The Flexibility Bogeyman

Every high growth company reaches an inflection point where they realize that, without more structure, they will not be able to scale. More structure means more consistency in how things are sold, delivered, and supported. Invariably, people push back at this consistency because they view as the opposite of something that’s been crucially important to growth: flexibility.

Flexibility has often meant the difference between closing a deal and not. Every client has its own way of working, and thus each new deal presents another reason why this client situation is different and why more structure will get in the way.

I call this the flexibility bogeyman. It’s the single biggest reason companies resist the kind of process discipline required to scale. And while the concern is understandable, it’s usually wrong.

Flexibility is not the same as saying yes to everything

There is legitimacy to this idea of flexibility, but saying yes to whatever a client asks for has consequences. Each small ripple in what your selling or how you deliver creates large waves for the team. Flexibility can often mean edge case feature bloat for product, while CS turn cartwheels to get the work done. Not scalable.

When flexibility becomes lack of discipline, it creates problems across the entire organization that range from misaligned expectations to margin erosion.

The real question isn’t whether you offer flexibility. It’s figuring out how to channel it in a way that doesn’t compromise your ability to scale.

From customizing to configuring

If your goal is to build a product-based business that can scale efficiently, then at some point you need to make the shift from customizing work to configuring the product. This means defining product tiers or packages that give clients meaningful choices within a structure you can actually deliver. Instead of bespoke work for every engagement, you offer bounded options: this tier includes X, that tier includes Y. Flexibility still exists, but it’s predictable. You can price for it, staff for it, and support it.

The alternative is to embrace true customization. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But if that’s the path you choose, you need to build your team and your business model around it. If you price on a “cost-plus-margin” basis, you may get forced into a situation where margins are thin. Growth will require proportional headcount, meaning that there is no ability to improve margin (gross margin at least) without directly limiting choice. It’s a choice, and it’s only a mistake if you do not make it consciously.

Clients are more willing to be channeled than you think

The other thing the flexibility bogeyman gets wrong is that it overestimates how much clients actually want or need customization. Yes, clients will ask for it. That’s what clients do. But most of them are perfectly willing to accept a structured offering if it meets the bulk of their needs. In fact, constraints often help them. It sets expectations clearly—especially about pricing. It simplifies their decision-making. It signals that you’ve done this before and know what works.

The clients who truly require full customization are often your most expensive to serve—and they may be your hardest to satisfy. Bending your entire operation to accommodate their requests can distort how you work and what you build. Sometimes the right answer is to say no.

The real meaning of flexibility

Strong processes don’t eliminate flexibility. They channel it. They give you the ability to offer real choices where it matters while maintaining the consistency you need to grow. The flexibility bogeyman is fear dressed up as customer-centricity. It’s worth calling out when you see it, because the longer it goes unchallenged, the harder it becomes to build a business that can scale.