🎙️ EP 121: Change is Friction - Change is good

It’s normal for humans to feel inertia. We instinctively resist change and crave stability. But what if the stability we fight for is actually the thing holding us back? We often assume we should only change things when they are broken. But there is a hidden value in change itself—even when everything seems fine.

In this episode, I explore the counter-intuitive idea that change has inherent worth, even if there is no outright ‘business case'. I will break down why "shaking things up" isn't just about fixing problems, but about forcing the system to adapt, connect, and grow in ways that stability never allows.

Main Ideas:

- The "Forest Fire Principle": How disruption clears old habits to let new growth emerge

- Why change creates serendipity and surfaces hidden opportunities

- Research on why organizations that introduce friction build stronger networks

- The opportunity cost of comfort: What you miss when you refuse to shake things up

- Practical ways to introduce purposeful experimentation in your work and life

I share a lot more in the episode about this helpful mindset shift!

Resources:
- March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning (Organization Science).  

  Explains why sticking to proven routines (“exploitation”) crowds out experimentation (“exploration”), and why deliberately injecting change/experiments can be valuable even when things seem to work—because exploration is required for long-run learning and adaptation. [iot.ntnu](http://www.iot.ntnu.no/innovation/norsi-pims-courses/Levinthal/March%20(1991).pdf)

- Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management (Strategic Management Journal).  

  Provides the strategy lens for your claim that “change has inherent value”: organizations that can repeatedly reconfigure capabilities (not just optimize current operations) are better positioned to adapt, making purposeful change a core competence. [sjbae.pbworks](http://sjbae.pbworks.com/f/teece_pisano_shuen_1997.pdf)

- Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural Holes and Good Ideas (American Journal of Sociology).  

  Backs your “new connections” point: when people bridge disconnected groups (often enabled by reorganizations, transitions, and cross-functional work), they access more novel information and are more likely to generate valuable ideas. [citeseerx.ist.psu](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=14d23964de88419273079764da61cf541a8298c6)

- Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study (Administrative Science Quarterly).  

  Adds longitudinal evidence that the structure of collaboration networks predicts innovation outcomes, reinforcing your argument that shifting who works with whom during change isn’t just disruptive—it can materially change innovation capacity. [repositories.lib.utexas](https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/items/4a0dec98-47b1-491b-b8a2-40117346ab71)

- Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic Growth: Conceptual Foundations and Empirical Evidence (and later PTG reviews).  

  Supports your “forced change can unlock growth” narrative at the individual level: major disruption can catalyze positive psychological change (new possibilities, stronger relationships, personal strength), aligning with your lockdown/car/public-transport examples. [semanticscholar](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/TARGET-ARTICLE:-%22Posttraumatic-Growth:-Conceptual-Tedeschi-Calhoun/3651a81c1365b83343694627d8f4464d181931b5)