💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 5764.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Neil C. ChurchillVirginia L. Lewis
From the May 1983 Issue
Categorizing the problems and growth patterns of small businesses in a
systematic way that is useful to entrepreneurs seems at first glance a hopeless
task. Small businesses vary widely in size and capacity for growth. They are
characterized by independence of action, differing organizational structures,
and varied management styles.
Yet on closer scrutiny, it becomes apparent that they experience common
problems arising at similar stages in their development. These points of
similarity can be organized into a framework that increases our understanding
of the nature, characteristics, and problems of businesses ranging from a
corner dry cleaning establishment with two or three minimum-wage employees to a
$20-million-a-year computer software company experiencing a 40% annual rate of
growth.
For owners and managers of small businesses, such an understanding can aid in
assessing current challenges; for example, the need to upgrade an existing
computer system or to hire and train second-level managers to maintain planned
growth.
It can help in anticipating the key requirements at various points e.g., the
inordinate time commitment for owners during the start-up period and the need
for delegation and changes in their managerial roles when companies become
larger and more complex.
The framework also provides a basis for evaluating the impact of present and
proposed governmental regulations and policies on one s business. A case in
point is the exclusion of dividends from double taxation, which could be of
great help to a profitable, mature, and stable business like a funeral home but
of no help at all to a new, rapidly growing, high-technology enterprise.
Finally, the framework aids accountants and consultants in diagnosing problems
and matching solutions to smaller enterprises. The problems of a 6-month-old,
20-person business are rarely addressed by advice based on a 30-year-old,
100-person manufacturing company. For the former, cash-flow planning is
paramount; for the latter, strategic planning and budgeting to achieve
coordination and operating control are most important.
Developing a Small Business Framework
Various researchers over the years have developed models for examining
businesses (see Exhibit 1). Each uses business size as one dimension and
company maturity or the stage of growth as a second dimension. While useful in
many respects, these frameworks are inappropriate for small businesses on at
least three counts.
Exhibit 1 Growth Phases
First, they assume that a company must grow and pass through all stages of
development or die in the attempt. Second, the models fail to capture the
important early stages in a company s origin and growth. Third, these
frameworks characterize company size largely in terms of annual sales (although
some mention number of employees) and ignore other factors such as value added,
number of locations, complexity of product line, and rate of change in products
or production technology.
To develop a framework relevant to small and growing businesses, we used a
combination of experience, a search of the literature, and empirical research.
(See the second insert.) The framework that evolved from this effort delineates
the five stages of development shown in Exhibit 2. Each stage is characterized
by an index of size, diversity, and complexity and described by five management
factors: managerial style, organizational structure, extent of formal systems,
major strategic goals, and the owner s involvement in the business. We depict
each stage in Exhibit 3 and describe each narratively in this article.
---
About the Research
We started with a concept of growth stages emanating from the work of Steinmetz
and Greiner. We made two initial changes based on our experiences with small
companies.
The first modification was an extension of the independent (vertical) variable
of size as it is used in the other stage models see Exhibit I to include a
composite of value-added (sales less outside purchases), geographical
diversity, and complexity; the complexity variable involved the number of
product lines sold, the extent to which different technologies are involved in
the products and the processes that produce them, and the rate of change in
these technologies.
Thus, a manufacturer with $10 million in sales, whose products are based in a
fast-changing technical environment, is farther up the vertical scale ( bigger
in terms of the other models) than a liquor wholesaler with $20 million annual
sales. Similarly, a company with two or three operating locations faces more
complex management problems, and hence is farther up the scale than an
otherwise comparable company with one operating unit.
The second change was in the stages or horizontal component of the framework.
From present research we knew that, at the beginning, the entrepreneur is
totally absorbed in the business s survival and if the business survives it
tends to evolve toward a decentralized line and staff organization
characterized as a big business and the subject of most studies.* The result
was a four-stage model: (1) Survival, (2) Break-out, (3) Take-off, (4) Big
company.
To test the model, we obtained 83 responses to a questionnaire distributed to
110 owners and managers of successful small companies in the $1 million to $35
million sales range. These respondents participated in a small company
management program and had read Greiner s article. They were asked to identify
as best they could the phases or stages their companies had passed through, to
characterize the major changes that took place In each stage, and to describe
the events that led up to or caused these changes.
