Why initiative is the lifeblood of innovation, and fear the slowest form of failure:

In every successful organisation I’ve worked with, there has been a consistent undercurrent—sometimes formalised, sometimes quietly cultivated—that allowed people to act before being told, to test an idea without first forming a committee, to question the process without being accused of insubordination.

Conversely, in every faltering or frustrated enterprise, initiative had been replaced by compliance. People waited. They asked permission. And nothing moved unless the chain of command approved it with a flourish.

In systems engineering, responsiveness is not created by central control—it is enabled by local autonomy. This ensures both agility and resilience. Apply this to an organisation, and it’s clear: if decisions only happen at the top, the system is brittle. If every action requires clearance, the system slows. If initiative is punished—subtly or overtly—the system dies from within. The phrase “poke the box” refers to experimentation. You try something. You see what happens. You learn.

In contrast, I’ve seen a small engineering firm in the Netherlands flourish simply because the founder had a single golden rule: “If it’s legal and useful and takes under a day to test, or at least demonstrate viability, let’s do it.” 

That mindset led to a series of micro-innovations that cumulatively increased throughput in less than two years and motivated the staff.

Not because they now had more resources. But because they had fewer blockers. Many leaders say they want innovation. What they actually want is controlled success—innovation without risk, delay or deviation, or potential embarrassment. But Initiative is messy. It requires slack, it requires failure tolerance, and sometimes even not knowing the outcome beforehand.

Smart Questions to think about:

Prompt 1: If your organisation were designed to outlast your tenure at the company, how would you structure decision-making to promote initiative at scale? What might that even look like?

Prompt 2: What parts of your current culture assume “permission is needed -  when progress might demand autonomy?