When Profit Improvement Becomes the First Growth Decision

Why stronger mid-market growth strategies often begin with sequencing, not expansion.

Apr 08, 2026

Maven Associates helps mid-market leaders prioritize investments, shape strategy, and capture opportunities others miss. Learn more at www.maven-associates.com.

Welcome back.

One pattern we see often in mid-market growth work is that leadership teams treat profit improvement and growth strategy as separate conversations. One is framed as defensive. The other is framed as ambitious.

In practice, the stronger companies tend to treat them as linked.

The clearest growth decisions often come after a business has identified where profit can be unlocked first.

Not because leadership lacks ambition, but because that work creates something most growth plans quietly depend on: funding, clarity, and a more honest view of what the core business can actually support.

That matters most when a company has no shortage of options.

New products. New markets. New channels. New initiatives that all sound directionally right.

The risk in those moments is usually not hesitation. It is expansion without enough sequence. Moving into growth before the business has identified which improvements can finance it, which strengths are actually worth extending, and which ideas create more activity than advantage.

In the mid-market, that distinction matters more than it sounds. Many businesses do not have a growth problem first.

They have a sequencing problem.

Using Profit Identification to Sharpen Growth After an Acquisition

Publishing Concepts Inc. is a useful example of how this issue shows up in practice.

After acquiring its largest competitor, PCI had doubled in size. Leadership had momentum and no shortage of ideas about where growth could come from next. But rather than move straight into expansion planning, the team chose to begin with profit identification.

That decision reflected two judgments.

First, profit improvement could help fund future growth initiatives.
Second, an outside perspective could help distinguish between ideas that were interesting and ideas that could materially strengthen the business.

Maven began with a structured process to surface, prioritize, and evaluate the most promising improvement opportunities.

Over a six-week profit hunt, the team developed business cases around the highest-potential ideas, which included customer call center redesign, sales effectiveness, pricing strategy, P&L tracking for better decision-making, and marketing efficiency.

Only after those opportunities were identified and handed off for execution did the growth agenda come into focus. What made the sequence work was not just that PCI pursued both profit and growth. It was that leadership treated them as linked decisions, with the first creating sharper judgment around the second.

Read the full PCI case study: https://maven-associates.com/project/publishing-concepts-inc-pci/

Why Profit Work Often Improves Growth Decisions

One reason growth planning gets harder after an acquisition or a period of change is that leadership teams are usually not short on ideas.

They are short on a clean way to judge which ideas deserve real backing.

That is where profit improvement is often misunderstood.

It is commonly treated as a separate workstream. Something operational. Something defensive. Something to do before the “real” strategic conversation begins. In practice, it often does the opposite.

It sharpens strategy by forcing the business to get more honest about where value is created, where it leaks, and what the organization can realistically fund and absorb.

That matters because many growth plans look stronger in principle than they do in sequence.

A team may identify attractive adjacencies, new offerings, or expansion opportunities, but still be unclear on three more important questions. Which improvements in the current business can help finance those moves. Which parts of the operating model need to perform better before expansion adds strain. And which apparent growth ideas actually reinforce the core rather than distract from it.

In the mid-market, that sequencing discipline is especially important. Most companies do not have the luxury of funding growth through abstraction. They need clearer economics, better management visibility, and a stronger understanding of where the core engine is underperforming before they can pursue expansion with confidence.

This is why self-funded growth is often underweighted. It lacks the energy of a new initiative. But in practice, it usually produces something more valuable: growth that the business can support without creating hidden fragility.

The stronger pattern is not optimize first and grow later as if those are separate phases. It is using profit work to improve the quality of the growth decision itself.

The best sequencing does not delay ambition. It makes ambition more credible.

If you are in a situation where growth feels directionally right but the sequencing is less clear

…that is exactly the kind of decision we help leadership teams work through.

If you want to talk through whether the business should optimize the core first, expand first, or sequence both in a more disciplined way, feel free to reach out.

You can send me a message on LinkedIn or visit maven-associates.com/contact-us to connect.

