Stuck in the Past: Why Organizations Languish Instead of Evolve

It's a perplexing question that often plagues observers of institutions, big or small: Why do some organizations seem to languish in incompetence rather than embracing necessary change? Why do they cling so fiercely to outdated models, even when it's clear these no longer serve their purpose or the very people they claim to protect?

This isn't just about inefficiency; it's about a profound resistance to evolution, often with real consequences for those who depend on these organizations. So, what holds them back?

A cardboard sign at a rally that reads: fight today for a better tomorrow

The Roots of Resistance: Where Power Plays its Hand

Change is inherently disruptive. It demands new ways of thinking, new skills, and stepping into uncharted territory. At their core, the reasons organizations resist change often revolve around subtle and overt power dynamics.

For many organizations, the current model, however flawed, is known. There are established routines, familiar roles, known power dynamics, and a predictable rhythm. The sheer effort required to dismantle old structures and build new ones can feel overwhelming, especially when the outcome isn't guaranteed. Fear of failure, fear of losing control, or fear of alienating existing stakeholders often paralyzes leadership. A known, yet flawed model means power structures aren’t questioned and the people, institutions, and systems connected to the organization do not have to consider whether these power dynamics effectively serve their mission and community.

Imagine an organization that survived numerous mergers – changing its mission and name over the course of several decades. On the surface, it appears they evolved to ensure their community continued to have a space where their voices were amplified. However, when digging deeper, it’s evident the organization was forced to accept these changes – due in part to ineffective and inexperienced leadership. The mergers, which could appear as beacons of hope, were instead a distress signal showing that below the surface the organization was unable to effectively serve its community or implement its mission.

Organizations invest years, resources, and emotional energy into operational models, internal systems, and established procedures (tools of visible power). To admit this investment is no longer optimal, and even detrimental, feels like a loss. Instead of pursuing a more effective path that centers their mission and community, they may double down, hoping that more effort applied to the old model will somehow magically make it work again.

Continuing to do the same thing while expecting different results is an ineffective use of time, effort, and resources. A reflection of this is when advocacy organizations rely solely on established democratic avenues, such as congressional roundtables or legislative meetings to advance their goals – even when the government has become the very source of the problem and the country is facing an authoritarian regime. These tried-and-true methods severely limit an organization’s power to fundamentally alter the system, demonstrating a refusal to acknowledge the changing needs of advocacy for their community. 

When change threatens the status quo, and with it, established power structures, it may be perceived as dangerous. It’s a threat to the individuals or departments that benefit from the current model — perhaps those who hold key positions, control resources, or simply mastered the old system. They may actively resist innovation because a change in system means they may no longer control visible power levers and may no longer be able to push forward their vested interests (hidden power). Holding onto the past becomes a way to retain power, even at the cost of collective effectiveness and the organization’s commitment to its mission. This manifests as turf wars, withholding information, and subtle sabotage of new initiatives that benefit the community but not individual vested interests.

Perhaps one of the most frustrating scenarios is when an organization does recognize its outdated model and even takes initial steps towards change. They might invest in new strategies, new technologies, new leadership, and external consultants. However, when push comes to shove – when the true implementation of change requires confronting or removing individuals who are deeply entrenched in the past ways of working – they slide backwards.

Leaders may shy away from difficult personnel decisions due to misplaced loyalty toward long-serving staff, even when their skills are no longer relevant and actively harm the organization’s future. The fear that significant staff changes will cause negative internal morale prolongs situations that actively undermine the organization’s capacity to meet its mission, effectively serve stakeholders, or maintain programming. This reluctance stems from a misplaced belief that the old guard can be “trained up” or “managed around” rather than acknowledging their fundamental resistance or inability to adapt. This ultimately hobbles the entire change effort. As a result, the "new" model is forced through old, resistant channels, leading to continued inefficiencies and a deep sense of disillusionment among those eager for progress.

