Compare and contrast the below experiences with the simulation

$1.$

In my simulations the most successful in terms of growing the company was simulation $2$ where I gain international corporations that purchased other large companies and small. My first run I ended as a local company and my third run I ended as a national company.

The company's growth rate change was due to the accepting of new outside views into the company along with the willingness to take on additional product ventures, outside funding, and expanding beyond the family on the board. Overall I was most happy with the balance struck in my third run where the company became a national company that I felt managed to still hang onto the family ties and its local roots. I allowed for growth through the inclusion of outside management and board members but did not offer an IPO and chose to self fund many of the venture. I believe this allowed for the best level of DEI and CSR as it could be focused easily with the national identity, the culture, and the values of the people.

In all three simulations I did not offer an IPO. It would be interesting to go back to it and see what that did for the family and the company. I do not think it would have improved my success since simulation $2$ reached a global international business level without the IPO offering.

The simulation was fun but I felt like it was basic and in regards to the third simulation surround DEI and CSR did not offer anything to show how those two components can truly affect a company. We got to theorize how they played into our decisions but in reality there was not a consequence or reward because there was no way to actually introduce those aspects into the simulation$/$

$2.$

Throughout the three simulations, the company$$s growth was most positively affected$$when I prioritized fresh talent and professional leadership over keeping family members in pivotal roles. I made those decisions based on the level of commitment the family members showed. If the family members were not professionally where they needed to be$,$ I chose to bring in outside talent. By following this, each round reached global status. The company's growth remained unchanged over the three simulations, suggesting a consistent strategy.

The decision that had the most significant impact was the choice not to promote family members who were not qualified to contribute to the company's future. It was a challenging decision, but I believed it was essential to prioritize the long$-$term success and growth of the company over appeasing personal relationships. Elevating unqualified family members would have not only hindered the company's progress but also potentially left those family members feeling inadequate and unsuccessful in their roles. It was a difficult conversation to have with some family members, as they were not happy with the choices I made in the simulation, but I firmly believed that their well$-$being was at the forefront of the decisions. This decision ensured that roles were filled based on merit and qualifications, potentially leading to better operational efficiency and strategic decision$-$making. It was a tough call, but ultimately, I believe it was the right one for the company's future.

Reflecting on the insights from the simulation, it's clear that revisiting some strategic decisions could significantly enhance our business performance. A key action would be to reevaluate our resource allocation across departments, ensuring that investments are focused on areas with the highest potential for return. Additionally, prioritizing in$-$depth market research is crucial to gain a better understanding of consumer needs and to adjust our product offerings accordingly. By implementing these strategies, we can more effectively adapt to changing business environments and stimulate growth. This approach not only allows us to respond to immediate challenges but also positions us proactively for long$-$term success.