Hang on. That’s not a growth strategy.

Sue Foley

Field Note 01: When plans look confident, I look underneath.

I’ve spent close to 30 years working inside marketing, sales, product, partnerships, customer retention, revenue systems, and executive decision-making.

Scary to write that number down (and also rude of time, if I’m honest).

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the patterns I’ve seen. The things that keep showing up across different businesses, different leaders, different markets, different countries, and different versions of the same B2B human chaos.

And one of the biggest patterns is this: A lot of businesses confuse a growth plan with a growth strategy.

They are not the same thing.

A growth plan often says: here’s the target, here’s the pipeline, and the volume we need. Oh, here are the campaigns we’ll run and the conversion rate we’re assuming, the budget, and let’s not forget the chart that makes everyone feel (briefly) better.

A growth strategy asks something different: What would need to be true for this to actually work?

That’s the question I come back to again and again.

The issue is when a plan looks beautiful in a deck, but is also still quietly delusional. You might not see it because the numbers line up, the spreadsheet might calculate, the dashboard might look impressive, and the team might feel busy.

But the plan is not a strategy when the assumptions underneath it are weak. Some might call it a beautifully formatted “Wish.”

And we have all sat in enough planning meetings and strategy sessions to know that a well-formatted wish can be very persuasive!

Hang on. What are we actually assuming?

When I look at a growth forecast, I don’t start by asking whether the target is exciting.

Targets are always exciting. Especially if you’re a “10x” kinda leader. They sit there looking shiny and ambitious while everyone politely ignores the awkwardness between the number and the current reality.

So I like to start underneath. With the assumptions:

Are we assuming more leads will fix the problem?
Are we assuming sales conversion will quickly improve?
Are we assuming the sales team can handle more volume?
Are we assuming the market will respond to the message?
Are we assuming this channel will perform (because we need it to)?
Are we assuming customers will move faster through the journey than they actually do?
Are we assuming every opportunity is equal?
Are we assuming trust in the data?

That’s usually where the real conversation starts. It’s boring, I get it. But it’s important. Because the issue is rarely just the number. It’s what the number is asking the business to believe.

You’re not measuring the plan. You’re measuring the belief system behind it.

Every growth plan has a belief system inside it, which can be sensible, brave, or sadly, often, it’s nonsense wearing a nice Hermes scarf.

Things I’ve heard:

If we increase ad spend, revenue will follow.
If we hire another salesperson, pipeline will grow.
If we launch the campaign, demand will appear.
If we add more partners, referrals will increase.
If we improve the website, conversion will lift.
If we install a better CRM, reporting will suddenly tell the truth.

Maybe. But maybe not.

After years of the same conversations, here’s what I know for sure I’ve learnt:

More spend doesn’t fix a weak offer.
More leads won’t fix poor conversion.
More salespeople won’t fix unclear positioning.
More dashboards won’t fix bad data.
More “stuff” won’t fix things when the real constraint hasn’t been identified.

That’s why I push hard on assumptions.

Not to be difficult. But I push because the assumptions are where the risk sits.

Run-rates are a trap

One of the easiest mistakes to make is taking the current run rate and stretching it forward. “So, we’re doing this now. And if we do more of this, we’ll get more of that.”

If it were that simple, I’d be out of a job. So while yes, it’s a beautifully simple thought. It’s often wrong.

If the current motion is working, of course, run-rate modelling can be useful. But if the current motion is underperforming, you’re just creating a longer version of the same problem. No one wants that. And it’s certainly not a growth plan (apparently, you can’t forecast yourself out of a broken motion, which is disappointing).

Here are the questions I dig into (again, more groaning):

If conversion is low now, why will it improve?
If the sales cycle is long now, why will it shorten?
If the channel is expensive now, why will it become efficient?
If the team is already stretched now, why will more volume help?
If the customer journey is confusing now, why will more traffic fix it?

This is where I often say: Hang on. That’s not the real problem.

The real problem might not be lead volume. (gasp)

It might be:

The offer isn’t clear enough.
The market is too broad.
The funnel is asking for commitment too early.
Sales are improving because the positioning doesn’t give clarity
The CRM is counting activity but not progress.
The business is treating every lead like it has the same value.
Everyone is looking at a dashboard that tells them what happened, but not what to do next.

And these are the pieces that matter

Before you invest more, ask what deserves investment

A lot of growth conversations jump too quickly to spend more paid, more content, more outbound, more tools, more, more, more. Exhausting. But one of the most useful commercial questions is not:

What should we do next?

It’s:

What should we stop?

I love it when a question becomes uncomfortable quickly.

Stopping forces a business to choose. To really think about what isn’t working, what’s draining time, what isn’t moving the needle, what are we doing “because we always have”?

Growth decisions start with better judgement, and not simply more activity.

The acquisition math has to survive the jungle

Before a business throws more spend at the wall, I’m keen to know whether the math survives contact with reality. Forget the polished version. I’m interested in the warts and all real one.

What does it actually cost to acquire a customer? Do we even know?
How long does it take?
What percentage of leads become meetings?
What percentage of meetings become qualified opportunities?
What percentage of opportunities close?
How long does revenue take to land?
How much does the customer spend?
How long do they stay?
What does sales need to do to convert them?
What does onboarding need to deliver to keep them?
What happens if the conversion rate is half what we hoped?
What happens if the channel takes three months longer to mature?
What happens if the leads come in, but sales can’t follow up properly?

This is where a lot of plans get exposed. The ambition is awesome, I always love the energy, but often the model underneath hasn’t been pressure-tested. No one really wants to place a bet without understanding the odds.

A growth plan should help leaders make decisions

This is the part I care about most.

A growth plan should not just describe activity. It should help leaders make better decisions.

Where should we invest?
What should we fix first?
What should we stop?

If the growth plan doesn’t help answer those questions, it’s not doing enough. It might be useful as a tactical activity document and to keep the team organised. But don’t be fooled…it is not yet a strategy.

My field note:

When a growth plan looks confident, I look for the assumptions underneath it. The fastest way to waste time, money, and people is to execute on a plan that was built on the wrong problem.

Sometimes you don’t need more leads. You need a more defined market.

Sometimes you don’t need a bigger campaign. You need a better offer.

Sometimes you don’t need more activity. You need a better decision.

And that is usually where the real work starts.