AUA: Why Won't The Rest Of The Org Copy What’s Working?

Summary

Podcast Summary: At Work with The Ready
Episode: AUA – Why Won't The Rest Of The Org Copy What’s Working?
Date: March 30, 2026
Hosts: Rodney Evans and Sam Spurlin

---

Overview

In this Ask Us Anything (AUA) mini-episode, Rodney Evans and Sam Spurlin delve into a thought-provoking listener question: Why do new, successful ways of working in one part of a federated organization often fail to catch on elsewhere—even when those changes seem to be clear wins? The hosts explore the psychology, culture, and team dynamics behind why innovative practices in one group don’t automatically scale throughout the rest of the organization. They share their own experiences as change agents, discuss organizational resistance, and offer concrete tips for spreading positive change without alienating peers.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Challenging the Assumption: Is Radical Transparency Always Good?

[01:14–02:07]

• Sam opens with skepticism about the inherent value of radical transparency, suggesting it isn’t universally good or appropriate:
  • “I don’t know that radical transparency is a standalone good. …Is it a problem that part of the org doesn’t want this radical transparency that another part has?” ([01:33] Sam)
• Sam emphasizes prerequisites for radical transparency, noting that certain conditions must be in place for such a change to be productive, rather than disruptive.

2. Beyond Transparency: Why Positive Change Doesn’t Spread

[02:07–04:04]

• Rodney broadens the question to address why successful changes of any kind (not just radical transparency) are often rejected by other groups.
  • “When one org within the structure does anything radically different and those people think it’s awesome, they don't understand why everyone else doesn't adopt it. ...And everybody else is like, please shut the fuck up. We don’t care about how awesome you are. And this, folks, is just straight up, OR rejection.” ([03:23] Rodney)
• There is a paradox: leaders want scalable change, but proven solutions often fail to spread.
• Rodney describes the phenomenon as “organ rejection”—like the body rejecting a transplant, other teams may resist even successful change from peers.

3. Psychological & Cultural Resistance

[04:04–04:58]

• Sam likens this behavior to “Not Invented Here Syndrome,” where internal teams resist adopting ideas that originated elsewhere in the same organization.
• Adapting change often requires contextual tweaks:
  • “It doesn’t take a whole lot of tweaking for a team that has initially rejected a thing to be like, oh, now we’ve made it our own. …Often just quite subtle tweaks still keeps the spirit, but now that second team can feel like, well, it’s ours now.” ([04:18–04:58] Sam)

4. The Role of Internal Guidance: From Us/Them to Bridge-Building

[04:58–06:29]

• Rodney notes that “successful” teams may be tempted to simply push their model onto others, but that approach rarely works.
  • “It can be very easy to get into, like, us and them, new and old, progressive and regressive. ...But if you’d like to see [change] spread, you can take a posture of being sort of an internal consultant and offering some support.” ([05:57] Rodney)
• Offering scaffolding and acting as an internal guide—rather than boasting—helps others see the pathway and personalize change to their context.

5. The Struggle is Part of the Solution

[06:29–07:52]

• Sam points out that the journey is as important as the outcome:
  • “The first team tries to export the finished experience into a new team when the actual struggle that they embarked on to get to that finished experience is really important… The struggle that you have to go through to learn the thing and adopt it… is part of it.” ([06:29] Sam)
• You can’t shortcut the experiential learning process. Each team must start from its own reality.

6. Professional Experience & Humility

[07:10–07:52]

• Rodney acknowledges that even consultants are prone to wanting to “copy and paste” solutions, but warns this is a false shortcut:
  • “This other team and this other organization has to start from where they are, not where this other team is six months in.” ([07:35] Rodney)
• Everyone, even experts, must remember that change is iterative and context-specific.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Rodney, on organizational resistance:
  “This, folks, is just straight up, OR rejection. You are doing something radically different than the rest of the body and they are not interested in your pristine kidneys.” ([03:20])

• Sam, on contextual adaptation:
  “There probably does need to be some modification based on context… Why would we expect a perfect one to one sort of translation?” ([04:34])

• Rodney, on enabling others:
  “If you are experiencing a positive change and you’d like to see it spread, you can take a posture of being sort of an internal consultant and offering some support.” ([05:57])

• Sam, on why you can’t export experience:
  “You can’t just, like, package up your pain and all of your learning and be like, just take this, we did the hard work, now you can just go do it. I wish it worked that way.” ([06:34])

• Rodney, on starting points:
  “We all have to go through our own learning process to get to outcomes.” ([07:50])

---

Important Timestamps

• 01:14 – Is radical transparency always a good thing?
• 02:07 – Why don’t other teams adopt proven changes?
• 03:20 – “Organ rejection” analogy for organizational resistance
• 04:18 – “Not Invented Here” syndrome within organizations
• 05:57 – The importance of supporting vs. boasting
• 06:29 – The importance of the struggle in adopting change
• 07:10 – Consultants can’t simply copy and paste solutions

---

Takeaways

• Successful change in one group doesn’t guarantee organization-wide adoption. Colleagues may resist for reasons ranging from psychological ownership to context-specific needs.
• Scaffolding and internal consultancy—rather than evangelism—are better approaches for sharing successful practices.
• The learning journey is essential. Each team must walk its own path, starting from its unique context and challenges.
• Change is messy, context-dependent, and requires humility, even for seasoned experts.

---

This episode offers practical wisdom for anyone attempting to spread innovation across complex organizations—and reminds us that true change is both social and local.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, y'. All. We are getting ready to record an ask us Anything episode and we're sending out the bat signal because we want to hear from you.

