What conditions make an organization resistant to new ideas? How can leaders create environments where breakthroughs flourish instead of getting stifled?
In his book Seeing What Others Don’t, Gary Klein reveals how, too often, organizations are places that never give rise to new ideas. He identifies three major barriers to organizational insight and shares advice on how to build an insight-rich culture.
Continue reading to explore Klein’s strategies for breaking down these barriers and leading an organization where insights thrive.
Organizational Insight
Klein explains that, just as we sometimes create conditions for ourselves that make it harder for insight to emerge, organizations often accidentally create “insight-proof” environments in their pursuit of efficiency and predictability. In trying to keep their operations organized, leaders can inadvertently create an environment that discourages people from having and sharing insights that might disrupt business as usual but reveal a new way to understand or approach a problem the organization faces.
Klein offers organizational insight strategies for leaders who want to make their teams more conducive to breakthroughs.
Breaking Down Barriers
Klein writes that there are three challenges that keep organizations from being conducive to insight.
1. Placing a high priority on predictability: Klein explains that instead of rigidly following plans and schedules—as many organizations naturally do—leaders need to build flexibility into their timelines to accommodate new insights that might arise along the way. They should also reserve resources for unexpected opportunities. Plus, leaders should learn to celebrate productive pivots as much as they do perfect execution of a plan.
2. The drive for perfection: Klein explains that when organizations focus solely on eliminating errors, they create environments where people fear taking risks. But the same logical leaps and imaginative jumps that feel like risks in a corporate environment are often fertile ground for new insight. Klein says the solution is to create safe spaces for experimentation and to reframe failures as learning opportunities. This doesn’t mean abandoning standards: It means recognizing that building an innovative organization requires some tolerance for false starts and failed ideas.
3. Hierarchical structures: Klein explains that rigid corporate hierarchies often have the effect of filtering out insights before they reach decision-makers. To counter this effect, Klein recommends creating direct lines of communication between front-line staff and leaders. Leaders can also implement reverse mentoring programs, where junior staff share insights with senior leaders. And it never hurts to establish regular forums for sharing unconventional ideas.
| The Power of Structure: Lessons From the Bauhaus The Bauhaus school of design (1919-1933) is an example of how organizations can either suppress or nurture insights. Under the leadership of its founder, German architect Walter Gropius, the Bauhaus deliberately created an environment that challenged all three organizational barriers Klein identifies. While most art schools of the time followed rigid curricula, Gropius insisted on keeping the Bauhaus “in suspension, in flux.” He hired teachers before fully understanding their methods and encouraged experimental approaches. This embrace of uncertainty led to breakthrough innovations in design, from Marcel Breuer’s tubular steel furniture to new approaches in textile design. Instead of focusing on achieving perfection and eliminating errors, the Bauhaus created an environment where students were encouraged to experiment with materials in the preliminary course, and workshops emphasized process over product. Even the school’s famous parties and festivals were seen as forms of creative exploration. This tolerance for experimentation led to revolutionary insights about how art, craft, and industry could merge. Additionally, the Bauhaus replaced traditional academic hierarchies with what Gropius called “masters, journeymen, and apprentices.” Teachers were often practicing artists without formal teaching credentials, and students sometimes taught themselves and each other, particularly in the textile workshop. This fluid structure allowed insights to emerge from unexpected sources and spread rapidly through the community. The results were revolutionary: In just 14 years, the Bauhaus transformed how we think about design, architecture, and education. However, its insight-friendly environment proved threatening to those who valued predictability and control: The Nazi regime shut it down precisely because it was too open to new ideas and ways of thinking. |
Building an Insight-Rich Culture
Klein explains that in addition to breaking down the barriers that traditionally keep insights out of organizations, creating a culture that nurtures insights also requires adopting specific practices meant to encourage insight. Organizations should make space for discovery by encouraging teams to explore questions that they’re curious about. This might mean setting aside time in meetings for sharing surprising observations or creating physical and virtual spaces where people can share half-formed ideas.
Klein also reports that organizations’ reward systems need rethinking. Leaders should recognize people who identify important contradictions or make connections across department boundaries. Equally important is acknowledging valuable questions as much as answers—sometimes asking the right question is more important than having the right answer.
Perhaps most crucial is changing how people talk about new ideas. Replace “That’s not how we do things” with “Tell me more about that.” When someone shares a seemingly impossible idea, ask “What might make this crazy idea work?” instead of immediately finding flaws. Encourage people to share their doubts and uncertainties, recognizing that expressing uncertainty often leads to deeper understanding.
The key, Klein emphasizes, is creating an environment where insights are valued not just in principle but in practice. This means actively protecting the conditions that allow insights to emerge, even when they conflict with other organizational goals. Consider how Pixar handles creative challenges: When Ratatouille struggled in early development, despite six years of investment, the studio made the difficult decision to bring in a new director rather than push forward with a story that wasn’t working. Director Brad Bird was given the freedom to start from scratch with the script, even though this meant significant delays and costs.
While this practice of allowing major creative pivots conflicts with efficiency goals, it creates space for new insights that often lead to breakthrough solutions. Organizations that succeed in this balance, like Pixar, find themselves not just more innovative, but also more adaptable and resilient.
| The Architecture of Innovation: From Bell Labs to Lumon The building that once housed America’s greatest innovation factory now serves as the set for a show about its opposite: In Severance, the former Bell Labs building represents Lumon Industries, a company that systematically suppresses insight and innovation. This architectural repurposing offers a lens for understanding Klein’s principles about organizational barriers to insight. Consider how Bell Labs and Lumon represent opposing approaches to Klein’s three organizational challenges: The predictability trap: At Bell Labs, under Mervin Kelly’s leadership, the building was specifically designed to encourage random encounters between researchers from different disciplines. Floating walkways and conversation areas were meant to spark unexpected connections—literally building serendipity into the architecture. At Lumon, the same building is now portrayed as a maze of sterile white hallways where departments are strictly segregated and “interdepartmental fraternization” is forbidden. Even the most basic human connections are controlled through formal requests (“a handshake is available upon request”). The drive for perfection: At Bell Labs, when researchers noticed unexpected behavior in semiconductors, they were given resources to investigate further, leading to the invention of the transistor. Conversely, Lumon employees who question processes or notice contradictions are sent to the “Break Room” for punishment and forced to recite a “compunction statement” until their apologies are deemed sufficiently sincere. Hierarchical structures: Bell Labs researchers were given freedom to explore questions that interested them, even when immediate applications weren’t apparent. The organization valued both theoretical breakthroughs and practical applications. Lumon employees are kept deliberately ignorant of the purpose of their work, told only that it is “mysterious and important.” Any attempt to understand the larger context of their tasks is treated as insubordination. This contrast reveals how organizational structures can either nurture or suffocate insight. While Bell Labs created an environment where breakthrough thinking could flourish, modern organizations often recreate Lumon’s insight-suppressing conditions: rigid departmental divisions, punishment of questioning, and strict hierarchical control. The fact that the same building can represent both extremes suggests that the difference lies not in architecture but in organizational culture—in whether we choose to create conditions where insights can emerge or systematically suppress them. |