A preliminary analysis of the questionnaire data revealed three deficiencies in
our initial model:
First, the grow-or-fail hypothesis implicit in the model, and those of others,
was invalid. Some of the enterprises had passed through the survival period and
then plateaued remaining essentially the same size. with some marginally
profitable and others very profitable, over a period of between 5 and 80 years.
Second, there existed an early stage in the survival period in which the
entrepreneur worked hard just to exist- to obtain enough customers to become a
true business or to move the product from a pilot stage into quantity
production at an adequate level of quality.
Finally, several responses dealt with companies that were not started from
scratch but purchased while in a steady-state survival or success stage (and
were either being mismanaged or managed for profit and not for growth), and
then moved into a growth mode.
Revision
We used the results of this research to revise our preliminary framework. The
resulting framework is shown in Exhibit II. We then applied this revised
framework to the questionnaire responses and obtained results which encouraged
us to work with the revised model:
Entrepreneur, Advanced Management Journal, Summer 1978.
---
Stage I: Existence
In this stage the main problems of the business are obtaining customers and
delivering the product or service contracted for. Among the key questions are
the following:
Can we get enough customers, deliver our products, and provide services well
enough to become a viable business?
Can we expand from that one key customer or pilot production process to a much
broader sales base?
Do we have enough money to cover the considerable cash demands of this start-up
phase?
The organization is a simple one the owner does everything and directly
supervises subordinates, who should be of at least average competence. Systems
and formal planning are minimal to nonexistent. The company s strategy is
simply to remain alive. The owner is the business, performs all the important
tasks, and is the major supplier of energy, direction, and, with relatives and
friends, capital.
Companies in the Existence Stage range from newly started restaurants and
retail stores to high-technology manufacturers that have yet to stabilize
either production or product quality. Many such companies never gain sufficient
customer acceptance or product capability to become viable. In these cases, the
owners close the business when the start-up capital runs out and, if they re
lucky, sell the business for its asset value. (See endpoint 1 on Exhibit 4). In
some cases, the owners cannot accept the demands the business places on their
time, finances, and energy, and they quit. Those companies that remain in
business become Stage II enterprises.
Stage II: Survival
In reaching this stage, the business has demonstrated that it is a workable
business entity. It has enough customers and satisfies them sufficiently with
its products or services to keep them. The key problem thus shifts from mere
existence to the relationship between revenues and expenses. The main issues
are as follows:
In the short run, can we generate enough cash to break even and to cover the
repair or replacement of our capital assets as they wear out?
Can we, at a minimum, generate enough cash flow to stay in business and to
finance growth to a size that is sufficiently large, given our industry and
market niche, to earn an economic return on our assets and labor?
The organization is still simple. The company may have a limited number of
employees supervised by a sales manager or a general foreman. Neither of them
makes major decisions independently, but instead carries out the rather
well-defined orders of the owner.
Systems development is minimal. Formal planning is, at best, cash forecasting.
The major goal is still survival, and the owner is still synonymous with the
business.
In the Survival Stage, the enterprise may grow in size and profitability and
move on to Stage III. Or it may, as many companies do, remain at the Survival
Stage for some time, earning marginal returns on invested time and capital
(endpoint 2 on Exhibit 4), and eventually go out of business when the owner
gives up or retires. The mom and pop stores are in this category, as are
manufacturing businesses that cannot get their product or process sold as
planned. Some of these marginal businesses have developed enough economic
viability to ultimately be sold, usually at a slight loss. Or they may fail
completely and drop from sight.
Stage III: Success
The decision facing owners at this stage is whether to exploit the company s
accomplishments and expand or keep the company stable and profitable, providing
a base for alternative owner activities. Thus, a key issue is whether to use
the company as a platform for growth a substage III-G company or as a means of
support for the owners as they completely or partially disengage from the
company making it a substage III-D company. (See Exhibit 3.) Behind the
disengagement might be a wish to start up new enterprises, run for political
office, or simply to pursue hobbies and other outside interests while
maintaining the business more or less in the status quo.
Substage III-D.
In the Success-Disengagement substage, the company has attained true economic
health, has sufficient size and product-market penetration to ensure economic
success, and earns average or above-average profits. The company can stay at
this stage indefinitely, provided environmental change does not destroy its
market niche or ineffective management reduce its competitive abilities.