[B]

That's right. If you've got a thorny workplace problem you need help with, shoot us a message on LinkedIn or email the [e-mail]

[A]

these episodes are my favorite episodes to make and we cannot wait to hear what you send us. So please do it. Thanks so much and as always, please enjoy the show.

[B]

Hey, everyone. Welcome back to orkwitharetti. I'm Sam and I'm joined, as always, by Rodney. Hey, Rodney.

[A]

Hey, Sam.

[B]

Every other week we're tackling one tough, thought provoking listener question and sharing a few ideas that might help. Let's dive in. Rodney, what have you got for us this week?

[A]

Okay, this week's question is this one In a federated structure, you would think when one org has radical transparency, others would want to copy. What we've found in two different cases is that they are not interested and they don't want to copy that. Why is that? And what can you do about it?

[B]

So I think there's something embedded in this question, which I don't know if it's intentional or not, but the idea that radical transparency might be a standalone good. So I take some umbrage with like, we should want that umbrage. That's right.

[A]

Umbrage taken.

[B]

So I don't know that. I guess I don't know that radical transparency is a standalone good. Meaning, like, is it a problem? I guess, I guess what I'm questioning, is it a problem that part of the org doesn't want this radical transparency that another part has. I think I generally I'm more interested in more transparent cultures than not, but I think I have seen multiple times that there are kind of some prerequisites needed in, in a team, in an organization before radical transparency becomes a good and a useful thing and not a massive distraction.

[A]

Interesting. So I'm going to take a slightly different view on this, which is like less about the radical transparency thing and more about just the idea that in a federated structure, when one org within the structure does anything radically different and those people think it's awesome, they don't understand why everyone else doesn't adopt it. I'm going to take that perspective and kind of ignore the transparency because I actually think it's true across a lot of things. It's like, I've seen this with lots of different things. You know, one of the, like, subsidiaries Changed their comp or changed their oper or changed their strategy or changed whatever. And they're like, why doesn't everybody want this? It's so much better and it probably is. And you guys are so annoying. You're so annoying to everybody else. And look, I am the same way. Because here's the thing that happens, and I have seen this in client work that we have done at the ready. You would think, like the inherent problem here and the paradox that I find fascinating is in every sales call with a CEO, they go, yeah, yeah, yeah, but how does it scale? And we say you prove it in one place and then you scale it and in a federated structure. What I've seen more than once is that does not happen. And it stays inside of one organization. And everybody else is like, please shut the fuck up. We don't care about how awesome you are. And this, folks, is just straight up, OR rejection. You. You are doing something radically different than the rest of the body and they are not interested in your pristine kidneys. And that doesn't mean that you're doing it wrong. It just means I'm saying this, and I'm saying it somewhat pointedly because to me it defies rationality and yet I have seen it to be true more than once.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[A]

Like, I would just think in a place where everybody's like, change here is impossible. And then one group proves it that, that people would find that inspiring and replicable and instead they just go like, please stop talking to me.

[B]

Yeah, it's the whole like, not invented here syndrome, but within a single organization. And I think sometimes it doesn't take a whole lot of tweaking for a team that has initially rejected a thing to be like, oh, now we've made it our own. Now we are doing it with our own flavor. And part of it is like, there probably does need to be some modification based on context. Like this team over here is doing product development and this team over here is the finance team. And like, why would we expect a perfect one to one sort of translation? And I think often just quite subtle tweaks still keeps the spirit of what we are trying to do. But now that second team can feel like, well, it's ours now, like, we've made it our own thing.

[A]

I think that's right. And I also think that when you're in the one org that has done something radically cool or progressive or new, it can be very easy, both structurally and because we are busy at our jobs, to just be like, well, we did it Just you guys do it, too. And. And I actually think that if you are inclined this way and you do want to see change spread, being someone who can say to the organization, like, down the proverbial hallway, here were the first couple of moves we made. I would be happy to help you, or I would be happy to show you, or I would be happy to answer your questions or facilitate you or send you what we did, blah, blah, blah. And, like, really talking about the upside and being like, you know, we made these kinds of changes, and these were the kinds of improvements we saw, but then also give them a little bit of scaffolding that's not just like, yeah, so, you dummy, should be like us. But it's more like, hey, and here's, like, unaccessible bridge for you guys to start walking if you are so inclined, because I think it can be very easy to get into, like, us and them, new and old, progressive and regressive. It's. You know, humans are tribal. But I think if you're someone who is experiencing a positive change and you'd like to see it spread, you can take a posture of being sort of an internal consultant and offering some support.

[B]

Yeah. What I love about that, I think another way that I've seen this go poorly is that the first team tries to export the finished experience into a new team when the actual struggle that they embarked on to get to that finished experience is really important. So you can't just, like, package up your pain and all of your learning and be like, we'll just take this, like, we did the hard work. Now you can just go do it. Like, I wish it worked that way, things would probably be faster and easier. But the struggle that you have to go through to learn the thing and adopt it and, like, that is part of it. And you just described the scaffolding that could help make that go a little bit better. So. So it's not completely from scratch every single time. Yeah.

[A]

And look, and then I'll shut up about this, but, like, even as people who do this kind of thing professionally across various organizations, it can be really easy for me to do the thing that Sam is saying. Like, for me to be like, well, I just did this work with this elt and I learned a whole bunch from working with them. And so now I just want to, like, kind of copy and paste that over here. But the truth is that, like, this other team and this other organization has to start from where they are, not. Not where this other team is six months in. And that's just like, just because I was there, they weren't there. And we all have to go through our own learning process to get to outcomes.

[B]

All right, love it. That's it for this mini. If you've got a question of your own, hit us [e-mail] we will see

[A]

you back here next week for a full episode of At Work with the Ready. Thank you so much for listening.