Application of Pyramid Building in Organizations:
Aligning Strategy, Processes, and People in Organizations
by Prasad Kaipa, Chris Newham and Russ Volckmann
Thanks for all our friends who have given us suggestions on improving this article. A modified and some what brief version of this article with exclusive focus on alignment appears in the April Issue of the Systems Thinker.
[Return to Top]
We have developed a powerful multi-dimensional learning approach that
works directly with client issues while allowing reflection, dialogue and
agreement on three levels: Clarifying intentions, agreeing on desired outcomes
and identifying actions that allow us to get to those outcomes. Thirty
organizations including five Fortune 100 companies have used this methodology
successfully in designing strategy, clarify their mission, design executive
development programs in addition to designing books, management CD-ROMs
and five year strategic plans with built-in assessment tools. It has four
qualities that no other tool we have seen has:
In this article, we apply our approach to a specific issue: Bringing
alignment between strategy, processes and people in an organization. While
giving an example of our own, we help you to understand what our approach
is, how you design pyramid tool and apply it in your situation, and what
its potential is.
As with presentation of any new approach, it has applications beyond
what we have envisioned. The purpose of this article is to generate interest
in it and develop further applications in organizations. We welcome your
feedback!
Most organizational change efforts have produced, mixed results. Models,
approaches, and concepts that make sense in the beginning have often not
produced desired outcomes. Somehow, the structures put in place, the strategy
that drives the change effort, and the processes that bring about change
leave people drained of energy. We would like to re-energize this process
in a way that will engage people's vision and passion, and align change
strategies with the processes that fulfill them.
Aligning an organization's strategy, processes, and people is a challenge
and almost unachievable in most circumstances. When achieved, alignment
greatly improves opportunities for reaching desired outcomes. This challenge
can be met where there is integrity and a willingness to collectively face
such questions as:
Alignment includes learning about self and others through comparing our
perspectives with those of others. It requires unlearning, as well as learning.
And it is a nonstop, dynamic process within organizational life that must
coordinate individual intentions, collective means, and desired results.
The Pyramid Building Approach
Our approach for aligning strategies, processes and people explicitly allows organizations to clarify intentions, take actions, and produce desirable outcomes. It is particularly useful for revealing the relationships among critical variables and for uncovering the implications for organizational action and change. It provides a social context to discover values, assumptions, and beliefs. Groups in thirty organizations in five countries have used this approach to develop alignment for a wide variety of purposes. Read an Interview with Tom Grant about Pyramid Building in the Ford Motor Company.
These have ranged from an executive group of an international company developing
their shared vision, to a start-up group in a Fortune 100 company creating business strategies to a professional organization building a framework for exploring their future. In this article, we describe the Pyramid Building Approach and use a pyramid we built for our own work as an example.
Pyramid Building is a method for identifying critical variables in a complex
system and mapping their relationships and resulting interactions. The
process relies on brainstorming, dialogue, and decision-making to build
alignment among participants. The product of this process is a 3-D pyramid
with identified intentions, actions, and outcomes mapped onto the corners,
edges, and faces. The pyramid represents the clarity that has been achieved
about the system's variables and their relationships. The meaning associated
with each of these terms evolves and changes as we experience, learn, and
dialogue. Nevertheless, at any given moment we are prepared to take action
based on our understanding of these terms at that time.
To be precise, we are creating objects geometrically known as tetrahedrons,
a pyramid with a triangular base (see FIGURE 1 below).
Figure 1: A Tetrahedron
A tetrahedral pyramid has four identical triangular faces, unlike an
Egyptian pyramid which has four triangular faces and a rectangular base.
The Egyptian pyramid is symmetrical only when rotated around a vertical
axis. The tetrahedron, by contrast, can be rotated around any axis and
retain its shape. Therefore, any corner can become the apex. Thus, there
is no structural hierarchy in the tetrahedron.
There are key advantages in choosing a tetrahedron over an Egyptian
pyramid as the 3-D object to map our model. Each face of a tetrahedron
connects with the other three faces and each corner similarly connects
with the other three corners. These inclusive connections are important
because they support the notion of connectedness between all elements of
a system. The tetrahedron permits us to see the interconnection between
various system elements and allows us to model and 'play' with the whole
system in a tangible form. In the following paragraphs, we describe the
process of building a tetrahedral pyramid through an example.
Building the Enterprise Pyramid
The CPR Group comprises three partners. When we explored the potential
of partnership, we knew that we have complimentary skills and shared interests
that would support our working together synergisticly, but we needed to
clarify how we could align our these in a way that would include and transcend
our individual work and orientations. Our major professional efforts had
been organization development, researching the nature of learning, and
management consulting, each augmented by a shared interest in self development.
