THE PARADOX OF SUCCESS: WHY ORGANIZATIONS FAIL TO LEARN – PART 2

In Part 1 of this article, I explored how the success and action biases shape organizational culture and affect our decisions. We saw how the success bias can lead us to ignore external factors and underestimate chance, and how the action bias can result in valuing immediate action over strategic reflection. Recognizing and understanding these biases is fundamental to creating a more adaptable and resilient environment.
In this second part, we will deepen our analysis by addressing two additional biases: the adaptation bias and the expert bias. The adaptation bias refers to the tendency to maintain outdated practices and processes even when it is evident that changes are necessary. On the other hand, the expert bias highlights the overvaluation of the experience and opinions of a specific group or individual, which can limit the inclusion of new perspectives and innovations.
The importance of this second part lies in understanding how these biases impact the ability of organizations to learn and adapt over time. Understanding and overcoming the adaptation bias allows organizations to adjust more effectively to market changes and new opportunities. Recognizing the expert bias helps ensure that all voices and ideas are considered, promoting a culture of innovation and inclusion.
Thus, in this second part, I will explore these biases and how they impact and influence organizational adaptation and decision-making, and I will present practical strategies to address them. By doing so, you will be better equipped to deal with the paradox of success and promote a work environment that not only resists change but also thrives in a constantly evolving landscape.

3. ADAPTATION BIAS: THE TENDENCY TO NORMALIZE NEW CIRCUMSTANCES

The adaptation bias describes the human tendency to quickly adjust to new situations, whether positive or negative. Although this capacity for adaptation is essential for coping with changes, it can lead to underestimating the lasting impacts of significant events. However, it is crucial to distinguish between Adaptation and Resilience:
Adaptation refers to the process of adjusting to new circumstances. It is the ability to modify behaviors and perceptions to fit a new status quo. Adaptation can be a quick response to changes, but it can also lead to a normalization of problems. For example, when a company implements a cost-cutting policy, employees may initially resist but eventually accept the reduction of benefits as the new normal, minimizing the continuous future impacts.
Resilience, on the other hand, is the capacity to recover and thrive after adversity. It is the ability to return to the original state or even become stronger after facing difficulties. Resilience involves not only adaptation but also active recovery and the pursuit of continuous improvements. For example, a product development team that faces initial criticism, adjusts the product, and implements improvements based on feedback demonstrates resilience because they not only adapt to changes but also seek continuous enhancement.
I think it’s clear now that Adaptation is not Resilience, and differentiating them is fundamental to organizational success, especially when we talk about culture and climate. In social psychology, the adaptation bias is explained by the phenomenon of habituation, where people get used to new experiences over the medium to long term, reducing the perception of ongoing effects and accepting the present state as the new normal. In behavioral psychology, adaptation occurs through reinforcement and extinction processes, where stimuli that initially cause stress or pleasure lose their emotional intensity. In neuroscience, adaptation is linked to neural plasticity and reward systems, which are activated by exposure to new challenges and learning.
The brain is highly receptive to new experiences, and the pursuit of novelty can stimulate neural plasticity, promoting the formation of new connections and maintaining engagement, in addition to generating pleasure. However, we also tend to quickly get used to repeated stimuli, which can lead to a reduction in emotional response and interest over time in new changes and challenges. Here are some examples of how the adaptation bias can manifest:

• Organizational Culture: A company adopts a cost-cutting policy in response to a recession. Initially, there is resistance, but over time, employees get used to the reduction in benefits, accepting it as normal without questioning the impacts on morale and productivity.
• Product Development: A startup launches a new product and receives mixed feedback. Instead of adjusting the product based on the critiques, the team waits to see how the market adapts, which can lead to normalizing problems and compromising customer satisfaction.
• Automation System: A company adopts a new automation system that faces initial problems. Management decides not to review the system, and employees get used to suboptimal processes, normalizing the deficiencies.
• COVID-19 Pandemic: Many companies adopted remote work temporarily. Over time, challenges like the lack of personal interaction were normalized, leading to a tacit acceptance of problems that could be addressed with creative solutions or strategic adjustments.

Recognizing the adaptation bias is essential to avoid the normalization of problems and promote a critical and proactive approach in the face of change. Understanding and applying resilience—which involves adaptation and the pursuit of continuous improvements—are fundamental to long-term success.

