Bonsai, Bodegas, and Boredom – 2 The Bodega Conundrum

In wrestling with the concept of constant growth (Fundamental Principle 11: The Bonsai Effect) in nature, a potential conundrum in looking at the business world through the same lens came to mind.

The Small Business Administration reports that in the US there are about 27.5 million “businesses,” of which 6 million actually employ people.  Of these 6 million, 99.7% are considered small businesses with fewer than 500 employees.  The remaining 0.3% typically make up the Fortune 500, the Russell 3000, and the Wilshire 5000 indices.  These small businesses employ about 50% of the 120 million non-farm workforce in the US (2007), whether they issue stock or not (are privately held).

By the way they are legally defined, small businesses (a sole proprietorship or a partnership) cease to exist (or are dissolved) when the owners (sole proprietor or one of the partners) die.  But an incorporated business is legally considered to be a person, and as long as there are shareholders it can continue to exist in perpetuity.

The conundrum appears when one looks at the expectations.  A small business, for instance a family owned bodega (a corner grocery store), would be considered a successful example of capitalism in a free market system if it continued to deliver added value to its customers in exchange for a fair return (i.e., make a living) for its owners, even though it most likely grew and leveled off at an optimum revenue size that the owners could successfully manage and were happy with.

A corporation, however, is expected to continue to grow in revenue size in order to maintain a current stock price.  But as it grows larger a particular growth rate becomes near unachievable due to the company’s greater size.  For a simple analogy, blow up a balloon.  If we ignore pressure, the first breath causes greater visible growth in balloon size than does the same breath much later.  When a corporation begins to show diminishing percentage revenue growth rates, its stock price will be punished in the market place (e.g., Apple in the six months since September, 2012).

Looking at this in another way, the bodega is expected to behave like a bonsai or a person.  It can grow to its optimum revenue size and slow or stop growing but still continue to exhibit healthy “turn-over,” delivering ongoing added value and experiencing positive cash flow.  But the corporation, legally defined to be a person, isn’t expected to behave like one.  It shifts to being called “mature” when its revenue growth levels off (even though its “turn-over,” cash flow and added value, continue), and it becomes of investment interest perhaps only for people who are ready to live on fixed incomes.

Non-Rhetorical Question: Why must a corporation continuously grow in revenue (fiscal size)?  Is this inherent in its DNA, or is this artificially imposed from the outside by investors, which then forces internal managers to “maximize shareholder value”?

The focus should be more on the life force of the organism.  For a bonsai, it needs to actively produce (“turn-over”) new roots, leaves, and fruit, which it manages quite well due to the “innovation” or renewal process in its DNA.  For a bodega, the owners must actively choose to keep up to date on (probably slowly) changing customer needs and “innovatively” and fairly meet them to maintain its cash flow (“turn-over”). For a corporation, it must actively do the same thing but on a larger scale, within a shorter time frame, in an arena with greater competition, and with an increased need for innovation (idea “turn-over”).  Its hope for success should not depend upon its ever-increasing fiscal revenue size, but upon its people being able to respond with idea “turn-over” (innovation).  And to be able to respond, its people need to be constantly learning and growing (personal innovation), which brings us back full circle to humans, designed by DNA to be learning beings.

Two recent commentaries which also allude to these issues can be found in a post by Woody Zuill (reflecting on continuous personal improvement) at Shawn Murphy’s Switch and Shift and at Dr. Marla Gottschalk’s The Office Blend (reflecting on conditions that affect corporate innovation).

Do you personally recognize and embrace the need for continuous learning and knowledge growth?

Is your continuous learning (“innovation”) internally driven, or externally driven?

How does personal growth connect with the right corporate growth?  Coming up in the next post.

Advertisements

About Jim Edmonds

I am a husband, father, mentor, who once was a chemist turned physicist turned marketer turned executive turned missionary turned professor. And survived it all.
This entry was posted in 08: Observing, Listening, Learning and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Bonsai, Bodegas, and Boredom – 2 The Bodega Conundrum

  1. Jennifer Olson says:

    Love the question, “Is your continuous learning (“innovation”) internally or externally driven?” Can I answer both? Internally, because I take time each day to sit quietly and read or reflect on what I think I’m “learning”. Externally, because I meet with someone who is older than me and has walked “the road” ahead of me. During our afternoons together I share my thoughts and expect her to challenge whether my ideas are good for me, right and/or true. I’d consider myself nothing short of arrogant if I thought I had all the answers inside of me.

    Is it possible to outgrow the value of being mentored? It’s hard for me to imagine I could.

    Like

    • Jim Edmonds says:

      Thanks again, Jennifer, for your thoughts. Good point that the answer to the question is often “both.” Your description sounds like a perfect scenario for both pulling yourself forward and seeking a valid reference to both measure progress as well as encourage some pushing along with some suggested course corrections. Even when we try to do all the pulling, we need a reference and/or some reliable feedback to keep us on track. Godspeed on your journey.

      Like

  2. Rachel says:

    The rot of any business is the fear of change, because “that is the way it has always been done.”
    Any business will die if it does not continually adapt to the needs, but at the same time hold to its “core” business, because change outside of its “core” it will also die.
    How is it the “living” word or the “daily” bread, if it’s the same word and bread that has always been? How can we grow/adapt, but the same time hold to the “core”…and what IS the “core”?
    Some (especially those living ~the yr 33AD) would argue the “core” was compromised when Jesus asked the Pharisees to put down their written manuals and listen to the “living” word, and some would argue that while the business adapted, its “core” was not changed.
    …just a thought.

    Like

    • Jim Edmonds says:

      Thank you, Rachel, for stopping by. It is a paradox that we are always changing everyday, yet seem to prefer to settle in to our comfort zones and resist changing them. This seems to apply just as well to organizations, regardless of their nature. The Seven Last Words of (name that organization: church, for-profit, not-for-profit, family, an individual) are pretty close to yours: But We’ve Always Done It That Way! Understanding what needs to stay the same (the “core” of values and principles) and what needs to or can change (how values and principles are applied or lived out) seems to me to be critical. What those living in 33 AD though were “core” (behaviors that followed those written guidelines) really weren’t. It was the timeless values and principles that were (are) the foundation for our behaviors. Just a thought.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s