B.Ed.24 - What Gets Lost In Translation When The Business Scales

The Business and Leadership Coaching Company August 2026 I Series: Business Owner I Edition: 24 I Theme: Communication Read Time: 9 Minutes

The communication system that served the business well at fifteen people is failing it at thirty, and the signs are visible everywhere except in the place you are most likely to look for them.

Scaling communication is a consistently under addressed dimension of business growth, because communication problems at scale do not announce themselves as communication problems; they announce themselves as other things.  The decision that should have been easy and required three meetings to resolve is a communication problem.  The client complaint about inconsistent service is a communication problem.  The team member who made a reasonable but strategically wrong call is a communication problem.  The culture that is described as siloed is a communication problem.  The leader who finds they are personally involved in more operational decisions than they were two years ago is experiencing the downstream effects of a communication system that was designed for a smaller business and has not been updated as the business grew.

The specific mechanism through which communication systems fail as businesses scale is worth understanding, because it has direct implications for what needs to be redesigned.  At the early stage, communication works primarily through proximity and relationship: the founder knows everyone, the founder's intent can be inferred from the founder's presence, and decisions align with strategy because the strategy is the founder, and the founder is in the room.  As the business grows past the point where the founder can be in every room, the communication system that worked through proximity breaks down, because the intent can no longer be inferred from presence; it has to be encoded in structures, processes, language, and norms that can carry the intent into the rooms the founder is not in.

The encoding problem, the challenge of capturing in explicit communication what previously existed only in the founder's head and the team's direct experience of working with them, is genuinely hard, and most founders underestimate both the challenge and the cost of not meeting it.  Encoding the strategy into something that can travel without the founder requires more than writing the strategy down; it requires developing the vocabulary, the examples, the decision tests, and the behavioural standards that allow the team to make the choices the founder would make, in the situations the founder would face, without having to consult the founder.  This encoding is a communication project of significant scope, and it is one that most founders defer until the cost of not having done it becomes undeniable.

Communication infrastructure, the meetings, the reporting, the channels, the norms that govern how information flows through the organisation, needs to be redesigned at each significant scale threshold, because the infrastructure that allows a fifteen-person team to stay aligned does not allow a thirty-person team to stay aligned, and the infrastructure that works at thirty does not work at sixty.  The failure to redesign tends to produce one of two patterns: either communication becomes more centralised, with more information routing through the founder than the business should require at its current scale, which recreates The Bottleneck in the communication system; or it becomes more fragmented, with different parts of the business developing their own communication norms that are increasingly incompatible with each other.

Meeting structure is the most visible dimension of communication infrastructure and the one most often in need of redesign as the business scales.  The all-hands meeting that worked when the team was small enough for everyone to sit around one table does not work at thirty people; the informal check-in that kept the early team aligned requires a more structured equivalent at scale; the founder's direct relationship with every team member, which was the primary communication channel in the early stage, needs to be partially replaced by communication structures that do not depend on that direct relationship.  Redesigning meeting structure is not simply an operational efficiency exercise; it is a communication architecture decision that determines how information flows, how strategy is reinforced, and how the culture is sustained across a team that is too large for personal relationship to do that work alone.

The language of the business, the specific vocabulary it uses to describe its strategy, its values, its standards, and its decisions, is a communication asset that most founders have not deliberately developed and that tends to become increasingly inadequate as the business grows.  A shared vocabulary, in which key terms mean the same things to everyone in the organisation and can be used to communicate efficiently and accurately across functions and levels, is one of the most powerful communication tools available to a scaling business, and its absence is one of the most reliable sources of misalignment.  Developing it deliberately, through the consistent use of specific language in communications that reach the whole team, is a communication investment that tends to produce returns quickly and that compounds as the vocabulary becomes genuinely shared.

The communication of culture, which in the early-stage business happens primarily through the direct experience of working alongside the founder and observing their decisions and priorities, requires deliberate systemic support as the business scales.  Culture is communicated most powerfully through stories: the specific, concrete examples of decisions that were made consistently with the stated values, of behaviour that was noticed and recognised, of situations in which doing the right thing was acknowledged as having been the right thing even when it was costly.  A leader who regularly communicates these stories, in the team meeting, in the all-hands, in the one-on-one, is doing the communication work that sustains culture across a team that has grown too large to absorb the culture through direct observation alone.

The upward communication channel, the path through which information, concerns, and early warning signals should travel from the front of the business to the leadership, tends to degrade most severely as the business scales, because each additional layer of management between the front-line and the founder introduces the possibility of the message being filtered, softened, or translated into a form that is more comfortable to deliver but less accurate as information.  The founder who is receiving primarily good news, or news that has been framed in terms the leadership team believes will be well received, is not receiving the information the business needs them to have; they are receiving the output of a filter whose settings have been calibrated to manage the relationship rather than to inform the decision.

