The 70-25-5 Pyramid - Maintaining the Right Balance

Why Frontlines Determine Organisational Strength

An organisation that directs most of its resources toward execution advances. One that allows bureaucracy to bloat will descend into inefficiency, stagnation, and unsustainability. The failure to establish proper workforce distribution cripples output, clogs decision-making channels, dilutes accountability, and burdens the organisation with unnecessary activity. Misallocation of personnel turns a company from an engine of progress into a machine that consumes itself.

Every organisation operates within a hierarchy, but not all hierarchies function purposefully. A business that skews too heavily toward leadership roles overburdens itself with deliberation, producing more discussion than action. One that swells its middle tier creates layers of unnecessary oversight, slowing communication, complicating execution, and reducing customer experience. Execution drives results, not assessment and evaluation.

• 70% are dedicated to execution. These individuals engage directly in production, service, sales, customer experience, and technical functions. They are the force behind the products, services, and operations.

• 25% committed to support and planning. The middle group refines processes and provides support so execution proceeds without obstruction. Their function is to guide and improve operations without interfering with momentum.

• 5% focused on leadership. Strategy requires direction, but direction loses meaning if weighed down by excessive control. Leadership establishes long-term goals, clears obstacles, and provides coaching.

The 70-25-5 framework is not an abstract concept. When adhered to, it produces an operation that moves decisively, adapts quickly, and directs resources where they generate the most impact. When the workforce deviates too far from the 70-25-5 structure, the consequences are predictable. Those responsible for execution bear the consequences, while those in support and leadership roles become disconnected from reality. While each form of imbalance presents distinct problems, they all have the shared outcome of diminished performance.

Frontline Deficiency

When too few personnel are engaged in execution, the organisation's core function weakens. No amount of management compensates for the absence of those who perform the work.

• Exhaustion. Compensation is required for the shortfall, leading to fatigue, errors, and declining results.

• Bottlenecks. With insufficient capacity, operations slow, deadlines are missed, and customer satisfaction erodes.

• Automation. While technology has its place, it cannot replace frontline personnel's adaptability, problem-solving, and engagement.

• Detachment. A growing disconnect between decision-makers and frontline realities leads to policies that lack grounding, further compounding problems.

A company that fails to maintain a strong execution force weakens its ability to deliver.

Middle Overload

Support and planning roles exist to assist execution, not to control it. When this tier expands beyond its needed proportion, it bloats the organisation with wasted resources and declining competitiveness.

• Frustration. When policies and procedures become barriers rather than enablers, frontline employees disengage, resulting in lower morale and reduced efficiency.

• Expense. When too many individuals review, approve, and analyse rather than execute, productivity suffers.

• Delay. Layers of management and administrative functions introduce unnecessary steps between a problem and its resolution. Those engaged in frontline work wait for approvals that add little or no value.

Support functions enhance operations, not burden them. When their numbers exceed necessity, they become an obstruction rather than an asset.

Leadership Inflation

When the top tier expands beyond its required size, an organisation becomes unfocused, burdened by unnecessary involvement, and weighed down by excessive costs. Leadership teams spend excessive time deliberating, debating, and refining while little action occurs.

• Loss of connection. As leadership grows, decision-making becomes disconnected from practical concerns, leading to ineffective policies and unrealistic expectations.

• Financial burden. An excessive leadership structure diverts resources without corresponding benefits.

• Unclear purpose. Too many competing perspectives lead to conflicting directives.

Strength and sustainability come from a disciplined structure that prioritises execution, maintains focused support, and limits leadership to only what is required.

The Frontline for Success

Step into any hospital, and the priority is clear. Patients rely on nurses to monitor vitals, administer medication, respond to emergencies, and keep recovery on course. Patient outcomes would suffer if a hospital were structured with most nurses assigned administrative roles, planning care and analysing outcomes rather than delivering care. Not enough personnel at the bedside would lead to burnout, longer response times, and declining safety. No patient wants to hear that their nurse is in a meeting while they wait. Hospitals work best when the vast majority of nurses are with patients.

The same principle applies to every industry. In retail, a store's strength lies in the number of staff members who assist customers. A brand with an excess of product managers and analysts but too few sales associates will struggle to serve customers, resulting in lost revenue and reputation. Production grinds to a halt in manufacturing if there are more quality assurance specialists than assembly line workers. A software company needs more developers to write code than layers of project managers to plan and document the sprints.

Organisations succeed not because of how many people plan how the work needs to be done but because of how many people do the work. A restaurant thrives when cooks and servers keep meals flowing. A courier company succeeds when drivers deliver on time. The frontline is not a department but the force that sustains the entire operation.

