An article I recently read in ODE, entitled Small is Successful (July/Aug 2007) is sticking with me this weekend as I prepare to go back to a writing gig at CNBC.
I love a busy big newsroom. Adrenalin flows, the money is good, and it’s a great way to stay in the know on the "big" breaking stories – surrounding the "big" companies – which move the DOW. In contrast, working and writing from home allows me more freedom and control over my freelance creative endeavors. It’s a juicy way to live; albeit not as financially rewarding sometimes. So which is a better and more successful worklife scenario? Conventionally working the "big" career (according to other people’s standards) – or passionately on the edge of risk?
In his article in ODE, writer Jay Walljasper discusses whether "big is better" when it comes to measuring the accomplishment of a company. Discussed in detail was the financial climb of Gary Erikson’s brainchild, Clif Bar, which has become a heavy-hitting wholesome snack company.
Erikson apparently turned his back on millions of dollars early in the game, instead of selling out to a mammoth food company. The perks were more about right livelihood and passionate work, rather than the almighty dollar. Here’s an excerpt:
Erikson stubbornly clung to the idea of guiding Clif Bar according to his vision, not the business-as-usual paradigm of rapid expansion fueled by massive outside investment.
"If we had sold to Quaker Oats, we would just be another bar on the shelf…We would not have an environmental program, we would not have given $1.2 million last year to charity in money and products. We would not have gone organic. No one working here would even be here now."
Saying no to conventional-style growth has made Clif Bar a stronger brand, showing that small is not only beautiful but successful.
It’s a powerful example of sticking to your vision. Is this a pipe-dream – or becoming more and more possible as American entrepreneurs take bigger risks toward passionate work? Would love to know what you think.
