There are several terms that rank high in importance in regard to regenerative managing. These are terms widely employed throughout the management world, but are honed to mean specific things in the case of the regenerative enterprise body of knowledge.
For instance, "managing" refers to all that is done to get work done beyond the work itself. It includes not only what we traditionally think of as management, but governance and leadership to. We explicitly reject the separability of these three types of activity. They are simply three perspectives on the one thing - managing. Some people get that all work requires managing, from a Scout troop to a Fortune 500 company. Some people does not think it pertains to them because they are not part of a giant company.
We use the term "enterprise" to describe what one or more people do to create economic value. Some people get this right away. Some people mentally associate this term with skyscrapers and multinational businesses. How can we avoid that misinterpretation?
Lastly, our use of the term "laws" fits Is there a better way for us to equate the Newtonian discovery of the laws of nature with the Korn/Pine discovery of the laws of enterprise value creation? We need to have our readers immediately understand that we use "laws" because we mean "laws" - the immutable things we must understand in order to know how to manage effectively.
Your thoughts?