Pssst… Your Most Influential People Have Cracked the Code to Innovation

Listen closely to the hallways of any established company, and you’ll hear it: “We tried that before.” “That’s not how we do things here.” “Our customers won’t accept that.” These phrases aren’t just casual dismissals—they’re symptoms of a powerful organizational immune system at work. One that can kill innovation as effectively as any competitor. Understanding these corporate antibodies innovation patterns is crucial for any leader trying to drive meaningful change.

But here’s what’s fascinating: In every organization, there are people who somehow get innovation through when million-dollar initiatives fail. They don’t have more authority or bigger budgets. They’ve simply learned to navigate what technology analyst Horace Dediu calls “corporate antibodies”, the internal forces that attack innovation like a body rejecting a transplant. 

Understanding how they do it might be the most important skill for leading in an era of constant change. 

When Success Becomes the Enemy: The HP TouchPad Story 

In 2010, HP had everything it needed to dominate the emerging tablet market. Over $1 billion in investment. Top engineering talent. The acquisition of Palm and its innovative WebOS. Market pressure from Apple’s iPad success. Yet within a year, HP killed its own tablet after just 49 days on the market, taking a $100 million loss on unsold inventory. 

What happened? The same thing that happens to countless innovations inside established companies: the organization’s immune system attacks. 

The PC division, which generated the bulk of HP’s revenue, saw the tablet as a threat to its identity and budgets. The enterprise services division worried about supporting a consumer device. The printer division, HP’s profit engine, couldn’t see how tablets fit their razor and blades business model. 

As Dediu observed: “These are things inside the company, as an organism, if you will. These are entities, be they people or budgets or processes, or rules in binders. These are things that are designed to eat up innovation. To eat up changes to the core business. Not because they are stupid. But they see this newcomer, this entrant, as a pathogen.” 

Each division had valid concerns. The PC team wasn’t wrong that tablets might cannibalize laptop sales. The enterprise team correctly identified support challenges. The printer division accurately saw threats to its business model. But in protecting their interests, they collectively killed HP’s future. 

By August 2011, new CEO Léo Apotheker announced HP would discontinue all WebOS devices. The fire sale that followed, TouchPads selling for $99, proved there was consumer demand. But it was too late. The antibodies won. 

The Pattern Repeats Across Industries 

HP’s story isn’t unique. It’s a pattern that repeats with startling regularity across industries and decades. 

Kodak invented the digital camera in 1975. Engineer Steve Sasson created a device that captured images electronically—a revolution in photography. But Kodak’s film division, which generated 70% of profits, saw digital as an existential threat. They buried the technology, believing they could control the pace of change. By the time Kodak embraced digital in the 2000s, smartphones were already making standalone cameras obsolete. The company that pioneered digital photography filed for bankruptcy in 2012. 

Blockbuster had the chance to buy Netflix for $50 million in 2000. CEO John Antioco understood the threat and launched Blockbuster Online. But franchise owners revolted—online rentals threatened their stores. The board, pressed by activist investor Carl Icahn, saw the digital initiatives as wasteful spending. They forced out Antioco and killed the online strategy. Blockbuster declared bankruptcy in 2010. Netflix is now worth over $240 billion. 

Nokia dominated mobile phones in the 2000s. Their engineers developed touchscreen smartphones and software platforms years before the iPhone. But the Symbian team protected their territory. The hardware division resisted changes that might hurt current sales. By the time Nokia’s leadership forced change, Apple and Android had redefined the market. Microsoft acquired Nokia’s phone business for $7.2 billion in 2014 and wrote off nearly the entire investment. 

Even today, the pattern continues. General Motors created the EV1 electric car in 1996, then killed it under pressure from dealers who feared losing service revenue. Now they’re spending billions to catch Tesla. Microsoft had tablet computers in 2001, but couldn’t overcome Windows’ dominance internally. Google regularly kills innovative products, from Google Reader to Stadia, when they threaten existing revenue streams or don’t immediately show massive growth. 

Why Corporate Antibodies Form 

Understanding why organizations reject their innovations requires looking beyond individual decisions to organizational dynamics. 

Identity Protection: Departments don’t just have budgets and responsibilities—they have identities. The film division at Kodak wasn’t just selling chemicals; they were “preserving memories.” When digital threatened that identity, people protected what gave their work meaning. This isn’t stupidity or shortsightedness. It’s human beings protecting their sense of purpose and worth. 

Attribution Patterns: Watch how departments talk about each other. “Sales always overpromises.” “Engineering never delivers on time.” “Marketing doesn’t understand our customers.” These “you always/you never” patterns create rigid mental models. When innovation requires cooperation across these boundaries, the attribution patterns act like antibodies, rejecting collaboration before it can begin. 

Asymmetric Value Perception: Each department sees the value they provide, but primarily sees the problems others create. PC divisions see their reliable revenue streams. Innovative teams see their future potential. Neither fully appreciates what the other protects. This asymmetry means logical arguments rarely work; each side is operating from different definitions of value. 

Competing Commitments: Organizations simultaneously commit to innovation and stability, growth and profitability, speed and quality. These aren’t contradictions to resolve but polarities to manage. However, when pressure mounts, organizations usually default to protecting existing commitments. The sales team committed to this quarter’s numbers will almost always win against the R&D team building for the next decade. 

