3 Strategies to Scale Client Value (When Everyone's Screaming for a Different One)

Your board wants efficiency. Your CMO wants the shiny AI thing. Your IT team just wants the checkout button to work. Here's how to stop pretending you can do them one at a time.

---

Here's a scene most enterprise leaders will recognise: it's Tuesday morning, you're two sips into your coffee, and you're already holding three contradictory briefs.

The board wants you to protect the core revenue — tighten operations, prove ROI, stop the bleeding. The Marketing Director has just come back from a conference, buzzing about hyper-personalisation, and wants you to "build something with AI." And somewhere in the building, a delivery team is trying to launch a customer portal that still lacks a defined purpose, a working search function, or — in one memorable case I lived through — an agreed-upon colour palette.

The textbook says you should pick a growth strategy and execute it. The textbook has clearly never sat in a steering committee where three different executives are each convinced their priority is the only one that matters, and the budget can cover only 1.5 of them.

In my experience scaling client value across enterprise accounts — from automotive to insurance to beauty — growth doesn't arrive via a single, elegant roadmap. It shows up as one of three distinct operational realities, each demanding a fundamentally different playbook. I think of them as the Ladder, the Jigsaw, and the Telescope:

• 🪜 The Ladder is the structured climb. You've got stable ground beneath you, a clear starting point, and the job is to build trust rung by rung until you've earned the right to do more strategic work.

• 🧩 The Jigsaw is the chaos mode. You've been handed random, disconnected pieces of work with no picture on the box, and your job is to find the pattern before the deadline finds you.

• 🔭 The Telescope is the vision play. The client can't see the bigger problem from where they're standing, but you can — and the opportunity is in showing them what they're missing.

  
  

The honest truth? You're probably not neatly in one of these. You're in all three simultaneously, on different accounts or even different workstreams within the same account. The skill isn't choosing the right strategy. It's recognising which one applies where, so you can stop trying to climb a ladder when you're actually holding a jigsaw, and wondering why none of the pieces has rungs.

What follows is a practical guide to each — not as a tidy sequential framework, but as a triage system for the reality you're actually standing in.

The Jigsaw: Assembling the Picture from Scattered Pieces

Sometimes account growth doesn't follow a phased plan because there is no plan. Not yours, not the client's, not anyone's. Instead, you're handed a series of disconnected assignments that arrive in the wrong order, with incomplete context, from people who may not be talking to each other.

This isn't dysfunction. Or rather — it is, but it's also extremely common, and if you know how to work with it, it's one of the most powerful positions you can be in.

What This Actually Looks Like

A global enterprise asks you to build a KPI and measurement framework for a major new customer portal. Sensible enough — except the portal doesn't have a defined purpose yet. No feature descriptions. No architecture. No agreement on who the users are. You're being asked to define success criteria for something that doesn't exist.

Then, a few weeks later, you inherit the actual platform build. It comes with an immovable launch date, but still no coherent plan. No one has mapped out what the thing should do, let alone how it should be structured. The delivery clock is ticking, and you're simultaneously expected to build it and figure out what "it" is.

If you've worked in a large enterprise with siloed teams and competing priorities, you're probably nodding. If you haven't — imagine assembling IKEA furniture where the instructions arrive one page at a time, out of order, and some of them are for a different piece of furniture entirely.

How to Work It

Use the "wrong" brief as a crowbar. 

That KPI framework they asked for too early? Don't fight the illogical sequencing — exploit it. You can't define how to measure success without asking what success looks like, which means you now have a legitimate reason to force the structural conversations nobody else has had. What are the platform's core jobs? Who is it actually for? What does "good" look like in six months? The KPI brief becomes your way of reverse-engineering the strategy that should have existed before anyone started building.

Build and fly at the same time — but be honest about which bits are the wings. 

You can't pause a delivery with a fixed launch date to do three months of discovery. Accept that. Instead, separate what's structurally non-negotiable (the load-bearing walls of the platform — authentication, core data flows, the bits that are expensive to redo) from what can evolve as the picture sharpens. Run a lightweight strategic track in parallel: keep asking the bigger questions while the team ships the immediate answers. This isn't ideal. It's real.

Look for the connective tissue. 

This is where the real value lives. Those disconnected briefs — the KPI framework, the portal build, the random content audit someone threw in — are almost never as unrelated as they appear. They're usually fragments of a larger organisational ambition that nobody has articulated cleanly. Your job is to be the person who spots the pattern, assembles the fragments, and eventually shows the client the picture on the front of the box. You transition from the person they called to do tasks into the person who made sense of the mess. That's a very hard position to be displaced from.

