What is the "Meaning Capital" of a firm ?

So far, the business model of the firm has been looked upon as an idea. In fact, it also has a meaning. Because it speaks for itself, the "Meaning Capital" involved, usually remains unconscious.

The concept of « Meaning Capital » is an outcome of my consulting experience supported by research on management issues, done within DIT.

I have always been puzzled by the fact that no two companies are alike, even within the same branch : atmosphere, processes, management, client relationship … Usually, the “human side” of the firm is supposed to make the difference.

But in fact, two competitors never develop the same business model. The same product may have different purposes which remain unconscious. I think of an example ; I came across two suppliers of mobile phones, the first one actually offering a communication means, the second one a communication filter. You could read the difference by comparing the functionalities of each product. But on the surface, both of them were supposed to be identical.

I soon realized that the corporate product or service is loaded with an original intention which exceeds its perception by the market. The product always has a meaning, whether perceived or not. This meaning is shaped by a set of items called the “Meaning Capital”, always brought by the founder-entrepreneur of the firm.

Why “Meaning Capital” ?

Simply because the elements of this capital are “meaningful” ; like any currency, they have a value which is collectively recognized. Just an example : developing mechanical devices was not only a technical activity for Louis Renault, it was above all a means to go against his father’s will who wanted him to become a trader in the textile branch.

This supplement of meaning is a sort of signature underwritten by the entrepreneur on the things of reality. The “Meaning Capital” just as the financial one, is a working capital. It is the key to the actual meaning of the business model of the firm.  

 

Comments

[seacat]

appreciate your comment on my blog about KM and culture. This article on "meaning capital" is brilliant--I'm assuming you are referring to the notion of the "stories we tell ourselves about ourselves," consciously and unconsciously. One can navigate those stories only through careful observation of what is actually happening or being produced, as though one were from another planet, free from the bias that comes of "stories."

Example: Google's story is one of innocence, pure intentions and the shining icon of free access to anything. "Do no evil," is their motto. It's a good one and for the most part, in their culture they live up to it. More than anything, Sergey does not want to be like Bill Gates.

But as time goes on, they will be challenged to remain the same as their initial story, and that's when consciousness around what you are calling Meaning Capital will become important.

Am I understanding you correctly?

[Didier Toussaint]

Absolutely.
Thank you for this comment.
You are perfectly right about Google. There comes a time when the firm sees its initial business model challenged by its environment. When the founder is still in command, he usually copes by instinct. It is much more difficult for his successors. For them this capital is not natural. This is what I consider as the corporate unconscious.
I have described this process through two different cases : one is Renault, the car producer, the other is Fnac, a french distribution company. But they are in french.