Because they interact directly with customers and the market, frontline employees are the best source of feedback. They identify product pain points, detect inefficiencies, and notice emerging trends. These real-time insights provide invaluable information.

Why They Must Be the Majority

Execution drives results. A business with most of its workforce in frontline roles gains agility. It can respond to customer needs without bureaucratic delays. A supermarket that schedules more cashiers than managers ensures customers are not stuck in long queues. A telecommunications company that prioritises technicians over analysts resolves service disruptions faster.

A strong frontline also prevents detachment at the top. Executives cannot make informed decisions if disconnected from what happens on the ground. A software firm where developers outnumber managers produces better products than one that drowns in oversight. The closer leadership remains to the frontline, the more effective their decisions become.

The Operational Backbone

A frontline workforce cannot function without support. When this layer is right-sized, it strengthens the organisation by equipping frontline employees with the tools and guidance they need to perform. When it is overgrown, it suffocates execution with bureaucracy.

Consider an airline. Flight crews, ground personnel, and gate agents keep planes moving. Behind them, a support structure manages scheduling, maintenance, and compliance with regulations. If the support tier becomes bloated, redundant processes and workflows slow down operations. If it is too lean, scheduling errors increase, impacting operations as well.

The balance determines whether the airline runs efficiently or descends into chaos. The role of this tier is not to manage execution but to strengthen it by enabling performance.

The support and planning tier comprises managers, analysts, and specialised personnel. These individuals bridge the gap between leadership’s vision and the frontline’s execution. Their work directly affects how well the frontline carries out their tasks.

They are responsible for turning strategy into action. Leadership defines broad objectives, but this group translates them into details and measurable actions so frontline employees have clear directions. A company introducing new software cannot simply expect employees to adopt and adapt. IT teams provide guidance and support, others oversee training and onboarding, and department managers track usage and identify struggles.

The necessity of this tier is undisputed, but size determines its impact. When an organisation increases its support and planning structure, bureaucracy inflates, and redundancies multiply. Too many layers between leadership and execution dilute visibility and accountability, creating an environment where the volume of internal meetings and the tracking of data points take precedence over customers.

An oversized support structure leads to excessive reporting requirements, endless discussions, and unnecessary gatekeeping. In contrast, an understaffed support tier weakens execution by leaving employees without sufficient guidance or support resources.

Workforce Planning allocates the correct number of people to the right roles. For example, a restaurant experiencing peak-hour customer complaints requires scheduling adjustments for more servers and cooks, not additional supervisors giving directives. Similarly, a software consultancy struggling with delayed product releases needs more engineers, not more project managers.

A well-structured support tier removes obstacles rather than creating them. It continuously looks to simplify processes instead of complicating them. It enables frontline workers to focus on execution rather than navigating internal operations and bottlenecks.

Organisations that maintain this tier close to 25% retain agility and efficiency. Those that allow it to expand beyond necessity drown in bureaucracy.

The Strategic Command

A properly structured leadership team is lean, strategic, and high-impact. It does not require layers of bureaucracy to function. The best structures remain focused on vision and direction. Executives determine the organisation’s trajectory, not its daily minutiae. The fewer approvals needed, the faster operations move. A business with streamlined leadership outperforms one that requires sign-offs for every minor decision.

When appropriately structured, leadership guides with purpose, making decisions that shape the future while leaving frontline and support teams to handle implementation.

Consider a military operation. The role of a general is to determine strategy, allocate resources, and assess high-level risks. The general does not give orders on minor logistical matters, nor do they dictate the actions of individual soldiers in the field. If a military command structure became overloaded with high-ranking officers all weighing in on tactical decisions, the chain of command would break down. The same principle applies in business, where a company succeeds when leadership is focused, decisive, and disciplined—not when it is entangled in every operational detail.

Executives and senior leaders are responsible for defining the direction. They establish values, articulate priorities, and make financial and strategic decisions that shape the business. They position the organisation for long-term success, adapt to market shifts, and sustain competitiveness.

Salaries, bonuses, stock options, and perks absorb disproportionate financial resources at the top levels. A company with too many executives diverts funds from frontline investment and operational improvements. When leadership expenses outpace growth, the company’s financial stability suffers.

When leadership expands beyond necessity, meetings multiply, approvals become bottlenecks, and looking busy replaces real action. Strategy becomes a perpetual discussion rather than a directive. When executives insert themselves into daily operations, they erode management and frontline teams' authority, ability, and accountability. A CEO does not need to dictate a new store's layout, colour scheme, and furniture. A CFO should not pre-approve every expense, and the COO does not need to schedule break times. 

