Most operating models emerge by accident, that’s why you can’t scale
- LBM
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
The early phase of companies is often about making something work, not building an internal machine. Founders focus on creating a product, finding customers, generating early revenue, and surviving long enough to reach product-market fit. Every day is a scramble. Teams are small, priorities shift constantly, and processes emerge as needed. Nobody sits down to design how the business should run.
This works, until it doesn’t.
Most operating models are patched together, not intentionally designed.
As companies hit growth milestones, they begin to feel the hidden cost of this patchwork foundation. What worked with ten people does not work with fifty. What was manageable with a founder personally overseeing everything becomes unmanageable once the business crosses into new complexity.
Many leaders make the mistake of thinking the solution is to just hire more people, implement more tools, or add more layers of management. But the real issue is not headcount or tooling. It is the operating model itself, the structure that connects strategy, execution, decision-making, and accountability.
Why Organic Growth Creates a Patchwork System and Not an Operating model for scaling.
In the startup world, companies push aggressively for product-market fit. They experiment, pivot, and adapt at high speed. They hire quickly, bring in tools to solve immediate pain points, and build processes reactively as problems arise. This creates an organic, patchwork operating model and not an operating model for scaling.
The problem is that these layers are not designed to work together.
You end up with:
Sales processes shaped around one or two key performers.
Product development cycles that shift based on urgent customer demands.
Leadership decisions made ad hoc, often in response to fire drills.
Technology and tools layered on top of each other without integration.
Reporting and metrics designed for the last phase, not the next one.
This patchwork works in the short term because everyone is close to the ground. Founders know what is happening. Teams move fast. Informal coordination fills the gaps.
But once a company reaches scale, informal no longer works.
Why Family-Owned Businesses Stay Trapped in “What Worked Before”
Family-owned businesses typically grow over years or decades on the strength of personal relationships, deep market understanding, and adaptability. But the same flexibility that made them strong early becomes a liability as they face scale, succession, or market shifts.
In these businesses, systems are often shaped around key people. Processes exist, but only a few insiders truly know how they work. Decisions rely on the founder or family leaders being involved directly. Technology adoption lags because it feels like a disruption to the personal touch that defined the company’s success.
As the business grows or transitions, these patterns become constraints.
Leaders may avoid redesigning the operating model because they believe it will be too disruptive or because they assume the cost of change is too high.
But the real cost is not tacking action to redesign. Without a system built for the next stage, the business hits a growth ceiling. It struggles with operational inefficiencies, misaligned teams, and rising risk.
Related reading:
Why Startups Hit the Series A Wall
For many startups, seed round is about proving traction. Series A is about showing you can scale. Investors want predictable performance, not just hustle. They want to know that the business can run as a system, not just as a collection of heroic individual efforts.
At this stage, the problems become clear:
The founder cannot personally track every thread.
Priorities slip between teams because no one owns the full picture.
Data lives in different systems, making it impossible to see what is working.
Decisions get made, but follow-through breaks down across functions.
Adding more people does not solve this. It usually makes it worse.
This is the moment when companies need to redesign the system itself, the operating model that connects strategy, execution, and results. Without it, they simply scale the chaos.
At this stage, founders often realize they need more than just operational support. What’s missing isn’t effort, it’s structure. This is where designing a system around the CEO becomes essential. Whether that’s introducing a Chief of Staff, evolving toward an Office of the CEO, or mapping the company’s architecture end-to-end, the goal is the same: create a setup that actually supports the next level of growth.
Related reading:
Fixing Local Problems vs Redesigning the System
Many companies respond to execution problems by patching local pain points. They hire a COO to run operations. They bring in an executive assistant or project manager to help the CEO manage leadership load. They implement a new tool to improve reporting. These are all useful steps, but they do not address the core issue.
Without a designed operating model, you are just adding pieces onto a shaky foundation.
To truly solve execution gaps, you need to rethink:
How decisions flow across the organization.
How priorities are aligned and sequenced.
How data connects to performance.
How teams interact and own their part of the system.
How leadership works at the right altitude, focused on leverage, not firefighting.
Most operating issues aren’t solved by hiring another role or layering on more software. They come from the deeper structure: disconnected systems, misaligned teams, undefined priorities. Redesigning the business architecture, how strategy, operations, people, and tools work together, is what actually changes the outcome.
When you do that well, your CoS, COO, or internal operations team finally has something stable to run on.
Related reading:
Why Redesigning Pays Off
Redesigning your operating model pays off because it shifts the business from effort-based execution to system-based execution.
With a designed system:
Leadership focuses on strategic priorities, not daily coordination.
Teams know how their work connects to company outcomes.
Information flows support decisions instead of creating noise.
Growth amplifies efficiency instead of amplifying chaos.
Without this work, companies keep adding fixes, but never resolve the underlying drag. They become heavier and slower, even as they add resources.
This is why the companies that scale successfully are not the ones with the most talent or capital. They are the ones that invest in designing how they work.
If you want to stop patching and start building a system that supports real scale, book a discovery call to explore the System Architect service.
Comments