create wealth for their shareholders, not to elevate strong males to posi- tions of dominance, where they can disseminate their superior genetic heritage by claiming droit de seigneur . Engaging in business is a creative, not a procreative activity. It is competitive to be sure, but its competition selects, or should select (in the Darwinian sense) those organizational forms able to create wealth. If the fittest companies are the most creative, why do today’s dominant business institutions concentrate power in the hands of people who have proved most adept at climbing corporate hierarchies? Why have other forms, that do not concentrate power in one person and in which exceptionally creative people (engineers, scientists, designers, artists, philosophers and so on) are accorded a higher status and given a freer rein, so far failed to demonstrate their superior fitness and rendered this medieval, military model of organization obsolete?