Jack Hirschfeld wrote:
>Doug Blair questioned my assertion that capitalism contains a grow or die
>imperative. He asked: "Why is this an imperative? The need to improve
>and compete, yes. But to grow? I don't particularly see it."
May I digress from the current macro- perspective of this thread? I can
agree with Jack to the extent that many people ATTACH this imperative to
the idea of capitalism. For most, business success implies growth in
revenues, employees, profitability...
This became plain to me when I went out on my own as a consultant. I
became a one-man gang, or "soloist" in the latest jargon. That was over 5
years ago and people still consistently ask me "When are you going to
start hiring people?" Implicit in their question is the notion that to
grow the firm in this way is to succeed; to do otherwise is to fail. I
have been amazed at the number of people who share this mental model of
"business success".
Personally, I do not have any such plans. I have seen friends add people,
then get trapped into becoming the marketing person for them. For those
who prefer the marketing/sales side of the business, this is a great
approach. Others find they no longer get to do the work they are best at
and enjoy; instead they must find more and more of that work for others to
do. They may make more money, but assume more burden and have less fun.
Where I think Doug was headed (and I'd like to go) was to suggest an
expanded meaning for "growth"; one that allows for increasing returns of
something other than money, market share, etc.
Do I want my business to grow? Of course. But as owner I decide whether to
measure success in terms of the growth of my income or my self?
----------------------------->
Joe Kilbride -- jk@mcs.com
<----------------------------
When we try to pick out anything
by itself, we find it hitched to
everything else in the universe.
-- John Muir