I like the way that Scott Galloway describes entrepreneurship in this recent post about why he's bearish on Tesla:

Entrepreneur is a synonym for salesperson, and salesperson is the pedestrian term for storyteller. Pro tip: No startup makes sense. We (entrepreneurs) are all impostors who must deploy a fiction (a story) that captures the imagination and attracts capital to pull the future forward and turn rhyme into reason. No business I have started, at the moment of inception, made any sense … until it did. Or didn’t. The only way to predict the future is to make it.

He then goes on to describe the difference between an entrepreneur and a liar:

This is not the same as lying. There’s a real distinction between an entrepreneur and a liar: Entrepreneurs believe their story will come true, as they are laser-focused on making it true. A liar, well, they know they’re misleading people with false data. Usually for money (i.e., fraud). This is where Tesla turns gray.

Scott continues to say things about Elon and Tesla. But that's not the point of today's post.

The point I would like to make is that real estate development is an inherently entrepreneurial endeavor. You need to be a salesperson and a compelling storyteller, because that's the only way you'll be able to create the future. And creating the future is what developers do.

One way you could oversimplify the Canadian economy is to say that it revolves around three things: natural resources, real estate, and high immigration. (You can tell me I’m wrong in the comments below.) More recently, we’ve also been touting the growing number of tech workers in our cities. But in some ways this is a bit of a vanity metric. 

I think of it in terms of two different categories of workers. There are tech workers that are the result of foreign companies opening satellite offices to take advantage of the weak Canadian dollar and our more enlightened immigration policies. And there are tech workers that are the result of Canadian-based companies innovating, growing, and needing more talent. Think Shopify.

The former situation is not at all bad, but a lot of the value is going to accrue outside of the country. Whereas in the latter situation, we get to be the principal recipients and we get all of the positive externalities associated with innovation and entrepreneurship. One of these is a powerful compounding effect. Successful startups tend to beget even more new companies. 

So even though I work in and benefit from one of the three things that I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I believe that we need to be much better at encouraging a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship in Canada. We’ve become too complacent.

This is a critically important topic that we don’t seem to be talking about nearly enough. So I plan to do more of that here on the blog.

I am, of course, generalizing, but we live in a world of comparables and proof. In the slightly-modified words of Seth Godin, we have been trained to show up with proven and verifiable answers because that's what will get us an A on the test or what will allow us to keep our jobs. And there's nothing wrong with that. Risk mitigation is an important part of any organization. But if everything you're doing is already proven, then by definition, and regardless of any claims, you are not innovating. Because if something is truly new, then it may not actually work.

My friend David Wex -- who is on a mission to develop modern condominiums all across Canada -- once told me that if he were to hire consultants to prepare market studies for his projects (he doesn't), they would almost always tell him never to build. And that's because there are often no comparables to point to and say, "look at this thing over here, it shows that somebody has already done this before and has been successful." Instead, he has been forced to ask himself, "is there no comparable product offering because the market doesn't exist or because nobody has done it yet?"

This is a risky proposition. Because if you're wrong -- and the market doesn't exist -- then you will likely fail. But if you're right, and you get to introduce something new to people that want it, then you get the benefit of a commanding market position. You were right about something that most people thought was wrong and/or didn't bother to explore. That's why Seth Godin has argued that innovation really requires two things. It requires guts, because the thing you're trying may not work. And it requires generosity, because innovation is, after all, about trying to make things better.

I think this is a great way of putting it.