Innovation, to the extent that it includes change in the status quo, is commonly perceived as a threat. People and organizations resist change and can call on their corporate antibodies to both slow and block innovation.
All that is further compounded by turf considerations that tend to align supporters and detractors on either side of the issue, depending on the perception of who gains or loses if the innovation is adopted.
Protocol poses passive resistance to innovation
Organizations that are resistant to change tend to reinforce and value the proprieties and formalities of their business processes. They may even have a complex protocol for recommending, evaluating and implementing ideas. That protocol is often so intimidating and cumbersome that individuals don’t want to do the leg work that goes into submitting and innovation.
Likewise, busy managers often view innovation as violating some important protocol, or perhaps there is no existing protocol to evaluate and select an innovation. The latter can be viewed as a headache and more work; the former – violating a long-standing protocol – is commonly used as the basis for shooting down an idea.
Bureaucracy places roadblocks to innovation
Good leaders of large organizations know the value of bureaucracy. It gets things done correctly and complies with the protocol defined by the organizations leaders. Bureaucracy grinds out the “completed staff work” necessary in effective decision-making. Often, the bureaucracy makes the decisions for the leader, who merely signs off on the outcome.
However, innovation can often face an insurmountable obstacle when it comes to dealing with the organization’s bureaucracy. If the bureaucracy is the organization’s machine, then innovation can be viewed as either a lubricant or a monkey wrench.
As a lubricant, innovation can address s fundamental need of the organization to improve. As a monkey wrench, however, if the innovation involves something that upsets the status quo, the bureaucracy will be resistant to the idea. The process (and protocols) of management evaluation, committee review, final recommendations, etc., will thwart innovation through slow starvation and neglect
Turf wars block innovation
Innovation that goes across organizational lines faces an especially stubborn obstacle. This is especially true if the innovation infringes on some prerogative, reduces control of a process or causes more work. If innovation support works best along paths of least resistance, organizational turf barriers are effective deflectors.
So innovation can be threatening, and protocol, bureaucracy and turf considerations can gang up to pose formidable resistance. Recognizing an organization’s built-in tendency to resist, rationalize and smother innovation is the first step of doing what is necessary to change the organizational culture.
For an organization to succeed, it must follow the 7 Immutable Laws of Innovation.