Changing corporate and institutional culture one document at a time

Some interesting research papers suggest that creative disruption and innovation are the engine of growth as they directly impact on multifactorial productivity. 1

It is often argued that this process does not happen or may be slowed down due to some form of cultural resistance on the part of individuals.

Instead, according to my experience of more than 15 years of working on issues of public interest, transformation of complex systems and innovation, it is institutions and organisations that shape the actions and perceptions of individuals who usually tend to react fastly to new rules and incentives.

Resistance to change, on the other hand, is more an intrinsic feature of the functioning of institutions and organisations, as Max Weber warned us more than 100 years ago, than of common people.

Practical and operational details that guide the choices of workers and citizens make the difference in these contexts.

In fact, culture, that many people describe as an intangible element, is actually a practical aspect, resulting from the sum of all these small elements, tools, details, procedures and services that revolve around them. These are often the most difficult elements to change and unhinge.

We can see these elements as so many little time bombs scattered throughout organisations and society, ready to explode when someone takes the path of innovation and change.

These elements have a major impact on individual’s choices, perceptions and ultimately on reality. The topic is highly strategic, impacting the processes of digital transformation and circular economy transition funded by the Next Generation EU program.

Change therefore requires clear visions accompanied by “screwdriver and hammer” interventions on all these elements of “material culture”, if change is not to be blocked.

Communication tools, performance appraisals, internal regulations, implementing decrees, circulars, protocols, general conditions and forms are the daily trenches for those involved in innovation.

Each of these elements brings with it a view of the world and/or vested interests of offices, pressure groups and control bodies.

While talking about change, it is therefore appropriate to imagine how to intervene on the set of rules, incentives and procedures embedded in organisations and institutions.

If we change these, we change the culture. A single gear that does not turn potentially stops the whole machine and constantly generates the seeds of a “counter change” that will endure over time.

Therefore, videos, motivational slides, reports, essays and books are all well and good, but it is better to have adequate internal support, an office, a team, an independent consultant with adequate powers to verify, work on and report to the top management on the progress of each “module” that does not “follow” the change strategy.

For the Italian public administration, for example, a sort of reverse Anac would be needed, while for multinationals, an anti-compliance office would be needed to deal with all disputes and resistance on the direct instructions of the top management.2

If the top management of organisations and institutions does not devote time and resources to understanding and supporting change ‘one module at a time’, it means that it does not really want to support it or does not have the right tools to accompany it.

Of course, entering the trench of modules is often a very delicate matter for individuals so much that assessing the odds of who has the best chance of winning, between those who want to change and those who defend the ‘status quo’, is now an almost exact science and often the most useful skill to survive and thrive in organisations and institutions.

In fact, the system, made up of these material elements and the individuals who are part of it, seems to be somehow designed to resist change. Resilience, which is often seen as a value, thus becomes a major obstacle.

Building organisations and institutions that are resilient to stress but able to change is indeed one of the challenges our society has yet to solve.

To my friends who sit at the top of institutions and organisations and write important editorials, I say take a close look at the forms and documents.

It is only by getting your hands dirty with the more operational details that you can truly accompany change and avoid pointing one way and seeing reality take the exact opposite direction.

The future of European Digital and Circular Economy transitions depends a lot on these “small details”.

Nicolò Boggian

1. Festschrift conference on “The Economics of Creative Destruction” to discuss the achievements and future directions of the Schumpeterian growth literature.
2. I would recommend structuring an office with appropriate expertise that would intervene by providing binding opinions to the legal departments so that they could be relieved of responsibility for innovation issues on which there are not yet completely clear case histories.