Organizationally, the company has grown large enough to, in many cases, require
functional managers to take over certain duties performed by the owner. The
managers should be competent but need not be of the highest caliber, since
their upward potential is limited by the corporate goals. Cash is plentiful and
the main concern is to avoid a cash drain in prosperous periods to the
detriment of the company s ability to withstand the inevitable rough times.
In addition, the first professional staff members come on board, usually a
controller in the office and perhaps a production scheduler in the plant. Basic
financial, marketing, and production systems are in place. Planning in the form
of operational budgets supports functional delegation. The owner and, to a
lesser extent, the company s managers, should be monitoring a strategy to,
essentially, maintain the status quo.
As the business matures, it and the owner increasingly move apart, to some
extent because of the owner s activities elsewhere and to some extent because
of the presence of other managers. Many companies continue for long periods in
the Success-Disengagement substage. The product-market niche of some does not
permit growth; this is the case for many service businesses in small or
medium-sized, slowly growing communities and for franchise holders with limited
territories.
Other owners actually choose this route; if the company can continue to adapt
to environmental changes, it can continue as is, be sold or merged at a profit,
or subsequently be stimulated into growth (endpoint 3 on Exhibit 4). For
franchise holders, this last option would necessitate the purchase of other
franchises.
If the company cannot adapt to changing circumstances, as was the case with
many automobile dealers in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it will either fold
or drop back to a marginally surviving company (endpoint 4 on Exhibit 4).
Substage III-G.
In the Success-Growth substage, the owner consolidates the company and marshals
resources for growth. The owner takes the cash and the established borrowing
power of the company and risks it all in financing growth.
---
Looking Back on Business Development Models
Business researchers have developed a number of models over the last 20 years
that seek to delineate stages of corporate growth.
Joseph W. McGuire, building on the work of W.W. Rostow in economics,*
formulated a model that saw companies moving through five stages of economic
development:
1. Traditional small company.
2. Planning for growth.
3. Take-off or departure from existing conditions.
4. Drive to professional management.
5. Mass production marked by a diffusion of objectives and an interest in the
welfare of society.
Lawrence L. Steinmetz theorized that to survive, small businesses must move
through four stages of growth. Steinmetz envisioned each stage ending with a
critical phase that must be dealt with before the company could enter the next
stage. His stages and phases are as follows:
1. Direct supervision. The simplest stage, at the end of which the owner must
become a manager by learning to delegate to others.
2. Supervised supervision. To move on, the manager must devote attention to
growth and expansion, manage increased overhead and complex finances, and learn
to become an administrator.
3. Indirect control. To grow and survive, the company must learn to delegate
tasks to key managers and to deal with diminishing absolute rate of return and
overstaffing at the middle levels.
4. Divisional organization. At this stage the company has arrived and has the
resources and organizational structure that will enable it to remain viable.
C. Roland Christensen and Bruce R. Scott focused on development of
organizational complexity in a business as it evolves in its product-market
relationships. They formulated three stages that a company moves through as it
grows in overall size, number of products, and market coverage:
1. One-unit management with no specialized organizational parts.
2. One-unit management with functional parts such as marketing and finance.
3. Multiple operating units, such as divisions, that act in their own behalf in
the marketplace.
Finally, Larry E. Greiner proposed a model of corporate evolution in which
business organizations move through five phases of growth as they make the
transition from small to large (in sales and employees) and from young to
mature.|| Each phase is distinguished by an evolution from the prior phase and
then by a revolution or crisis, which precipitates a jump into the next phase.
Each evolutionary phase is characterized by a particular managerial style and
each revolutionary period by a dominant management problem faced by the
company. These phases and crises are shown in Exhibit 1.
University Press, 1960).
Joseph W. McGuire, Factors Affecting the Growth of Manufacturing Firms
(Seattle: Bureau of Business Research, University of Washington, 1963).
Lawrence L. Steinmetz, Critical Stages of Small Business Growth: When They
Occur and How to Survive Them, Business Horizons, February 1969, p. 29.
C. Roland Christensen and Bruce R. Scott, Review of Course Activities
(Lausanne: IMEDE, 1964).
||Larry E. Greiner, Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Growth, HBR
July August 1972, p. 37.
---
Among the important tasks are to make sure the basic business stays profitable
so that it will not outrun its source of cash and to develop managers to meet
the needs of the growing business. This second task requires hiring managers
with an eye to the company s future rather than its current condition.
