Growth Does Not Fail in the Boardroom. It Fails in the Middle

Most growth strategies do not fail because they lack vision.

In fact, many of them are smart, well intentioned, and thoughtfully designed. They come out of boardrooms with clear goals, polished decks, and genuine optimism. Everyone nods. Everyone agrees. The direction makes sense.

And then… not much happens.

Results stall. Momentum fades. Teams feel busy but not effective. Leaders start asking what went wrong.

What went wrong is rarely the strategy itself.

Growth does not fail in the boardroom. It fails in the middle.

The middle is where strategy meets reality. It is where executive intent is translated into priorities, behaviors, and daily decisions. It is where managers are asked to carry vision, execution, and people leadership all at once. And it is where even the best strategies are most vulnerable.

I have seen this pattern repeatedly. Not because people do not care. Not because teams are resistant to change. But because the translation layer breaks down.

Too many priorities land at once. Messaging gets diluted as it moves down the organization. Metrics are introduced without context. Capacity is assumed instead of assessed. Managers are expected to execute strategy without being fully equipped to interpret it.

So they do their best. They protect their teams. They make judgment calls. They focus on what feels most urgent. And slowly, alignment erodes.

This is not a performance issue. It is a systems issue.

When incentives do not match priorities, when communication lacks clarity, when decision rights are unclear, and when data is shared without direction, the middle absorbs the pressure. Growth initiatives pile up on top of day to day responsibilities, and something has to give.

Usually, it is the strategy.

From an enterprise perspective, this is where growth quietly becomes expensive. Disengagement increases. Inconsistency shows up in the member experience. Leaders spend more time correcting course than building momentum. Culture absorbs confusion faster than clarity, and that confusion spreads.

What makes this especially challenging is that the middle is often overlooked. Boards focus on vision. Front lines focus on execution. The space in between is assumed to just work itself out.

It does not.

Sustainable growth requires strategies that can survive the middle.

That means designing with capacity in mind. It means equipping managers to translate, not just implement. It means reducing noise so priorities are unmistakable. It means using data to create focus, not overwhelm. And it means respecting that clarity is a leadership responsibility, not a byproduct.

The leaders who get this right are not louder. They are more deliberate. They understand that growth is not driven by more initiatives, but by better alignment. They build systems that support execution instead of relying on individual heroics.

This is what I am watching closely.

Organizations that invest in the middle will move faster, more consistently, and with less friction. Those that do not will keep mistaking effort for progress.

Growth does not fail because people fall short.

It fails when strategy is not built to travel.