By mpross1346, 29 April 2026 Subheadline Companies with rigid or stagnant compliance policies won't tolerate or manage the disruption innovation naturally causes ![Editorial cartoon of process stopping good ideas](/sites/default/files/styles/wide/public/2026-07/Too%20Much%20Resistance%20to%20NonDisruptive%20Innovation.png.webp?itok=WWBm-HXY) Key Takeaways - Companies that resist non-disruptive change can't innovate - Companies with policies that never change or flex can't innovate - Policies that never change or flex probably aren't protecting anyone ### Introduction We have to do things differently to achieve nonlinear growth. We have to self-disrupt, to change the pattern that leads to no growth or slow linear growth. That will cause disruptive change to our employees, who frequently don't like disruptive change. But a lot of beneficial changes don't require *all that much* disruption. Companies that can't make those smaller changes for smaller growth, *certainly* can't make the larger changes required for nonlinear growth. That's an Innovation Hypothesis called "Too Much Resistance to Non-Disruptive Innovation". Indicators of "Too Much Resistance to Non-Disruptive Innovation" happen when our companies don't: 1. Use processes intended approve change ("We won't change or tailor the policy") 2. Change how we do things in ways that are fully compliant ("We won't switch to a better process") 3. Loosen internal policies that are more restrictive than external laws and regulations require ("We hold to internal policies") 4. Embrace an opportunity that's perfectly compliant but merely unusual ("We Won't Do Anything Unusual") ### We Won't Change or Tailor the Policy #### ...even when it looks like a good idea Smart corporate policy specifies how it can itself be changed or tailored it to match circumstances. Policy writers and compliance pros rarely assume they know every situation that might arise, so they write policies meant to allow override, change, or tailoring by accountable executives. Because we want our policy to protect us from harm, not prevent benefit, we allow judgement in policy application. So it's a warning sign when change, override, or tailoring processes are not being used. Examples of common red flags include: 1. A policy calls for update every 12 months. That policy is reviewed and re-signed every 12 months as required, but no changes have been made for years 2. A policy calls for stricter oversight or additional processes for larger or riskier business deals, but: - All deals are held to the same standards or - The tailoring provided for smaller deals provides almost no relief from what large deals are required to do 3. A policy allows waiver from some requirements with the approval of a certain Vice President, but we can't say when we ever waived anything that way. Or worse...we can't say when we have even made a request to waive something that way. ### We Won't Switch to a Better Process #### ...even if it's just as compliant as the current one Even in non-innovative business operations, process improvements should always occur. If they don't, it's a strong indicator a company is facing "Too Much Resistance to Non-Disruptive Innovation", and is far from ready for actual innovation. Commonly, employees and executives resistant to even minimally-disruptive change argue that company policy mandates the current process. When that happens, read the policy. If resistors are wrong and the policy *already allows* a process change, that's a red flag. It means employees aren't respecting policy; they're using the policy to provide cover to keep things the same. No innovation can result in such an atmosphere. (And if the policy isn't well respected it's no longer protecting us anyway.) ### We Hold to Internal Policies #### ...even if they're hurting us and are more restrictive than external laws and regulations Companies are bound to follow a variety of externally-imposed rules, regulations, and laws. They frequently write more restrictive internal policy to enforce operations well within externally-imposed limits, and there's usually nothing wrong with that. But red flags for "Too Much Resistance to Non-Disruptive Innovation" occur often when internal corporate policy places its organization at a disadvantage. Those red flags are apparent when employees and executives: 1. Claim that "We'll all get in trouble" for changing an internal policy, even when external regulation allows it or 2. Insist that internal policy must be followed as a "safety margin" even when that's not the case In these cases, internal policy isn't protecting us. It isn't even being understood and applied correctly. Instead, it's providing an excuse not to change. ### We Won't Do Anything Unusual #### ...even when it's perfectly compliant No policy at all (internal or external) prevents us from doing something that makes money, but we still *say* we can't do it because it just "seems unusual". This most flagrant example of "Too Much Resistance to Non-Disruptive Innovation" is made even worse when someone *claims* it's noncompliance when it's actually perfectly compliant. ### Conclusion For companies who want to innovate, changes to policy, process, and operations are far more disruptive than what "Too Much Resistance to Non-Disruptive Innovation" describes. Organizations that can't tolerate comparatively non-disruptive changes to behavior might not survive once disruptive changes are needed. It makes sense to address this hypothesis first. ### Tags - [Too Much Resistance to Non-Disruptive Innovation](/taxonomy/term/22) ## Comments