The observation
Neil Churchill and Virginia Lewis’s influential Harvard Business Review study of small business growth identified five recognisable stages — existence, survival, success, take-off and resource maturity — and argued that each stage is defined not just by size but by a distinct management challenge and a distinct set of practices required to meet it. A central finding of their work, echoed since in decades of subsequent research, is that the informal, personal management style effective in the earliest stages does not transfer intact to later ones; it has to be deliberately replaced by more formal systems, and organisations that fail to make that transition experience exactly the kind of strain that later stages are defined by.
A firm known for a distinctive standard of work receives, over time, increasing client comment that quality has become inconsistent. This is the kind of finding that lands, understandably, as a quality or people problem. Closer examination often points somewhere else.
What it means in practice
The instinctive read, when client feedback about consistency worsens, is that hiring quality has declined — new joiners are simply not as capable as the people who built the firm’s reputation. This is a plausible hypothesis and, in some cases, an accurate one. But it is worth testing against an alternative that the growth-stages research makes visible: the mechanism that used to maintain the standard may itself have stopped scaling, independent of anyone’s individual capability.
Consider an organisation where the standard was historically maintained by senior staff personally reviewing everything before it left the business — a genuinely effective quality mechanism, but one built on a specific, unstated assumption: that senior review capacity would keep pace with volume. It did not. Volume has tripled; the same senior staff, whose numbers have not tripled alongside it, now review only a selection of the total output rather than everything. The standard did not, in this reading, actually slip. The mechanism that had been sustaining it — comprehensive personal review — was outgrown, silently, while everyone continued to assume it was still operating the way it always had.
Where it varies
This pattern maps closely onto the transition Churchill and Lewis describe between their “success” stage, where a business is stable and profitable but often still runs on the founder’s or senior team’s direct, personal oversight, and the “take-off” stage, where growth accelerates faster than any individual’s oversight capacity can follow, forcing a shift toward delegated, systematised control. Their research is explicit that this transition is one of the most difficult in a growing business’s life, precisely because the informal mechanism being replaced usually worked very well right up until the point it stopped — there is rarely a gradual decline that gives early warning; more often, capacity is simply exceeded, and the effects appear as a step change rather than a slow drift.
Larry Greiner’s parallel and earlier research into growth phases describes the same transition from a different angle, characterising it as a “crisis of leadership” or “crisis of control,” depending on which phase boundary is being crossed — a period in which the practices that built the organisation’s success become, without any change in the people involved, an active constraint on its ability to continue operating at the standard it is used to.
Context shapes how this presents. In service businesses where quality is judgment-dependent and hard to specify precisely — much professional and creative work fits this description — replacing personal review with a formal system is genuinely difficult, because much of what senior reviewers were actually checking was tacit expertise rather than a checklist of explicit criteria. In businesses where quality can be defined more objectively — measurable specifications, clear pass/fail criteria — the transition to formal quality assurance tends to be more tractable, though rarely painless, because it still requires making explicit something that previously lived, unstated, in a small number of experienced people’s judgment.
The size of the senior group relative to total output also matters directly. A firm whose senior reviewers scale roughly in proportion to volume — hiring and developing new senior staff at a pace matched to growth — can sustain personal review much longer than a firm whose senior group stays relatively fixed while everything beneath it grows. The latter pattern is common precisely because senior staff are expensive and slow to develop, which makes it organisationally tempting to grow volume faster than senior headcount, right up until review capacity is quietly exceeded.
There is a leadership-specific dimension to this transition that is worth naming directly, since the title of this piece points toward it. The shift from personal oversight to systematised quality assurance is rarely just a process change — it usually requires senior people who built their credibility and their sense of value through hands-on review to step back from a role they may genuinely be excellent at, and toward a role focused on designing and maintaining the system that replaces their direct involvement. This is a harder transition, psychologically, than it sounds. Senior staff who have spent years being the last line of quality assurance can reasonably experience delegation of that role as a loss of relevance, not just a change of task, and organisations that ask for the structural transition without acknowledging the personal one often find the formal system exists on paper while informal, duplicate personal review quietly continues alongside it — doubling effort rather than replacing it.
Looking for your own sector? The Other Sectors page points to the closest match.
Questions worth considering
- What is currently holding this organisation’s standards in place — and is that mechanism something that scales, or something that was only ever built for the volume it was designed for?
- Has the ratio between senior oversight capacity and total output changed meaningfully over the past few years, even if nobody has measured it directly?
- If client-facing quality is currently maintained by a small group of experienced people’s personal judgment, what happens to that standard the day one of them is unavailable, and does the answer reveal anything about how resilient the mechanism actually is?
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.