Spotlight: A Client’s Perspective on Sequencing and Outside Judgment

One of the more useful signals in work like this is when a leadership team recognizes that the next question is not simply what to do, but where independent judgment can improve the quality of the decision.

That was part of Drew Clancy’s perspective at PCI following the acquisition of its largest competitor. With the business suddenly operating at a different scale, the challenge was not generating more ideas. It was deciding which issues deserved attention first, which growth paths were worth backing, and which opportunities were better left alone.

What stands out in that situation is not just that PCI pursued both profit improvement and growth.

It is that Drew recognized the value of outside perspective in filtering the opportunity set.

For many leadership teams, especially after a major acquisition, proximity can make every initiative feel urgent. An external view can help separate momentum from priority.

That kind of judgment also matters after the advisory work is done. Recommendations only create value if management can absorb them, sequence them properly, and keep execution moving over time. In PCI’s case, the real benefit was not just a set of ideas. It was a clearer view of where the business could improve, where it could expand, and how to carry that work forward with more discipline.

Read Drew Clancy’s full client spotlight: https://maven-associates.com/2020/05/21/a-clients-perspective-drew-clancy/

How Maven Supports Growth Decisions in the Mid-Market

At Maven, we treat growth decisions as a sequencing and decision-quality problem first.

Most teams can generate opportunities. The harder part is getting clear on which options the business can actually fund, absorb, and execute without weakening the core in the process.

That lens reflects mid-market reality. Leadership teams are lean, resources are limited, and growth initiatives rarely fail only on the merits of the idea. They fail when the organization is asked to carry more complexity than it is ready for, or when expansion begins before the business has clarified what can finance and support it.

Our work in these situations typically centers on a few core areas:

Identifying where the core can fund the next move
Bringing clarity to where profit can be unlocked so growth is backed by stronger economics rather than ambition alone.
Separating reinforcing opportunities from distracting ones
Helping leadership distinguish between ideas that extend existing strengths and ideas that create activity without durable advantage.
Improving the sequence of the decision
Clarifying what needs to perform better first, what assumptions matter most, and what the business can realistically absorb before expansion adds strain.

The goal is not to add process. It is to reduce noise and help leadership make a growth decision that holds up once execution begins.

If you are trying to determine whether the business should optimize the core first, expand first, or sequence both in a more disciplined way, that is the kind of work we do.

As always, you can send me a message on LinkedIn or visit maven-associates.com/contact-us to connect.

We’re Expanding Our Roster

A number of readers have reached out over the past few months asking how Maven works with independent consultants.

Our model is built around a small, trusted roster of former McKinsey, Bain, and BCG consultants who prefer focused, mid-market work without the overhead of large teams. Engagements are selective, collaboration is hands-on, and expectations are clear on both sides.

If you are an independent consultant with top-tier experience and are interested in work like the situation described here, you can learn more at maven-associates.com/recruitment

Here’s the Big Picture

Growth decisions like this rarely break down because the opportunity was not real.

They break down when the business tries to move before leadership is clear on what the core can fund, what the organization can carry, and what the next move actually requires.

That is why profit work matters more than it often gets credit for. At its best, it does not slow growth down. It gives leadership a clearer base from which to decide what deserves investment, what needs to improve first, and what is likely to create strain before it creates value.

In the mid-market, that kind of clarity is not a luxury. It is often the difference between a growth plan that compounds and one that quietly fragments the business.

If you are working through that kind of decision and want to explore how Maven could help, feel free to reach out. You can send me a message on LinkedIn or visit maven-associates.com/contact-us to connect.

Thanks for reading.

Cheers,
Mark Hess
Founder, Maven Associates
https://maven-associates.com/

Discussion Question for Readers

If you have been through a period where profit work changed the quality of the growth conversation, what shifted first.

Was it greater clarity on where the business was underperforming. Better visibility into what the company could fund. A clearer sense of which opportunities reinforced the core. Or something else entirely.

If you found a way to improve the sequencing, I would be interested to hear what helped.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?