If you lead a business, you’ve inevitably had this happen to you: a new employee starts, and within a day or two, they’re questioning some aspect of the company. “Why do you do it this way?” “Why can’t we do it that way?” “I have an idea on how to make everything better.” And how do we usually respond to it? Most of us smile politely, because someone who still doesn’t know where the paper clips are probably doesn’t yet understand why things work the way they do.
Six months later, that same employee has likely had a lot of “Ohhhhh” moments, where they see why certain processes exist the way they do. That doesn’t mean they don’t still have ideas on how to improve the company, but they understand the basis for what they’re now in the middle of.
Similarly, you probably notice that you’re much more willing to listen to their ideas at this stage than you were the first couple days they were coming into work. Or at least you should be.
This is an idea known as “Generous Orthodoxy.” It was coined by theologian Hans Frei, but popularized a few years back by bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell. The idea is simple: orthodoxy is commitment to tradition, and generosity is openness to change. In his podcast, Revisionist History, Gladwell went a bit deeper:
“Frei thought the best way to live our lives was to find the middle ground because orthodoxy without generosity leads to blindness and generosity without orthodoxy is shallow and empty.”
Frei and Gladwell are talking about it in the realm of religion, but the idea works in any organization. Anyone who has run a company for a long time is generally fairly orthodox. They like things the way they are done, especially if it has proven to work. But to change, you have to first be open to change, or “generous,” using Frei’s terminology. If someone from the outside (including a brand-new employee) comes to you with an idea, you’re less likely to even consider it. But if a 20-year employee, who has worked their way up to management ranks, brings you that same idea, you will earnestly consider it on its merits. The idea is the same, but the background of the person bringing it to you matters.
It’s not simply a matter of trust. Your top lieutenants can often bring you terrible ideas. The difference between them and an outsider is that you know the “insider” cares deeply about the company. They have spent years working to improve it, to execute your vision (and likely theirs as well). When they bring you a problem, you know it comes from a place of deep love for the institution they are a part of – in this case, your business.
This phenomenon can be seen throughout human history, whether religious, political, or corporate. Martin Luther wasn’t successful because he attacked the Catholic Church. He was successful because he was deeply entrenched in the Catholic Church and understood it. He knew its theology, traditions, and hierarchy. So when he challenged its practices, he not only knew where the pressure points were, but those around him knew his attacks came from his deep experiences within the Church itself.
Lyndon Johnson is often remembered for shepherding multiple civil rights bills through Congress in the 1950s and ‘60s. But what is often missed is that it was his entrenchment within the Democratic Party as a Southern Democrat that allowed him to do so. JFK supported civil rights, but he didn’t understand Congress as well as Johnson. He was an outsider to Southern Democrats relative to his vice president. LBJ was an insider, and his reforms succeeded because he understood the institution he was trying to change.
In the corporate world, this happens all the time. When Satya Nadella was hired as Microsoft’s CEO, many investors were upset because they wanted an outsider to replace outgoing-CEO Steve Ballmer. Nadella was a 20-year Microsoft veteran. But Nadella turned out to be exactly the right kind of leader. Over his tenure, he’s made massive changes to the company’s direction, and Microsoft has again climbed to the top of the corporate world. He changed Microsoft’s culture without trying to erase Microsoft’s identity. The long-tenured staff at Microsoft knew that Nadella’s direction was based in his love for and experience with the company.
Steve Jobs’ second tenure as Apple CEO was an example of a true insider coming in from the outside and changing a company’s direction. Tim Cook did the same. People trusted their intentions because they knew they cared deeply about the company. Cook protected Apple’s identity while overhauling it operationally.
The opposite can happen when an outsider assumes success in one institution is transferable to another. Marissa Mayer, who was one of the most brilliant employees of Google’s early years, failed in her tenure as Yahoo’s CEO because she tried to run it like Google. She imported Google’s answers without first asking whether Yahoo had Google’s problems.
Outsiders are excellent at identifying problems. Insiders are better at implementing solutions. And the people who create lasting change within an institution are often the people who love that institution the most.
Why do insiders have this advantage? Because all businesses are effectively systems. Each decision you make as a leader affects multiple pieces of that system. The longer you’ve lived within an institution, the more likely you are to understand all of these relationships that keep the gears running each day.
An outsider likely only sees one piece of the puzzle, while as the one in charge, you have to see the entire board and have your hands on multiple levers simultaneously. So when an outsider suggests a change, most leaders are reluctant to even consider it.
That can create problems, especially since, in a small business, no one is more of an insider than the person in charge. Great leaders have to become outsiders inside their own business in order to properly identify problems. And they need to know when to listen to outsiders and when to listen to insiders.
If you’re an outsider, and you believe you have a way to improve a company (whether you’re brand-new in that company or a legitimate outsider), you need to become an insider before you can determine if that idea truly has merit. And you certainly need to become an insider if you want anyone within the company to hear you out. Every system contains behaviors that appear irrational until you immerse yourself and understand why those systems exist in the first place.
But flipping back to the company’s leader, you also have to ensure that the system is still solving a problem that exists. Every process exists because it solved a problem at some point. But if that problem no longer exists, then the solution is obsolete. The danger is in assuming you perpetually understand the system, especially as things evolve.
If something has survived successfully for decades and you can’t figure out why, assume that you, as the outsider, are the one missing something.
And if something has existed for decades and you, as the insider, refuse to change it, ask whether it is still serving its initial purpose.
Great organizations need both orthodoxy and generosity. They need people who respect what came before while remaining willing to improve what comes next. If you want to make changes to an institution, the people around you have to know that you care deeply for the institution itself. Otherwise, even a good idea can sound like criticism from someone who doesn’t respect the institution.
And if you’re a leader pushing back on change, be sure to step back every so often and look at your organization as an outsider. The goal isn’t to preserve tradition for tradition’s sake. It’s to preserve what deserves preservation, while having the courage to change everything else.
Main Street Mindset will be on hiatus for a couple months. I look forward to coming back to you soon with some exciting news!