>Honestly, hiring a "head of growth" sounds like more trouble than it's worth. Hence, the purpose of the article which is to sell you their services as part-ti

>Honestly, hiring a "head of growth" sounds like more trouble than it's worth. Hence, the purpose of the article which is to sell you their services as part-time growth writer promotional consultants. >Massive incentive to bullshit You're not kidding, this is a significant component whether you can really deliver or not. I wouldn't do this unless I could deliver certain concrete results with outstanding upside to boot, but regardless there would be some need to BS your way in to begin with. Actually I would do this but I would have to divert effort into interfacing with the BS in addition to the usual workarounds. Ugh. If it's actually impossible to bring a completely BS-free promise/delivery cycle every time, realistically more visible progress could probably be made in orgs where the existent BS is already huge by comparison. >they do actually grow your business >you've taken all intuitive understanding of how your business works and embodied it within someone who can leave whenever they feel like it. >Unless the founder plans to hit the eject button A good plan would be to establish significant growth momentum early on, then try to increase that if possible, in a way that whatever momentum achieved will remain after that growth instigator may no longer be in position. Either way, with that in mind I think the right idea for me would be to dive in full-time and make maximum progress every day on the biggest low-hanging fruit, then move on to the next location. I would be leaving when I felt like it but that would be with major milestones left in place and the feeling of a project completed by all. Plus OTOH from a corporate point of view when the time comes they should be able to change heads of growth more easily than other executives when they feel like it, since different extreme-growth operators can have very different strategies. And of course there's that BS element which should dissipate not accrue. >the whole company is about growth. The entire team is responsible for growth. This is usually not implemented as thoroughly as it could be. >It's far better to invest in infrastructure and building muscle in the entire team around growth This is what a growth leader is supposed to have the resources and authority to do; build a stronger foundation so that striving to the next level can more realistically be achieved while everyone else is already busy maintaining the degree of success that has already been accomplished. >too much growth and not enough profit/endurance? Anybody can grow a company 500% a year if they're willing to lose a billion dollars I think of that more like "expansion". Growth as a result of increasing profits is in a different category.