Challenge #1: The Danger of Over-Adjusting to Norms
From an early age, we are taught to follow rules and social and organizational norms, believing that conformity is the key to success. However, this blind adherence can limit our ability to innovate and stand out. Steve Jobs provoked deep reflection when he said, “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.” True potential arises when we are brave enough to challenge the status quo and express unconventional ideas.
Neuroscientist Francesca Gino, in collaboration with Silvia Bellezza and Anat Keinan, discovered in their experiments that non-traditional behaviors, such as presenting a unique perspective during a meeting or adopting an innovative presentation format, often elevate perceptions of competence and status. The challenge is to find the balance between conformity and authenticity, recognizing that innovation often arises from the willingness to stand out.
For example, employees may initially feel excited about new work policies, such as flexible hours or a more modern environment. However, if the company does not introduce continuous mechanisms to value these changes and present new challenges or engagement strategies, these innovative aspects can become part of the “new normal.” As a result, the enthusiasm and appreciation for the changes diminish. Adaptation makes these improvements routine and, therefore, less impactful.

Challenge #2: Loss of Individual Potential in Excessive Adaptation
When employees rigidly adjust to organizational expectations, there is a tendency to suppress their natural talents and strengths. According to a Gallup study, an affirmative response to the question “At work, do you have the opportunity to do what you do best every day?” is a crucial indicator of high engagement and performance. When people feel encouraged to use their unique skills and adopt a personalized approach, they reveal their true potential. Excessive adaptation can inhibit curiosity, the desire to learn, and perseverance. Many hesitate to take the initiative for fear of deviating from the norm, but true growth comes from the courage to explore and apply personal skills to make a difference.
A real example is the case of Microsoft during the cultural transformation period under the leadership of Satya Nadella. In an effort to make the company more collaborative and adaptive, Microsoft initially focused on a more uniform and controlled approach. However, this led to a sense that creativity and innovation were being stifled by rigid norms and uniform expectations.
Recognizing this problem, Microsoft adjusted its approach to allow more flexibility and individual expression. The company promoted a culture of growth and learning, encouraging employees to bring their unique skills and ideas to work. This adjustment helped revitalize innovation and creativity, demonstrating that adaptation needs to be balanced with valuing individual contributions.

Challenge #3: Settling into the “New Normal”
The adaptation bias can lead to a tacit acceptance of new conditions or problems once they become the new standard. For example, as seen earlier during the pandemic, many companies normalized the challenges of remote work, such as the lack of personal interaction and team management issues, instead of seeking innovative solutions. The challenge is to resist the temptation to settle and to keep questioning and adjusting practices to maintain effectiveness and well-being.

Challenge #4: Challenging Stagnation After Implementing New Strategies
After introducing new processes or systems, the tendency is to settle into the new status quo, even if the expected improvements do not fully materialize. For example, a company might implement a new automation system and then stop reviewing its effectiveness after the initial implementation phase. The challenge is to establish continuous evaluation and adjustment mechanisms to ensure that changes bring sustainable benefits and continuous improvements.

Challenge #5: Avoiding the Normalization of Problems
Over time, initial difficulties tend to be accepted as part of the routine, reducing the urgency to find solutions. For example, a startup might ignore negative customer feedback, expecting the market to adapt. The challenge is to maintain a critical and proactive mindset even after the initial adaptation to ensure ongoing problems are addressed and solved effectively.
To overcome the adaptation bias and maximize employee potential, leaders can employ a series of effective strategies. First, it is essential to promote an environment that values and utilizes the individual strengths of employees. Instead of merely allowing employees to dedicate part of their time to personal activities, organizations should integrate these skills and interests into daily responsibilities. This not only enriches the work but also keeps employees engaged and motivated.
Managers should play an active role in identifying and developing the unique skills and talents of each team member. Rather than limiting themselves to sporadic discussions during annual performance reviews, it is crucial to have ongoing conversations about how to apply and enhance these skills in daily tasks.
Furthermore, positive feedback is a powerful tool to encourage the use of strengths. When leaders and colleagues recognize and celebrate an employee’s specific achievements and skills, it creates an environment of appreciation and recognition. Studies show that positive reinforcement not only triggers beneficial emotions but also helps us perceive the positive impact we have on others. This recognition strengthens self-efficacy and encourages employees to excel and apply their skills more effectively instead of merely conforming to the status quo.
Creating a culture where constructive feedback and recognition are part of daily routines can make a significant difference, allowing employees to use their talents more fully and impactfully in their work. To transform the relationship between employees and the organization and overcome the adaptation bias, I also suggest adopting an approach that values individual potential and promotes deeper engagement.
The “magic” word is Belonging. Often, employees view their job as a monetary transaction, where minimal effort is employed, resulting in low levels of engagement and satisfaction. To reverse this dynamic, it is essential to adopt practices that strengthen personal connection and recognition of employees’ potential, making them feel, above all, that they belong. In other words, creating an environment where employees feel integrally connected to the organization’s values and goals, promoting a sense of community and shared purpose.
When employees perceive that their contributions are valuable and that they have a significant role within the company, motivation and engagement are elevated, and adaptation to new conditions becomes more productive and less limited by complacency. This sense of belonging not only improves performance and job satisfaction but also encourages continuous innovation and growth, challenging the status quo and embracing new opportunities.
Implementing an integration system that focuses on humanizing, whether through compliments or recognizing the skills and achievements of new employees, can have a significant impact. In a large case study conducted at a renowned global consulting firm, it was observed that adopting an integration process that emphasized individual recognition and appreciation helped transform employees’ transactional view of work. This approach led to reduced burnout, lower turnover, and improved overall team performance. A similar study conducted at a call center in India corroborated these findings, showing that valuing the individual during integration was strongly associated with lower turnover and higher customer satisfaction.
Executives interested in promoting an environment where employees’ talents and passions are fully recognized and utilized should reflect on the following questions:

