Kingdom-Maker Incentive Diagnostic
Detect leaders who manufacture complexity to grow their authority
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 91%
The diagnostic examines whether a leader is solving for business outcomes or building a kingdom. Fragmented organizations can reward managers for portraying their market, product, or function as uniquely difficult because greater apparent complexity justifies more budget, headcount, and authority. Evidence of kingdom-making includes duplicated capabilities, repeated claims that common work cannot be shared, status tied to organization size, and the creation of work that sustains expansion without improving results. The corrective mechanism is to evaluate resource requests against measurable business needs, compare similar teams, centralize reusable capabilities, and reward leverage rather than organizational bulk. The model focuses on incentives and behavior, not merely on whether a manager currently leads a large team.
Origin
Extracted from Marketing Against The Grain during the hosts' critique of incentives created by giving several regional CMOs competing paths toward a future global role.
Core principles
- 01Organizational incentives can reward complexity instead of business value
- 02Leaders may exaggerate uniqueness to attract budget and headcount
- 03Team size is not a reliable measure of contribution
- 04Strong operators seek leverage and outcomes, not authority through expansion
How to run it
- 1
Map the incentive
Identify how the leader gains authority, compensation, or promotion prospects from additional headcount and budget.
Pro tip Examine formal metrics and informal status signals.
Watch out Do not assume bad intent when the structure itself rewards expansion.
- 2
Test claims of uniqueness
Ask for concrete evidence that the market or function requires separate capabilities rather than shared services.
Pro tip Compare the claimed differences with peer markets or teams.
Watch out General statements about complexity are not sufficient evidence.
- 3
Find manufactured work
Look for duplicated roles, processes, creative production, reporting, or projects that exist mainly because teams are separated.
Pro tip Trace similar deliverables across organizational boundaries.
Watch out Some apparent duplication may be required by regulation or language.
- 4
Measure leverage
Evaluate outcomes per unit of budget, headcount, and management complexity.
Pro tip Recognize leaders who simplify systems or reduce team size without losing results.
Watch out Raw output counts may reward low-value activity.
- 5
Redesign rewards and resources
Centralize reusable work and tie advancement to business outcomes, collaboration, and leverage rather than organizational size.
Pro tip Make shared success visible in performance reviews.
Watch out Removing resources without changing incentives can drive kingdom-building into less visible forms.
In the wild
Several regional marketing leaders compete for a future global CMO role. Each argues that their market requires separate creative, technology, and channel teams, even though most foundational strategy is shared. Executives compare the work, centralize common capabilities, and reward regional leaders for local outcomes and collaboration instead of headcount.
→ Resource allocation shifts from political expansion toward measurable market needs and shared leverage.
Common mistakes
Equating every large team with a kingdom
A large organization may be justified by volume, regulation, risk, or service requirements. The diagnosis depends on incentives, duplication, and outcomes.
Rewarding headcount reduction alone
Smaller teams are valuable only when they preserve or improve required outcomes and do not conceal unsustainable workloads.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for executives reviewing headcount plans, regional structures, reorganizations, or persistent claims of exceptional complexity.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when applied solely from team size without examining workload, risk, service requirements, and measurable outcomes.
From the transcript
“all of them, the more special they can make their markets seem, the more different they can make their market seem, the more resources and…”
“that person's core goal is really not to solve for the business, but it's actually just to solve for how my team gets bigger.”
“I'm incentivized to like create work and to create complexity where none really exists.”
From the episode
The Marketing Mistake That Could End Starbucks