Various models and similar seem to use a pyramid style hierarchy to intimate the building blocks that allow you to progress to the highest levels. Even organisation charts in their structure are reminiscent of such pyramid style layering with the most senior (important?) role at the apex.
Yet the greatest pyramids I’ve ever seen (in Egypt) place their most important elements at the heart of the structure not the apex.
To my knowledge, only in the Americas (e.g. Mayan) do you find importance at the very top. The temple structure. A place of control rather than sanctity perhaps.
To start with I wondered how much pyramid style models are influenced by the most immediate influences on American culture. It’s a wondering rather than an assertion.
More importantly, I wonder why we feel the need to place “objects” at the top of lists, trees, pyramids rather than at the heart. It feels as though that wondering is more of an assertion.
The way we chose to look at things and guide our actions directly influences how we think and act – for good & for bad. Perhaps more often we should focus on the ultimate objective being at the centre, at the heart of things.
Just a thought.
People Performance Potential 
It is often thought pedantic, but I tend to prefer sequence to priority. Sequence tends to be right, ethical and logical, and then collaborative, frictionless and effective. Priority tends to lead to a lot of status driven behaviour and has the opposite effects to those I listed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Posted by Anthony Allinson | June 4, 2016, 10:58 AMI like that difference. So much of what we look at in so many contexts focuses on priorities not sequences. Yet “sequence” has a right-ness to it. There’s lots we could & should look at differently…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Posted by David Goddin | June 4, 2016, 4:42 PM