Scaling Isn't Always Where You Start


When Staying Would Have Been Easier, but Wrong

This post continues my short series on what it really takes to scale for impact.
Part 1 was about falling out of love with our model - learning that real scale means prioritising the problem over the solution.
This one is about another hard truth: scaling isn’t always where you start.

That was another very tough leadership decision - maybe the toughest.

Living Goods began its journey in Uganda, where the need was undeniable.
High child mortality, low vaccination and family-planning coverage, fragile health systems.
We built our proof of concept there and it worked.

Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed a 27% reduction in under-five mortality, achieved at remarkably low cost ($3–4 per capita). The second RCT, at scale and digitally enabled, proved that technology could help sustain quality.

We were proud and rightly so.
But pride can sometimes cloud perspective.

Even with strong results and generous philanthropic funding, we were still reaching only a small proportion of Uganda. And the pathway to real scale - through government - was still distant.

The question became inescapable:

Could we justify continuing to invest heavily in a country where the potential for sustainable scale was limited, while other contexts were ready to move faster?

After deep discussions with our board, team, and funders, we made the difficult decision to significantly reduce our investment in Uganda and focus resources where the potential for durable, government-led impact was highest - in Kenya and Burkina Faso.

It wasn’t a quick or reactive choice.
We planned it carefully, it was part of our strategic plan that kicked off in 2022 – but we only started the process in 2023, implementing through 2024 - well before the dramatic shifts in ODA funding that forced many organisations into sudden retrenchment.

Still, it was painful.
We had to let go of talented, loyal colleagues.
Communities lost access to some of the high-quality services we’d supported for years.

But we didn’t disappear.
We stayed active in two districts, continuing to generate data, demonstrate what good looks like, and influence the national conversation - proving impact at the level government looks at most closely - willing to play the long game.

I had to keep reminding myself, that fifteen + years after we started, the communities we had worked are stronger.
The systems are getting better even if very slowly.
And while the footprint is now smaller, the influence is much deeper.

I share this because scaling isn’t about loyalty to your starting point.
It’s about commitment to where the greatest potential for lasting impact exists.

That means making hard calls - not waiting it out, not hoping conditions will change, but giving your mission its best chance to endure.

It takes courage, clarity, and empathy - and the understanding that leadership is not about being liked, but about doing what’s right, even when it hurts.


💭 Where have you seen organisations hold on too long - or step back at the right time - in the name of lasting impact?

I’d love to hear how you’ve navigated those choices.

This is Part 2 of a three-part series on scaling for impact.

In the final post, I’ll explore another reality we often avoid - the real cost of scale: what it demands of leaders, organisations, and systems, and why being disciplined about value for money matters more than ever.

Warmly,


Liz
Strategic Advisor | Former CEO | Founder, Volante

Based in Kenya, available globally

Volante Consulting Kenya

Read more from Volante Consulting Kenya

Boards: one of your biggest assets, or a quiet constraint - download your guide Dear Reader Most boards are not broken. But many are not operating as effectively as they could. And because governance issues often build slowly, the impact can be easy to miss: Decisions slow down Important conversations happen too late Challenge becomes inconsistent Accountability blurs Tension builds quietly between governance and management At their best, boards materially improve the quality of decisions,...

Being kind is not the same as being liked Why leadership requires clarity, accountability and difficult conversations Dear Reader One of the hardest leadership skills is learning how to give bad news well. Not avoiding it.Not delaying it because it feels uncomfortable. Actually doing it. Recently, a leader asked me how best to tell a team member they were being let go. But what they were really worried about was this: “Will this break trust within the wider team?” My answer was simple: In my...

Trust, control and the temptation to rescue The leadership tensions no one really prepares you for Dear Reader One of the biggest surprises for me in leadership was realising how many tensions sit beneath the surface of what we often call “good leadership.” Not obvious right or wrong answers. Tensions. Over the past few weeks, I have been reflecting on two I see repeatedly in CEOs and leadership teams and honestly, in myself too: 🔍 How much visibility is helpful before it becomes control? 🛟...