1. Do I Know My Employees’ Talents and Passions?
Evaluating whether there is a deep understanding of employees’ skills and interests is crucial for directing their potential effectively.
2. Do I Talk to Them About What They Excel At and What They Can Improve?
Maintaining an open dialogue about competencies and areas for development helps align individual goals with those of the organization.
3. Do Our Goals and Objectives Consider Maximizing Employees’ Potential?
The organization’s goals should be formulated in a way that encourages and leverages employees’ strengths, promoting mutual growth.

Always Go Beyond!

By focusing on continuous development and recognizing individual talents, organizations can not only increase employee engagement and satisfaction but also achieve better results and greater team stability. To promote a safer and more effective work environment, it is essential to go beyond traditional management and feedback practices. Raising awareness and engaging employees are crucial steps to addressing issues and improving workplace safety.
I had the opportunity to observe a manufacturing company where the leadership implemented an innovative approach to improving workplace safety and employee engagement. Instead of limiting themselves to annual reports and passive training, the company launched the “Collaborative Safety Challenge,” a program that involves all levels of the organization in identifying and resolving safety risks.
The program started with the creation of cross-functional teams composed of employees from different departments. These teams were challenged to identify risk areas in their respective work areas and propose creative solutions to mitigate them. Each suggestion was evaluated and implemented, with senior management showing empathy by listening to their employees, and the team members who presented the best ideas were recognized in a quarterly ceremony.
Moreover, the company introduced a “Culture of Active Feedback,” where managers hold weekly meetings with their teams to openly discuss safety issues and share successes. During these meetings, leaders not only provide updates but also actively solicit suggestions from employees to improve processes and enhance safety.
A notable example occurred when a production team identified a potential issue with new equipment. Instead of simply following standard procedures, the team suggested design modifications to improve operational safety. These suggestions were implemented, and the entire team received a special award in recognition of their valuable contribution. The initiative not only improved the equipment’s safety but also encouraged other employees to actively participate in identifying and solving problems.
This example demonstrates how active participation and employee recognition can transform the safety approach into a collaborative and engaging experience, promoting a safer and more productive work environment.
To implement these practices in your organization, consider:

• Raising Awareness: Use interactive and challenging methods to engage employees in identifying and solving safety issues.
• Promoting Transparency: Share relevant safety data and results openly and accessibly.
• Fostering Active Improvement: Turn safety meetings into opportunities for discussion and problem-solving rather than simple training sessions.
• Leading by Example: Demonstrate the desired behavior and value employees’ assertiveness regarding safety.

Google is a classic example of a company proactively addressing the adaptation bias. Initially, the company prioritized innovation and flexibility policies, allowing employees to dedicate up to 20% of their time to personal projects and experiments. This encouraged creativity and led to significant innovations, such as Gmail and Google News. However, even a culture of innovation like Google’s faces the risk of normalizing its innovative practices. Recently, the company has faced criticism regarding the need to maintain continuous innovation, despite its strong internal culture. To avoid complacency, Google implemented new incentive programs and changes in leadership structure to ensure that innovative practices do not become obsolete.
The adaptation bias reminds us that the human capacity to adjust to new circumstances can be a powerful force, but also a trap. In a world where change is the only constant, true mastery lies not only in adapting to the new normal but in continually challenging and reinventing the status quo. Adaptation is an essential tool for survival and success, but it is resilience—the ability to learn, grow, and improve beyond changes—that ensures lasting prosperity. Consider the case of Netflix, which exemplifies how to face adaptation bias in a rapidly changing industry. When the company started as a DVD rental service, it quickly adapted to the growing demand for streaming and digital content. However, to avoid complacency with the “new normal” of streaming, Netflix invested heavily in original content production and data analysis to personalize the user experience. Continuous adaptation and a willingness to challenge their own limits have helped Netflix maintain its leadership position in a highly competitive market. The company frequently reassesses its strategies and quickly adjusts to changes in consumer preferences, showing how continuous innovation is essential to avoid normalizing a successful business model.
As leaders and professionals, we must cultivate a culture that not only accepts change but embraces it as an opportunity for innovation and growth. We need to remember that true potential arises not only from accepting the new but from questioning, refining, and transforming it. By challenging the status quo and encouraging authenticity, we can turn adaptation into a driving force rather than a comfort zone. Ultimately, it is in the relentless pursuit of excellence and the courage to stand out that we find the true path to success and fulfillment.

