Navigating the dichotomy: glimmers of innovation versus triggers of inciteful behaviour

ANZSOG - The Australia and New Zealand School of Government summarised an insightful conversation among public service leaders. This triggered me to reflect on my experience of awesome learning environments to support transformation in public services, and the complete opposite.

Public Service Innovation

Investing in new and useful ways of working is essential in public service as complexities in societal challenges grow. Yet, many transformative ideas falter amidst traditional bureaucracies. This dynamic is captured in the analogy "glimmers of innovation versus triggers of inciteful behaviour."

Glimmers of Innovation

The phrase "glimmers of innovation" highlights rare, bright moments of creativity within an organisation. These innovative sparks are potential game-changers that could streamline processes and fundamentally improve public service functions. They may even pave pathways to transformation and system change. However, like stars obscured by city lights, these glimmers often get overlooked or extinguished by entrenched norms. They represent a break from traditional thinking and the seeds of substantial progress and improvement.

Triggers of Inciteful Behavior

On the flip side, "triggers of inciteful behaviour" reflect the automatic negative reactions that innovation can provoke. These reactions are defensive mechanisms within organisational cultures that resist change, acting as counter-forces that incite opposition and regression. The fear of change, loss of control, or new risks can drive well-intentioned leaders to subconsciously undermine beneficial initiatives.

Cultural Barrier and Toxicity

The interaction between innovative impulses and reactionary forces creates a complex landscape for change-makers, balancing the push for modernisation against conservative, risk-averse tendencies. This tension isn't just a logistical challenge—it's a cultural barrier that can lead to toxicity.

A toxic environment emerges when innovative and outcome-orientated individuals face consistent hostility and dismissiveness. This negativity can demoralise staff, stifle creativity, and result in a high turnover rate as employees seek more sustainable workplaces. The long-term impact is severe, rendering the organisation stagnant and unable to adapt to external demands.

Bridging the Gap

Navigating this dichotomy requires cultivating an environment that supports and sustains innovation through several strategies:

• Leadership Commitment: Leaders must provide clear support for innovation, supplying both the vision, nurturing an investment mindset, and so investing and providing the resources needed to foster change.
• Cultural Shift: Organisations must intentionally shift their culture to value and embrace change, facilitated through authentic learning environments, open communication, and celebrating innovation champions, with leaders again knowing what to nurture and what to praise.
• Robust Accountability Structures: Effective accountability, delegation, and feedback systems are essential to constructively critique and implement ideas while preventing negative backlash. These mechanisms ensure that innovations are both responsible and responsive to the organisation's goals.
• Developing Risk Maturity: It is crucial to cultivate a tolerance for calculated risks, particularly those involving novel trade-offs where traditional experiences may not apply. By viewing failures as learning opportunities, organisations can reduce the fear associated with innovation and better adapt to contemporary and future challenges. This approach encourages embracing risks that traditional models might overlook, thereby future-proofing organisational strategies.

Conclusion

The analogy of "glimmers of innovation versus triggers of inciteful behaviour" illustrates the challenges of introducing new ideas in conservative environments. Understanding and addressing these dynamics allows organisations to innovate and transform public service.