The enemy of innovation is inertia

 

In a changing world, innovation (reexamining our practices for a changing environment) is a necessity for a healthy organization. When we live with what was rather than adapting to what is, we quickly lose our edge and ability to respond in an environment that has changed. Many organizations and ministries are in that very spot because of the changes brought by Covid 19.

This stagnation affects even very smart people because we tend to think as we always have. Jonah Berger, author of The Catalyst puts it this way: "Rather than thinking about which candidate represents their values, voters tend to pick whoever represents the party they voted for in the past. Rather than starting fresh and thinking about which projects deserve attention, companies take last year's budget and use that as a starting point. Rather than rebalancing financial portfolios, investors tend to look at how they've been investing and stay the course. Inertia explains why families go back to the same vacation spot every year and why organizations are wary of starting new initiatives but loath to kill off old ones." (The Catalyst, page 5).

Inertia is a comfortable place to be because we know it well. Innovation means that we need to think differently and look for new solutions and ways of doing things. It is an uncomfortable but necessary place to explore and live. 

Covid has forced organizations to think differently. REI is selling its massive corporate campus in Seattle because they now realize that they can do without it. Instead, many will work from home or from small hubs. I suspect there will soon be a great deal of empty office space in our cities. The need to use tools like zoom has taught us that there is not always a need to travel in person to meet others. Parents are having to become teachers like in days past as schools open part time if at all.

Organizations that will flourish in the future will have leaders who question everything: Their current practices, assumptions, financial models, and priorities in order to meet needs of constituents in a changing environment. It is the choice between innovation and inertia.

Good leaders ask good questions:

• Why do we do it that way?
• Is there a different and better way?
• What should we stop doing?
• What should we start doing?
• How do the changes around us impact our priorities?
• Does our budget reflect our true priorities?
• If we were organizing today, how would we do it?
• Do we need to organize as if we were starting over?
• How are others addressing problems we address?
• Can we do more with less staff?
• Are we clear today on what our mission is?
• What staff have lost their edge and are living in inertia?
• What programs need to be killed?
• Do I have the time to reflect on my organization rather than just doing what we have always done?

Ask yourself the question. Is your organization, church, non-profit living more in the world of inertia or regular innovation? Remember always that the enemy of innovation is inertia.

Reactance: Why giving staff choices matters in creating healthy cultures

 

In interpersonal relationships, reactance is a term that describes the push back that people give when told what they must or must not do. When freedom to choose is restricted in areas that staff feel are unnecessary you get reactance which often comes with cynicism and often a failure to comply. Anger or irritation are often parts of the equation.\

The more freedoms are proscribed, the more reactance occurs. 

"In general, people are convinced that they possess certain freedoms to engage in so-called free behaviors. Yet there are times when they cannot, or at least feel that they cannot, do so. Being persuaded to buy a specific product in the grocery store, being forced to pay tuition fees, being prohibited from using a mobile phone in school, and being instructed to perform work for the boss are all examples of threats to the freedom to act as desired, and this is where reactance comes into play. Reactance is an unpleasant motivational arousal that emerges when people experience a threat to or loss of their free behaviors. It serves as a motivator to restore one’s freedom." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/

For years I traveled to parts of the world where one does not normally get receipts. So, I would keep a log of expenses and hand in that log for expense reports. The accounting department didn't like that even with my explanation and I was told I had to have receipts for everything. That irritated me (reactance), as I knew it was silly and a waste of my time, but I did as they said and came back with a pile of receipts with foreign languages, usually stamped on tissue paper with some sort of red stamp (that evidently makes it official). I dutifully handed them in with my expense report in a pile. A few days later I received a call that said, "What do we do with this, we cannot read anything." My reply was "I don't know." (Said with a smile on my face). Soon we were back to the old way of doing things.

Good leaders, try not to force people to act in a certain way but give them "agency," the ability to choose to do the right thing, or to choose between options. 

While some regulations or policies are necessary, there are many policies that are put into place for one reason or another that restrict an individuals freedom that are totally unnecessary. In one organization I led, I asked the staff what policies could be lost and we eliminated two thirds of them. This led to a greater sense of freedom for the staff. Ironically many of these policies were put in place to deal with stupid things staff members had done over the years. Instead of dealing with the staff member, policies were written. A bad idea as it constrained others. 

A best practice when considering a new policy is to ask staff what is needed and what they would recommend. This gives them agency and considerably minimizes reactance. The more participation staff have in areas of policy the less reactance there will be.

Bottom line: Try not to limit the freedom of staff and when it is necessary to do so, get them involved so that you minimize reactance. Freedom of choice raises the level of employee satisfaction where limiting it lowers it.