While spending an afternoon with a friend discussing the pitfalls of starting a small business, we discussed the fact that a great many
people used work as a substitute for their various addictions. The old adage that one can be either an €alcoholic,€ or a €work-aholic€
rang in my mind. Of course, I had heard the association for many years, but the implications of such a dynamic came a bit more into
focus at that point.

I had argued for some time in my blog, after being exposed to the concept of €angel investors€ and having worked for a securities
attorney in Denver, Colorado in prior years, that what passes for €investment€ in the last few decades is actually pure €speculation€
and a manifestation of frustrated early oral-stage dependence based on the same magical beliefs that children at that stage exhibit.

This association allowed me to draw a correspondence between the start of this Great Recession, the activities that lead up to it, and
the psychological characteristics of the €baby boom€ generation. I have discussed that dynamic in various writings, particularly in my
blog at balsammountain.org.

However, carrying that underlying psychology forward, this perspective can be used as a point of view for studying the behavior and
activities of start-up business entrepreneurs.

Very recently, the positive development of relocalization and an emphasis on sustainability in small business enterprises belies the
point of view I am discussing in regards to entrepreneurs who merely start businesses in an effort to €harvest€ them for quick profits. To my great satisfaction, I have observed a transition from this €get-rich-quick€ orientation that preceded the onset of the Great Recession to a longer-term emphasis on building for the future by the younger generations. This probably reflects a greater maturity on the part of younger entrepreneurs compared with the €baby boomers.€ Adversity has created wisdom.

However, it is evident that a still significant portion of entrepreneurs start businesses as a compensation for other addictive
processes. Thus, the way in which they run their businesses affairs reflects the same behaviors that would be manifest in their
addictions. Risk-taking, wishful thinking, over-control, needless repetition and other behaviors that do not contribute to an ultimate
goal are the hallmarks of this process. These behaviors can be seen in both addicts and €work-aholic€ entrepreneurs.

The argument has been made that substituting work for substance addition is a €healthy€ adaptation to a very real and dangerous
problem. I submit that, rather than being an adaptation, the process is merely a matter of substitution that can have very real consequences for the entrepreneur, the family, the workers dependent on the entrepreneur and the economy in a broader sense.

Addiction suppresses the ability to clearly see the consequences of one's own actions. The addict sweeps aside all concerns apart from
the immediate satisfaction of their needs. The alcoholic continually, either in their immediate thoughts or in €the back of their
minds,€ looks for the source of the next drink; the gambler looks for the next big payoff; and the drug addict looks for the next buzz.

Many of those who start small businesses as entrepreneurs either bury themselves in work in order to divert their attention from these
obsessive needs or derive a €buzz€ from involving themselves in €running€ the business, either through increased endorphins and
neurotransmitters (like Serotonin, Dopamine, or Norepinephrine) or psychological substitutes. All of these behaviors will, like the
underlying addiction, eventually create an untenable and unsustainable situation with an ultimate catastrophe, generally known by those
who study addiction as a €bottoming out€ or €hitting bottom.€

As an aside, it is interesting to note that economists and business pundits refer to the economy and business activity as having €hit
bottom€ or €bottomed out€ as a description for an economic or business inflection point, thus reflecting a possible unconscious
recognition on their part of the dynamic involved.

But, these behaviors are counter to productivity and the long-term success of the small business.

A tendency to €over-control,€ rather than being a manifestation of thoroughness, is actually a displacement of the need to keep
addictive thoughts in check. Since the addictive and obsessive thoughts cannot effectively be checked in this way, the over-control
never stops. The twelve-step people refer to this as €stinkin thinkin€ (at least in the South, otherwise I guess it's €stinking
thinking€). Over-control increases the likelihood of being unable to separate what is important from what isn't€"not being able to
separate the €forest for the trees€€"creating a situation, in business, of being blindsided by unanticipated problems. Having been
blindsided, the natural tendency for these sorts of people is to redouble their efforts at control, rather than allow the free-flowing
attention which might have enabled them to clearly see looming problems. Over-control restricts awareness.

Wishful thinking harms the start-up business by setting up unrealistic and illusory goals as well as seducing the entrepreneur into
inactivity in the face of potential problems. This is €avoidance€ behavior, and the twelve-step people call this the tendency to wear
€rose-colored glasses.€ This wishful thinking is actually a mechanism for self-protection against anxiety and fear, even when such
anxiety and fear may be appropriate and embracing them may allow for a more successful adaption to a very real problem.

The problem of repetition, or as those who are psychoanalytically-oriented refer to it as a €repetition-compulsion,€ creates problems
for the small business in two ways. First, it keeps the entrepreneur and any workers involved in repetitive activities which are not
always intended to yield a concrete (or profitable) result. Doing this, of course, allows the addictive entrepreneur to engage in the
over-controlling behaviors referred to above as well as to avoid any deep thought about the reality of the situation confronting them.
Second, it prevents them from changing the course and direction of the business activities to accommodate changing circumstances (or
markets). The business remains fixed on a course of action, even if that course ultimately results in the downfall of the business.

One hallmark of what is known as €co-dependence€ is what the twelve-step people refer to as €addiction to drama.€ €Co-dependence,€
more appropriately a syndrome, is what is usually manifest by people who are intimately involved with addicts. The €twelve-step€
people characterize this as a €disease€ presumably in an effort to divert attention (and control) away from the addict and move the
focus back to the other people impacted by the addict's behavior. This has the benefit of limiting the behaviors which play into the
€folie a deux€ of an addictive relationship as well as providing some emotional support to the victims of such a relationship.

Whether €co-dependence€ is defined as a character-disorder in its own right, or whether it is seen as a sort of post-traumatic syndrome
(or countertransference) as I see it, the element of an €addiction to drama€ is a very real feature of that process. This €addiction
to drama€ can impact the entrepreneur and the small business in several ways. First, it too may be a displacement of internal
psychological conflicts into a business situation by allowing the entrepreneur to bury themselves in work. Second, by becoming used to
a situation of emotional upheaval in their personal