In “Company of One,” Many Helpful Inconsistencies

It’s always seemed nuts to me that as an adult, you go from from high school, where you have more or less no autonomy, to college, where you can pretty much do anything you want so long as you make the grades, to a job, where you arguably have less autonomy than you did in college. What was that interlude of false hope there for?

I had dreamed that work would be like college — get the grade, and the rest is up to you. Whether that’s working alone or in a small group, ten hours a week or seventy, at the library or at the bar, it’s up to you. Unfortunately, most modern workplaces aren’t like this at all, with routines so structured that terms like “commute” and “intern” can’t help but evoke penal connotations. 

But what’s the alternative? Sure, you could start a business — but all that means is you’re the one ordering people into cubicles, the last to get paid and the last to leave the building. Isn’t there a way out of this?

Paul Jarvis has found one: what he calls the “company of one” model. It’s a simple idea that in entrepreneurial fashion makes one wonder, “Why didn’t I think of that?” To Jarvis, the company of one embraces simplicity over growth, and a “rich life” over “riches.” It makes a lot of sense, and it’s an idea that resonates with many independent business owners who value autonomy over their craft above all else.

While Jarvis is the first to label it a company of one, idea of professionals escaping the rat race to do what they love, when they want to, has been around for a while. It’s not always looked at positively: think, for example, of the famous “E-Myth,” which suggests that these professionals will actually do less of their craft when they become entrepreneurs. 

That leaves the freelance model, where the self-employed exchange their time for their money, similarly to full-time employees but without the commitment (or security). It’s more likely in this case to continue actually doing what you love, but far less lucrative, and arguably riskier, as it’s entirely “eat-what-you-kill.”

For some, maybe that’s okay — they’re all right with trading their time for their money, and have built enough of a presence and a network to keep a steady book of business. So, is a company of one a freelancer, or an entrepreneur? 

Kind of both, and I don’t really know. Unfortunately, I don’t think Jarvis does either, and this tension between “scalable” entrepreneurship and “personalized” craftsmanship muddies the book’s premise. 

Systems or scale?

What is “scale?”  Entrepreneurs love business that “scale up,” but at the book Jarvis suggested companies of one “scale down” by eliminating complexities and burdens in their life. To Jarvis, a blind pursuit of growth is not a good thing. However, companies of one do need to build systems in their business to avoid simply trading time for money. 

There is such a high correlation between “scalable” businesses and “passive income” ones that it’s hard to know the difference. I think Jarvis wants to argue that while growth is not necessary, scalability is. Perhaps a better term to focus on than “scale” is “system.” Whether a company of one depends more on “passive income” or trading time for money, it needs to have rigorous systems in place for managing time and resources. 

Systems or overhead?

At the same time, “systems” in themselves can be overhead. Really, a freelancer is the ultimate “scaled-down” business as their revenue is generated at the time of invoicing. Compare this to a business that makes money “while you sleep.” This needs to be automated to some extent, and these products had to have been built to some extent before the owner generated the income, along with a funnel that can easily cost thousands to operate.

Of course, businesses have gotten more sophisticated about managing this pipeline from product development to launch and income generation, and Jarvis lays out a helpful roadmap for developing “Minimum Viable Profit” as a company of one.

But, the questions about scalability and personal touch remain. Jarvis encourages companies of one to establish deeply personalized relationships with personal customers before automating processes, while ironically using the social media automation company Buffer as an example of a company of one. Sure, at under 100 employees, Buffer is a lean company. It’s a far cry, however, than what most would think of when they envision a “company of one.” 

Read it for the advice, not the theory

Despite all these inconsistencies and unresolved tensions, Company of One is full of great practical tips. I would recommend the book, with reservations (For example, skip the last chapter: it reads like a “Business 101” pamphlet that was appended to the book by last-minute request of the publisher.). It’s light on theory but deep on practice, which in some ways should be expected from a “business book.” 

Regardless of how it relates to scalability and growth, the importance of building systems as an independent worker is something that is only dawning on me, and one that Jarvis sketches out helpfully. If you’re interested in how to build a business over that sense of personal autonomy that you’re missing, perhaps from your college days, check out this book.