There are 2 states in the forest: growing trees and rotting trees. Nothing in between. So this cancer analogy is a bit absurd. The same with business: business is growing or dying, I am not buying “we don’t want grow” argument.
I know plenty of people with small businesses that are neither growing nor dying, just paying the bills and making enough money to live happily. I'm kind of scared that people can't even imagine this is a possibility to be honest...
Not everything has to be the next facebook and have 100% yoy growth
While net positive growth isn't necessary, it is a major motivator for launching your own business. If you don't have net growth, then you're exchanging both your efforts in working at the business as well as in the day-to-day running of the business in exchange for a relatively fixed income. I'm not sure that the risk involved combined with the income to hours-worked ratio is much more beneficial than just working as an employee with much lower risk and no responsibility to run/manage the business.
Specifically, I'm responding to:
> I'm kind of scared that people can't even imagine this is a possibility to be honest...
From the outside looking in, a net zero growth company appears to be living happily as you stated, but I don't think this reflects reality on closer inspection. All net zero growth businesses exist in a dynamic equilibrium in which they're constantly facing losses and constantly finding ways to grow to (at minimum) offset those losses. And these are just considerations for your own business. What about the competition? If your competitor is willing to build a net positive growth company, what are your odds of survival in the long-term?
If your business supports your lifestyle what's lazy about just ... enjoying it ? Isn't that the very purpose of "work" ?
They are still operating, but they didn't grow. Even trees in the forest don't grow indefinitely...
Their trunks keep getting wider.
Like if a company operated for some time before it goes bust and some years later a different company continues the operation under the same name, but with different people, concepts, etc. would it still be regarded the same companies on that list? In certain cases continuing the tradition and a good name is worth big money and asien companies seem to have traditions around this concept.
I don't think it's growth that is the key for healthy organization - it is the drive to deliver quality output. When that drive withers the rot start. I don't see the quality of output and the drive for quality necessary linked to a constant growth in terms of revenue and so on.
source: http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=642#:~:text=The%2....
A forest on the other hand maintains a steady state. Okay, trees continue to grow, but forests have natural ways of ensuring that trees and the other flora do not over occupy. A forest maintains balance, whereas many companies want to eat the world.
I don't see later option as bad one. Clearly they can provide service and invest to keep it running or even to optimize it. But growth might be impossible.