4. EXPERT BIAS: BLIND TRUST IN AUTHORITY

Since the early 20th century, the scientific management movement, led by figures such as Frederick Taylor, introduced a rigorous approach to examining and optimizing organizational operations. Over time, the notion that experts and consultants are the most reliable sources for guiding improvements and innovations in companies has become entrenched. This bias continues to prevail, leading many organizations to seek the opinions of consultants, industrial engineers, and specialized teams to address challenges and implement improvements.
The Expert Bias, also known as the Knowledge Expertise Bias, reveals people’s propensity to excessively trust the opinions of experts or authorities in a specific field without critically questioning their premises or conclusions. This bias can limit the consideration of alternative perspectives and new relevant information, negatively affecting decision-making.
In social psychology, the Expert Bias can be understood as a reflection of the human tendency to follow authority figures and conform to established opinions. In organizational contexts, this can mean a reluctance to challenge the status quo or explore new approaches, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Behavioral psychology highlights how the perceived expertise of an expert can lead to uncritical acceptance of their recommendations, especially when these align with pre-existing expectations or desires for confirmation.
From a neuroscience perspective, the tendency to blindly trust experts can be associated with the activation of brain areas related to pattern recognition and quick decision-making based on known information. This can create resistance to considering new perspectives that challenge established knowledge.
Consider a company that decides to adopt a new disruptive technology to optimize its internal processes. A renowned expert in the field recommends a specific solution based on their success history in other industries. The company’s leaders, trusting the authority and reputation of the expert, choose to follow their guidance without conducting a thorough evaluation of the company’s specific needs or considering viable alternatives.
During implementation, significant challenges arise, such as integration issues with legacy systems, employee resistance to change, and initial results falling short of expectations. The Expert Bias can influence leaders to hesitate in questioning the choice of technology or adapting the initial strategy, thereby limiting the company’s ability to adjust to new circumstances and maximize the benefits of the implementation.
Do you remember the case of Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes? The Theranos case is emblematic of the expert bias, highlighting how blind trust in authority can lead to disastrous decisions. Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of Theranos, built an image of a visionary by promising to revolutionize blood testing with innovative technology. Her ability to project an aura of expertise and conviction was sufficient to win over high-profile investors and advisors.
However, what was overlooked was the lack of critical questioning and the absence of rigorous technical verification. Many were seduced by Holmes’s impressive narrative and charisma, accepting her promises without the proper analysis of the scientific evidence supporting the technology. This phenomenon is a classic example of how excessive trust in an expert can obscure the need for independent investigation and detailed analysis of claims.
The lack of robust internal scrutiny and the rush to embrace what seemed to be a revolutionary innovation without proper technical validation resulted in a collapse not only of expectations but of the integrity of Theranos’s technology. This case underscores the importance of not just trusting authority figures but ensuring that all promises and innovations are subjected to rigorous and critical examination.
And what about the Enron case? The Enron case is a powerful example of how blind trust in a renowned auditing firm can lead to catastrophic failures and fraudulent practices. Enron, known for its innovative strategies in the energy sector, was actually covering up its true financial situation through fraudulent accounting practices.
Arthur Andersen, one of the top five auditing firms at the time, was responsible for Enron’s audit. The reputation and authority of Arthur Andersen were widely accepted by both investors and regulators, creating an environment where critical oversight was severely compromised. Enron’s leadership, including Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, exploited this trust to the fullest, using Arthur Andersen’s prestige to reinforce the credibility of their manipulative accounting practices.
The expert bias was clearly manifested here: excessive trust in Arthur Andersen’s reputation discouraged a deeper, independent critical analysis of Enron’s practices. Instead of questioning or investigating potential red flags, investors and regulators complied with the assurances provided by the auditing firm, believing that Arthur Andersen’s expertise and authority guaranteed Enron’s compliance and transparency.
When the fraud was eventually discovered in 2001, Enron declared bankruptcy, and Arthur Andersen faced severe consequences, including the loss of its reputation and eventually the closure of the firm. This case illustrates how excessive trust in an authority figure can not only obscure deceptive practices but also contribute to a lack of accountability and a devastating collapse.
Finally, there is also the Kodak case. The Kodak example is emblematic in illustrating the adverse effects of expert bias, showing how excessive reliance on past knowledge and practices can hinder adaptation to new technologies. Kodak, once an undisputed leader in the film photography market, became obsolete because it failed to adapt to the rise of digital photography.
For decades, Kodak dominated the market with its expertise in photographic films and analog cameras. The company’s success and long history built immense confidence in its traditional methods, creating an environment where radical innovation was met with skepticism. Kodak relied too heavily on its accumulated expertise, believing that its established methods were superior and more reliable than emerging new approaches.
However, the digital revolution brought new opportunities and challenges. Kodak had the technical capacity and resources to explore digital photography, but its mindset was rigidly anchored in past knowledge. The company hesitated to fully invest in digital technologies, underestimating the importance of adapting its products and services to the changing market.
To avoid such pitfalls, Kodak could have adopted an internal culture that valued constant questioning and experimentation. Challenging its own assumptions and encouraging a mindset of continuous innovation might have facilitated adaptation to new market realities. Instead of clinging rigidly to the past, Kodak could have promoted a more critical and open approach, exploring new technologies and adjusting its strategy to align with emerging trends.
This case highlights the importance of maintaining an adaptive and critical mindset, even when holding established expertise. Excessive trust in past knowledge can be detrimental, and the ability to question, innovate, and adapt to changes is crucial for the sustainability and growth of any organization.