The Aware-Able-Accountable Path Forward 

Your most influential people, the ones who somehow get innovation through when others fail, have discovered something. They don’t fight corporate antibodies. They navigate them using three interconnected capabilities: 

Aware: Recognizing the Immune Response 

Change champions develop a sophisticated awareness of protection patterns. They notice when the room energy shifts during innovation discussions. They recognize the subtle signs: the finance director’s crossed arms, the operations team’s sudden silence, the way “we’ll study that” means “no.” 

But here’s their secret: they see these responses as data, not resistance. They understand that the IT director protecting legacy systems isn’t being obstructionist; she’s protecting system stability that keeps the company running. 

This awareness extends to their own antibodies. They notice when they’re protecting their innovation just as fiercely as others protect the status quo. This self-awareness creates credibility when engaging others. 

They’ve learned to pause and ask: What’s really happening here? What past experiences might be shaping how people perceive this change? What are they protecting that matters? 

Able: Building Bridges Across Protection Patterns 

Awareness alone doesn’t create change. Your influential people have developed the ability to have different conversations. Instead of evangelizing innovation, they practice what we might call “compassionate curiosity.” 

They ask: “What breaks if we change this?” rather than “Why won’t you change?” They explore: “Help me understand what you’re protecting” instead of “Stop resisting.” They acknowledge: “That system has served us well” before suggesting “What if we tried…” 

These aren’t manipulation tactics. They’re genuine attempts to understand and honor what each part of the organization protects. Your finance team protects predictability. Your operations team protects reliability. Your sales team protects customer relationships. Innovation threatens all of these until someone builds bridges between protection and progress. 

Accountable: Compassionate Accountability in Action 

The magic happens when influential people practice compassionate accountability—holding themselves and others responsible for outcomes while honoring the human beings involved. 

They understand that when the PC division manager says “tablets will kill our business,” she’s not just protecting a budget. She’s protecting her team’s identity as “the people who built HP’s success.” When innovation challenges identity, our past experiences of loss shape how we perceive the present situation. In that state, logical arguments rarely land. 

Your successful change champions work differently. They practice compassionate accountability by: 

Acknowledging Identity Stakes: “I know your team built this company’s foundation. That expertise is exactly why we need your input on how to evolve without losing what matters.” 

Separating Behavior from Identity: When pilots fail, they say “the approach didn’t work,” not “you blocked innovation.” When resistance emerges, they address “the concern about customer disruption,” not “your fear of change.” 

Creating Identity Bridges: They help people see how their core identity can expand rather than expire. The film experts become “image quality champions” in digital. The video rental leaders become “entertainment access innovators” in streaming. 

Making Protection Visible and Valued: “You’re protecting system stability, that’s essential. Let’s figure out how to protect that while we experiment with this new approach.” 

This isn’t about being nice. It’s about being effective. When people feel seen and valued for what they protect, their antibodies stop attacking and start advising.  

The Path Forward 

Understanding corporate antibodies matters because the pace of change isn’t slowing. Organizations need innovation to survive, but their immune systems—developed over decades of success—actively reject it. 

The solution isn’t to eliminate these protective mechanisms. An organization without antibodies would be chaos, accepting every change regardless of merit. Instead, leaders must help their organizations evolve more sophisticated immune systems—ones that can distinguish between beneficial innovation and genuine threats. 

This evolution happens through people who embody the Aware, Able, Accountable approach. They recognize when antibodies are activated. They build bridges between protection and progress. They practice compassionate accountability that honors both stability and change. 

The companies that thrive in the next decade won’t be those that eliminate their antibodies. They’ll be those whose people learn to work with their organizational immune systems, knowing when to protect and when to transform, when to resist and when to embrace. 

In that balance lies not just survival but the possibility of continuous renewal. And it starts with understanding that somewhere in your organization, someone has already cracked this code. The question is: Are you ready to learn from them? 

 

Reflection Questions: Spotting Antibodies in Your Organization 

Listen for these phrases: 

• “We tried that before.” 

• “That’s not who we are.” 

• “Our customers won’t accept that.” 

• “The last person who suggested that isn’t here anymore.” 

Notice these patterns: 

• Which departments consistently clash over new initiatives? 

• Where do pilots succeed, but scaling fails? 

• What past failures still get referenced as warnings? 

• Who in your organization seems to navigate these dynamics successfully? 

Consider: 

• What is your organization protecting that once made it successful? 

• How might those protections be limiting current innovation? 

• Who are the people who manage to get things done despite the antibodies? 

• What can you learn from their approach? 

 

To learn more about developing Aware, Able, Accountable capabilities in your organization, visit https://zielleadership.com/eiinaction/. Because when people understand both individual and organizational immunities to change, transformation becomes possible. 

 

References: 

• Dediu, H. (2013). “The Innovator’s Stopwatch.” Asymco. 

• Christensen, C. M. (1997). “The Innovator’s Dilemma.” Business Review Press. 

• Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). “Immunity to Change.” Harvard Business Press. 

• Anthony, S. D., Viguerie, S. P., Schwartz, E. I., & Van Landeghem, J. (2018). “2018 Corporate Longevity Forecast.” Innosight.