What our market test reveals about leadership!
- Mike Horn für ICD
- Aug 2
- 3 min read
A market test on the thesis "structure instead of character" — and three patterns that were consistently repeated.
Recurring friction in organizations is almost always attributed to the individual—the difficult colleague, the wrong hire, the lack of leadership. The ICD claims the opposite: where a problem recurs as soon as the person changes, the cause lies not in character, but in structure. In unwritten conflict norms. In the way decisions are made. In a culture that no one has articulated.
This thesis doesn't sell itself—it needs to be recognized. That's why we put it to the test in diagnostic interviews with CEOs and decision-makers. Without any sales intent, with a single goal: to disprove their own thesis.
The structure: to undermine the hypothesis, not to confirm it
Every conversation followed the same structure—four phases, 45 minutes, not a word about the ICD, until the pain was fully laid bare. The opening was a commitment, not an opening: "I'm testing hypotheses, I'm not selling anything, I want to know where I'm wrong." Those who begin with self-presentation receive politeness in return. Those who begin with a request for verification receive truth.
The idea wasn't even raised until late in the conversation. The crucial indicator was never agreement, but rather whether someone offered their own, unsolicited story in return. Those who shared a second story had recognized something. Those who agreed were being polite.
Three repeating patterns
The personalization reflex. Organizations reliably identify the problem—and immediately address the root cause by focusing on the individual. A consultant and CEO precisely described this automatic response within his own company: after every mistake, the focus shifts to the person. In the same conversation, he neatly separated processes, which belong to organizational development, from HR, which he relegated to the realm of well-being. The two statements stood side-by-side, unconnected. This gap is precisely where the recurring error lies: structurally caused, addressed individually.
Diagnosis has no budget line item. A tech company budgets €250,000 for a twelve-month project, a medium-sized company €70,000 for four months of support—both without hesitation. The same decision-makers consider €6,000 to €15,000 for a preliminary diagnosis too expensive. Two completely different contexts, the same reaction: There's a cost center for implementation, but none for understanding the problem. This isn't a question of price, but a question of categorization.
The cycle lasts four to five months. Fear creates pressure to act, pressure to act breeds activism, activism shifts responsibility—ultimately leading to powerlessness. After four to five months, the cycle begins anew, with the next initiative, the next tool, the next reorganization. What breaks it is not more energy, but structure.
Where the real work lies
The three findings show the same pattern from three perspectives — and mark the three levels at which structural work begins: the strategic work on people (who decides with whom, under which unspoken rules), the decision architecture (the expensive consensus that no one represents and no one revokes costs more than any open conflict), and the culture itself — that which an organization takes for granted so much that it no longer names it.
They are intertwined. The personalization reflex is a fundamental cultural assumption that hinders strategic work on people and distorts the decision-making architecture. Addressing only one level simply recreates the cycle.
The consequence
The conversations repeatedly brought back a unique story—the diagnosis emerges as recognition, not as a courtesy. The resistance lies not in the thesis itself, but in the category: in the minds of many decision-makers, a diagnosis doesn't yet translate into a budget line. This isn't a weakness of the positioning, but rather its starting point.
What looks like character is often architecture. This cannot be asserted—only shown.
Where does your organization stand? The Cultural Leadership Assessment determines in just a few minutes whether your recurring friction is due to people or structural issues. Start assessment →
Comments