Siding with Inertia.
It is always wiser, where there is a choice, to trust inertia. It is the greatest force in the world. — Rex Stout
Is organizational inertia a form of decay? Or an asset?
The consensus is that inertia is a negative force — something to confront, overcome, and eradicate by applying equal or greater force. Almost like fighting a horde of passively stubborn employees resisting improvements imposed by supposedly enlightened leaders.
When a prominent business figure like James Kilts declares firmly and authoritatively that ‘the opposite of success is not failure but inertia,’ the case seems settled. Mainstream business thinking is clearly anti-inertia. Yet the further we move away from money-making, the more likely we are to encounter more balanced views.
Self-help author Peter Bregman, for instance, at least acknowledges inertia’s pull: ‘If we’re to look back and feel good about what we’ve done, we need to interrupt our inertia. We need to intervene in our own lives.’ And if we fail, we find consolation in Maya Angelou: ‘Try to live your life in a way that you will not regret years of useless virtue, inertia, and timidity.’
Back in the business realm, a compelling case for reframing inertia emerges in The 4 Disciplines of Execution, from the ever-reliable FranklinCovey.
Get Jacek Pastuszka’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
While the book offers little that is truly novel, there is a surprisingly unorthodox passage in which the authors — perhaps unintentionally — overturn the popular belief that inertia is pure evil. In discussing the need to apply disproportionate energy to the most important goals, they argue that the ‘whirlwind’ — a proxy for inertia — will take care of everything else. They ask:
If every other area of our operation remained at its current level of performance, which one area, if changed, would have the greatest impact?
They tell us ‘not to worry’ if the organization neglects everything else. Inertia will hold things together. We should not reproach the ‘whirlwind’ for doing its job. And its job is agnostic — it preserves the good as much as the bad.
When defined as the preservation of functioning processes — or as the tendency of mature organizations to continue along their current trajectory — organizational inertia loses much of its negative stigma. Seen in this light, it keeps the wheels turning while new ideas are implemented. Inertia becomes structurally necessary — a precondition for effective change, not its enemy.
Our view of inertia reflects a broader bias that plagues management. In the words of Rolf Dobelli, ‘we systematically overemphasize doing over not doing, zeal over deliberation, and action over waiting.’ We are conditioned to look down on passivity — on those who abstain from action — or, worse, who legitimize inertia.
Stout himself was famously savvy about the business side of his writing, unlike many of his contemporaries in the pulp fiction genre: fiercely protective of his intellectual property, campaigning against piracy, and engaging in authors’ rights issues. He understood that once the rules were set, inertia would work in his favor.
He saw it as an ally. He made it serve his interests. He sided with the greatest force in the world.
