“Visibility is a trap.” – Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish (1975)
Two Businesses, One Set of Numbers
Two businesses close the month with very similar results. Same margin, same customer retention, same average debtor days. On paper, comparable results from comparable businesses.
One owner studies the figures with a mixture of satisfaction and relief. He knows what happened behind them. A proposal had stalled until he asked about it. A delivery problem was caught during one of his calls. The margin on a substantial order survived only after he reopened the pricing discussion late on Friday afternoon.
The other owner sees much the same numbers. She was involved during the month, particularly where her experience mattered, but she did not spend its final week recovering commitments or reactivating decisions. The work continued through the ordinary pattern of the business.
Neither business shows any of this in its management accounts. Both owners will sit through this week’s month-end review looking at figures that could have come from the same template: margin held, nothing to escalate. Nobody in either review will mention the late calls, the proposal that had stalled, or the commitments put right. In the first review, the owner already knows what had to be done. In the second, there was nothing unusual to mention.
What the P&L Can’t Tell You
Of course, none of this appears in the monthly accounts pack. A profit and loss account records salaries, revenue and cost of sales. It has no place to put the work an owner does on a Friday afternoon, restoring the margin a junior account manager was about to trade away to close a deal before the weekend. It has no place to put the customer promise that got kept only because the owner remembered making it, six weeks after everyone else had moved on to other things.
None of that makes the intervention wrong – an owner catching a problem before it reaches a client is leadership doing its job, not a symptom of anything. But routine intervention is also a subsidy nobody agreed to price, sitting inside a result that otherwise looks like it arrived without that help.
Is the intervention still occasional within a business that is otherwise sound? Or has it, without anyone really deciding it should, become one of the ordinary inputs the month now depends on, the way it depends on its best salesperson or its steadiest supplier? There’s no clear announcement or decision when pressure that builds at the centre of a business becomes normal. It simply becomes one more thing the owner does, and the accounts record the result without comment.
The Week Before the Numbers Arrive
In the days before month-end, a manager completes a proposal, then holds it for a day, waiting for a final look nobody has asked for. A scope exception remains unsigned. A project update arrives only after the owner asks why it has not been completed. People remain busy, yet some of the work seems to wait for attention from the top before it becomes final.
None of this necessarily looks like underperformance. Everything gets done by the end of the month, usually to standard.
In the other business, the same week looks different. A commitment made at the start of the month is still moving at the end of it, and nobody at the top has had to ask where it stood. It simply carried on through the business’s own operating rhythm. A pricing exception gets a decision within the day, from the manager who owns it, rather than waiting for someone else to look again.
Both patterns produce a result that the reporting can’t tell apart, and both look, in the monthly pack three weeks later, like discipline. At some point, though, recognising the added burden becomes hard to avoid: if performance drops the moment nobody’s checking, you don’t have a performance culture. You have supervision.
What Happens When the Owner Steps Away
A holiday tests this, but only if the owner actually leaves. Plenty of owners take time away and call it proof the business runs without them, while checking messages over breakfast and taking calls before anyone else is awake. One owner described a recent trip as a real success because only three calls a day had been necessary. Three calls a day is not absence. It’s a lighter version of the same job, done from a different place, and decisions now take longer because the person still making them is harder to reach.
Illness is less accommodating. It doesn’t wait for a convenient month, and it doesn’t allow for checking messages over breakfast. Growth is the same test at a different scale. It shows up gradually, as a business that has simply become too large for one person to be in every place that needs them.
A sale of the business asks the question outright. Someone from outside, weighing whether to buy it, wants to know who else can approve a price exception, protect a piece of scope, or rebuild a relationship with the client that matters most, if the person currently doing all three is no longer there. It’s a question with a long history behind it: guidance on valuing closely held businesses has, since 1959, recognised that the loss of the person running a one-man business can depress its value, particularly where nobody has been trained to succeed them.
In practice, I have seen that gap become considerable. The buyer may be paying not only for the business, but for another senior person to do work that has only ever gone through the owner. For a time, they may also be relying on the previous owner to maintain the same commitment after the sale, even when that owner understandably has one eye on the door.
A short absence cannot prove that a business has escaped key-person risk. A capable manager may cover the gap, or the month may simply contain fewer difficult decisions. What matters is whether this holds every time the owner is away, not only once.
The Same Result, Built Differently
Both businesses may report a similar month next month, and probably the one after that. The difference was never that one owner worked hard and the other didn’t. Both worked. The difference is what the work was actually for.
In the first business, the owner’s attention generally held the month together: the proposal, the delivery problem, the commitment that would otherwise have drifted. In the second, that same attention stayed free for when it was genuinely needed – a decision nobody else was positioned to make, a judgement call that couldn’t sensibly be taken anywhere else in the organisation. Neither owner was idle. One was spending scarce attention keeping the business at its baseline. The other was spending it moving the business past that baseline.
Left long enough, the difference tends to compound. One owner has attention left for the work that determines what the business becomes next; the other’s attention is still being consumed by the work required to hold today together.
It shows up personally, too, long before it shows up in the results. One owner ends most months looking for the next opportunity. The other ends most months looking for a rest they don’t quite get to take.
This has been a month of asking what a set of results actually means – whether growing revenue also means growing business value, why effort and results can drift apart, what a buyer would actually be prepared to pay for what’s in front of them. This is the last of those questions, and perhaps the plainest one: what did producing this month’s performance actually cost the person who runs the business, and what does that cost say about how it’s built?
Two owners will leave this month’s review holding an identical set of figures. One of them has a fairly accurate sense of how much of that result they personally supplied, and what it took out of them to do it. The other has never had reason to ask.
The question a month’s figures don’t answer, and were never built to answer, is not whether the business performed. It’s what that performance actually required of you, personally, to produce – and what the business would do next month if you simply stopped supplying it. Is that performance you don’t have to push, or performance that only survives because you do?
If you enjoyed this article you can subscribe here to receive future articles.
—
0 Comments