I’ve often felt frustrated at the way we have come to define success. I’ve watched and admired those close to me run small businesses for many years. These businesses have taken no investment, survived economic shocks (the COVID-19 pandemic was not kind to business owners), and yet they continued to provide a stable income supporting employees and families. In my view these are the model of successful businesses.
Inevitably this feeling of success is challenged. Are profits increasing? Are they increasing faster than last year? Has the business taken a large investment? Are they growing? Hiring more people? When is the acquisition? All of these are seen as indicators of success. It doesn’t matter that the business has been stable, employees, and customers are happy and income is dependable. It doesn’t matter that the company has no debt, or that it can provide flexibility around family life beyond the bare minimum offered by larger employers. To be successful numbers need to go up at an ever increasing rate.
This brings me to this excellent post by Ploum exploring the idea that none of the tech heavyweights are European. In ‘Why there’s no European Google?’ he challenges what it means to be successful.
“Some are proud because they made a lot of money while cutting down a forest. Others are proud because they are planting trees that will produce the oxygen breathed by their grandchildren. What if success was not privatizing resources but instead contributing to the commons, to make it each day better, richer, stronger?”
Whether you agree with his argument or not, I think we could do worse than to challenge our own thinking on what we regard as successful. Big, better, faster doesn’t have to be the answer.