I was recently reading this Forbes article1 on a colleague’s recommendation, asking the question, “Why So Many Leaders Say They Want Innovation But Reward Compliance”. The author’s answer is essentially that it is easy to talk about innovation, but because it is less predictable, then safe bets are rewarded by default and a vicious cycle ensues. Innovation is an optical illusion and idea seeds do not get planted.

I think there is another answer worth exploring. Steve Jobs has been quoted for saying, I’m paraphrasing, that “A’s hire A’s and B’s hire Cs and D’s” . I choose to think this quote speaks to multiple dimensions including creativity. My brief time on this earth tells me that most people are not that creative/innovative. And I suspect this Forbes article is on point that the reason why most people are not innovative, is it was beaten out of them at an early age. But an essay3 by Sam Altman, clarifies that risk taking on its own is not the winning answer, that you instead have to smell out the thing to do which makes sense, after lots of trial and error, despite the people comfort-zoning around you, discouraging you, and dive deep whenever you strike gold.

So also this really reminded me of the No Rules Rules Netflix book4, basically chapter 1 was that nothing else in this book matters unless you do chapter 1, which is, you got to hire the right people. You have to read between the lines to know what they mean by the “right people” but I think it comes down to the entrepreneurial mindset–vision and good taste matched with pragmatic execution.

I have been on many teams where it is true that even one person can suck the energy out of a room. On a Netflix team I understand that people with the hater mindset would get a healthy severance and a hand gesturing at the exit. However most companies are fine hiring people who pooh-pooh ideas and when the preference for predictability borders on safetyism, then the symptom is the root cause.

But beyond all of the mixed signaling, a company can also explicitly discourage risk. I have recently written2 about my first experience of PI Planning, because my company is doubling down on predictability.

So what is the reality for people who have nurtured their spark, and have been fanning their flame their whole lives? I think the boring answer to the whole, “we want innovation and reward compliance” paradox is: just like haters are going to hate, innovators are going to innovate. Innovative people will be innovative despite being discouraged because that high of blowing peoples minds with cool things you do is worth it every time. The alternative is unthinkable.

The spark of hope is that if folks at a company get together Phoenix Project8 style, post-it-noting their way out of a crisis, everyone works together and it feels great. But more often than not, decay burns slow until it is too late.

In the end, all the formal planning rituals don’t matter-—because when people don’t feel safe innovating in the open, they’ll just move their creativity behind closed doors, defeating the purpose of planning. And when they succeed they will show cool results, and if they have ready made success to show, no one will say don’t do it because it is already done.

I heard recently5 that it’s not that Google no longer has a 20% culture, it’s just that people started calling it their 120% culture.

Bringing it back home, I like that the initial Forbes article suggests to “reward innovation more”, and make sure lead by example. They write, to foster a culture of risk taking, leaders wax curious, asking more questions than they are answering. I have been to many a town hall where the only question you hear is “are there any questions for us”.

Going back to perspectives from Google, the other helpful bit I learned from here5, is about the published Software Engineering at Google, published in 2020, long after 2013 when the combination of layoffs and OKRs taking hold formally slid 20%ism into the graveyard. This book to me reads that even when reality has evolved a company ino a conservative animal, you still have room for trust,

Traditional managers worry about how to get things done, whereas great managers worry about what things get done (and trust their team to figure out how to do it).7

and maybe they write their OKRs using the bold and inspiring language that Intel originally intended,

Risk is a fascinating thing; most humans are terrible at evaluating risk, and most companies try to avoid risk at all costs. As a result, the usual modus operandi is to work conservatively and focus on smaller successes, even when taking a bigger risk might mean exponentially greater success. A common saying at Google is that if you try to achieve an impossible goal, there’s a good chance you’ll fail, but if you fail trying to achieve the impossible, you’ll most likely accomplish far more than you would have accomplished had you merely attempted something you knew you could complete. A good way to build a culture in which risk taking is accepted is to let your team know that it’s OK to fail.7

References

  1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianehamilton/2025/11/05/why-so-many-leaders-say-they-want-innovation-but-reward-compliance/
  2. pi planning predictability (work in progress)
  3. https://blog.samaltman.com/how-to-be-successful
  4. No Rules Rules, Reed Hastings, Erin Meyer
  5. Google’s engineering culture, https://youtube.com/watch?v=sj9Q2VcfUeA
  6. https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book
  7. https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/ch05.html#manager_is_a_four-letter_word
  8. phoenix project https://www.google.com/search?q=phoenix+project