The Innovation Versus Scale Tradeoff – Not Who, What

The most effective senior leaders are master delegators. Before doing anything themselves, they ask “Who can do this task instead of me?” Minority Business Development Agency head, Henry Childs says that is now the wrong question. Instead, they should ask “What can do this task instead of any of us?” They should do this in areas they can scale while investing in their areas of competitive advantage.

Childs said this as part of the interactive state of the market conversation at last week’s CEO Connection Mid-Market Convention. One of the recurring themes there was how artificial intelligence is fueling the new industrial revolution. It’s all about leveraging technology to scale through points of inflection.

In a different session, Wharton Professor Gad Allon explained the difference between growth and scale. He suggested growth generally involves increasing revenues and costs together. Scaling involves growing revenues faster than costs.

Assume you’re in the business of carrying boxes down a flight of stairs. You can grow your business by hiring another person to help you. Your revenues and costs increase. Or you can leverage a ramp and move more boxes yourself. Your revenues increase, but your operating costs do not. That’s leverage.

There’s an obvious trade-off between efficiency and differentiation. If you’re leveraging a tool or technology to scale up, your competitors can do the same. Since the price of everything tends to get competed down to its marginal cost over time, you could end up in a race to the bottom before you blink.

Professor Allon suggested leaders should ask four questions: “Are we propelled to scale? Are we willing? Are we able? And are we ready?” He suggests not everyone needs, wants and can scale. “Scaling up often means giving something up.” If that “something” is the competitive advantage that justifies your superior margins, scaling up may be exactly the wrong thing to do.

Another speaker suggested a middle way. Instead of making a people versus technology trade-off, that speaker proposed thinking in terms of both and, “using technology, outsourcing or managed services to complement or augment” your people.

Implications for you

Thinking this way adds an important dimension to your strategic resource choices. Recall the Strategic Alignment framework from my earlier article on Accelerating Through a Strategic Inflection Point:

As Porter taught us, all companies design, produce, sell, deliver and service. The fundamental premise is that you’re better off picking one primary area of focus, investing to be best in class in that and efficiently managing everything else to fuel investment in that area.

Asking what instead of who changes your approach to this. More efficient design, production, delivery or service could come from outsourcing part or all of those functions, employing lower paid people, or leveraging technology to make fewer high-caliber and highly paid people more efficient.

Of course, this applies to your primary area of focus as well. There’s no reason not to leverage technology to make things easier for all your high-caliber and highly paid people.

The moment you outsource something core to your competitive advantage, you give up your competitive advantage. But there should be no downside to leveraging technology to “complement or augment” the efforts of the people giving you a competitive advantage.

Where innovation meets scale

The mid-market is where innovation meets scale. Mid-market companies are generally too big to be as nimble as start-ups and too small to have the scale of huge corporations. This is why the speaker’s thinking about “using technology, outsourcing or managed services to complement or augment” people should be generally appealing to the mid-market.

While it’s generally appealing, it’s specifically wrong in some circumstances.

Where you have a competitive advantage, you have to invest in talent and knowledge to fuel best-in-class innovation. Think “who” and leverage technology here carefully.

On the other hand, in areas where it’s good enough for you to be world class, strong or merely acceptable, think “what” and outsource, deploy managed services or leverage technology liberally to free up funds to invest in your areas of competitive advantage.

Click here for a list of my Forbes articles and a summary of my book on executive onboarding: The New Leader’s 100-Day Action Plan.

Read More Articles

Building Accountability in High-Performing Teams: From Slogan to Commitment

Turning empowerment from a slogan into a mutual agreement and engagement from an attitude into observable commitment  Almost every leader says they want empowered people. Almost every employee says they…

Read Article
Clear road
What To Do When Others Don’t Do What They Said They Would Do

One of the most predictable realities is that not everyone does what they said they are going to do - and even fewer do it when they said they would…

Read Article
Board meeting with the CEO
Why the Best CEOs Start Board Meetings With One Simple Sentence

Most board meetings don’t fail because of bad data. They fail because of unclear expectations—especially about how directors should feel when they leave the room. Too often, management teams present…

Read Article
White-water rafting team navigating strong river rapids with teamwork and coordination.
Recalibrating Your Own BRAVE Leadership in Turbulent Times

Leadership is most effective when it turns other‑focused intent into disciplined, everyday action in an ever-changing world. Take this moment to recalibrate how you are leading to sharpen both your…

Read Article
Team meeting
The Hierarchy of High Performance: Defining Ways of Working by Level

Use this approach to make your ways of working more disciplined, consistent, and effective by level, remit and choices, and systems and tools: Level, Remit and Choices:  Board – governance…

Read Article
Team work
How to Build Tactical Capacity: Moving from Individual to Team Proactivity

The secret sauce in tactical capacity is proactivity as a team because it is not about a few heroic individuals taking initiative; it is about a team that reliably sees…

Read Article