Principle 17:
Structure Reveals Leverage

Summary

The structure of a Unit of Effort – it’s shape, sequence, hierarchy, or dependency chain – often reveals natural points of leverage. These structural elements signal where effort can be redistributed, where delays originate, or where changes can unlock cascading effects. By mapping or analyzing structure, you uncover insight not evident from content alone.

 

Examples

Scenario: All PRs go through a single senior approver.

Problem: Bottlenecks, especially during leave or busy periods.

Insight: Structure = linear, single-threaded approval

Leverage: Introduce a two-tier approval structure: routine A/B PRs go to designated juniors; complex PRs escalate

Result: PRs are now routed structurally based on complexity → FLOW A/B separated from FLOW C

​

Scenario: Training is delivered live every time.

Problem: Trainer burnout and inconsistent delivery.

Insight: Structure = synchronous, single-delivery mode

Leverage: Break training into modular recorded videos (FLOW A/B material) + live sessions with Q&A (FLOW C material)

Result: Hybrid training structure based on learning element complexity creates scale and reuse.

​

Scenario: Tickets are answered in arrival order.

Problem: High-impact clients get delayed help.

Insight: Structure = FIFO with no stratification.

Leverage: Introduce structural triage: urgent clients routed to Tier 1, others to Tier 2.

Result: More value per effort → FLOW A/B optimized, FLOW C escalation available for problem prone categories

​

Scenario: Meeting tries to cover all updates, issues, planning, and feedback.

Problem: Overstuffed agenda, little action.

Insight: Structure = one session with mixed purposes.

Leverage: Split into three short-targeted meetings per week: ops stand-up, strategic checkpoint, and feedback loop.

Result: Structure redesign reveals better leverage → FLOW A routines separated from FLOW C strategy.

 

Quick Case Study

A procurement team handles urgent and routine PRs in the same queue. By separating these into parallel tracks (structure shift), they cut response time on urgent PRs by 40%. The structure, not the volume, was the blocker.

​

Red Flags

• Everything flows through one person or checkpoint.

• A process seems linear but has hidden rework loops.

• Delays or errors happen in the same place repeatedly.

• Work gets “stuck” without visibility as to why.

​​

Key Diagnostic Questions

• What’s the actual structure of this effort (linear, branched, nested)?

• Where does flow pause or bottleneck?

• What’s being reused, repeated, or delayed structurally?

• Can this be broken into parallel tracks or modules?

 

Local Application Prompts

• Sketch the structure of your current workflow in boxes and arrows.

• Highlight points of dependency.

• Ask: what if this step were removed, parallelized, or automated?

• Rearrange and re-test for leverage: what changed?

​

Alignment Risks

• Mistaking content difficulty for structural complexity.

• Over-optimizing one section without understanding whole structure.

• Ignoring the handoff points or boundaries.

• Assuming structure is fixed when it’s often improvable.

​

Systems Design Anchors

• Favor modularity over monoliths.

• Build in observability to reveal where effort accumulates.

• Design structures that support adaptive routing (FLOW B-D).

• Use structure to highlight ownership and feedback loops.

​

Role Implications

Leaders: Should routinely ask: where is the structure outdated or misaligned?

Analysts: Should focus on visual mapping and detecting latent structure.

Designers: Should make leverage points visible and adjustable.