Redesigning the upward communication channel requires more than an open-door policy, which most teams in a scaling business have learned to treat as aspirational rather than real.  It requires structural mechanisms: the regular format in which concerns and early warning signals are explicitly invited; the demonstrated response to concerns that shows the team that raising them is valued rather than penalised; the deliberate effort to gather information through channels that bypass the normal hierarchy, not to undermine the hierarchy but to check whether the information it is providing is complete.  These structural mechanisms, maintained consistently, begin to rebuild the upward channel in a way that the open-door policy alone rarely does.

The external communication of the business, how it communicates with clients, partners, and the market, also requires deliberate redesign as the business scales, because the quality and consistency of that communication is increasingly determined by systems and standards rather than by the direct involvement of the founder.  The client who now interacts primarily with a team member rather than with the founder is receiving a communication experience that is shaped by how that team member has been trained, what standards they are working within, and what latitude they have been given to make judgments about how to handle the situations they encounter.  Investing in the communication standards and training that shape those interactions is an operational investment with direct commercial implications.

The practical work of redesigning a communication system for scale is not a one-time project; it is the ongoing, deliberate attention to where the existing system is failing to carry the information, the intent, and the standards that the business requires, and the willingness to change the structure rather than simply trying harder within the existing structure.  The founder who understands their business's communication failures as structural rather than personal, who sees the misalignment not as a failure of individual team members but as the predictable result of communication infrastructure that has been outgrown, is in a position to address the actual problem rather than the symptoms it is producing.

The communication system the business needs is not the one that worked for the early stage; it is the one that will work for the business as it currently is and as it is planning to become, which means building ahead of the scale rather than always redesigning in response to the failures the scale has already produced.  That forward-looking communication design is one of the more demanding exercises of strategic imagination available to the growing business owner, and one of the most consequential, because the organisation that communicates well at scale grows differently from the one that grows and then tries, reactively, to fix the communication problems the growth created.

There is a specific communication failure that tends to emerge in businesses at the forty-to-sixty-person stage that did not appear in earlier stages: the misalignment between what senior leadership believes the strategy is and what middle management believes the strategy is.  This misalignment, which at the earlier stage was prevented by the proximity of everyone to the founder, develops because the communication of strategy is not explicitly designed to reach the middle management layer with the clarity and specificity it needs; it is assumed that the strategy will filter down through the hierarchy in sufficient form, when in fact what filters down is a significantly simplified, partially translated version that tends to be more operationally specific and less directionally clear than the strategy the founder has in mind.

The communication investment that most reliably closes this middle management misalignment gap is the direct communication of the founder with the layer below their direct reports, not to bypass the direct reports but to supplement their communication: the all-hands that is not a performance update but a genuine strategic conversation; the skip-level discussion in which the founder engages directly with a manager about how the strategy applies to their function; the communication channels that allow the founder's thinking and priorities to be accessible to the full leadership team rather than only to the top tier.  These investments require time, but the alternative, which is the continued misalignment of a significant part of the business's leadership capacity with the strategic direction, costs considerably more.

The month closes with a question worth carrying forward as a permanent lens on the business: where is the communication failing that would explain the operational outcomes we are currently not achieving?  Most operational problems have a communication root that is less visible than the symptom, and the leader who has developed the discipline of looking for that root, rather than accepting the symptom as the explanation, tends to address the actual problem rather than managing its surface manifestations.  Communication is not the soft dimension of running a business; it is the infrastructure on which everything else the business tries to do is built.

If the business has grown significantly in the last two years and the communication system has not been deliberately redesigned alongside it, the gap between them is almost certainly producing operational problems that are being attributed to execution, culture, or talent when their actual source is structure.

If you would like to think it through in a receptive and non-judgemental space with someone who will listen carefully and reflect back what they hear, a Discovery Call is a confidential 30-minute conversation about where you are, what is in the way, what you could and would want to do about it, and how coaching can support you in moving from uncertainty to clarity to strategic action.

Book via the link below.

If a Discovery Call feels like a bigger step than you are currently ready for, perhaps the Find Your Focus: The Business Owner’s Blueprint is an easier place to begin.  It asks some honest questions that help you take stock of where the business actually is, what is keeping you stuck in the operational detail, and what it would take to build something that runs without you holding it and frees you to architect its future.  It is the first step in the same direction: introspection now, a conversation, insight, clarity and strategy when you are ready.

Download your copy via the link below.

The Business and Leadership Coaching Company partners with business owners across Southern Africa who are running real businesses and carrying real complexity.  We work with you to take honest stock of where the business is, build the leadership and operating capacity to lead it well at its current size, and grow it deliberately toward the business you want to build.

Ready to explore this further? Book your free Discovery Call Download your Find Your Focus: The Business Owner’s Blueprint

The Business and Leadership Coaching Company Business · Leadership · Career · Life www.the-blcc.com