Many of us have been stalled or blocked from progressing with newly formed ideas, thoughts, programs or processes because a particular group or leader did not think of it first. Perhaps an innovative safety approach was put forward in an inopportune way and was viewed as very “external to others” and was brought to an abrupt halt. Well, all of this is about the “not invented here” (NIH) phenomena.
Although NIH is commonly talked about in management circles, its theoretical and empirical underpinnings are somewhat shallow and vague. Nonetheless NIH is real and occurs regularly. And even though there are individual and group biases that support our understanding of NIH, the attitudinal and behavioral antecedents and consequences are not well understood. Nonetheless, NIH continues to hinder the advancement of safety performance.
Although the antecedent and consequent conditions of NIH are not well founded, we can rely on common psychological constructs to help us better understand the “whys” behind NIH. In general, individuals and groups may want to protect their knowledge and self-serving identity within their organizations so specific roles and positions can remain without disruption. Groups may want to maintain specific relationships with others that could be threatened by the NIH phenomena. And still more, there may be a desire to control particular outcomes that could be threatened by external sources of innovation or advancement. Such outcomes advanced by external sources and NIH may harm the careers or positions of various organizational members.
In other ways, we can see the harmful outcomes of NIH on three different levels that uniquely hinders safety advancement on a broader scale and scope.
In associations within our own profession and practice, competing thoughts and schools for advancing safety can offer a healthy vetting process. Unique ideas, concepts, principles, and solutions from external sources quite distant from regularly accepted safety-related sources may offer possibilities not otherwise known.
In our organizations we need to acknowledge that NIH exists even in the best of firms. And we need to remain open to evaluate and accept innovative thoughts and ideas from other groups within our companies and from those outside of our industries, organizations, commonly accepted disciplines, and practices.
As individuals we need to recognize that there are many schools of thought and approaches to improve safety and we must remain open to use a wide variety of supporting ideas, disciplines, and approaches. These sources will help us to remain innovative and engaging for our organizational members, and help our leaders to continually advance our cultures for safety.
Astute and intellectually honest leaders need to recognize, and at times, incentivize innovative advancements regardless of the source, the distance, design, or dissimilarities from those that we are most used to, and which bring us the most comfort. Any school of thought that brings too much comfort will end up bringing too little advancement. In contrast, difficult ideas, concepts, and constructs that usher in discomfort, may be the most beneficial in bringing about the most creative and impactful types of safety advancement.
Leaders must become appropriately open to external innovations in order to unlock the doors to more advancement through increasingly creative solutions.
Antons, D. and Piller, F.T. (2015). Opening the Black Box of “Not Invented Here”: Attitudes, Decision Biases, and Behavioral Consequences. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29 (2), 193-217.