Volume is Vanity, Profit is Sanity

Estes artigos:
.
"An American innovation in light bulbs, but will manufacturing stay in the U.S.?" e
.
"Where are the jobs? For many companies, overseas"
.
Deixam-me sempre uma interrogação para a qual não tenho uma resposta definitiva.
.
Acredito na máxima: Volumes is Vanity, Profit is Sanity!
.
E acredito, apesar de pertencer a uma minoria, que crescer por crescer não é uma boa política. Estes artigos deixam-me na dúvida:

• estarão a crescer por crescer?
• não será que estão a trocar o crescimento imediato, por um futuro com mais qualidade de vida?
• não será que estão a concentrar-se demasiado na exploração da situação actual (exploitation de March) e a descurar a exploração de oportunidades futuras (exploration de March)?

Por tudo isto fiquei confortado com o que encontrei no livro "Smart Growth" de Edward Hess:
.
"In this book, I challenge some commonly held business beliefs about growth. First, I challenge the commonly held business beliefs (“Growth Mental Model”) that

1. businesses must continuously grow or they will die;
2. growth is always good;
3. public company growth should occur continuously and smoothly; and
4. quarterly earnings should be a primary mea sure of public company success.

These beliefs drive short-term business behaviors that in too many cases defer or destroy long-term value creation, decrease competitiveness, and can lead to premature corporate demise. Adherence to these beliefs can also result in the creation and manufacture of earnings that have no business purpose other than to help companies meet quarterly earnings estimates.

These earnings neither are evidence of a company’s future earning power nor provide meaningful information regarding a company’s economic and strategic health and competitiveness.
.
Unfortunately, the Growth Mental Model reigns and permeates the public markets as well as private businesses. Many privately owned businesses believe that they must grow or they will die and that all growth is good. In reality, for both public and private companies, growth can be good or growth can be bad. In many cases, it is just as likely that growth can harm a business as it is likely that growth can enhance its survivability."
.
Encontro a mesma mensagem no livro "Rework" de Jason Fried e David Hansson:
.
"Why grow?
People ask, "How big is your company?" It's small talk, but they're not looking for a small answer. The bigger the number, the more impressive, professional, and powerful you sound. "Wow, nice!" they'll say if you have a hundred-plus employees. If you're small, you'll get an "Oh ... that's nice." The former is meant as a compliment; the latter is said just to be polite.
Why is that? What is it about growth and business? Why is expansion always the goal? What's the attraction of big besides ego? (You'll need a better answer than "economies of scale.") What's wrong with finding the right size and staying there?
...
Small is not just a stepping-stone. Small is a great destination in itself.
Have you ever noticed that while small businesses wish they were bigger, big businesses dream about being more agile and flexible? And remember, once you get big, it's really hard to shrink without firing people, damaging morale, and changing the entire way you do business.
Ramping up doesn't have to be your goal."
.
Ontem, num programa na RTP1, a seguir ao telejornal, alguém dizia que a falta de capital foi desde sempre o problema das PMEs portuguesas... se as PMEs portuguesas tivessem capital suficiente, teriam copiado o que algumas fizeram, ou seja, assim que Portugal começou a perder competitividade pelo preço emigraram para a Índia e para a China. Porque têm falta de capital, muitas PMEs fecharam, mas as que resistiram, sem hipótese de fuga para o "ultramar" tiveram de se re-inventar para terem futuro... tiveram de abandonar o negócio do preço e evoluir para outras propostas de valor. Nos EUA, com o acesso ao capital muito facilitado, não há paciência, por parte dos donos do capital e das empresas, para subirem na escala de valor.