Sometimes, the problem isn't deliberate resistance but a deficit of clear vision and courageous leadership. Board leaders might be too mired in the past, unable to step back and assess the bigger picture. Or they might see the need for change but lack the strategic foresight, communication skills, or political will to effectively champion and implement a new direction. Without a compelling vision for the future, the gravitational pull of the past remains too strong, reinforced by an unspoken “it’s always been done this way” culture – an example of invisible power at play.

Perhaps most tragically, some organizations lose sight of what "serving the people" truly means. They may become so focused on a subset of the community to the detriment of the community as a whole. They may also find that scaling programs – with all the internal processes, rules, and reporting necessary to raise funds – is too difficult. As a result, they fall back on the idea that an expansion of services to serve the community is “mission drift.” The impact on beneficiaries take a backseat and a narrow “model” is pushed as the mission, rather than a flexible tool to achieve the mission. When this happens, stagnation isn't just an internal problem; it's a betrayal of trust of the communities they claim to protect.

The price of clinging to incompetence is steep. It erodes public trust, wastes precious resources, demoralizes dedicated staff, and, most critically, fails the very people who depend on the organization's existence. In a rapidly changing world, an organization that refuses to adapt inevitably becomes irrelevant, replaced by more nimble and responsive actors, or simply fades into obscurity.

Scrabble tiles that read: nothing endures but change

Paving the Way for Genuine Change

Moving into the future requires courage, humility, and a relentless focus on true impact. It means being willing to dismantle what no longer serves, to learn from mistakes, and to prioritize the well-being of the people over the comfort of the past. For organizations truly committed to their mission, the question should never be "Can we afford to change?" but rather, "Can we afford not to?"

The path to change looks different for every organization and will have its ups and downs. The solution is simply stated but hard in practice: do the work – even when it’s hard – and don’t let fear hinder the process. True leadership is doing what is hard in the best interest of the community rather than the best interest of stakeholders with their own vested interests. That includes:

• Bold, accountable, and courageous leadership. Leaders must clearly articulate a compelling vision for change, communicate its necessity transparently, and model adaptability. They must be willing to make difficult personnel decisions when individuals are demonstrably holding the organization back, prioritizing the mission over comfort or personal loyalty. This cannot be achieved by one strong leader – the board of directors must support staff leadership in the hard decisions.

• Foster a culture of continuous learning and adaptability. Shift the organizational mindset from "this is how we've always done it" to "how can we do this better?" Encourage experimentation, celebrate learning from failures, and provide resources for skill development that align with future needs. And when necessary, make difficult personnel decisions if team members are not willing to adapt or embrace continuous learning. This cultivates an invisible power narrative that embraces evolution.

• Empower staff and beneficiaries. Decentralize decision-making where appropriate. The people closest to the problems often have the best solutions. Actively solicit feedback from those directly served by the organization and integrate their insights into strategic planning. This challenges hidden power structures by distributing influence.

• Institute transparent communication and clear metrics. Clearly articulate why change is needed, what the costs of inaction are, and what the desired outcomes look like. Establish transparent, impact-focused metrics that measure true effectiveness in serving the mission, rather than simply tracking processes or activity. This directly counters hidden agendas and promotes accountability.

• Reallocate strategic resources. Be willing to divest from outdated programs, technologies, or roles. Resources (time, money, personnel) should be strategically reallocated to support new, more effective models and initiatives. This is a visible demonstration of commitment to change to internal and external stakeholders.

• Bring in external perspectives and accountability. Bring in outside experts, consultants, or even peer organizations to provide objective assessments and challenge internal biases. Sometimes, an external perspective is necessary to break through internal resistance. It’s not just enough to hear their assessments – the proposed changes must be implemented.  Regular, honest self-assessments and external audits can also provide critical accountability.

For organizations truly committed to their mission, the question should never be "Can we afford to change?" but rather, "Can we afford not to?" The path forward demands a courageous confrontation of power dynamics and a steadfast commitment to serving the people above all else.