Challenge #1: Restrictive Definition of Expertise
Many organizations limit the definition of “expert” to formal credentials such as advanced degrees, certifications, and years of experience with major companies. However, expertise is not a one-dimensional variable; it results from a combination of practical experiences, including direct customer interactions, specific problem-solving, and engagement with various groups within the organization.
This bias can lead to a narrow evaluation of individuals’ skills, overlooking practical knowledge acquired outside traditional qualifications. While accumulated experience generally enhances competence, it can also harden resistance to new approaches and information that challenge the status quo. Specialized knowledge can create a bubble that restricts vision and hinders the acceptance of innovative perspectives.
This reminds me of a case I witnessed at one of the world’s largest grain companies. The company, known for hiring only the top consultancies and experts with advanced certificates and diplomas, decided to incorporate a local cooperative. Although the consultants were highly qualified, they lacked familiarity with the local climate and dynamics, as well as the practical needs of suppliers and storage structures.
Former managers of the cooperative, who had been dismissed due to their lack of certificates and diplomas, possessed deep knowledge of operations and local realities. Initially disregarded, these managers were eventually rehired when it became clear that their practical experience and direct understanding of local interactions were crucial for effective integration. Their insights were essential in adapting the company’s systems and processes to the local context.
This example illustrates how a restrictive definition of “expert,” centered solely on formal credentials, can limit understanding and application of practical solutions. Recognizing and valuing practical expertise, acquired through direct experience and interaction with real problems, is crucial for overcoming challenges and adopting innovative approaches. The company learned that a more holistic view of expertise, combining both formal credentials and practical experience, is essential for innovation and success.

Challenge #2: Lack of Front-Line Employee Involvement
Employees directly involved in creating, delivering, and interacting with customers possess a unique and valuable perspective on day-to-day processes and problems. However, these individuals are often not properly empowered or encouraged to actively participate in identifying and solving problems.
Even in companies that embrace “lean thinking” philosophies, which aim to promote continuous improvement through contributions from all organizational levels, the common practice is to maintain established processes, favoring recommendations from specialists. This detachment from front-line employees not only limits the identification of improvement opportunities but also ignores the critical knowledge they possess.
Consider a common scenario in companies hiring consultancies for behavioral development. Imagine a large retail chain that implemented a new customer service strategy aimed at improving the consumer experience. Although the company conducted extensive training and hired specialized consultants to develop the new approach, the lack of involvement of front-line employees resulted in poor execution of the strategy.
Store employees, who interact directly with customers and understand their needs and challenges well, were not consulted during the development of the new strategy. The management team and consultants focused on market data and benchmarks without considering feedback from employees who deal with customers daily and face specific operational issues. As a result, several important issues were overlooked. For example, employees knew that some of the new service procedures were impractical for the store environment and that the new point-of-sale technology, despite being advanced, was incompatible with the existing workflow. They had valuable suggestions on how to adapt the strategy to be more effective in daily operations.
This case highlights the importance of involving front-line employees in strategy development and execution. Their firsthand experience and insights are crucial for creating practical, effective solutions and avoiding pitfalls that can arise from a lack of ground-level input.

Challenge #3: Excessive Dependence on External Consultants
While external consultants bring valuable insights and a fresh approach to organizational challenges, excessive reliance on them can create an environment where their opinions are accepted without question. To avoid this trap, it is crucial to balance the contributions of consultants with internal solutions and the knowledge of employees who are immersed in the company’s culture and processes.
For example, a company that relies too heavily on consultants to solve efficiency problems might start integrating its own employees into the analysis and resolution of these issues. This can be done by creating internal continuous improvement teams that work alongside consultants to ensure that the proposed solutions are adapted to the specific context of the company and its day-to-day needs.

