Managing Long-Term Relationships in an Organization: The Fine Art of Knowing Things and Knowing When to Change Things

Picture this: You’ve been at your organization for years—maybe even decades. You know where the bodies are buried (figuratively, we hope). You remember every policy change, every leadership transition, and you have a mental archive of "how we’ve always done it." You are, without a doubt, the holder of historical knowledge.

And yet, one day, someone suggests a new way of doing something—maybe a fresh approach to membership engagement, a revamped email strategy, or (gasp) a different way to refill the coffee pot. Suddenly, you find yourself at a crossroads. Do you embrace change, or do you stage a dramatic monologue about how this new idea was already tried in 2006 and didn’t work then, so obviously it won’t work now?

Historical Knowledge: The Double-Edged Sword

Make no mistake—historical knowledge is invaluable. Understanding the past prevents us from repeating old mistakes, saves time, and keeps us from reinventing the wheel when a perfectly good one already exists. It also helps maintain organizational culture and continuity, which is crucial for stability.

But here’s the tricky part: When does historical knowledge turn from "helpful guiding wisdom" to "an unmovable wall of resistance"? How do we balance experience with progress? Is it possible that—brace yourself—knowing things isn’t as important as knowing how to adapt?

Theories on Long-Term Organizational Relationships

Let’s explore a few theories on how long-term employees (or leaders, or committees, or entire departments) navigate the push and pull between what has been and what could be:

1. The “Guardian of the Sacred Scrolls” Theory

In this model, the long-time employee is a steadfast protector of institutional knowledge. They hold the answers to questions no one else would even think to ask: Why is the copier named Bob? Why do we absolutely never, under any circumstances, touch the third drawer in the supply closet? These individuals ensure that history is not forgotten, but they may also be resistant to change because the past is their power.

2. The “We Already Tried That in 2006” Paradox

Ah, a classic. A new idea is suggested, and the seasoned veteran immediately shuts it down with, “That won’t work. We tried that before.” But were the circumstances the same? Was the leadership the same? Was the technology the same? Were the people the same? This theory suggests that past failure doesn’t necessarily predict future failure, but it’s hard to let go of old experiences.

3. The “Adapt or Fossilize” Hypothesis

Here’s a wild concept: Maybe being open to change is more important than knowing everything about the past. Organizations don’t stay successful because they do the same thing forever—they evolve. The best long-term employees are those who can use historical knowledge as a tool rather than a crutch. They ask questions like:

• What has worked before, and why?
• What didn’t work before, and is the context different now?
• Is this change worth trying, even if it makes me uncomfortable?
• Is this change just for the sake of change? Or is this change to improve?

So, What’s the Secret?

If you’re a long-standing team member, your historical knowledge is crucial—but only if you combine it with an openness to new ideas. If you’re the new person bringing in fresh perspectives, respect the past—but don’t be afraid to challenge assumptions.

The key is a mindset shift: What if we treated institutional knowledge not as an anchor, but as a foundation? What if we saw change not as a threat, but as an opportunity to refine and improve?

And most importantly: Can we please rename the copier something more dignified than Bob?