at what age do people become set in their ways and why

[everything]

At what age does it seem like people become set in their ways?

Why?

Of course, people might know a lot, and so they want to stick with what works. OTOH, we have all seen repeatedly how various people we know are "too set in their ways". It kills entire once-great companies for example. Another example, on rsf, we often just say our particular position, and no one really changes their mind (it seems like).

How can we ourselves avoid it (to the extent it's helpful)?

How do we help others change?

What happens in a large company that cannot do it? Is there any way to truly prevent that? (I guess not).

[Bao]

Interesting subject. OOH, some psychologists and scientists says that the personality of an individual is shaped already by two years old. OTOH, I do believe that we can change ourselves to the better if we work with ourselves. (But I am obviously no scientist so how could I know?...)

Companies is maybe a different thing. Companies that adapt fast to circumstances seems to do better than others and might be able to prevail. But it depends on what you sell and how. If a product is very complicated and expensive to produce, it might be hard to change it to something else. And some companies really depend on one type of service or a product. What about if the demand is no longer there? Look at magazines for instance now when traditional advertising hardly work anymore. I read that in 2009 alone 367 U.S magazines went out of business. Here most magazines struggle to survive.

[greytowhite]

All you need is some psychedelics if you want to make major shifts. Or some real meditation. When your mind is more like a 2 year old's you definitely change the way you think.

[everything]

How about for organizations?

Leaders?

Good leadership books tell you to NOT think "we did it this way before so it will work now"

But I see the idiot management wanting to do old ways repeatedly, and everyone else sees before they do how it's wrong

How do you constructively tell them?

[Steve James]

Lead for yourself. If somebody else isn't doing it, and you think it needs to be done, do it. Don't expect to change anyone's mind or the world, especially not in your lifetime. However, if you go for it, ya just might.

[everything]

That is good individual advice, but what do you do about your management chain above you?

If Kodak can't make digital cameras (despite inventing them) and so on, you may just have to leave, of course. The company (based on decisions of the people who got too set in their ways) will basically just die because it couldn't adapt. Nowadays the speed of technology disruption is much faster. There are systematic (and probably stupid) solutions organizations try to do, like having "innovation labs". People in charge are often more aware of disruption since it is more common, and the stories of VCs backing startups whose entire bet is a bet on disruption (like Uber), but they really haven't found "the solution". It's not that I expect RSF to know the solution where more experienced managers have failed, but hey you never know. Us people on here are pretty smart too.

[Steve James]

That is good individual advice, but what do you do about your management chain above you?

I'm not the one to answer that . It's why I'm retired. While I was there, I ignored the administration and the bureaucracy, and did what I could with the people I came in contact with. I did write directly to the president of the college and told him my specific complaints. He would often agree. However, institutions and corporations are often bureaucracies whose primary purpose in self-perpetuation. For corporations, that means creating profits. For academic institutions, it means maintaining accreditation so that it can receive funding.

Kodak's corporate bureaucracy did not encourage changing to digital photography because it was making money with film and cameras It could have changed, but who there knew that people would all carry around digital cameras. The universal rule is adapt or die ... er, delay death.

There's no specific answer to your question. Well, of course, there's using force (take over the company) and rhetorical tactics (how to persuade people to get what you want). Both are just different forms of violence, but whether they're justified or worth it depends on the context. Otherwise, I've found that the way to go is simply to use "what's in your hand" to create the change you want. Talk to your co-workers and the people around you. You know, "longest journey, single step" thinking.

[.Q.]

I suspect rather than age, it's your personality that affects how late you can accept new information. I've seen plenty of people that actively refuse new information at relatively young age and much older people learning new things and changing viewpoints based on that.

[KEND]

It is not necessarily an age thing, more the way you view the world. You can still be curious as a senior and set in your ways at 20. If you stay in the comfort zone nothing changes

[Steve James]

There isn't an age at which one's cup is filled.

[edededed]

Even very small children show different personalities at a young age. I suppose that one is born with certain attributes, but then one can work with what they have.

For organizations: the bigger the organization, the harder it is to change, I think. The bureaucracy just gets deeper and deeper. When top leaders change, they change many surface things - like departments, leaders, or labels - but the core is very hard to change.

If only 1 level higher, you can try showing lots of data and numbers that support your ideas. People are usually weak when facing data. You can even use big words like "standard deviation" or "z-scores" if it scares them.

[Bao]

"what do you do about your management chain above you?
If Kodak can't make digital cameras (despite inventing them) and so on, you may just have to leave, of course. The company (based on decisions of the people who got too set in their ways) will basically just die because it couldn't adapt."

Samsung started off with trading goods and later created Rice boilers. LG was a Chemical corp and the first South Korean company to enter the plastics industry. Nintendo started off doing trading cards. The companies saw new markets and adapted to the development. Rice boilers and trading cards are still hanging in. Nintendo got extra-extra rich when they created a digital card trading game, Pokemon.

So the important thing is not to just hang on there and doing the same old stuff all of the time, but to see opportunities and change according to trends and changes in the markets. You need to see the changes early and be prepared to always change yourself. And obviously, the best is when you can foresee the future or at least be a part of changing or creating shit that will become the future.

[edededed]

Pokemon - actually, that was created by Game Freak, a separate company. Nintendo somehow monopolizes it from behind, and they benefited big. Although Nintendo doesn't own Game Freak exactly (although they may own the most shares), the method used by big companies to stay in the game is kind of similar - find innovative new companies, and buy them.

Big, established companies are by nature NOT innovative, and they like the way that they are. Thus, they let the young upstarts try stuff, and then just watch to see who they should absorb into the fold. Although they don't have innovation or ideas, they DO have lots of cash - which the young upstarts are lacking.

[everything]

almost the exact business plan of my employer.

[edededed]

That just means your employer is big!

Some people speak of organizations in colors, e.g. red (power-based) to amber (formal hierarchy) to orange (profit thinking) to green (culture/empowerment) to teal (self-organizing). Most big companies are orange, and feel threatened to change that much (e.g. by losing hierarchies and thus power within the organization). Teal companies are very rare still, and tend to be small, young companies when they do happen.

So in that sense, what may happen is a new startup has a green/teal organization, and gets gobbled up by a huge orange organization. Little by little, the innovative startup will be assimilated and their culture will change, too. Orange organizations try to change their culture, too, but it is necessarily slow (and happens mainly because they think that they will lose if they do not do it).

It would be interesting to see huge teal companies, but...