Challenge #4: Resistance to Internal Innovation
Trusting external experts can weaken an organization’s ability to develop and implement innovative solutions internally. To overcome this resistance, organizations must invest in developing their employees’ skills and capabilities, fostering a culture of internal innovation.
A practical approach would be to establish ongoing training programs and encourage internal experimentation. For example, creating innovation labs where employees can test new ideas and develop prototypes can stimulate creativity and allow the organization to discover innovative solutions without solely relying on external consultants.

Challenge #5: Ignoring Specific Contexts
Experts may have deep knowledge in their fields, but they may not fully understand the specific context of an organization. To avoid applying generic solutions that do not address the company’s real needs, it is essential to tailor solutions to the specific context.
An effective strategy would be to involve representatives from different areas of the company in the development and implementation of solutions. Conducting workshops and co-creation sessions with employees from various levels and departments can help ensure that the proposed solutions are aligned with the organization’s reality and particular needs.

Challenge #6: Barriers to Constructive Criticism
The presence of experts can create an environment where constructive criticism is discouraged. To foster an environment where constructive criticism is welcomed, it is important to promote a culture of openness and collaboration.
An example would be to implement a 360-degree feedback system, where all team members, including experts, receive regular and constructive feedback from their peers. Additionally, encouraging review and reflection sessions after implementing new strategies can help identify areas for improvement and promote continuous learning.
In our journey to tackle the challenges that arise from the influence of experts, it is essential for leaders and managers to adopt effective practices to mitigate the negative impacts of this bias. Solutions lie not only in identifying pitfalls but also in implementing concrete strategies that promote a resilient and adaptable organizational culture.
To address excessive dependence on external consultants, it is crucial to cultivate a robust internal approach. Invest in the continuous development of your teams, fostering a mindset of learning and innovation within the organization. Encourage collaboration between consultants and employees to ensure that solutions are tailored to the specific reality and needs of the company.
When facing resistance to internal innovation, the key is to create an environment where experimentation and creative thinking are encouraged. Establish innovation labs and training programs that stimulate employees to explore new ideas and solutions, fostering a culture of innovation that does not rely solely on external experts.
To combat the tendency to ignore specific contexts, involve representatives from different areas extensively in the development and implementation of solutions. Workshops and co-creation sessions are powerful tools to ensure that proposed strategies align with the organization’s real needs and context.
Finally, to overcome barriers to constructive criticism, promote a culture of openness and continuous feedback. Implement 360-degree feedback systems and encourage reflection and review after implementing new strategies, ensuring that constructive criticism is a fundamental component of organizational learning and growth. These practices not only strengthen the organization’s ability to adapt and thrive but also ensure that leaders are equipped to make informed and effective decisions. By integrating these strategies into everyday organizational practices, we can transform the influence of experts from a potential challenge into an opportunity for growth and innovation.
Additionally, encourage employees to identify and address problems that directly impact their roles. Implement a culture that values the immediate correction of setbacks, allowing solutions to be applied as they arise. This approach not only reduces dependence on external consultants but also minimizes the repetition of mistakes, promoting a continuous cycle of learning and adaptation. Intervening while details are still fresh maximizes the chances of effective and lasting resolution.
For example, in a behavioral development consulting project I am involved in, I aim to motivate leadership to view each team member not just as responsible for meeting individual goals but also as someone encouraged to seek ways to enhance the effectiveness and cohesion of the group as a whole. When a challenge arises during the project, participants should have the autonomy to proactively resolve the problem. This might include involving other team members to collaborate on the solution or even suggesting new approaches and tools, always within the boundaries set by leadership. The project promotes a problem-solving culture not only through its daily practices but also through a recognition system: performance is evaluated based on both goal achievement and contributions to continuous improvements.
In a consulting project, it is essential to understand how allowing employees to assume a variety of roles can influence their efficiency and engagement. In a study conducted with a client’s data processing team, we analyzed the performance of employees who repeatedly focused on specific tasks (specialized experience) compared to those who alternated between different roles (varied experience). I found that, initially, specialized employees were quicker in executing individual tasks. However, over the long term, varied experience proved to be more advantageous, stimulating greater learning and keeping employees more engaged. Both types of experience—specialized and varied—proved crucial for knowledge development and job satisfaction.
The importance of familiarity among team members is a crucial factor for continuous improvement. Various studies conducted in software development companies, consulting firms, healthcare organizations, and laboratories have revealed that collaborating with known individuals reinforces coordination and the efficient use of collective knowledge. This familiarity accelerates responses to new situations and enhances the combination of skills to solve problems effectively. For instance, Google, inspired by research showing that teams with a history of collaboration tend to deliver projects with higher efficiency and quality, adapted its recruitment strategy to value prior collaborative experience among candidates. This aims to strengthen team cohesion and effectiveness.
Results indicate that leaders need to dedicate themselves to better understanding the different types of experiences in the industry, with clients, and within their own teams that impact operational environments. With this information, they should train employees in a targeted manner, identify, and apply their specialized knowledge strategically. While many organizations may need to review their business systems, analytical resources, and personnel structures, this investment is crucial for deepening understanding on how to continuously enhance learning and performance over time.