Systems should also be installed with attention to forthcoming needs.
Operational planning is, as in substage III-D, in the form of budgets, but
strategic planning is extensive and deeply involves the owner. The owner is
thus far more active in all phases of the company s affairs than in the
disengagement aspect of this phase.
If it is successful, the III-G company proceeds into Stage IV. Indeed, III-G is
often the first attempt at growing before commitment to a growth strategy. If
the III-G company is unsuccessful, the causes may be detected in time for the
company to shift to III-D. If not, retrenchment to the Survival Stage may be
possible prior to bankruptcy or a distress sale.
Stage IV: Take-off
In this stage the key problems are how to grow rapidly and how to finance that
growth. The most important questions, then, are in the following areas:
Delegation.
Can the owner delegate responsibility to others to improve the managerial
effectiveness of a fast growing and increasingly complex enterprise? Further,
will the action be true delegation with controls on performance and a
willingness to see mistakes made, or will it be abdication, as is so often the
case?
Cash.
Will there be enough to satisfy the great demands growth brings (often
requiring a willingness on the owner s part to tolerate a high debt-equity
ratio) and a cash flow that is not eroded by inadequate expense controls or
ill-advised investments brought about by owner impatience?
The organization is decentralized and, at least in part, divisionalized usually
in either sales or production. The key managers must be very competent to
handle a growing and complex business environment. The systems, strained by
growth, are becoming more refined and extensive. Both operational and strategic
planning are being done and involve specific managers. The owner and the
business have become reasonably separate, yet the company is still dominated by
both the owner s presence and stock control.
This is a pivotal period in a company s life. If the owner rises to the
challenges of a growing company, both financially and managerially, it can
become a big business. If not, it can usually be sold at a profit provided the
owner recognizes his or her limitations soon enough. Too often, those who bring
the business to the Success Stage are unsuccessful in Stage IV, either because
they try to grow too fast and run out of cash (the owner falls victim to the
omnipotence syndrome), or are unable to delegate effectively enough to make the
company work (the omniscience syndrome).
It is, of course, possible for the company to traverse this high-growth stage
without the original management. Often the entrepreneur who founded the company
and brought it to the Success Stage is replaced either voluntarily or
involuntarily by the company s investors or creditors.
If the company fails to make the big time, it may be able to retrench and
continue as a successful and substantial company at a state of equilibrium
(endpoint 7 on Exhibit 4). Or it may drop back to Stage III (endpoint 6) or, if
the problems are too extensive, it may drop all the way back to the Survival
Stage (endpoint 5) or even fail. (High interest rates and uneven economic
conditions have made the latter two possibilities all too real in the early
1980s.)
Stage V: Resource Maturity
The greatest concerns of a company entering this stage are, first, to
consolidate and control the financial gains brought on by rapid growth and,
second, to retain the advantages of small size, including flexibility of
response and the entrepreneurial spirit. The corporation must expand the
management force fast enough to eliminate the inefficiencies that growth can
produce and professionalize the company by use of such tools as budgets,
strategic planning, management by objectives, and standard cost systems and do
this without stifling its entrepreneurial qualities.
A company in Stage V has the staff and financial resources to engage in
detailed operational and strategic planning. The management is decentralized,
adequately staffed, and experienced. And systems are extensive and well
developed. The owner and the business are quite separate, both financially and
operationally.
The company has now arrived. It has the advantages of size, financial
resources, and managerial talent. If it can preserve its entrepreneurial
spirit, it will be a formidable force in the market. If not, it may enter a
sixth stage of sorts: ossification.
Ossification is characterized by a lack of innovative decision making and the
avoidance of risks. It seems most common in large corporations whose sizable
market share, buying power, and financial resources keep them viable until
there is a major change in the environment. Unfortunately for these businesses,
it is usually their rapidly growing competitors that notice the environmental
change first.
Key Management Factors
Several factors, which change in importance as the business grows and develops,
are prominent in determining ultimate success or failure.
We identified eight such factors in our research, of which four relate to the
enterprise and four to the owner. The four that relate to the company are as
follows:
1. Financial resources, including cash and borrowing power.
2. Personnel resources, relating to numbers, depth, and quality of people,
particularly at the management and staff levels.
