I didn't think the systems actually want to change this, even when they become aware of it. For my whole career I misunderstood the workplace. They asked for innovation, I gave them brilliant innovation, not in my opinion, but by objective measures, and they rejected it because it meant a loss of status or authority. They used various versions of "If we did that, we would be admitting we were wrong about this all along". This was eventually followed by, "your services are no longer required...". I realise now that when they asked for innovation, they were actually asking me to make them look good.
Toby, I think you’ve touched on a challenge that often receives less attention than individual bias: institutions are not only designed to solve problems, they are also designed to preserve legitimacy.
Sometimes a proposed improvement is judged not only on whether it works, but on what accepting it would imply about existing decisions, structures, expertise, or authority.
In that sense, resistance to redesign is not always resistance to the idea itself. It can be resistance to the disruption of established assumptions.
One of the questions that interests me is how often organizations ask for innovation while rewarding conformity, ask for new thinking while protecting old frameworks, or ask for honesty while preferring reassurance.
Thank you for sharing your experience. I suspect many people have encountered some version of this dynamic.
“Credibility is the currency of institutional life. It determines who is listened to, who is trusted, who is believed when accounts conflict. And institutions talk about credibility as though it were a neutral, accurate measure of truthfulness and reliability.” You hit the nail on the head in this article. It should not have to be that way.
Thank you, Erin! Yes, it really should not have to be this way.
Credibility is often treated as if it simply reveals truth, but in many institutions it is distributed through familiarity, status, tone, confidence, and social legibility. That means some people are believed before they even explain themselves, while others have to over-document, over-explain, and still may not be trusted.
again a clear analysis, that i totaly agree with: "they" don't even know anymore where the bug was and who fixed it; but if someone doesn't make eye contact, that's somehow suspicious 🤪
Exactly. We seem perfectly comfortable trusting people with complex technical systems, but somehow eye contact still gets treated as a proxy for competence, honesty, or credibility. It’s a fascinating mismatch in what we choose to measure.
I didn't think the systems actually want to change this, even when they become aware of it. For my whole career I misunderstood the workplace. They asked for innovation, I gave them brilliant innovation, not in my opinion, but by objective measures, and they rejected it because it meant a loss of status or authority. They used various versions of "If we did that, we would be admitting we were wrong about this all along". This was eventually followed by, "your services are no longer required...". I realise now that when they asked for innovation, they were actually asking me to make them look good.
Toby, I think you’ve touched on a challenge that often receives less attention than individual bias: institutions are not only designed to solve problems, they are also designed to preserve legitimacy.
Sometimes a proposed improvement is judged not only on whether it works, but on what accepting it would imply about existing decisions, structures, expertise, or authority.
In that sense, resistance to redesign is not always resistance to the idea itself. It can be resistance to the disruption of established assumptions.
One of the questions that interests me is how often organizations ask for innovation while rewarding conformity, ask for new thinking while protecting old frameworks, or ask for honesty while preferring reassurance.
Thank you for sharing your experience. I suspect many people have encountered some version of this dynamic.
“Credibility is the currency of institutional life. It determines who is listened to, who is trusted, who is believed when accounts conflict. And institutions talk about credibility as though it were a neutral, accurate measure of truthfulness and reliability.” You hit the nail on the head in this article. It should not have to be that way.
Thank you, Erin! Yes, it really should not have to be this way.
Credibility is often treated as if it simply reveals truth, but in many institutions it is distributed through familiarity, status, tone, confidence, and social legibility. That means some people are believed before they even explain themselves, while others have to over-document, over-explain, and still may not be trusted.
That is not neutrality but our design..
again a clear analysis, that i totaly agree with: "they" don't even know anymore where the bug was and who fixed it; but if someone doesn't make eye contact, that's somehow suspicious 🤪
Exactly. We seem perfectly comfortable trusting people with complex technical systems, but somehow eye contact still gets treated as a proxy for competence, honesty, or credibility. It’s a fascinating mismatch in what we choose to measure.