Empower Your Employees and Value Their Experiences

Organizations need to be attentive to identify and eliminate barriers that limit the full utilization of employees’ knowledge. Creative problem-solving and creating value for clients should not be obstructed by organizational constraints. A study conducted by Ethan Bernstein revealed that employees at a renowned global manufacturer were less productive when they were directly monitored by managers. Although the company claimed to offer freedom to its employees, its practices indicated the opposite, such as a lack of idea sharing to improve processes. Bernstein proposed an innovative solution: installing curtains in production areas to ensure that employees could work with more privacy. The result was a significant increase in productivity.
Leaders must explore concrete ways to truly empower their employees. This can include offering more freedom in task execution, publicly recognizing individual contributions, or providing financial rewards.
Although it may seem simpler and more economical in the short term to ignore errors, optimize work without room for reflection, demand strict adherence to norms, and seek quick solutions with specialists, these practices often limit the organization’s ability to learn and adapt. Leaders who strive to overcome the four identified biases are more likely to foster a continuous learning environment, essential for true organizational improvement.
Now It’s Your Turn to Turn These Insights into Concrete Actions:

1. Assess Your Dependence on External Consultants: Review recent projects where consultants were involved. Identify areas where dependence was high and consider how you can strengthen your internal capacity to reduce this dependence in the future.
2. Promote a Culture of Innovation: Establish an internal innovation program. Create spaces for experimentation and gather diverse teams to explore new ideas. This could include setting up innovation labs or internal hackathons.
3. Involve Various Areas in Solution Development: Conduct workshops and co-creation sessions to ensure that solutions align with the needs of different areas within your organization. Involve representatives from various functions in the development and implementation process.
4. Encourage Constructive Criticism: Implement a 360-degree feedback system and promote an environment where constructive criticism is welcome. Ensure that everyone on the team knows how to give and receive feedback productively.
5. Empower Your Employees: Encourage your employees to proactively identify and solve problems. Offer more autonomy in their roles and publicly recognize individual contributions.
6. Value Varied Experience: Consider allowing employees to take on a variety of roles and responsibilities. Varied experience can promote greater engagement and continuous learning.

Transform these principles into concrete actions and observe how they can strengthen your organization, fostering an environment of continuous learning and innovation. With these guidelines, you’ll not only be reacting to the challenges posed by experts but also building a solid foundation for your organization’s future success.

Finally,
Today, we explored two crucial biases that profoundly impact decision-making and organizational effectiveness: the Adaptation Bias and the Expert Bias.
The Adaptation Bias warns us about the dangers of becoming complacent with solutions and processes that, while initially effective, may become obsolete over time. This bias makes us prefer familiarity and resist change, even when evolution is necessary to meet new market demands. It is imperative that leaders and managers recognize this tendency and encourage a mindset of continuous adaptation and learning. Implementing practices such as periodic process reviews and fostering a culture of innovation are essential to overcoming this bias and ensuring that the organization remains dynamic and resilient.
The Expert Bias, on the other hand, highlights the tendency to overestimate the value of opinions and solutions provided by external experts, often at the expense of internal contributions and the contextual knowledge of the team. This bias can lead to excessive reliance on consultants and resistance to internal innovation. To mitigate this bias, it is crucial to invest in developing the internal capabilities of the team, promote collaboration between experts and employees, and create an environment that values constructive criticism and internal experimentation.
It is crucial that leaders and managers be attentive to these challenges and implement strategies to mitigate their effects. Promoting a culture of innovation, fostering internal collaboration, and valuing continuous feedback are essential steps to overcoming these biases and fostering a constant learning environment.
In the next part of our series, “The Paradox of Success: Why Organizations Fail to Learn – Part 3,” we will address the Confirmation Bias and its influence in the corporate world. This bias can reinforce existing beliefs and assumptions, limiting critical thinking and adaptation to new information.
I invite you to continue this journey with me! Read, reflect, and share your thoughts on what we have discussed so far. What do you think can be done to overcome the biases we’ve explored? How do you see the application of these concepts in your own organization? Leave your comments and questions, and join us in the next part of the series to deepen our understanding of the success paradox.

