Have we become so focused on avoiding failure that we’re making innovation harder? Almost every organisation talks about being “innovative” and “forward-thinking”. But real innovation means trying something when the outcome is not guaranteed.
That came through clearly at my first Neemar Community Breakfast in Liverpool. The discussion was not about reckless decision-making or weak governance. It was about whether organisations genuinely have permission to test, learn and sometimes get things wrong. In social housing, the stakes are high. Customers, regulation, reputation and resources all matter, so strong governance is rightly non-negotiable. But there is a tension.
If sticking with the existing approach always feels safer, how do you create a culture that genuinely encourages new thinking? Innovation does not always mean something radical. It might be automating a repetitive task, removing unnecessary admin, changing a process that no longer works, testing a different way of delivering a service or simply approaching an old problem differently.
None of those things sound particularly risky. But they all require somebody to make a decision without knowing with complete certainty what the outcome will be. And that is where innovation becomes as much a question of culture and leadership as it is about ideas. What happens when an idea doesn’t work? It's easy to support innovation when it succeeds. The more interesting test is what happens when it doesn't. If an organisation tries something new and the result isn't what was expected, how is that viewed? Is the first question: “What did we learn?” Or is it: “Who approved this?” That distinction matters.
If people see an unsuccessful experiment as evidence of poor judgement, the rational response is to become more cautious. Keep doing what has been done before. Seek another layer of approval. Wait until there is more evidence. Individually, those decisions may make sense. Collectively, they can make it much harder for an organisation to change. There is a big difference between permission to fail and permission to be careless. Experimentation still needs boundaries. It needs ownership, measures and a clear understanding of what level of risk is acceptable. Leaders need to know what they are trying to learn and when an experiment should stop.
But if every new idea has to demonstrate that it will succeed before it is tried, it isn't really an experiment. Governance should make good experimentation possible. Perhaps the question isn't whether organisations need to choose between governance and innovation. They shouldn't. The more useful question is whether governance gives people enough clarity to understand where they have permission to try something different. Clear accountability can give people confidence to act. A defined risk appetite can establish the boundaries. Good measures can show whether something is working. And effective oversight can identify when an approach needs to change or stop.
In that sense, governance shouldn't be the thing that prevents experimentation. Done well, it can create the conditions for it. But that still relies on culture. An organisation can say it wants innovation. It can put it in a strategy, talk about transformation and encourage colleagues to bring forward ideas. People will ultimately judge how serious that commitment is by what happens when somebody tries something sensible and it doesn't work. So how much permission is there really? One of the things I found interesting about the conversation in Liverpool was that nobody was arguing for less accountability.
The question was whether the understandable desire to avoid getting things wrong can sometimes make maintaining the status quo feel like the safest option. And maintaining the status quo carries risk too. Customer expectations change. Technology moves on. Costs increase. Existing processes stop being effective. Problems that haven't been solved don't disappear because changing the approach feels difficult.
So perhaps organisations need to think about both sides of the risk equation. Not only: What could happen if we try this and it doesn't work? But also: What happens if we don't try something different at all? Almost every organisation wants to describe itself as innovative. The harder test is whether its people genuinely feel able to experiment when success isn't guaranteed.
So, is there enough space for genuine experimentation in social housing, or has the focus on governance and assurance made the sector naturally more cautious?
This article draws on themes discussed at a recent Neemar Communities Breakfast, bringing together senior leaders from across the social housing sector to compare experiences and discuss the questions shaping their organisations.
