Have you ever heard of the term, “Active Inertia”? Sounds like a contradiction in terms doesn’t it?

Surely it is either ‘action’ or non-action, or ‘inertia’… it cannot be both, can it?

Fair point, but what we are going to look at is why so many of us get stuck in a rut, through action, rather than non-action.

The term, “Active Inertia” was first coined by Donald Sull, where Sull noted that “management’s tendency to respond to the most disruptive changes by accelerating activities that succeeded in the past” leads to many companies going the way of the dodo.

I like the French expression, “On ne change pas une équipe qui gagne” – Don’t change a winning team, or maybe in English, don’t fix it if it isn’t broken – to illustrate this.

Sull refers to reaction to changes, as going in the opposite direction – instead of raising the head above the parapet, we just keep digging until the hole becomes so deep that direction is totally lost.

The main reason for this, ostensibly, irrational reaction is that inertia or inaction is seen as a negative phenomena, and in times of radical change in business or in an organisation, action is what gets things done … isn’t it?

One vital point is that inaction has the same effect at its root as action – something happens – it is impossible to do nothing – even if we think we are doing nothing, we are in fact doing something.

If we don’t take a decision, we have in fact taken a decision, sometimes without knowing it, there are always consequences.

Sull’s studies focused on volatile industries in volatile markets, where he advocated the forming of ‘fuzzy vision’ in order to attempt to achieve a cutting edge in business where certainties were composed, in the majority, of uncertainties. 

The upshot being that companies that engaged in preparing for the future, no matter how uncertain that future vision was, in what Sull termed, “Active waiting”, were able to respond quicker to change that those who carried on headlong with traditional strategies – it works now – why shouldn’t it work in the future.

Anyone who has a passing knowledge of NLP will recognise one of the presuppositions of NLP within this – if what you are doing isn’t working, try something else.

The difficulty in business and in organisations is that the machinery and gearing which drives the organisation is so heavy to get going, that it is often very difficult to veer away from the course that is charted – and so much easier to keep full-steam-ahead – or at least that is one excuse.

It can be triggered by arrogance – our products / services are the best in the world; Why change?

Or by success – there’s no looking back, and certainly no need to look under the bonnet and tinker with the engine, which is running well.

Some of the elements that hamper innovation, in both production terms and in thinking within an organisation (or individuals), contributing to active inertia can be:

1. The values and beliefs held by the organisation and often vehiculed by the organisation’s mission statement – usually intended to forge shared vision for the future of the organisation, can in fact act as blinkers or a restrictive influence.

2. Processes and procedures set-in-stone, bureaucracy and red-tape which slow the mechanisms and decision-making processes.

3. Died-in-the-wool strategies that are bound and tied to received ideas of the marketplace and technology.

4. Risk-Taking deficit – not being prepared to assess and take risks that inevitably are an integral part of a change process.

There are many theories as to why Active Inertia occurs in companies, and let’s face it there are some big companies that have fallen prey to this, including, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Apple and Firestone.

Perhaps one of the most credible reasons for avoiding this is the price that it costs – if the price of Not changing is perceived to be higher than the price of change, then there is a good chance that change will be embraced more as a necessity than as an inevitability – although it can be a blend of the two which forms the catalyst.

Nevertheless, change needs to incorporate 5 Cs in order to be in any way successful: 1. Commitment

2. Courage

3. Clarity

4. Credidibility

5. Core values

Change involves a certain notion of loss, which is not present in Active Inertia.

Active Inertia attempts to mummify and eternalise what has gone before and that which is well past the sell-by-date, that doesn’t challenge strategy or existing practices or thought processes nor put things into question – it is, perhaps a comfortable situation, that avoids the discomfort of change, but which inevitably leads to discomfort.

Let’s be clear, we are not talking about change for the sake of change, we are talking about survival – sink or swim.

It could be argued that Active Inertia comes about through an imbalance between management and leadership – if leaders are not doing what is written on the tin, then they  will manage – producing, in most cases, Active Inertia.

This may be one of the contributing factors to the worldwide financial crisis and the failure of so many of the big-name banks and large corporations, although some will argue that it emanated through ambivolence and a lack of courage Q.E.D!