Alexander Nusselt — NN Logo Alexander Nusselt
A stamp leaving an imprint on white paper — an image for the moment when judging tips into condemning.
Leadership 5 min read

Between judging and condemning — when leadership sets the standard for normality

Whoever hides uncertainty at the top multiplies it downward. What counts as strength gets embodied at the top — and read as standard below. Whoever deviates from that standard is quickly no longer…

What counts as strength is decided at the top

In a sparring session, a board member says: "When I show uncertainty, it eats me alive."

That isn't personality. That is the norm that holds at the top — and works its way down. Rarely spoken aloud, almost never codified, but highly effective: Whoever sits here has themselves under control. Whoever shows uncertainty doesn't belong here.

This norm runs through the organization, level by level, until reaching the point where no one questions any longer what control is actually supposed to mean in that particular function. Self-management turns into self-concealment. Composure turns into performance. And an honest "I don't know yet" turns into a career risk.

What counts as strength is decided at the top. What gets condemned as deficit below was often only a different sorting from above — one that fit a different standard.

When judging turns into condemning

Judging is part of leadership. Assessing performance, evaluating behavior, making decisions — that isn't the problem. That is the work.

The problem arises in the shift: when judging turns into condemning. When evaluation stops separating behavior from person. When "That wasn't a good decision" becomes "She isn't resilient." The behavior becomes the trait. The incident becomes the person.

The shift happens quietly. From the outside, it often looks like wisdom — "I know her style by now." But it is a different operation. It replaces observation with label. And once the label sticks, relationship becomes difficult: whoever has been marked once as not resilient won't be perceived anew even on a good day. The label reads along.

Diagnostic language as instrument of condemnation

Into precisely this gap, words from therapy migrate. "She's highly sensitive." "He's clearly narcissistic." "That's their ADHD." "She's currently depressed, so take her off the project."

These sentences sound empathic. They rarely are. In most cases, they are sorting. A person gets assigned to a category — and is thereby explained, without the behavior having been understood. Empathy as label printer.

This is a particular form of condemnation. It looks enlightened. It quotes specialist language. It is socially accepted. And it does exactly what hard labels used to do: it turns a behavior into a trait. A situation into a character. A phase into a diagnosis that grows together with the person.

The wish for certainty cuts both ways

In employees, the diagnostic reflex shows up as self-diagnosis — "Maybe I'm…". Because the system leaves no room for uncertainty, the diagnosis becomes an identity offering that promises stability. A story that explains why one doesn't fit the picture.

In leaders, the same reflex shows up as other-diagnosis — "That's just how she is." Because the system demands clarity where relationship would actually be required, the diagnosis becomes a sorting tool that promises clarity. A story that explains why one doesn't need to keep listening to that person.

Both movements grow on the same cultural soil: a norm in which uncertainty must not be held. Whoever has no answer has lost. Whoever can't categorize the other has failed. Whoever sits with ambivalence is considered indecisive.

That is not inevitable. It is a choice. And it is usually made at the top.

What top leadership embodies, works downward

A leader on the first or second tier has a lever that doesn't exist further down: she can define what counts as strength. Not through speaking — strength gets defined by what is visible. Whoever falls silent at the top under pressure is saying: Silence is composure. Whoever openly says "I don't know yet, let's clarify this in two weeks" is saying something different: Uncertainty isn't the problem here.

This embodiment isn't just a question of style. It is the most expensive piece of secrecy in any leadership floor: the unspoken requirement to be under control costs the system more energy than any reorganization. It produces self-concealment at every level. And self-concealment produces diagnostic hunger — toward oneself and toward the other.

What leadership can concretely do

Four movements that aren't heroic and that is precisely why they work:

Make your own unclarity audible. Not performatively. Not as a weakness gesture. But as ordinary process: "I'm not sure which sequence is right. Here are my three options — let's discuss."

Don't take diagnostic language at face value. When someone on the team uses "highly sensitive", "narcissistic", "ADHD" — including about themselves — suspend the reflex to simply swallow it. Instead, ask what is concretely observable. Diagnoses are never neutral.

Keep judging — but separate behavior and person. "In the last meeting, you interrupted three times" instead of "You're dominant." That isn't softer. It is more precise. And it leaves the person room to act differently, without having to put down their self-worth to do so.

See your own reflex to pre-sort people. With whom does the judgment run faster than with others? Who is, despite good performance, already filed away "in the back of the mind" as problematic? The honest answer to that says more about your own norm than about those being judged.

Closing

What gets condemned as deficit below was often only a different sorting from above. What counts as composure is frequently a particular form of self-concealment — embodied by people who have trained themselves well in it.

Leadership begins where judging doesn't tip into condemning. And it ends where diagnostic language makes the question "How do we talk about this?" unnecessary.

Whoever sets the standard for normality carries the responsibility for what counts as deviation below. That isn't a moral question. It is an operational one.

---

Related perspectives on the same topic (German only):

← Back to all essays