When This Works — and When It Doesn't

This approach thrives in high-pressure, fast-moving environments where the client is too big, too siloed, or too mid-reorganisation for anyone inside to see the full picture. It rewards teams who are genuinely comfortable with ambiguity — not the kind of "comfortable with ambiguity" people write on their CVs, but the kind where you can context-switch between granular delivery decisions and existential strategy questions within the same afternoon.

It falls apart if your team insists on a traditional strategy-first, build-second sequence. That's a reasonable instinct — but in this reality, insisting on it just means you sit in a planning phase while someone else ships the thing. It also fails if the client's internal silos are so fortified that they actively prevent you from connecting the dots. If the team that briefed the KPI framework won't let you speak to the team that owns the portal build, you're not solving a jigsaw — you're just holding pieces you're not allowed to assemble.

The Ladder: Building Trust Rung by Rung

This is the strategy that looks most like what the textbooks describe — and, to be fair, it's the one that works most like they say it should. You have a stable starting point, a client who's paying you to deliver something concrete, and the opportunity to gradually earn your way into more strategic territory. The catch is that "gradually" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, and your board's patience may not match the timeline.

What This Actually Looks Like

You've been brought in to deliver an eCommerce platform for an international beauty brand. The relationship is strictly transactional: here is a pipeline of features, please build them. You are, in the language nobody enjoys hearing, a "feature factory."

But the market is shifting underneath the client. Their multi-brand portfolio is fragmented. Their online presence is a glorified catalogue — functional, but soulless. Competitors are building direct relationships with customers, capturing data, and personalising everything. The client knows they need to stop being a digital storefront and start being something more — they've started using phrases like "beauty soulmate" in internal decks, which is either inspiring or alarming depending on your tolerance for brand strategy.

The gap between where they are and where they want to be is enormous. But you're not being paid to close that gap. You're being paid to make buttons work. The question is how you get from here to there without overstepping before you've earned the right to.

How to Work It

Deliver the boring stuff flawlessly. 

This isn't the exciting part, but it's the load-bearing part. Before you pitch a personalisation strategy or customer data architecture, you need the client to trust that you can ship reliable code on time. Protect their current revenue first. Every conversation about "where this could go" is underwritten by the credibility you build in "where this is right now." Nobody wants a visionary who can't hit a sprint deadline.

Shift from reactive to proactive — but earn the shift. 

Once the foundation is solid, start introducing ideas that connect directly to what the client already says they want. If they're talking about becoming a "beauty soulmate," propose features that make the experience actually personal: diagnostic tools, guided quizzes, virtual try-ons. The key is that these aren't random innovation pitches — they're tactical add-ons that pay directly into a brand promise the client has already articulated. You're not selling them a new direction; you're showing them what their existing direction looks like when someone actually builds it.

Then widen the lens. 

Once you've delivered those add-ons and they're performing, you've earned the credibility to talk about the bigger picture. How does personalisation connect to loyalty? How does loyalty connect to data strategy? How does data strategy connect to the way the physical stores and the digital platforms talk to each other — or, more accurately, don't? Each rung gives you a view of the next one, and by this point you're not pitching from the outside. You're the team that already understands the ecosystem because you've been building inside it.

When This Works — and When It Doesn't

The Ladder works beautifully when you have stable baseline funding (so you're not fighting for survival while trying to earn trust), a relatively predictable market environment, and stakeholders who are open to letting a delivery partner evolve into a strategic one. It's the most comfortable strategy for clients, because it feels low-risk at every individual step — even though the cumulative destination is transformational.

It collapses if the ground shifts. A C-suite reshuffle that reprioritises everything overnight. A sudden budget freeze that kills the "explore" work while protecting only the "keep the lights on" scope. Or — and this is more common than anyone admits — if the core delivery you inherited is so tangled with technical debt and organisational politics that your team never gets the breathing room to look up from the backlog and pitch anything strategic. You can't climb a ladder that's sinking into mud.

If your board is pushing hard for this approach, the honest conversation is about timelines. The Ladder works, but it's the slowest of the three strategies, and it requires patience that quarterly reporting cycles don't always reward.

The Telescope: Seeing What the Client Can't

This is the strategy that makes careers — and the one that requires the most nerve. The brief you've been given isn't the brief the client actually needs. You can see a systemic problem they can't see from where they're standing, either because they're too close to it or because their organisation is structured in a way that makes the problem invisible from the inside. Your job is to name it, propose a fix, and do so compellingly enough that someone with budget authority says "yes" to something they didn't know they needed yesterday.

If the Ladder is about earning trust incrementally, the Telescope is about creating a moment of clarity so sharp that the trust arrives all at once.

What This Actually Looks Like

A retail giant with hundreds of physical stores. They've got digital platforms — eCommerce, an app, some content channels — but these operate in complete isolation from the stores. The in-store team doesn't know what customers are doing online. The digital team doesn't know what's happening on the shop floor. Customer data sits in separate systems that were never designed to talk to each other. The result is that a customer who browses online, visits a store, and then buys through the app looks like three different people to three different teams.

