The standard template for business success includes growth, expansion, and global dominance…or does it? In today’s rapidly evolving IT space, some firms are carving out a new definition of success for themselves, using an alternative model that prizes flexibility and adaptability over breadth and bureaucracy.
There’s no question that growth and expansion are usually positive developments in business, but the more appropriate concern is whether these objectives are the right goals for your firm. In many cases, bigger may not be better. Here are few advantages that smaller companies have over their larger counterparts.
Stronger core competencies. Smaller businesses tend to get by on the reputation for doing a handful of tasks and processes very, very well. If you like focusing on your strengths and are turned off by the idea of branching out from your central mission, small might be the best size for your firm.
More latitude for creativity and innovation. They say that necessity is the mother of invention, and small businesses often exemplify this adage. To do more with less, creativity is often a must. But without a lot of overhead to maintain, smaller firms often have more room to experiment than their larger counterparts.
Tighter budgetary controls. Experts say that an organization’s level of wasteful spending is often directly proportional to its size. Smaller firms have to keep a close watch on extras, and this tends to eliminate the exponential inefficiency and waste that larger firms seem to generate.
Greater organizational efficiency. Because every member of a small firm tends to wear more than one organizational hat, they often have very high levels of efficiency and productivity, which can bode well for boosting profits. The only danger is that without the overlap and redundancy that’s built into larger organizations, your small firm could suffer dearly if even one staff member decides to move on to greener pastures. By implementing a policy of pre-emptive cross-training, you could help avert a disaster.
What’s your take on the size debate? In your experience, what are the unique advantages of both bigger and smaller firms? Let us know in the comments.