At the core of these disciplines, we identified four importance processes:
As our conversations progressed, we saw that we have been exploring different
dimensions of development and that we could identify our intentions as
Organization Development, Knowledge Development, Business Development,
and Self Development. These four intentions represent our individual strengths
and commitments, and together, they represent key aspects of our organization.
We chose those four intentions as "cornerstones" and mapped them onto a
pyramid, which we now designated as our Enterprise Pyramid (see Figure
2).
Fig. 2: Our intentions formed the cornerstones
of our Enterprise Pyramid
This simple representation suggested some lines of inquiry. Each cornerstone
is connected to the other three, so that each intention is forced into
relation with the others. For example, we began to ask ourselves:
Our reflection and dialogue about the connections between pairs of intentions
led to concepts that 'bridge' the two cornerstones. While the cornerstones
represent our individual intentions, the edges represent the actions necessary
to arrive at collective, shared outcomes. Our actions not only connect
and balance our individual intentions but also 'include and transcend'
the polarity between them.
For example, we saw that strategizing is where business development
and knowledge development come together. Knowledge is required to formulate
a strategy for the business development. The process of identifying strategies,
in turn, focuses our efforts in knowledge development. Strategizing does
not have to include organization or self-development directly and in many
organizations it doesn't!
Since edges represent actions, they are often most usefully represented by action words; gerunds, which form the basis for assessment or measurement of the strength of the connection (see Figure 3). Each cornerstone or intention gets defined by three edges or actions, through which it connects to the other three cornerstones. We found (with some trial and error) that the actions we identified fulfilled our intentions very well:
In this process of validating intentions and actions, we reaffirmed
our commitment to find outcomes that supported our intentions.
Fig. 3. Actions that include and transcend our intentions
We next examined the four faces of the pyramid. They took on the meaning of the outcomes produced by the actions of the adjacent edges and the intentions of the cornerstones. Each pyramid face represents an outcome 'field' produced by the interaction of three intentions and three actions. For example, 'Exploration' is the field that results from the actions of visioning, learning and creating; and the intentions of Organization Development, Knowledge Development, and Self Development (see Figure 4). Intention, Transformation, and Diffusion are the names of the other three fields. Each represents an outcome that is born out of a set of intentions and actions.
Fig. 4. The Enterprise Pyramid: intentions, actions and outcomes
This tetrahedron represents the holistic development perspective that
we share. Cornerstones represent our intentions, edges the actions that
we could take, and the faces outcomes resulting from our interactions.
Thus, using the pyramid as a model of our collective interests, we developed
a shared view of the system that we comprise. We found ourselves aligned,
not just around components of the system, but around a growing understanding
of the dynamic relationships among them.
Figure 4 nicely represented our intentions and the actions that can facilitate
specific outcomes. This tetrahedron conveys a positive tone, because it
represents our aspirations; it has an emergent quality to it. Why? Because
we cannot predict what the result of transformation is going to be before
it takes place. Thus, we called this 'The Emergent Perspective' But what
was on the "other" side? We wanted to see how this perspective relates
to our experience with the current reality of our clients' systems. We
called this flip side 'The Foundation Perspective.'
Let us examine what happens in a business enterprise going through a
change process. When people are not in touch with their dreams and visions
(shared or individual), the context of change can feed resistance, anxiety
and survival behaviors. The organization becomes uninspiring and people
lose their energy and creative capabilities. But while people take change
efforts seriously and try to make them work, some also find ways to avoid
or even sabotage such efforts. While it is easy to let go of such saboteurs,
from their perspective, they may have a valid reason to do what they do.
Assuming that there is integrity in people's resistance to change, we wanted
to learn more about it. May be the proposed change is too much a break
from the past and may be the organization is better served by focusing
on continuous improvement instead of transformational approach. Thus, our
understanding of the Enterprise would not be complete without examining
'The Foundation Perspective' as well, and our ability to produce short-term
results. So we set about designing a complementary 'Foundation Perspective'
(see Figure 5).
Fig. 5. The Foundation Perspective of Enterprises
When an organization is running smoothly and not undergoing rapid change,
leaders focus on: Results, Programs, Information, and Training. They reflect
a pragmatic attitude that is intended to sustain and grow the current organization.
This approach focuses on what works and avoids looking at why it does.
These four intentions are directly related to those on the Emergent
Perspective: Business Development is about producing sustainable results.
Organization Development has programs but also has an overall design to
it. Knowledge Development is more than just information acquisition and
brings an integrative and interpretive dimension. Self Development, while
providing training, supports people to take responsibility for themselves
and their work!
