
Tariff Policy in Flux