Did you like this article?

THANK YOU FOR READING AND SEEING MARCELLO DE SOUZA IN ANOTHER EXCLUSIVE PUBLICATION ABOUT HUMAN BEHAVIOR

Hello, I’m Marcello de Souza! I started my career in 1997 as a leader and manager in a large company in the IT and Telecommunications market. Since then, I have participated in important projects of structuring, implementation, and optimization of telecommunications networks in Brazil. Restless and passionate about behavioral and social psychology. In 2008, I decided to delve into the universe of the human mind.

Since then, I have become a professional passionate about deciphering the secrets of human behavior and catalyzing positive changes in individuals and organizations. Doctor in Social Psychology, with over 25 years of experience in Cognitive Behavioral and Human Organizational Development. With a wide-ranging career, I highlight my role as:

– Master Senior Coach and Trainer: Guiding my clients in the pursuit of goals and personal and professional development, achieving extraordinary results.

– Chief Happiness Officer (CHO): Fostering an organizational culture of happiness and well-being, boosting productivity and employee engagement.

– Expert in Language and Behavioral Development: Enhancing communication and self-awareness skills, empowering individuals to face challenges with resilience.

– Cognitive Behavioral Therapist: Using cutting-edge cognitive-behavioral therapy to help overcome obstacles and achieve a balanced mind.

– Speaker, Professor, Writer, and Researcher: Sharing valuable knowledge and ideas in events, training, and publications to inspire positive changes.

– Consultant and Mentor: Leveraging my experience in leadership and project management to identify growth opportunities and propose personalized strategies.

My solid academic background includes four postgraduates and a doctorate in Social Psychology, along with international certifications in Management, Leadership, and Cognitive Behavioral Development. My contributions in the field are widely recognized in hundreds of classes, training sessions, conferences, and published articles.

Co-author of the book “The Secret of Coaching” and author of “The Map Is Not the Territory, the Territory Is You” and “The Diet Society” (the first of a trilogy on human behavior in contemporaneity – 05/2024).

Allow me to be your companion on this journey of self-discovery and success. Together, we will unravel a universe of behavioral possibilities and achieve extraordinary results.

By the way, I invite you to join my network. As a lover of behavioral psychology, social psychology, and neuroscience, I have created my YouTube channel to share my passion for cognitive behavioral development with more people.

Please note that all data and content in this article or video are exclusive, written, and reviewed by Marcello de Souza based on proven philosophical concepts and scientific studies to ensure that the best possible content reaches you.

Don’t forget to follow Marcello de Souza on other social media platforms and join the VIP list to receive exclusive articles weekly by email.

✍️ Leave your comment

📢 Share with friends

🧠 The official channel Marcello de Souza_ was created to simplify the understanding of human behavior and complement the information on the blog: www.marcellodesouza.com.br

🧠 Subscribe to the channel: www.youtube.com/@marcellodesouza_oficial

🧠 Marcello de Souza’s latest book: /www.marcellodesouza.com.br/o-mapa-nao-e-o-territorio-o-territorio-e-voce/

🧠 Commercial Contact: comercial@coachingevoce.com.br

🧠 Write to Marcello de Souza: R. Antônio Lapa, 280 – Sexto Andar – Cambuí, Campinas – SP, 13025-240

Social Media

🧠 Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/company/marcellodesouzaoficial

🧠 Instagram: @marcellodesouza_oficial

🧠 Instagram: @coachingevoce

🧠 Facebook: www.facebook.com/encontraroseumelhor/

🧠 Facebook: /www.facebook.com/coachingevoce.com.br/

🧠 Official website: www.coachingevoce.com.br/ www.marcellodesouza.com

🧠 VIP list to receive exclusive articles weekly of my own authorship: contato@marcellodesouza.com.br

🧠 Portfolio: https://linktr.ee/marcellodesouza

🧠 Presentation and adaptation: Marcello de Souza

#emotions #selfcontrol #selfawareness #emotionalrelationship #selfhelp #motivation #overcoming #personaldevelopment #selfdevelopment #mindset #positivethinking #positiveattitude #success #positivity #leadership #coachingleader #executivecoaching #teammanagement #consciousleadership #resilience #mentalstrength #resilient #overcomingobstacles #winningmentality #balance #professional life #personal life #careercoaching #qualityoflife #PersonalDevelopment #Selfknowledge #EmotionalIntelligence #PersonalGrowth #Mindfulness #WellBeing #BalancedLife #PositivePsychology #Resilience #HumanBehavior #Motivation #SelfEsteem #SocialSkills #Empathy #MentalBalance #MentalHealth #PersonalTransformation #HealthyHabits #SelfImprovement #InnerHappiness