ʻike™ is the proprietary practice CultureLogic runs — a standardised way of gathering what an organization has already made public and reading it as a single body of evidence, not a pile of facts.
What this page is for
This page is what we do. The four steps, in the order they run, and which step each product buys.
For why reading culture from public evidence works at all — the research it rests on, and the limits of the claim — see Foundation. That page makes the argument; this one describes the procedure.
The steps are cumulative — each one is read on top of the last, never instead of it. Steps 1 and 2 are free. The step names are public; how the work inside each step is conducted is proprietary.
Scanning. The organization's public footprint assembled in one place — what it says about itself, what its people say, what the record shows — with every item cited and dated, and each source weighted by how candid it is. The source list ships with every analysis at every tier, which is what makes the later steps checkable rather than assertable.
Reputation and character. How the organization is seen, and the operating story that holds it together: how decisions get made, what gets rewarded, what gets avoided — stated as one named account rather than left as a set of observations. An organization read well tends to recognize itself on first reading, including the parts it would not have volunteered.
The story analysed. What drives that pattern, what it is protecting, and what it will repeat. The organization's own history is the evidence: patterns that have already produced an outcome twice will produce it again under the same conditions. This step is deliberately general — it is a property of the organization, not of who is asking.
Seeing through. The analysis turned into insight you can carry into a decision. What comes back is questions rather than instructions: the decisions the pattern is already making on the organization's behalf, and the ones a board should be able to answer but may not be able to. This is the step that can be read through one function — people, brand, strategy, diligence or integration — because the consequences of one culture differ enormously depending on where you sit. Or taken general, which is a real choice and not a lesser one.
Run step 4 on two organizations and it reads the seam between them — that is What Breaks, $2,500. See what each step costs →
A pattern that has been named can be disagreed with. A pattern that has only been described is harder to argue — not because it is stronger, but because it has no single point to push against. The name is also what makes action possible: you cannot act on a description, but you can act on a named thing.
Every analysis is precise about its own edges. That precision is what lets it survive a room where someone pushes back.
Evidence, not a survey
Built from the public record, so nothing rests on a response rate — which is exactly why it works on an organization that never agreed to be studied.
A named pattern, not a score
One pattern with the evidence behind it. No index, no percentile — no number to game, and no pretence that culture reduces to one.
Analysis, not implementation
You get the pattern and what it implies for the decision in front of you. Running the change is yours or your consultant's — and none of it is legal, employment, or financial advice.
Organizations, not people
The unit of analysis is the organization. No individual is assessed, named, or characterized — that constraint is absolute.
The reasoning behind the method is public — set out in See What Others Miss by SJ King. The Foundation it rests on →