Leadership that confuses strategic oversight with management inevitably fail at being able to do either. The outcome is a culture of micromanagement, which is the most toxic condition any organisation can experience. An excessive leadership structure does not strengthen a company; it weakens it.

Leadership must trust their teams to execute.

Realigning to the 70-25-5 Model

Workforce imbalance is not an abstract problem but a measurable issue that produces tangible inefficiencies, financial waste, and deterioration in customer experience. Addressing it requires targeted action and sustained discipline. Companies that correct misalignment regain competitiveness, improve service, and reduce waste.

Assessing Current Workforce Distribution

Fixing imbalance begins with quantifiable assessment. Without data, an organisation cannot determine whether it is bureaucratically bloated. The following metrics provide a picture of the current state and its impact.

• Percentage of employees by function. Conduct a breakdown across frontline, support, and leadership tiers. If frontline representation falls below 70%, corrective action is required.

• Revenue-per-employee. A lower figure reveals that the company is overloaded with planners and understaffed on doers.

• Manager-to-employee ratio. A firm where every three employees report to a manager has introduced unnecessary oversight. The optimal ratio varies, but it should not be so narrow that a manager's boredom stifles activity.

• Decision velocity. If operational decisions require multiple layers of involvement, middle management has grown beyond necessity.

• Compensation as a percentage of revenue. Executive and management pay that outpaces growth drains resources from operations.

Steps to Right-Sizing

Strengthen the Frontline

Execution gaps come first. No company thrives when the frontline is stretched thin.

• Hire where shortages exist. Suppose a logistics firm’s delivery delays stem from their lack of drivers. In that case, the only rational solution is to increase hiring efforts for drivers and improve incentives and reasoning for existing drivers to stay.

• Improve training and retention. A high turnover rate indicates a failing system. Customer experience suffers if a hotel chain experiences 40% annual attrition among housekeeping staff. Investing in retention reduces costs and preserves institutional knowledge.

• Remove nonessential tasks. Nurses burdened with repetitive documentation spend less time with patients, and sales associates inputting redundant data waste time that could be spent engaging customers. Automate where possible, but never replace human interactions.

Optimise the Middle Tier

Middle management and support structures must be lean, enabling, and redundancy-free.

• Consolidate overlap. If people and culture, recruitment, and human resources have become independent departments, streamline these functions under fewer roles. If customer support and success, marketing, and sales operate under separate leadership, the customer experience will deteriorate. 

• Reduce timelines. Requiring multiple approvals for minor process changes kills motivation. Bureaucracy must be cut without hesitation; it can be added back later if it is determined essential.

• Prioritise execution. If managers spend more time in meetings with their teams than removing barriers for them, redefine their roles.

  
  

Trim Leadership Excess

Unnecessary leadership positions create cost burdens and decision paralysis. Correction requires focused cuts.

• Limit layers. For example, a firm with multiple levels of vice presidents overseeing the same functions has diluted accountability. Organisations with senior, intermediary, and junior titles for the same roles have bloated middle management. Leadership means accountability, not status.

• Cap leadership expansion. A company that increases its executive count without a corresponding revenue growth at least three times higher guarantees financial imbalance. If a company grows revenue by 50% but expands its leadership expenses by 25%, it has over-invested in planners.

• Remove redundant strategic roles. If a company has, for example, a "Head of Growth," a "Chief Commercial Officer," and a "Chief Strategy Officer," at least one of those roles is superfluous. Strategic alignment is the responsibility of one person, typically a CEO, but the planning, execution, and outcomes are the responsibility of everyone in the organisation.

  
  

Maintaining the Right Balance

Sustaining the 70-25-5 model is not a one-time correction but a continuous process that demands discipline. Workforce audits are conducted annually to assess the distribution of frontline, support, and leadership roles. If non-execution functions have expanded beyond necessity, corrective measures are taken immediately to restore balance.

Technology enhances execution rather than justifies reductions. Automation can streamline but not replace personnel in areas requiring judgment, alignment, or, most importantly, customer experiences. A chatbot cannot replicate a specialist's knowledge, relationships, and individualisation.

Leadership empowers a culture that rewards execution over deliberation and consideration. Organisations that thrive favour decisive, autonomous, frontline-driven action. Maintaining balance is the difference between a company that adapts and one that dies.

The dominant companies invest in the people who do the work and then let them do it.

Customers do not care how many meetings were held or how many managers were involved—they care whether their needs were met.