The Beautiful Mess · Product & Work
TIER 4 Mon, 30 Jun 2025 23:59:34 +0000
Watch now (15 mins) | I'm experimenting with Substack's Video feature.
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
| |
---|---|---
| | | Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
---
---
---
| | Watch now
---
# TBM 365: The Problem With Value Hierarchies (Video)
| | John Cutler
---
| Jul 1
---
|
---
---
| | |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| |
---
| | READ IN APP
---
I'm experimenting with Substack's Video feature. I'm not sure how this will look, appear, or even sound, but giving it a go. Below I include an outline of the video:
## Outline
## **1\. The Familiar Cascade**
* Many organizations use a hierarchical model: Pillars -> Priorities -> Initiatives -> Epics -> Tasks
* Timeframes are often assigned at each level (e.g., 3-5 years at the top, sprints at the bottom)
* Roles and ownership are mapped accordingly, from executive leadership down to product teams
* These models persist because they're intuitive, visual, and create a sense of order
| |
---|---|---
* * *
## **2\. Core Limitations of the Pyramid**
* **Assumes one-way flow of information**
The model suggests strategy flows down, but in reality, critical insights flow _up_ from teams engaging with customers and the market
* **Outcomes are often missing or implied**
There's no explicit representation of impact or results, even though that's what ultimately matters
* **Ignores time-to-impact variability**
Some tasks can generate impact in a week; some initiatives take years. The model fails to show these lags and feedback loops
* **Pushes teams into execution roles**
As you move down the pyramid, the framing becomes increasingly prescriptive. Teams are expected to deliver "work" without clear problem framing or strategic ownership
* **Misrepresents the scope and nature of work**
High-impact short-term efforts may not "fit" in the hierarchy, creating friction. It also disincentivizes small, iterative wins
* * *
## **3\. Temporal Scope and Organizational Culture**
* Comparing two fictional organizations reveals differences:
* Org A's goals are outcome-driven across time horizons (e.g., 1-3 month engagement goals, 3-5 year market positioning)
* Org B's goals are more output-focused and vague at longer horizons
* Ownership of goals varies by company--some give product teams ownership up to the one-to-three quarter range, others do not
* The same pyramid diagram can reflect entirely different behaviors depending on definitions, ownership, and cultural orientation toward outcomes vs. activity
| |
---|---|---
* * *
## **4\. The Need for Multiple Lenses**
* The pyramid presents a single, strategy-to-task lens, but organizations operate with multiple overlapping views:
* **Outcome lens** - focused on impact and customer results
* **Work lens** - focused on deliverables and execution
* **Finance lens** - focused on costs, forecasting, and ROI
* **Structure lens** - focused on organizational shifts, team structure, and ownership
* Each lens has its own rhythm, scope, and patterns of change
* These lenses intersect in complex ways that a static pyramid cannot represent
| |
---|---|---
* * *
## **5\. Real Work Behaves More Like a Fabric Than a Cascade**
* Work, strategy, and feedback move in all directions--not just top-down
* Many artifacts and processes exist at mid-levels of abstraction, not neatly tiered
* A more accurate model is a fabric or network of interconnected items with varying temporal scopes and ownership
* Strategic influence can originate anywhere, and changes at any level can ripple across the system
| |
---|---|---
* * *
## **6\. Introducing Artifact Types and Their Cadence**
| |
---|---|---
To support this networked reality, artifacts should be understood in terms of their nature and rhythm:
* **Anchor Artifacts**
* Have a defined time horizon (e.g., a 12-month roadmap)
* Refreshed on a set cadence (e.g., quarterly planning cycles)
* Useful for stability and coordination
* **Intent Artifacts**
* Represent bets, goals, OKRs, and strategic initiatives
* Tend to evolve as work progresses and understanding deepens
* Often nested or linked to other artifacts dynamically
* **Context Artifacts**
* Reflect shifting knowledge and environmental signals
* Can be volatile (e.g., customer feedback) or stable (e.g., competitive analysis)
* Drive updates to other artifact types when significant changes occur
| |
---|---|---
* * *
#### **7\. The Role of Rituals**
* Artifacts don't stand alone--they are reinforced and refreshed through team and organizational rituals
* Effective operating systems clarify:
* Which artifacts exist
* Who owns them
* When and how they are updated
* How they relate to each other across different lenses and timeframes
* Rituals also provide the opportunity to resolve contradictions and adapt to change
| |
---|---|---
* * *
#### **8\. Final Synthesis**
* The strategy pyramid is a helpful storytelling tool, especially for presentations or executive alignment
* But it is insufficient for designing actual operating models
* Effective models recognize:
* Multiple lenses (not just one)
* Temporal and definitional complexity
* The need for dynamic linkages, not static nesting
* The interplay of strategy, execution, finance, structure, and learning
* Building an effective system means embracing this complexity and supporting it with the right artifacts and rhythms--not oversimplifying it into a cascade
You're currently a free subscriber to The Beautiful Mess. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Upgrade to paid
---
| | | Like
---
| | Comment
---
| | Restack
---
(C) 2025 John Cutler
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe