Entrepreneur/blogger/author Jonathan Fields has a post today asking for opinions about whether there’s truly such a thing as “critical mass” in business. He writes:

“In business, it’s the moment your client base begins to grow largely by referrals or word of mouth. In publishing, it’s the moment you’ve got enough readers who love your work that the impact of their voice outstrips the impact of your marketing. In blogging, it’s the moment that you move beyond having a small number of friends help promote a particular post or idea and watch it just explode across social media.”

I replied on his blog (and revised slightly since this morning to present here):

“I think critical mass works great in nuclear explosions but I am not so sure about in business. Yes, there are certain franchises (everything from McDonald’s to Seth Godin) where the brand has momentum and velocity–all those physics-y terms that go with critical mass. But McDonald’s still has to spend $100 million a year on advertising, and Seth still has to blog every day and write brilliant new books to keep the momentum going. If critical mass in business were really true, Mickey D and Seth would be on a beach somewhere. Or maybe not. Good question though.“

And now I’m giving his question more thought. I think if you pinned me down for a real answer that was not so flip, I’d say there is no such thing as critical mass in business. The concept implies a chain reaction that takes off by itself and produces more energy. I think any business, big or small, needs more and more and more and more and more and more energy to sustain itself.

When businesses think they have hit so-called critical mass, when great stuff starts happening without their having to do much, that’s when they start failing and other companies start taking their market from them. Can you think of a dozen companies that were market leaders, hit critical mass, then let competitors start eating their atoms? I’ll start the list, you finish: Dell Computer, Microsoft, General Motors, Yahoo!, Starbuck’s….

Few small businesses get to the cruise-control stage like the aforementioned big guys. We all want to live by the example of The E-Myth and work on, not in, our businesses. In most cases that happens, at best, some of the time.  Startups with one or two employees, virtual companies that operate with subcontractors, and even firms with a few dozen employees are usually fueled by the owner’s vision and work ethic. The owner delegates a bit, but re-engages frequently, even in the smallest processes, because the links in the critical mass chain get messed with by others and the process gets out of control. This isn’t because the owner hasn’t hired smart people or because the owner can’t delegate. It’s because business is inherently a difficult process with many moving parts, and the person who owns it has a special relationship with those parts.

Some break through to be huge and scaleable, but the vast majority are highly resistant to things done in a mass of any kind, critical or otherwise. And that may even be a good thing. It assures quality, even if it also assures that the business may never get to be huge. For many small business owners, it’s not about being huge, it’s about being in control. Can I get an “amen” for the people who are okay working IN their businesses without apology to anyone. AMEN!

Jonathan, thanks for a provocative post. I always like that you ask your readers for reaction, so I’ll do the same here. So who has it right, me or Jonathan (whose book, Career Renegade, is now out and definitely worth a look for aspiring entrepreneurs), or is there another way to look at the question?

   Tags: , ,