Chapter 1 – Defining a Company of One
In Chapter 1 of Company of One, Paul Jarvis presents a compelling case for rethinking traditional business growth models. Rather than aspiring to scale rapidly, add employees, or chase market dominance, a “company of one” intentionally questions growth (Jarvis, 2019). Jarvis continues by introducing the idea that not all growth is good, and in some cases, staying small can actually be more sustainable, profitable, and fulfilling (2019, p. 5-6) The “company of one” mindset centers around building a sustainable business that aligns with personal values, freedom, and a sense of purpose rather than expansion for expansion’s sake (Jarvis, 2019, p. 9). But this model is not limited to entrepreneurs or small businesses. Companies of one can exist within large organizations too, often in the form of intrapreneurs, or individuals who “find suitable ways to become better and more productive, without more resources or team members” (Jarvis, 2019, p. 8-9)
I have encountered this concept in three distinct ways, each offering a unique perspective on the ‘company of one’ mindset: my husband’s business, my previous employer, and my current role as a grants administrator.
My husband owns a small business where he has made a conscious decision not to expand the number of employees or grow beyond our local region. His goal is not to dominate the market but to increase profitability and maintain control over his time and workload. As his experience has grown, so has his ability to be more selective with the jobs he accepts, choosing higher-margin projects that allow him to work smarter rather than harder. His growth has been slow, steady, and intentional. He controls his expenses by only purchasing equipment when a job can justify it. This incremental growth approach allowed him to build up his tools and machinery over time, keeping startup costs low and risk manageable. His approach is an ideal example of simplicity and sustainability over size, and today, his company is thriving without additional employees or debt. This aligns perfectly with Jarvis’s notion that success is not always about scaling; it is about sustainability (Jarvis, 2019, p. 5).
In contrast, my previous employer also exemplifies aspects of a company of one, albeit from a different angle. He originally partnered with external investors to help start and grow his business. However, he eventually bought them out, choosing to become the sole owner and decision-maker. This move gave him full autonomy, and he no longer needs approval for purchases, changes in direction, or financial decisions. He retains 100% of the profits, which is a major benefit. However, this freedom comes at a cost. When capital improvements or large investments are needed, he bears the financial responsibility alone. This trade-off highlights a key truth about companies of one: autonomy and control often come with increased personal risk.
Interestingly, he still seeks to expand his real estate portfolio, which raises a question: At what point does a company of one stop being a company of one? According to Jarvis, the identity of a company of one is not necessarily tied to the size of the business or revenue, but rather to its mindset and values (2019, p. 9). If the expansion is self-funded, intentional, and does not involve diluting control or layering management, it may still fall within Jarvis’s philosophy. But the line can blur when expansion requires new employees, managers, or investors, which can shift the structure and ethos away from being a true company of one.
Jarvis (2019) highlights four core traits of companies of one: resilience, autonomy, speed, and simplicity. I would argue there’s a fifth trait worth adding: tolerance of risk. Operating as a company of one involves risk: financial uncertainty, market fluctuations, and the weight of every decision falling on one person. Not everyone is willing, or able, to carry that burden. In many cases, the rate at which a company of one grows is often closely tied to the owner’s risk tolerance (Freakley & Garfield, 2024). Those who are more risk-averse may unintentionally stall their business’s momentum or miss out on significant opportunities for profit and innovation (Lovell et al., 2020; Singh, 2022). My husband prefers slow, calculated growth, minimizing risk wherever possible. My former boss, on the other hand, is more comfortable taking bigger risks to pursue higher returns. Both approaches are valid and reflect how each individual weighs control versus opportunity, but it has impacted the rate at which each company grows.
But, as Jarvis argues, a company of one can exist even within large organizations (2019, p. 8), which brings me to the third example: my own role. As a grants administrator, I help faculty and staff develop programs that operate like “companies of one” within a university setting. These individuals often manage their own budgets, design their own programs, and carry out their work with minimal oversight or team support. Through grant funding, they essentially create autonomous units that reflect the core traits Jarvis (2019) describes: resilience, autonomy, speed, and simplicity.
Interestingly, simplicity can sometimes be counterintuitive in my line of work. Jarvis notes that companies of one “only add new items or processes to the mix when they’re absolutely required” (2019, p. 22). While this resonates with how my husband and former boss operate, I often encourage grant applicants to “think big.” In grant writing, it is often strategic to propose a robust, well-funded program because funders may scale it back. That means we build proposals that account for staff, infrastructure, and equipment, intentionally adding complexity up front to secure support. Still, once funding is awarded, the grant recipient typically operates with the lean mindset of an intrapreneur, using their resources wisely and focusing on impact rather than expansion for its own sake.
The chapter continues with Jarvis highlighting that a powerful motivator for companies of one is meaning, not just money (2019, p. 12). This has shown up in different ways in the two external business examples I mentioned. My husband is driven by a desire to serve others and contribute to the greater good. His business choices reflect this, and as a result, he has built a reputation for trust, dependability, and selflessness. In contrast, my previous boss is motivated more by making a name for himself and growing his bottom line. While he is undoubtedly successful and driven, his cut-throat approach has led to more adversaries than allies. His reputation is built more on ambition than trust, and while his results speak for themselves, the human cost is noticeable. This contrast shows how the underlying motivation of a company of one can influence not only resilience but also relationships and long-term customer satisfaction.
But, to what end? That is the essential question we all need to ask. Whether we are running a solo business, expanding a property portfolio, or building a grant-funded program within a university, we must remain mindful of our personal and professional goals. Only we can decide what our ideal business structure looks like and when we have reached the limit of what we can manage. Growth is not inherently good or bad; it depends entirely on whether it aligns with our values and capacity.
Ultimately, Company of One invites us to consider a more intentional approach to success. Whether you are an entrepreneur, an intrapreneur, or a grant writer developing your own small but mighty initiative, the core idea remains the same: sustainable success comes from purpose, not just profit. And in many cases, less really is more.
Now, below are some questions to promote discussion:
- Have you ever worked for or owned a business that aligned with the “company of one” mindset? If so, what were the benefits and challenges you observed?
- In your opinion, when does a company of one stop being a company of one? Is it about the number of employees, the mindset, or something else?
- Do you think risk tolerance plays a bigger role in entrepreneurial success than we give it credit for? How do you personally assess risk when making decisions?
- In your experience, is it easier to stay motivated by meaning rather than money? What helps you stay grounded in your “why” when things get tough?
- How do you balance simplicity with the need for growth or innovation in your current work or entrepreneurial goals?
- If you were to start your own business, would you pursue the “company of one” model, or do you envision a larger team and broader expansion?
References
Freakley, S., & Garfield, D. (2024, March 25). Why Some Companies Grow Amid Uncertainty – and Others Don’t. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2024/03/why-some-companies-grow-amid-uncertainty-and-others-dont
Jarvis, P. (2019). Company of One: Why staying small is the next big thing for business. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Lovallo, D., Koller, T., Uhlaner, R., & Kahnamen, D. (2020). Your Company Is Too Risk-Averse. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2020/03/your-company-is-too-risk-averse
Singh, S. (2022, Dec 15). In Entrepreneurship, Innovation And Risk-Taking Go Hand In Hand. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2022/12/15/in-entrepreneurship-innovation-and-risk-taking-go-hand-in-hand/
Beyond Authority 
Leave a reply to GaVonne Hamilton Cancel reply