Results at the Foundation level are pragmatic, e.g., continuous improvement
is intended to solve a problem or meet an immediate need, and is not involved
in a revisioning of the organization. Thus, a way of thinking about the
difference between results in the Emergent and Foundation Perspectives
would be to think of an athlete's performance. When an athlete conditions
and practices, her focus is on long term gains, developing her skills and
stamina over time. While there may be one major goal, an Olympic Medal or
a championship, there are many challenges along the way. The conditioning
and practice program is geared to meeting each of these challenges with
increasingly effective performance.
During the competition, however, the time for exploration is over. She
needs to respond to whatever comes up during her performance. She must
consider and react to differences in weather, 'field' conditions, and must
challenge her skills and talent. The focus is on immediate results. This
is what the Foundation Perspective offers in organizations. The pragmatic
attitude is vital, for example, if products are not selling, someone needs
to take the risks of making practical, hard decisions to get the organization
back on track.
We could also see the actions that routinely take place in the organization:
planning, controlling, improving, analyzing, presenting, and imitating
(we generously call it benchmarking). These are all actions that support
smooth functioning of an organization and support the pragmatic approach.
The outcomes on the Foundation side of the pyramid are built on its
cornerstones and actions. Negotiation is the process by which we present
information, control the programs and plan for the results. Intervention
takes place when we find a reason to control the programs we offer and
analyze the training so that we can improve the results. Modification and
Solution support imitating, planning, and presenting to get the desired
results.
This Foundation Perspective helped us to see what creates stable organizations
that focus on continuous improvement. They have clear ground rules and
a nurturing (albeit somewhat controlling and more mechanical) culture.
Expectations and/or performance criteria are known. There is consistency
for routine activities. This is the Foundation on which emergent perspectives
can develop!
Building the Foundation Perspective exposed another criterion for pyramid
development. Not only must cornerstones, edges, and faces be consistent
amongst themselves on one Perspective, but each must correspond with its
counterpart on the opposing Perspective. In this way two processes are
described, the Emergent Perspective's forward-looking Intention
--> Exploration --> Transformation --> Diffusion cycle,
and in the Foundation Perspective we discovered the survival focused Intervention
--> Negotiation --> Modification --> Solution cycle.
Both cycles are necessary in organizations to support and sustain development;
they are like two sides of a coin. One cannot exist without the other.
When the Emergent and Foundation Perspectives build on and support each
other, an organization engages in a learning and developing process. It
becomes sustainable because continuous improvement and transformation are
simultaneously supported (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Emergent and Foundation cycles
Emergent and Foundation Perspectives
It is possible to look at both perspectives as polarities. When taken to
an extreme, The Emergent perspective reveals self-organizational characteristics
including uncertainty, creativity, generativity, and new possibilities.
Similarly, when the pressure is on, the Foundation perspective could reveal
mechanistic, control-focused routines, rules and regulations that only
support changes around expediency and refinement. When we look at these
two perspectives as contrasting and complimentary as the two sides of the
same coin, the whole Enterprise Pyramid models an environment of both chaos
and immediacy. In an organization that embraces both perspectives, change
is self-generated and transformational, both practical and aspiring. Exploring
both perspectives and their relationships creates a developmental approach
to organization building and alignment (see Figure 7). In such organizations,
it is possible to look at long term strategy and be flexible and dynamic
while taking short term actions.
Improving Realizing Planning Strategizing Analyzing Visioning Imitating Creating
Emergent and Foundation Perspectives
An emergent approach (with intentions of business, knowledge, organization
and self development) allows for clarity of vision and values, vision based
strategy, creativity, and learning leading to the realization of enterprise
goals. A foundation approach (with intentions of results, information,
programs and training) allows for workable plans, good market analysis,
meaningful presentations, good control structures and focus on continuous
improvement.
Emergent approaches which ignore requirements for short term gains,
structures and systems and only pay attention to creativity, fluidity,
flexibility and individual responsibility can self-destruct. One company,
Virtual Reality Systems, was started with very little seed capital. In
order to secure more, the owner put his patents up as security. Lenders
foreclosed and took the patents. The owner lost out. More effective attention
to the foundation might have saved his position.
If there is inadequate attention to the tactical and short term, leaders
can lose support from key stakeholders or simply lose track of the bottom
line. When people stop creating and the market is no longer enthusiastic
about its products and services, an emergent organization without suitable
control mechanisms in place becomes unable to deal with new market realities
and disappears. Our innovations need the support of our structures. Our
structures need to support our innovations.
