Business Turnaround Articles - Insights on Crisis Management & Business Transformation

Most transformation programs assume that a good strategy and consistent execution are enough for an organization to change the way it operates. In practice, however, it often turns out that the change plan diverges from the actual decisions and tendencies in the logic of top leadership. Strategic documents may speak about cross-functional collaboration, while day-to-day reality remains siloed. Communications about long-term investments get lost under the pressure of short-term results. A declared “data-driven orientation” is often overridden by a single “I have a gut feeling this is the better solution.”

This happens because every organization – and above all its leaders – operates according to a specific decision-making logic. These are not isolated choices, but deeply rooted tendencies that filter every decision. Leaders managing in a hierarchical model, even with the best arguments, will not suddenly build an organic company. Leaders who value quick wins will struggle with persistence over the long horizon. Those who rely on “this is how we’ve always done it” will have trouble with flexibility – even if they formally agree to change.

Meanwhile, the practice of organizational change shows that decisions are shaped by the entire system: structure, processes, metrics, culture, and stakeholder expectations together create repetitive filters. This is why a framework was needed that does not stop at one dimension but connects both the individual and organizational levels. Each of these dimensions is a filter through which all decisions pass. What is often interpreted as “resistance to change” is not a matter of bad will – it is the natural consequence of the dominant decision-making logic. Therefore, diagnosing this logic is not an “add-on” to transformation, but the first step that determines whether the change will be real or remain at the level of declarations.

This is why in A.R.E.S. – Architectural Readiness and Execution System – seven dimensions of decision-making logic were distinguished. Not to evaluate what is “good” or “bad,” but to understand what logic dominates today in the organization and among its key leaders. Each dimension has its strengths and weaknesses – hierarchy provides stability in crisis, while organicity supports long-term adaptation; intuition accelerates reaction, while data strengthen the legitimacy of decisions. The goal is not to choose the “better side,” but to consciously recognize how the organization actually thinks and decides before we begin to design change.

The meta-dimensions used in A.R.E.S. are:

Hierarchical vs Organic – are decisions filtered through authority and procedures, or through networks of collaboration.
Flexibility vs Rigidity – does the company quickly shift course, or strictly stick to the plan.
Adaptability vs Inadaptability – can it learn and change over the long term, or does it repeat old patterns.
Openness vs Closedness – does it listen to the environment, or isolate itself within internal frames.
Short-term vs Long-term perspective – are priorities focused on quick wins, or on patiently building advantage.
Intuitive vs Data-driven thinking – are decisions based on gut feeling, or on analysis.
Siloed vs Cross-functional approach – does the logic of departmental interests dominate, or is there orientation towards process and customer.

These are not abstract categories or psychology of individuals – they are real axes of tension that every manager sees in their practice. The point is not to change a company in a direction that its decision-makers cannot sustain, but to make diagnosing decision-making logic the first step toward planning a real, not merely paper-based, transformation.