Innovation drives growth and performance. That’s good. It also has the potential to challenge the status quo. That hasn’t always been considered a good thing.

In 1548, King Edward VI — or one of his advisers, we can safely assume, as the king was then 10 years old — issued “A Proclamation Against Those That Doeth Innouate.” At that time, challenging the status quo meant questioning God or the king. As sociologist Benoît Godin noted in his book Innovation Contested, “The innovator was a deviate, or rather a defiant. He takes liberties in thinking and action … contrary to the established order and orthodoxy.”1

The royal proclamation noted that innovation drove confusion and disorder, which would be displeasing to an order- and obedience-loving God. It specifically cautioned against innovations in religious rights or ceremonies. The first English king raised as a Protestant, Edward promised that religious innovators would “suffre imprisonment, and other grievous punishments, at his maiejsties wil and pleasure.”2

It’s easy to dismiss the proclamation as a relic of its time, focused narrowly on religious rituals. Many modern organizations, however, naturally act as if the proclamation against innovation is still in effect inside their organization by putting up barriers that stall internal innovation efforts. Overcoming those barriers requires identifying three distinct shadows that innovation casts.

Changing Power Dynamics

In the 1960s, Harvard Business School professor Joe Bower spent two years immersed in the workings of a large industrial company to observe how it made decisions. He came to realize that resource allocation was an intensely human and subjective process. Senior leaders received proposals that were shaped by the motivations and desires of the people submitting them. Those leaders, with their respective motivations and desires, considered both the proposals and what they knew about the people proposing them.

Innovation changes internal power dynamics. The creation of a new line of business leads to a legacy line of business declining or, at an extreme, shutting down or being spun out. One part of the organization wins; another loses. Why would a department put forward or support a proposal that would put that department out of business or lead it to lose organizational influence? That means senior leaders might never see a proposal that’s good for the whole organization if it is bad for one part of the organization.

Alternatively, consider adopting a new IT system, which creates new rules and roles, and information that feeds decision-making. That’s good for some, and less good for others. Slow technology adoption might not be the result of an aversion to change; it could simply be a group or function seeking to maintain relevance for as long as possible.

It’s important to recognize the potential negative impact of innovation. Bring as much neutrality as you can into important resource-allocation decisions while acknowledging and seeking to mitigate the downside to anyone on the short end of the innovation stick.

* * *

The process of innovation has ups and downs, winners and losers. Like anything new, it can be scary, painful, and threatening. If you don’t see innovation’s shadow, it can swallow you. Awareness allows you to step into the light and realize the transformational power of innovation.