This site is also available in:
A systemic look at communication, power and why professional quality alone is rarely enough.
It is a recurring pattern in large companies: An obvious problem remains unsolved. A simple solution is on the table. It is technically comprehensible, often even trivial. And yet nothing happens – or a decision is made that is demonstrably worse.
Not because of a lack of expertise. Not because no one had the right idea. But because decisions are not made on the basis of the best arguments – but on the basis of power.
When simple problems become complex
You see it again and again: a technically clean refactoring is postponed for months, even though everyone knows that it is necessary. Customer feedback clearly shows that a feature does not work, but is relativized or reinterpreted. Products develop in directions that can be explained internally – but miss the market.
The reasons sound rational: “Now is not the right time.” “It’s too risky.” “We don’t have the budget for it.” But something else is going on under the surface. Decisions are not made based on what is right, but on what can be implemented.
The error in thinking: companies as rational systems
Many organizations implicitly assume that good ideas will prevail. That better arguments will win in the long term. That decisions are made on the basis of facts.
This assumption is wrong. Not because people are irrational – but because companies function differently than we intuitively believe. To understand this, it is worth taking a look at Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory.
Communication instead of people – Luhmann’s change of perspective
Luhmann describes organizations not as a collection of people, but as systems of communication. Meetings, tickets, decisions, roadmaps – these are all forms of communication that influence and continue each other.
People are necessary, but they are not the system itself. The system is created by what is communicated and decided – and above all by what follows on from this.
This change of perspective is key. It explains why ideas do not automatically prevail: It is not their quality that is decisive, but their connectivity within this communication system.
Society as a communication system
Luhmann goes one step further: he views society as a whole as an interplay of different communication systems. These systems have each developed their own logics according to which they decide and communicate:
| System | Guiding differentiation |
|---|---|
| Law | Right / Wrong |
| Economy | Payment / non-payment |
| Politics | Power / no power |
| Science | true / false |
| Education | better / worse |
| Medicine | healthy / sick |
These systems have developed stably over a long period of time. And crucially, they cannot simply be translated into one another.
Companies as the interface between these systems
A company is not a homogeneous unit, but an interface between these different logics.
- Finance follows the logic of the economy.
- Management often moves in the direction of politics, i.e. power and enforcement.
- Engineering is strongly oriented towards truth – does something work or not?
- product areas try to interpret the market and user behavior.
Structurally, different “languages” are spoken within a company. If a developer says “The system is built incorrectly”, this is a communication of truth. If a manager replies “It doesn’t fit into the roadmap”, this is a communication of power or prioritization. Both statements can be correct at the same time – but they operate in different system logics.
Three poles of decision: Truth, money and power
In companies, these logics often boil down to three dominant communication media: truth, money and power. Truth is based on arguments and data. Money is based on economic valuation. Power is based on the ability to enforce decisions.
In practice, it has been shown time and again that power is the fastest and most effective medium. Truth takes time to convince. Money needs models and votes. Power often only needs a decision.
Why good ideas lose
This is precisely where the central problem arises.
An idea can be technically correct and still fail. Not because it is wrong, but because it is not compatible. If it calls existing decisions into question, shifts budgets or changes responsibilities, it becomes “expensive” for the system. Systems react to this not with openness, but with stabilization.
The result is predictable: It’s not the best idea that wins, but the one that fits most easily into existing communication.
Rethinking internal policy
Moral arguments are often made at this point. There is talk of politics, of power games, of unfair decisions. From a systemic perspective, this is too short-sighted.
Internal politics is not misconduct. It is a mechanism to make communication enforceable. Framing, escalation, coalitions – these are all ways of increasing connectivity. Not because people want to be “political”, but because that’s how the system works.
Products as a result of internal communication
If you take this idea further, it becomes uncomfortable. In many cases, products are not a direct reflection of the market. They are a reflection of internal communication structures.
This is reflected in inconsistent features, technical debt and conflicting priorities. Not because nobody knows better, but because decisions are made according to different logics. It can also be seen in major market movements: Companies often react late or inconsistently to changes, even though the signals are there. Not out of ignorance, but because internal communication has a stronger impact than external reality.
The way out: shaping communication
If the problem is structural, the solution does not lie in better arguments or more persuasion. It lies in the design of communication.
Truth must be made connectable. Data and customer feedback must be prepared in such a way that they function in different system logics: for finance as an economic effect, for IT as technical stability, for management as risk or target achievement.
Decisions must be linked to reality. Not optional, but structural. Methods such as Lean Startup, Scrum or SAFe demonstrate precisely this approach in various forms: hypotheses are made measurable, increments are verifiable, decisions are linked to observable effects.
The decisive lever lies in clear communication artifacts. KPIs, experiments, reports, dashboards or defined decision rules act as translators between systems. They reduce the scope for interpretation and increase connectivity.
Power does not disappear – it changes
A common misconception is that data-driven work replaces politics. This is not the case. Power remains – but it changes its effect.
Decisions can still be made, but no longer arbitrarily against reality. They must at least conform to it or explicitly deviate from it. This does not abolish power, but binds it.
How ONLU supports organizations
Up to this point, a lot sounds like analysis – and in fact, the problem often lies deeper than individual methods or processes. In practice, an even more fundamental obstacle becomes apparent time and again: in many organizations, crucial communication does not even take place.
Not because the issues are not known, but because they are not voiced. Hierarchies prevent direct communication. Political dynamics lead to information being deliberately withheld or filtered. And a lack of psychological security ensures that risks are not addressed – even if they are obvious.
The result is fatal: the system loses access to reality before a decision is even made.
This is precisely where we come in at ONLU. Instead of working primarily on processes or tools, we change the communication structure itself – with the aim of consistently aligning communication in a solution- and strategy-oriented manner instead of allowing it to be distorted by political or hierarchical dynamics. In concrete terms, this means
- Short-circuit hierarchies so that information flows more directly – without abolishing hierarchy, but reducing its negative effect on communication.
- Create communication spaces in which topics can be expressed regardless of position.
- Establish mechanisms to ensure that critical information is not filtered.
- Build structures in which even uncomfortable truths can be accepted.
Only when this form of communication is possible at all can the mechanisms described above – the linking of decisions to reality, the use of clear communication artifacts – take effect.
Conclusion
Companies rarely fail due to a lack of ideas. They fail because their communication structures prevent these ideas from being implemented.
It’s not the best idea that wins, but the most connectable one.
If you want to change this, you don’t have to change people, but the way communication works. This is where the real strategic leverage lies.
