Most conversations about growth in professional services begin in the same place. Where should we play next? Which markets are expanding? Which adjacencies offer the most upside?
These are reasonable questions. They are also incomplete.
The “where to play” debate is often framed as a market selection exercise. Stay focused on your niche or expand into adjacent opportunities. Protect what you have built or pursue what might come next. It feels like a portfolio decision.
In practice, it is something else entirely.
Where to play is not primarily about markets. It is about what the firm is willing to build, become, and operationalize. It is a question of capability and identity. And until leadership confronts that reality, most adjacency decisions remain reactive, fragmented, and ultimately disappointing.
The False Comfort of Focus
Focus is one of the most celebrated ideas in strategy. It creates clarity in the market. It sharpens positioning. It allows firms to build depth, repeatability, and reputation. In professional services, it is often the foundation of credibility.
But focus has a shadow.
Over time, what begins as strategic discipline can become strategic inertia. Firms begin to confuse their current revenue model with their long-term strategy. The work they are known for becomes the work they are willing to pursue. The market evolves, but the firm remains anchored to what has worked.
This is where the tension begins to surface.
Leaders sense that growth opportunities exist just beyond the current scope of the business. Clients ask for help with adjacent problems. New markets appear to have similar needs. Technology shifts create openings that did not exist before. The question is no longer whether opportunity exists. It is whether the firm should pursue it.
Most firms respond in one of two ways.
Some double down on focus. They protect the core, resist expansion, and maintain a clear but increasingly narrow position. Others drift into adjacency. They follow client demand, expand their services opportunistically, and gradually blur their identity.
Neither path is inherently wrong. But both carry risk when they are not intentional.
The firm that over-protects its focus risks becoming irrelevant. The firm that chases adjacency risks becoming incoherent.
The real challenge is not choosing between focus and growth. It is understanding the cost of each and making that trade-off consciously. This is at the heart of expanding the firm’s performance envelope.
Adjacency Is Not a Market Opportunity. It Is a Capability Test.
When firms evaluate adjacencies, they tend to start with the market.
Is there demand? Is the category growing? Who are the competitors? What is the revenue potential?
These are necessary questions. They are not sufficient. A more useful starting point is internal.
What does this adjacency require us to become?
That question changes the evaluation entirely.
An adjacency is not simply a new market to enter. It is a test of whether the firm can extend its core system of growth. It challenges the coherence between what the firm knows, who it serves, and how it delivers value. If you view the firm through the lens of the Prudent Pedal Growth Framework, the test becomes clearer.
Does the adjacency deepen your Insights, or does it require a new intellectual foundation you do not yet possess? Does it sharpen your understanding of the Ideal Client, or does it pull you toward segments that dilute your focus? Does it strengthen your Solutions, or force you into delivery models that lack repeatability?
In other words, does the move reinforce your ability to demonstrate Expertise, deliver Results, and build Simpatico?
If it does, the adjacency has the potential to strengthen the firm. If it does not, it introduces friction into the system.
This is where many firms get into trouble. They pursue opportunities that make sense in isolation but conflict with the integrated nature of their go-to-market model. A new service line that cannot be delivered consistently. A new market where the firm lacks credibility. A new capability that sits outside the organization’s culture and operating model. The result is predictable. Growth is incoherent, revenue doesn’t scale, and expansion dilutes the firm’s differentiation.
Adjacency, when approached correctly, should do the opposite. It should make the firm more itself, not less.
The Hidden Drivers of Bad Adjacency Decisions
If the logic is straightforward, why do firms struggle with this decision?
Because adjacency rarely presents itself as a strategic choice. It presents itself as an opportunity. A large client asks for help with something adjacent. A partner sees a new revenue stream. A competitor moves into a neighboring space. A technology platform opens new possibilities. Each instance feels rational in isolation. Together, they create drift.
Three patterns show up repeatedly.
The first is revenue dependence masquerading as strategy. Firms convince themselves that where revenue comes from is where they should play. They follow the money rather than interrogating whether that work aligns with who they are trying to become.
The second is client-led expansion. The best clients are often the source of adjacent opportunities. Serving them more broadly feels like good service and smart growth. But without discipline, it pulls the firm into areas where it cannot scale or differentiate.
The third is capability overreach. Leadership assumes that because the firm is strong in one area, that strength will translate naturally into adjacent domains. Sometimes it does. Often it does not. Expertise is contextual, and credibility does not travel as easily as firms assume.
None of these patterns is inherently flawed. They become problematic when they are not governed by a clear view of the firm’s future state.
Every Adjacency Implies a Different Firm
This is the part of the conversation most firms avoid. Every meaningful adjacency changes the firm. If you succeed in the new space, your capabilities will expand. Your brand will shift. Your delivery model will evolve. Your culture may be tested in ways it has not been before. The question is not whether the opportunity is attractive. The question is whether leadership is willing to build the firm required to win there.
This is where “where to play” becomes a leadership decision rather than a market analysis.
A useful way to frame it is through three questions.
To succeed in this adjacency, what must we become? This clarifies the firm’s future state, not just the near-term opportunity.
- Are we willing to intentionally build those capabilities? This tests commitment. Not interest, not curiosity, but willingness to invest, hire, train, and evolve.
- Will this move sharpen or blur our identity in the market? This ensures that growth reinforces differentiation rather than diluting it.
- Most adjacency decisions fail not because the opportunity was wrong, but because the firm was unwilling or unable to become what the opportunity required.
Culture Sets the Boundary
There is one more constraint that is often overlooked.
Strategy does not operate in a vacuum. It is executed through people, behaviors, and norms shaped over time. A firm’s culture determines not only how it delivers work, but what kind of work it can realistically take on.
A firm that is optimized for operational excellence may struggle to move into more ambiguous, advisory-led adjacencies. A firm that thrives on bespoke, high-touch client work may find it difficult to build scalable, productized solutions. A firm that avoids risk will consistently underinvest in new capabilities, regardless of the opportunities in front of it.
This is why culture sits at the center of the Growth Framework. It feeds every other element.
An adjacency that conflicts with the firm’s culture will fail, even if the market opportunity is compelling. Conversely, an adjacency that aligns with the firm’s natural strengths can accelerate growth in a way that feels almost organic.
Leaders often ask where they should play next. A more revealing question is whether their culture can support that move.
From Paradox to Discipline
The “where to play” paradox is real. Focus creates strength, but it can also create blind spots. Adjacency creates growth, but it can also create dilution. The answer is not to choose one over the other. The answer is to approach both with discipline.
Focus should be protected where it reinforces the firm’s identity and competitive advantage. Adjacency should be pursued when it strengthens the firm’s integrated growth system. Both require the same underlying clarity.
Who are we as a firm? What are we known for? And what are we willing to become next?
When those questions are answered precisely, market choices become clearer. Opportunities can be evaluated not just on their potential, but on their fit. Growth becomes less reactive and more intentional.
Where to play, then, is no longer a paradox to solve. It is a commitment to make.
And the firms that understand that distinction are the ones that scale with purpose.
Be prudent.
