It is very difficult for an innovator to bring about change within their organization. There are many reasons for this, but the main one is that many believe that to succeed, you need to have good ideas and see them through to completion. They are convinced that it is the objective quality of their work that will earn them the group’s acceptance. In reality, the opposite is true. The failure of the innovator tasked with bringing about change is primarily social.
The story takes place about ten years ago. This digital specialist—let’s call him Thomas—was recruited by a major French company that had realized it was significantly behind the curve on the subject. All hands on deck. Thomas’s mission is clear: shake things up, transform the organization so it truly enters the 21st century. Top management is delighted with this hire. The CEO, aware that his organization’s very strong and homogeneous culture was holding it back, insisted on hiring someone from outside the company. Thomas’s arrival was met with great fanfare. He had studied management experts thoroughly: for change to happen, there must be an awakening—a wake-up call! A series of presentations to the Executive Committee, bold declarations (“Go digital or die!”), work groups, strategic priorities, casual-dress meetings, and learning expeditions—change is underway. Thomas also refuses to attend many meetings because “Everyone knows it’s a waste of time” (and indeed, many managers admit this in hushed tones). Alas, after a few months, the reality is clear: the change hasn’t taken hold. Thomas is isolated. He’s finding it increasingly difficult to get a meeting with executives; the CEO is nowhere to be found. He’s getting on people’s nerves. He’s criticized from all sides. “He tears things down but doesn’t build anything,” some say. “We don’t understand how he works,” say others. “We don’t even understand what he’s saying, with all those Anglicisms.” His absence from meetings is interpreted as arrogance, and his disregard for protocol as a lack of seriousness. Less than eighteen months after his arrival, Thomas quietly leaves the company, and people barely remember him.
I know dozens of people like Thomas. This failure is a double tragedy: a tragedy for Thomas, first of all, who suffers a major career setback that’s relatively visible in his circle, but also a tragedy for the company. Even if his departure brings a sense of relief (“the nutcase is gone”), the fact is that not only has it lost an opportunity to change—and has thus returned to square one—but change has likely become even more difficult because resistance has undoubtedly grown stronger in the wake of this failure (“We were right to be wary of Thomas, and we’ll be even more wary of his successor, if there is one!”).
A Social Failure
So why this failure, and what could Thomas have done to avoid it? A vast subject, as they say, but the root of the problem lies in Thomas’s perception of an organization. An organization is not a machine where you adjust the settings and replace parts when they’re defective. An organization is a collective of people, and specifically a web of relationships. Thomas’s challenge, when he arrives, is to gain acceptance from the group (in this case, top management, but this applies regardless of hierarchical level) and thus to build relationships. Everything else stems from this understanding.
Many managers do indeed believe that it is the objective quality of their work that will determine their success and the quality of their relationships within the group. Their mental model is as follows: “Someone who does good work will be recognized and accepted within the group.” This is true, but only partially. To a large extent, their success will be determined by their relationships with their peers. In other words, the criterion for professional success is essentially social. This holds true even for experts, with very few exceptions. Even the great Michelangelo depended on his good relations with the Church for his success. A good professional therefore invests a significant amount of time in the group.
“Yes, but it’s a waste of time,” I’m often told. Indeed, it is a waste of time. But a waste of time for what? If it’s time that could be spent doing something concrete, then certainly. A 90-minute lunch with a colleague means one less file processed. But if it’s time spent building the strength of the collective, then it’s not wasted. All animals that live in groups devote significant time to others. It’s an investment. Like any investment, it consumes resources: time, energy, and even money. But it can pay off handsomely. And if it isn’t made, the individual is excluded from the group and, very often, dies.
But this investment isn’t just useful for survival within the group. It is also the key to success in “objective” work. It is the colleague who gives you a hand to finish a project, even though they are overloaded with work, because they like you. A group that functions well, in which everyone invests time in others, is also a supportive group where favors are returned. In other words, someone who is accepted into the group will do good work because they can rely on others. The correct model is therefore not “Performance => Acceptance” but “Acceptance => Performance.” It is unfortunate that many managers do not have the right mental model for their careers.
The imperative for a newcomer is therefore to gain acceptance from the group. This means understanding the key factors and identifying the mental models. What is the source of legitimacy within this group? For example, in Thomas’s company, attending meetings is interpreted as a sign of respect and professionalism. Everyone complains about these overly frequent meetings, of course, and Thomas sincerely believes he is helping to bring about change by bluntly stating, “They’re pointless, so I’m not going.” But in doing so, he violates a mental model that states, “Attending meetings = respect and professionalism.” He is undoubtedly right objectively, but he is wrong socially. He commits a form of social transgression, and during the meeting he skips, he finds himself alone at his desk drinking his coffee.
The newcomer thus navigates between two pitfalls: the first is to make no concessions, like Thomas, in order to disrupt established habits. This is a guaranteed failure. Thomas is quickly ousted from the group and accuses it of resisting change, which is undoubtedly not untrue. The second pitfall is to conform completely to the mold and stop making waves. This is obviously harmful, especially for someone on a mission to bring about change. What is needed is a balance between making certain concessions to the group for the sake of the collective, and maintaining a degree of differentiation which, because it comes from someone who is integrated, is all the more likely to bear fruit. All great innovators have understood this, whether within their company or in society at large. They do not seek to be right; they seek to lead others.
✚ Read my previous article: How innovators negotiate entrenched mental models. Lessons from Thomas Edison
🇫🇷 A version in French of this article is available here.
📬 If you enjoyed this article, feel free to subscribe to be notified of future ones.