Since I write about and for small teams, your piece made me reflect on the same issue but from the perspective of a team member rather than a leader: when an employee’s idea or initiative faces an “institutional no.”
Do you think the path to moving through that is different from the one you describe in the article?
I thought I replied to this earlier but maybe it did not go through. I think the process to correct is the same, psychological safety, ownership and a culture of experimentation. One difference I think is that a team member’s idea might face more outright rejection rather than a slow no in poor cultures. The leader still gets some respect in such cultures and therefore has a more hidden no response.
Thank you Melanie. For me, it is about ownership as Daniel put but also psychological safety or promotion for a culture of experimentation. You take away resistance when you let people know it’s okay to fail.
Depends on the mandate of course - since I'm usually not the business decision maker, a grassroots campaign usually works best in larger organisations.
Build a broad base of support before pushing for the changes with key stakeholders.
In large organizations, it's even harder than in startups to change processes - with the amount of stakeholders involved it unfortunately often becomes a full-time job where the time spent talking about the change is bigger than the time it would have taken to implement and effectuate the change :-/
Building this broad base for support is indeed crucial and yet very tricky. It is the grunt work which might not seem rewarding when being done but is essential for future success.
More time spent talking about the change than it would take to implement it? Ouch! 😅 I guess for those building and scaling, preventing it from setting in would be a wise step.
Yep - it's not for nothing the main advantage startups and scaleups have is speed.
There are business models that prevent this, the one that I keep coming back to is Hai'er's RenDanHeYi model where each business unit is responsible for it's own P&L.
On a side note, I expect that the first casualties of AI agents in large orgs will be the central administrative functions - they add more bloat and sluggishness than they deliver in terms of business value
I really enjoyed this! What landed for me most is your point that the most effective “no” often doesn’t sound like disagreement. It sounds like politeness, process, a request for one more round of alignment – and suddenly months pass. That’s not just bureaucracy; it’s a behavioural pattern. When organisations feel even a small threat to stability, they reach for delay, diffusion, and committee language as a kind of emotional self-defence.
I also appreciate how you separate malice from mechanism. Most of the time, nobody is trying to sabotage anything – people are protecting incentives, reputations, and short-term safety. Naming that mechanism is useful because it gives leaders a chance to respond without turning it into a personal fight. This is a strong, quietly generous piece: critical, but not cynical..
Indeed. I am a firm believer it is rarely malice but most commonly the culture and incentive structure that trigger behaviour. Same people can respond very differently in different organisations
Wonderful article!
Since I write about and for small teams, your piece made me reflect on the same issue but from the perspective of a team member rather than a leader: when an employee’s idea or initiative faces an “institutional no.”
Do you think the path to moving through that is different from the one you describe in the article?
From my experience, this happens in small teams as well. Without ownership of the execution and set deadlines, ideas can slowly drift into oblivion.
I thought I replied to this earlier but maybe it did not go through. I think the process to correct is the same, psychological safety, ownership and a culture of experimentation. One difference I think is that a team member’s idea might face more outright rejection rather than a slow no in poor cultures. The leader still gets some respect in such cultures and therefore has a more hidden no response.
Really great article! when you spot this silent resistance, what do you change first, the idea, the incentives, or the conversation around it?
I’d say you change the process around assigning ownership and execution of ideas, otherwise your vision and idea evaporates.
Thank you Melanie. For me, it is about ownership as Daniel put but also psychological safety or promotion for a culture of experimentation. You take away resistance when you let people know it’s okay to fail.
Great insights, and all too familiar for someone who's spent most of his career in innovation teams 😆😅
I had a feeling this would resonate. From your experience Jonas, are there any other tips to tackle the institutional no?
Depends on the mandate of course - since I'm usually not the business decision maker, a grassroots campaign usually works best in larger organisations.
Build a broad base of support before pushing for the changes with key stakeholders.
In large organizations, it's even harder than in startups to change processes - with the amount of stakeholders involved it unfortunately often becomes a full-time job where the time spent talking about the change is bigger than the time it would have taken to implement and effectuate the change :-/
Building this broad base for support is indeed crucial and yet very tricky. It is the grunt work which might not seem rewarding when being done but is essential for future success.
More time spent talking about the change than it would take to implement it? Ouch! 😅 I guess for those building and scaling, preventing it from setting in would be a wise step.
Yep - it's not for nothing the main advantage startups and scaleups have is speed.
There are business models that prevent this, the one that I keep coming back to is Hai'er's RenDanHeYi model where each business unit is responsible for it's own P&L.
On a side note, I expect that the first casualties of AI agents in large orgs will be the central administrative functions - they add more bloat and sluggishness than they deliver in terms of business value
The quiet stall of ideas can be more dangerous than outright rejection because it saps momentum and morale.
Indeed, with outright rejection you know it explicitly. While quite rejection leads to wasted effort and energy
“institutional no” is sneaky because it feels like agreement while quietly draining momentum.
💯. It is enabled also by a culture where people just say yes and don’t mean it. It might be signal of a larger cultural problem.
I really enjoyed this! What landed for me most is your point that the most effective “no” often doesn’t sound like disagreement. It sounds like politeness, process, a request for one more round of alignment – and suddenly months pass. That’s not just bureaucracy; it’s a behavioural pattern. When organisations feel even a small threat to stability, they reach for delay, diffusion, and committee language as a kind of emotional self-defence.
I also appreciate how you separate malice from mechanism. Most of the time, nobody is trying to sabotage anything – people are protecting incentives, reputations, and short-term safety. Naming that mechanism is useful because it gives leaders a chance to respond without turning it into a personal fight. This is a strong, quietly generous piece: critical, but not cynical..
Glad you found this useful Mila. I agree, even when people don't want to sabotage ideas, inaction can easily lead to that.
Indeed. I am a firm believer it is rarely malice but most commonly the culture and incentive structure that trigger behaviour. Same people can respond very differently in different organisations