The observation
Larry Greiner’s research into organisational growth phases identifies a recurring pattern at the boundary between early and later stages: a “crisis of leadership,” in which the direct, hands-on style that built a smaller organisation’s early success stops being sufficient once the organisation reaches a scale where senior leaders can no longer personally oversee everything. Greiner’s argument was specifically that this is not a failure of the leaders involved — the skills and instincts that drove earlier success are often genuinely excellent — but a mismatch between those skills and what the organisation, at its new scale, structurally requires from the people at the top.
Jay Galbraith’s research on organisational design offers a complementary account of the mechanism: as organisations grow, the volume and complexity of information that needs to be processed to make good decisions increases faster than any individual’s capacity to process it directly. Leaders who remain deeply involved in operational detail — the mode that served them well at smaller scale — increasingly become a bottleneck, not because they have become less capable, but because the sheer volume of information now flowing through the organisation exceeds what any single point of direct oversight can absorb.
What it means in practice
The shift this research describes is not simply “senior leaders should delegate more,” though that is often part of it. It is a change in the fundamental nature of the contribution senior leaders are best positioned to make. In a smaller organisation, a senior leader’s direct technical or operational involvement — reviewing the work personally, making the calls directly, being close to the details — is often genuinely the highest-value use of their time, because their judgment applied directly to specific decisions has an outsized effect on outcomes relative to the organisation’s small size.
As the organisation grows, the same amount of direct involvement covers a shrinking proportion of total activity, while the value of building systems, developing other people’s judgment, and making decisions about structure and priority — rather than about individual pieces of work — rises correspondingly. The research does not suggest senior leaders should stop caring about quality or detail; it suggests the mechanism through which they protect quality and detail needs to shift, from direct personal involvement in specific instances to the design and maintenance of systems that produce good outcomes reliably across many instances they will never personally review.
Where it varies
How sharply this transition is felt depends on what kind of expertise originally made a leader valuable. Leaders whose early value came from a specific, transferable technical skill — something that can be taught, documented and delegated with reasonable fidelity — tend to navigate this shift somewhat more smoothly, because the skill itself can be systematised even if the leader’s direct application of it diminishes. Leaders whose early value came from a more tacit, judgment-based capability — reading a room, sensing a problem before it becomes visible, an instinct built from years of direct pattern exposure — face a harder transition, because that kind of capability resists being fully codified, and the leader may reasonably worry, often correctly to some degree, that something genuinely valuable is lost when it stops being applied directly.
Organisational growth pace also shapes how much time exists to navigate this shift deliberately. A senior leader in a steadily growing organisation has more opportunity to adjust incrementally — gradually taking on fewer direct reviews as trust in a system or in other people’s judgment builds over time. A senior leader in a rapidly growing organisation is often forced through the same transition much faster, frequently before they have had time to build the systems or develop the people that would make stepping back from direct involvement feel safe rather than risky, which is part of why rapid growth periods are disproportionately associated with senior leadership strain in the research literature.
There is a genuine tension in this transition worth naming plainly. The direct oversight a leader provided was often not simply comfort or habit — it frequently was genuinely catching problems, maintaining standards, and providing a level of quality assurance that a newer system may not yet replicate reliably. Stepping back before an adequate replacement exists carries real risk. Never stepping back, waiting for a perfect replacement before reducing direct involvement, carries the opposite risk described above — leadership becoming the organisation’s bottleneck precisely because it never made room for anything to replace it. Greiner’s research does not offer a formula for timing this transition correctly; it offers the observation that organisations which navigate it well tend to treat it as a deliberate, managed transition rather than either resisting it indefinitely or abandoning direct involvement abruptly without anything ready to take its place.
This is also a transition that other people in the organisation experience, not just the leader making it. Teams that have grown accustomed to a leader’s direct, hands-on review often read a genuine, well-intentioned step back as reduced attention or reduced care, at least initially — even when the underlying motivation is exactly the opposite: an attempt to build something more durable than one person’s availability. Leaders navigating this shift well tend to make the change visible and explained, rather than simply quieter, precisely because the absence of explanation is what most readily gets misread as disengagement.
Looking for your own sector? The Other Sectors page points to the closest match.
Questions worth considering
- What proportion of senior leaders’ time currently goes toward direct involvement in specific pieces of work, versus building the systems and people that would let good outcomes happen without that direct involvement?
- Is there a system, process or person currently capable of catching the kinds of problems senior leaders’ direct oversight has historically caught — or does quality still depend substantially on that direct involvement continuing?
- If growth continues at its current pace, will senior leadership’s current mode of involvement remain physically possible in twelve months — and if not, what needs to change before that point is reached?
More on this topic: Growth.
Your team is facing similar challenges?
Subscribe to The Riddle Ledger
Perspectives are sent as they are published, with no promotional email, and you can unsubscribe at any time.