Meanwhile, the brand's internal strategy documents are full of ambitious language about "omnichannel experiences" and "unified customer journeys" — but none of it comes with an implementation plan. It's an aspirational PowerPoint. Everyone agrees it matters; nobody has turned it into something a team can actually build.

You're not briefed to solve this. You're working on something adjacent — maybe a content audit, maybe a campaign platform. But from where you're sitting, you can see the structural problem that's costing them millions in missed retention, and you can see that nobody inside the organisation has the cross-functional view to name it.

How to Work It

Pitch before you're asked. 

Don't wait for a formal brief or procurement process. Write the proposal that addresses the gap you've identified — the one nobody has commissioned because nobody with budget authority has been able to see it clearly enough to articulate it. This takes nerve, because you're spending unbillable time on something the client hasn't requested, and there's a real chance they'll say "thanks, but that's not what we're focused on right now." The risk is real. But the alternative is watching a solvable problem persist while you wait politely for permission to solve it.

Listen to the room more than your own slides. 

When you present a speculative pitch, the most important moment isn't your opening argument — it's the client's reaction. If a senior stakeholder says, "Actually, this connects to our five-year omnichannel vision that the CEO announced last quarter," you've just struck gold. Drop your framing immediately and reanchor your proposal to their language and their priority. Your goal isn't to be right about the problem — it's to make the solution feel like it was always part of their plan. A pitch that started as "here's something you might not have considered" becomes "here's how to actually execute the strategy your CEO already announced but nobody's figured out how to deliver." That's a very different conversation, and it comes with very different budget implications.

Protect the vision, hand over the delivery. 

Once you've secured the work, resist the temptation to hold every piece of it. Set the strategic direction, agree on the milestones, establish the governance, and then hand the day-to-day execution to the teams closest to the work. Your value now is at the steering level: making sure the thing you identified doesn't get diluted back into the fragmented, siloed reality it was designed to fix. Stay close enough to ensure coherence, detached enough to see what's next. Because if you did this well, there will be a next — the Telescope tends to reveal further problems once the first one is in focus.

When This Works — and When It Doesn't

The Telescope thrives when you have visibility across a client's ecosystem that they don't have internally — usually because you're working across teams or business units that don't communicate well with each other. It also needs at least one senior stakeholder who is frustrated by the gap between the organisation's stated ambitions and its actual capabilities. That frustration is your opening. If everyone in the C-suite thinks things are going fine, your speculative pitch will land as an unwelcome surprise rather than a welcome relief.

It fails in deeply bureaucratic environments where doing work outside a formal procurement process is treated as a political transgression rather than an act of initiative. It also fails if you don't have access to the people who can say yes. A brilliant Telescope pitch presented to a mid-level project manager who has no authority to commission new work is just a document that sits in someone's inbox. You need a line to someone who owns a budget and feels the pain you've diagnosed.

If your Marketing Director is pushing for this — the big, transformative, "shiny new thing" play — the honest conversation is about readiness. The Telescope is the highest-reward strategy, but it's also the highest-risk, and it demands that you've either already earned credibility through Ladder or Jigsaw work, or that you bring enough external authority to be taken seriously without it.

Scaling Client Value: Triage, Not Choice.

If you've read this far, you might be hoping for a neat decision tree: if X, do the Ladder; if Y, do the Jigsaw; if Z, do the Telescope. I'm not going to give you one, because that would be dishonest.

The reality is that most enterprise leaders are running all three simultaneously. The Ladder on the account where you've got stable funding and a willing client. The Jigsaw is one where the brief makes no sense, but the launch date is carved in stone. The Telescope is one where you can see a massive opportunity the client can't, and you're trying to find thirty unbillable hours to write the pitch.

And the people above you aren't helping you prioritise — they're each shouting for a different one. The board wants the Ladder because it's measurable, low-risk and looks good in a quarterly review. The Marketing Director wants the Telescope, because it's bold and exciting and involves saying "AI" in a meeting. And the IT team is buried in the Jigsaw, trying to make twelve disconnected systems behave like one while someone in leadership keeps asking why the checkout page takes four seconds to load.

The leaders who scale accounts successfully aren't the ones who receive perfect briefs or operate in calm, well-organised environments. (Those environments don't exist. If yours does, you are either very lucky or not looking closely enough.) They're the ones who can look at a messy portfolio and accurately diagnose which strategy applies where — then hold the tension between all three without pretending any one of them is the whole answer.

That's not a framework. It's a practice. And like most practices worth having, it gets easier with repetition but never gets comfortable.