The 5 Decisions Growing Companies Should Not Make Alone

Some decisions improve with outside perspective. Others do not need it. The distinction matters because growing companies between $2M and $25M in revenue make both kinds every week, and the ones they get wrong tend to be the ones where they had the most context but the least perspective. That combination, deep insider knowledge paired with zero external reference points, produces confident mistakes.

The Pattern Behind Expensive Errors

There is a pattern I see across industries and company sizes. A founder or leadership team faces a major decision. They have years of accumulated context about their business. They discuss it internally. They reach a conclusion that feels well-reasoned. And six months later, the decision has cost them $200K or more in direct losses, opportunity costs, or recovery effort.

The failure is rarely in the analysis. It is in the frame. Internal teams analyze inside the frame they already occupy. They cannot see the assumptions they are standing on. An outside perspective does not bring better judgment. It brings a different vantage point, one that makes the assumptions visible.

Not every decision needs this. Routine operations, standard vendor selection, day-to-day management decisions are all fine to handle internally. The five categories below are not. These are the decisions where going it alone has a predictable, measurable cost.

Decision 1: Pricing Model Changes

Founders underprice. This is nearly universal in companies under $15M. They set prices based on cost-plus logic, competitor comparison, or what felt right three years ago. The team cannot correct this because they do not see the market. They see the inbox, the pipeline, and the occasional lost deal.

Pricing changes require external data: market positioning, willingness-to-pay research, competitive landscape analysis, and margin modeling across customer segments. A $8M company I worked with was leaving $1.2M in annual revenue on the table because their pricing had not been updated in four years. They knew they were “probably underpriced.” They did not know by how much, or which segments could absorb a 20% increase without churn.

The cost of getting pricing wrong in both directions is substantial. Underprice and you leave margin on the table indefinitely. Overprice without segmentation and you lose volume you cannot recover. Both require perspective beyond what the sales team reports.

Decision 2: Organizational Structure Redesign

Founders build organizations around the people they have. The org chart reflects history, not strategy. When the $3M company grew to $8M, it added roles to solve immediate problems. Nobody redesigned the structure to match the business the company had become.

The symptom is familiar: unclear reporting lines, duplicated responsibilities, managers with seven direct reports in unrelated functions, and a founder who remains the de facto decision-maker because no clear hierarchy exists beneath them.

Restructuring requires someone who can see the gap between the current structure and the required structure. Internal leaders cannot do this objectively because they are embedded in the current design. Their roles, their status, their teams are all products of the existing structure. Asking them to redesign it is asking them to evaluate their own positions.

Decision 3: Market Expansion

New geography, new customer segment, new product line. The risk most founders worry about is that it will fail. The actual risk is that it will half-succeed. A partial success in a new market drains capital, management attention, and operational bandwidth from the core business without producing enough return to justify the investment.

I have watched $10M companies chase a $2M adjacent market opportunity, spend $500K in setup and first-year operations, and net $300K in new revenue while their core business growth slowed by 8%. The math was obvious in retrospect. Nobody ran it in advance because the expansion “felt strategic.”

Market expansion decisions require financial readiness analysis, competitive validation, and an honest assessment of whether the opportunity justifies the distraction. Internal teams tend to overvalue the opportunity because they built the case for it.

Decision 4: Leadership Hires

The most expensive mistake a growing company makes is a bad leadership hire. At the $5M to $15M range, a wrong VP or director-level hire costs $150K to $300K in salary, onboarding, disruption, and eventual replacement when you account for the six to twelve months before the misfit becomes undeniable.

The pattern: the founder hires for the problems they have today, not the role they need in two years. They hire a sales manager who can close deals when they need a sales leader who can build a team. They hire an operations manager who can execute when they need an operations director who can design systems.

Outside perspective shifts the frame from “who can fix this current pain” to “what does this role need to look like at $15M, and who can grow into that.” The current pain is a symptom. The role design is the system. Hire for the system.

Decision 5: Technology Bets

Technology decisions at growing companies tend to follow vendor persuasion rather than operational need. The difference between buying what you need and buying what a vendor sold you is often $50K to $150K per year in software costs alone, plus the implementation time and organizational disruption.

This applies to AI investments, CRM migrations, ERP implementations, and every other technology platform decision. The internal team evaluates demos, checks features against requirements lists, and selects the tool that “fits best.” What they do not evaluate is whether the underlying problem requires a technology solution at all, or whether a process fix, a staffing adjustment, or an integration between existing tools would produce the same outcome at a fraction of the cost.

Technology decisions require a diagnostic layer before the evaluation layer. Solve the problem definition first. Then evaluate solutions.

The Pattern Across All Five

Every one of these decisions shares the same structure. The person making the decision has the most context about the business and the least perspective on the decision itself. Context without perspective produces confidence. Confidence without perspective produces mistakes you do not recognize until the consequences arrive.

The fix is not to outsource the decision. The fix is to introduce a different vantage point into the process. That can be a strategic advisor, a peer network, an executive coach, or a structured diagnostic. The format matters less than the principle: major decisions benefit from a frame check.

Every system improves when you measure it from outside. Decisions are systems too.

Assess Your Advisory Readiness

The VWCG Strategic Assessment includes an Advisor Readiness module and a Business EQ module that together measure whether your organization has the decision-making infrastructure to handle these five categories well. It evaluates how decisions are made, who is involved, how emotional factors influence strategic choices, and where blind spots are most likely.

The assessment takes about 10 minutes and requires no signup. It will not tell you what to decide. It will tell you whether your decision process is built to produce good outcomes or whether the structure itself is the risk.

Take the assessment ->

Kamyar Shah has led 650+ consulting engagements, including fractional COO, fractional CMO, executive coaching, and strategic advisory, producing over $300M in client impact across companies in the $1M-$50M range. He built the VWCG Strategic Assessment from the same diagnostic frameworks he uses in paid engagements.