The transition to flywheels and ecosystems from linear processes and organizational silos also means rethinking organizational structure at a foundational level. Networks of autonomous teams, supported by shared services (platform), and led by architecting leaders. See On Emergent Leadership (https://medium.com/work-futures/on-emergent-leadership-a7c76b90b1dd).
This is it. Yassss. And they became advocates and everyone lived happily ever after. Get the same way about loyalty loops. I think it’s super interesting to look outside our industry and learn what works.. that’s how design thinking became…………. A trend.
Great read, this just makes so much sense to me (as some one who is always banging on about the whole being greater than the some of the parts!), thanks for writing.
So interesting. I think flywheel companies can work if there is an over-arching connector between units - ie audience and an opportunity to re-sell at low cost. However, it feels that the flywheel approach on any scale requires investment as learning / failing is expensive and exhausting. The danger is that the flywheel model is used by excited founders as a justification to do 'anything' and has the potential to keep a business in cash / energy burning beta mode forever or until it crashes. I've set up flywheel companies without realising it - great fun and exhilarating but very hard to build anything meaningful. My belief is that as a founder you need to focus on building at least one winning vertical / service / product if you really want to build value, this provides the stability to potentially get back on the flywheel to find the next one. Alternatively, the only way to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously at scale is to have very deep pockets.
Wow I just discovered sub stack. Anyways I would love to learn more about flywheels (as long as they’re not cycling aficionados). I know it’s not a 1:1, but I feel like this process would apply really well as a replacement to some chronic patient journeys. Because i can’t do anther one without losing my hair.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. One question I have is whether the flywheel is a replacement for traditional brand building or something that can live alongside it. Read your FaZe piece and it seems like a fail fast but double down on the successes approach. I see a lot of tech companies taking this route, investing small amounts in a lot of little things to see what catches fire. On one hand, it’s the best way to grow your audience quickly. On the other, you have to wonder if it could result in a more transient brand that isn’t remembered consistently. Perhaps the ideal is a back and forth, brand principles that influence a dynamic flywheel that in turn evolves the brand principles.
I read and liked both. The part I was reacting to was the flipping of the Product - Brand - Audience model. My first reaction was that you would still need an agreed upon set of brand principles at some point as the org became larger, but they would be flexible, more open to interpretation. I.e., you could get by without an onion or a pyramid if most decisions were made by a single individual, but wouldn’t you need some construct to give thing shape once the org hits a certain scale?
Nice piece. The same change to understanding dynamic systems is everywhere; change management, social innovation and so on. There is learning from systems thinking that is applicable 🙏
Great piece. thanks! You’ve articulated so eloquently the challenges that brands and businesses face. The thing that I have used to help clients understand this mess is using brand as the interface (emotion) between business (product/service) and customer (experience/engagement). It makes for a pretty simple diagram but shows the complexity of how this all stacks up.
It's the professor in me. Completely agree - but the flywheel is a framework, which is a visual representation of your strategy. Or even better it's a framework that can be operationalized with live data and built into an adaptive learning system.
Fair enough. I could have called the piece 'From static frameworks to dynamic flywheels' (again, that was the key emphasis here), but it didn't quite have the same ring to it :-)
The transition to flywheels and ecosystems from linear processes and organizational silos also means rethinking organizational structure at a foundational level. Networks of autonomous teams, supported by shared services (platform), and led by architecting leaders. See On Emergent Leadership (https://medium.com/work-futures/on-emergent-leadership-a7c76b90b1dd).
Absolutely, definitely need some of the thinking from my days at Undercurrent.
I didn't know that aspect of your background. Fascinating.
This is it. Yassss. And they became advocates and everyone lived happily ever after. Get the same way about loyalty loops. I think it’s super interesting to look outside our industry and learn what works.. that’s how design thinking became…………. A trend.
Great read, this just makes so much sense to me (as some one who is always banging on about the whole being greater than the some of the parts!), thanks for writing.
Brilliant piece, Zoe! We can split hairs re: the terminology all day long but your points and observations are spot on. Well done :)
Brilliant- a really smart piece on how to connect the disconnected pieces between brand and business.
So interesting. I think flywheel companies can work if there is an over-arching connector between units - ie audience and an opportunity to re-sell at low cost. However, it feels that the flywheel approach on any scale requires investment as learning / failing is expensive and exhausting. The danger is that the flywheel model is used by excited founders as a justification to do 'anything' and has the potential to keep a business in cash / energy burning beta mode forever or until it crashes. I've set up flywheel companies without realising it - great fun and exhilarating but very hard to build anything meaningful. My belief is that as a founder you need to focus on building at least one winning vertical / service / product if you really want to build value, this provides the stability to potentially get back on the flywheel to find the next one. Alternatively, the only way to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously at scale is to have very deep pockets.
Wow I just discovered sub stack. Anyways I would love to learn more about flywheels (as long as they’re not cycling aficionados). I know it’s not a 1:1, but I feel like this process would apply really well as a replacement to some chronic patient journeys. Because i can’t do anther one without losing my hair.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. One question I have is whether the flywheel is a replacement for traditional brand building or something that can live alongside it. Read your FaZe piece and it seems like a fail fast but double down on the successes approach. I see a lot of tech companies taking this route, investing small amounts in a lot of little things to see what catches fire. On one hand, it’s the best way to grow your audience quickly. On the other, you have to wonder if it could result in a more transient brand that isn’t remembered consistently. Perhaps the ideal is a back and forth, brand principles that influence a dynamic flywheel that in turn evolves the brand principles.
Either way, great thinking.
Thank you. Did you read the original Flywheel piece? That may answer this question.
I read and liked both. The part I was reacting to was the flipping of the Product - Brand - Audience model. My first reaction was that you would still need an agreed upon set of brand principles at some point as the org became larger, but they would be flexible, more open to interpretation. I.e., you could get by without an onion or a pyramid if most decisions were made by a single individual, but wouldn’t you need some construct to give thing shape once the org hits a certain scale?
Nice piece. The same change to understanding dynamic systems is everywhere; change management, social innovation and so on. There is learning from systems thinking that is applicable 🙏
Great piece. thanks! You’ve articulated so eloquently the challenges that brands and businesses face. The thing that I have used to help clients understand this mess is using brand as the interface (emotion) between business (product/service) and customer (experience/engagement). It makes for a pretty simple diagram but shows the complexity of how this all stacks up.
Ah but the flywheel is a framework.
It's dynamic, not static. That was the key point of the piece.
It's the professor in me. Completely agree - but the flywheel is a framework, which is a visual representation of your strategy. Or even better it's a framework that can be operationalized with live data and built into an adaptive learning system.
Fair enough. I could have called the piece 'From static frameworks to dynamic flywheels' (again, that was the key emphasis here), but it didn't quite have the same ring to it :-)
And writing for a professor/academic audience wasn't my angle, but I'll take your comments under advisement.