On the other hand, the foundation approach based organization has difficulty
adopting to rapid changes in the marketplace. For example, Diablo printer
company was one of the premiere companies supplying daisy-wheel printers
connected to personal computers in the 1980s. They had excellent quality
products, world class manufacturing facilities and the support of Xerox
behind them. Markets moved on and the laser printers and (later) ink jet
printers took over the market leadership and all their quality did not
save them from extinction.
From this brief analysis we learned that each perspective has to respect
and support the other. Without the support of the one, the other collapses.
When both perspectives are supported in an organization, it could truly
become a learning organization even though we are still to find one such
company in reality. We were quite pleased that our pyramid building led
not only to a organization design framework but also created shared strategy,
processes and, most importantly, shared meaning with deeper alignment among
the three of us.
How Has the Pyramid Building Approach Influenced Our Own Work?
The Emergent Perspective is very useful in identifying where resistance
and potential lie for future development. We have learned to include and
transcend self development as an integral part of business, knowledge and
organization development activities.
The Enterprise Pyramid helped us focus our attention on critical issues.
We ask ourselves in engaging with each other and with our clients, questions
about our intentions (Why are we engaged in this process?), the topics
for exploration (Is it necessary to follow this path or should we approach
the problem differently?), the possibilities for transformation (Does this
process include all the parties and transcend their goals and objectives
or is it a stop-gap process to reduce damage while we find an alternative?)
and the means for diffusion (Did we include suitable communication processes
and structures to let our clients learn and use what they learned with
us themselves?). We have used the Enterprise Pyramid to help us clarify
our relationships and roles with clients, as well as to explore client-centered
activity. Building this pyramid has helped our collective enterprise development
strategy by including and transcending our individual approaches in addition
to clarifying our individual strengths and interdependencies. It has helped
us clarify our aspirations and attend to the immediate needs of our association.
Application of This Approach in Other Organizations
In over four years of using this approach in a wide variety of contexts
and for a wide variety of purposes, our clients have found it to be a stimulus
in confronting complexity and integrating diverse perspectives. In building
over fifty pyramids in organizations, we could see that this approach has
much broader application than we originally intended. We found the Pyramid
Building Approach to be useful in developing shared meaning and alignment.
It is also valuable in helping clients to
The pyramid building approach provides a fresh way for thinking about complex
systems and for dynamically aligning people, processes, and strategy for
purposeful action. We found that this approach is very useful in developing
agreement and alignment in not only a three-person team like ours, but
also in the complex, ambiguous, polarized, and high-tension environments
found in large organizations. At the root of this utility is the approaches'
potency in supporting individuals and teams in clarifying their intentions,
the actions necessary for carrying out these intentions, and the outcomes
they wish to achieve.
Clients have reported major benefits in using Pyramid Building. They
have structured their work more effectively, developed strategies, organized
action in a complex context that has become more understandable to them.
Whatever their purpose for using the Pyramid Building Approach, the end
result included clarity of intention, strategy for action, and alignment
in teams. Learning and discovery become more lucid. Most importantly, the
members of their teams, organizations, and stakeholders have become more
aligned in their work together.
Organizations need to continue to develop models and methods that enable
them to understand dynamic relationships among complex sets of variables.
Change efforts risk being cosmetic or inadequate unless organizations are
able to account for the complex web of influences among strategies, processes,
and people. The Pyramid Building Approach (both as a systems model and holistic
method) supports heightened awareness, increased clarity of perspective,
and alignment among organization members in the face of complexity.
E-Mail: Prasad Kaipa, prasad@mithya.com, Chris Newham,
crnewham@aol.com, or Russ Volckmann russv@ix.netcom.com
Self Development: visioning, creating, realizing Organization Development: visioning, valuing, learning Business Development: valuing, strategizing, realizing Knowledge
Development: strategizing, learning, creating 
(portrayed on a pyramid opened at the Business
Development apex and laid flat)
Foundation Perspective Emergent Perspective Training
Analyzing
ImitatingSelf Development
Visioning
CreatingResults
Improving
ControllingBusiness Development
Realizing
ValuingPrograms
Presenting
ControllingOrganization Development
Learning
ValuingInformation
Planning
PresentingKnowledge Development
Strategizing
Learning
Fig. 7. Contrasting and complementary perspectives of development in enterprises
You can also read other articles and materials related to pyramids:
You can send any comments or suggestions by clicking here: comments@mithya.com
... to gain
more knowledge about how we use this pyramid (and develop client specific pyramids) in our work.
Copyright 1998, 1999, The Mithya Institute for Learning. All rights reserved.