3. Systems resources, in terms of the degree of sophistication of both
information and planning and control systems.
4. Business resources, including customer relations, market share, supplier
relations, manufacturing and distribution processes, technology and reputation,
all of which give the company a position in its industry and market.
The four factors that relate to the owner are as follows:
1. Owner s goals for himself or herself and for the business.
2. Owner s operational abilities in doing important jobs such as marketing,
inventing, producing, and managing distribution.
3. Owner s managerial ability and willingness to delegate responsibility and to
manage the activities of others.
4. Owner s strategic abilities for looking beyond the present and matching the
strengths and weaknesses of the company with his or her goals.
As a business moves from one stage to another, the importance of the factors
changes. We might view the factors as alternating among three levels of
importance: first, key variables that are absolutely essential for success and
must receive high priority; second, factors that are clearly necessary for the
enterprise s success and must receive some attention; and third, factors of
little immediate concern to top management. If we categorize each of the eight
factors listed previously, based on its importance at each stage of the company
s development, we get a clear picture of changing management demands. (See
Exhibit 5.)
Varying Demands
The changing nature of managerial challenges becomes apparent when one examines
Exhibit 5. In the early stages, the owner s ability to do the job gives life to
the business. Small businesses are built on the owner s talents: the ability to
sell, produce, invent, or whatever. This factor is thus of the highest
importance. The owner s ability to delegate, however, is on the bottom of the
scale, since there are few if any employees to delegate to.
As the company grows, other people enter sales, production, or engineering and
they first support, and then even supplant, the owner s skills thus reducing
the importance of this factor. At the same time, the owner must spend less time
doing and more time managing. He or she must increase the amount of work done
through other people, which means delegating. The inability of many founders to
let go of doing and to begin managing and delegating explains the demise of
many businesses in substage III-G and Stage IV.
The owner contemplating a growth strategy must understand the change in
personal activities such a decision entails and examine the managerial needs
depicted in Exhibit 5. Similarly, an entrepreneur contemplating starting a
business should recognize the need to do all the selling, manufacturing, or
engineering from the beginning, along with managing cash and planning the
business s course requirements that take much energy and commitment.
The importance of cash changes as the business changes. It is an extremely
important resource at the start, becomes easily manageable at the Success
Stage, and is a main concern again if the organization begins to grow. As
growth slows at the end of Stage IV or in Stage V, cash becomes a manageable
factor again. The companies in Stage III need to recognize the financial needs
and risk entailed in a move to Stage IV.
The issues of people, planning, and systems gradually increase in importance as
the company progresses from slow initial growth (substage III-G) to rapid
growth (Stage IV). These resources must be acquired somewhat in advance of the
growth stage so that they are in place when needed. Matching business and
personal goals is crucial in the Existence Stage because the owner must
recognize and be reconciled to the heavy financial and time-energy demands of
the new business. Some find these demands more than they can handle. In the
Survival Stage, however, the owner has achieved the necessary reconciliation
and survival is paramount; matching of goals is thus irrelevant in Stage II.
A second serious period for goal matching occurs in the Success Stage. Does the
owner wish to commit his or her time and risk the accumulated equity of the
business in order to grow or instead prefer to savor some of the benefits of
success? All too often the owner wants both, but to expand the business rapidly
while planning a new house on Maui for long vacations involves considerable
risk. To make a realistic decision on which direction to take, the owner needs
to consider the personal and business demands of different strategies and to
evaluate his or her managerial ability to meet these challenges.
Finally, business resources are the stuff of which success is made; they
involve building market share, customer relations, solid vendor sources, and a
technological base, and are very important in the early stages. In later stages
the loss of a major customer, supplier, or technical source is more easily
compensated for. Thus, the relative importance of this factor is shown to be
declining.
The changing role of the factors clearly illustrates the need for owner
flexibility. An overwhelming preoccupation with cash is quite important at some
stages and less important at others. Delaying tax payments at almost all costs
is paramount in Stages I and II but may seriously distort accounting data and
use up management time during periods of success and growth. Doing versus
delegating also requires a flexible management. Holding onto old strategies
and old ways ill serves a company that is entering the growth stages and can
even be fatal.
Avoiding Future Problems
Even a casual look at Exhibit 5 reveals the demands the Take-off Stage makes on
the enterprise. Nearly every factor except the owner s ability to do is
crucial. This is the stage of action and potentially large rewards. Looking at
this exhibit, owners who want such growth must ask themselves:
Do I have the quality and diversity of people needed to manage a growing
company?
Do I have now, or will I have shortly, the systems in place to handle the needs
of a larger, more diversified company?
Do I have the inclination and ability to delegate decision making to my
managers?
Do I have enough cash and borrowing power along with the inclination to risk
everything to pursue rapid growth?
Similarly, the potential entrepreneur can see that starting a business requires
an ability to do something very well (or a good marketable idea), high energy,
and a favorable cash flow forecast (or a large sum of cash on hand). These are
less important in Stage V, when well-developed people-management skills, good
information systems, and budget controls take priority. Perhaps this is why
some experienced people from large companies fail to make good as entrepreneurs
or managers in small companies. They are used to delegating and are not good
enough at doing.
Applying the Model
This scheme can be used to evaluate all sorts of small business situations,
even those that at first glance appear to be exceptions. Take the case of
franchises. These enterprises begin the Existence Stage with a number of
differences from most start-up situations. They often have the following
advantages:
A marketing plan developed from extensive research.
Sophisticated information and control systems in place.
Operating procedures that are standardized and very well developed.
Promotion and other start-up support such as brand identification.
They also require relatively high start-up capital.
If the franchisor has done sound market analysis and has a solid,
differentiated product, the new venture can move rapidly through the Existence
and Survival Stages where many new ventures founder and into the early stages
of Success. The costs to the franchisee for these beginning advantages are
usually as follows:
Limited growth due to territory restrictions.
Heavy dependence on the franchisor for continued economic health.
Potential for later failure as the entity enters Stage III without the maturing
experiences of Stages I and II.
One way to grow with franchising is to acquire multiple units or territories.
Managing several of these, of course, takes a different set of skills than
managing one and it is here that the lack of survival experience can become
damaging.
Another seeming exception is high-technology start-ups. These are highly
visible companies such as computer software businesses, genetic-engineering
enterprises, or laser-development companies that attract much interest from the
investment community. Entrepreneurs and investors who start them often intend
that they grow quite rapidly and then go public or be sold to other
corporations. This strategy requires them to acquire a permanent source of
outside capital almost from the beginning. The providers of this cash, usually
venture capitalists, may bring planning and operating systems of a Stage III or
a Stage IV company to the organization along with an outside board of directors
to oversee the investment.
The resources provided enable this entity to jump through Stage I, last out
Stage II until the product comes to market, and attain Stage III. At this
point, the planned strategy for growth is often beyond the managerial
capabilities of the founding owner and the outside capital interests may
dictate a management change. In such cases, the company moves rapidly into
Stage IV and, depending on the competence of the development, marketing, and
production people, the company becomes a big success or an expensive failure.
The problems that beset both franchises and high-technology companies stem from
a mismatch of the founders problem-solving skills and the demands that forced
evolution brings to the company.
Besides the extreme examples of franchises and high-technology companies, we
found that while a number of other companies appeared to be at a given stage of
development, they were, on closer examination, actually at one stage with
regard to a particular factor and at another stage with regard to the others.
For example, one company had an abundance of cash from a period of controlled
growth (substage III-G) and was ready to accelerate its expansion, while at the
same time the owner was trying to supervise everybody (Stages I or II). In
another, the owner was planning to run for mayor of a city (substage III-D) but
was impatient with the company s slow growth (substage III-G).
Although rarely is a factor more than one stage ahead of or behind the company
as a whole, an imbalance of factors can create serious problems for the
entrepreneur. Indeed, one of the major challenges in a small company is the
fact that both the problems faced and the skills necessary to deal with them
change as the company grows. Thus, owners must anticipate and manage the
factors as they become important to the company.
A company s development stage determines the managerial factors that must be
dealt with. Its plans help determine which factors will eventually have to be
faced. Knowing its development stage and future plans enables managers,
consultants, and investors to make more informed choices and to prepare
themselves and their companies for later challenges. While each enterprise is
unique in many ways, all face similar problems and all are subject to great
changes. That may well be why being an owner is so much fun and such a
challenge.
A version of this article appeared in the May 1983 issue of Harvard Business
Review.
Neil C. Churchill is a visiting professor at the Anderson School at UCLA and a
professor emeritus of entrepreneurship at INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France.