Unlocking Innovation in a University Environment
A leading university, striving to become a world-class research and innovation hub, was facing significant resistance and skepticism from its employees. Staff members expressed frustration with the bureaucratic processes that stifled creativity and innovation, despite the university's bold vision for transformation. The disconnect between the institution's aspirations and the employees' lived experiences created tension, disengagement, and stalled progress toward the university's goals.
The Challenge
Psynapse was deployed to diagnose the root causes of disengagement. The Assess Reality survey captured employees’ lived experiences, while Assess Values uncovered what truly motivated staff. The data revealed three critical disconnects:
How Psynapse Helped
Key Findings
Curious (Disconnect: Curiosity vs. Predictability & Process Adherence)
Finding:
Employees highly valued exploration, intellectual challenge, and innovation. However, the university’s climate did not actively encourage curiosity, as there was a strong emphasis on adherence to existing processes, predictability, and structured ways of working. While employees valued opportunities to experiment and push boundaries, the organization’s preference for risk-averse decision-making and bureaucratic approval processes created barriers. At the same time, predictability, reliability, and adherence to established methods were not only expected but also rewarded—reinforcing a culture that discouraged agility and exploration.
Manifestation in Employee Behavior:
Employees became hesitant to propose new ideas, fearing that deviation from established practices would not be supported. Many avoided experimentation, as rigid approval structures and procedural red tape made it difficult to take risks. Innovation was not actively discouraged, but there was little recognition or incentive for those who explored new methods. Over time, frustration grew among those who sought variety and intellectual stimulation, leading some to disengage or seek external opportunities where innovation was more valued.
Needed Change for Alignment:
Leadership needed to create an environment where exploration was encouraged alongside structured decision-making. Balancing predictability with flexibility was key—ensuring that process adherence and reliability remained valued while also allowing for innovation and calculated risk-taking. This involved streamlining bureaucratic barriers, fostering a culture that recognized and rewarded novel thinking, and actively promoting intellectual curiosity as part of the organization’s identity.
Inclusive (Disconnect: Inclusion vs. Hierarchy & Authority-Based Decision-Making)
Finding:
Employees valued collaboration and the integration of diverse perspectives when solving problems. However, the prevailing workplace climate leaned toward authoritative decision-making, where status, hierarchy, and job level dictated solutions rather than collective input. While inclusive practices were stated as a priority, in practice, decision-making was often centralized, and employees lower in the hierarchy felt their contributions were overlooked.
Manifestation in Employee Behavior:
Employees who valued open dialogue and cross-functional collaboration became disengaged when their voices were not heard in key decisions. Rather than fostering a culture of shared problem-solving, employees often deferred to higher-ranking individuals, limiting constructive debate and the exchange of diverse viewpoints. Over time, individuals stopped proactively contributing to discussions, knowing that decisions would ultimately be made based on rank rather than merit.
Needed Change for Alignment:
To align with employees’ desire for a more inclusive decision-making process, leadership needed to create structures that encouraged dialogue across levels and recognized contributions based on insight rather than hierarchy. This meant fostering psychological safety for employees to share their views without fear of being dismissed, implementing more participatory decision-making frameworks, and shifting away from purely top-down leadership styles.
Interdependent (Disconnect: Interdependence vs. Ambition & Individual Prestige)
Finding:
Employees valued teamwork and collective success, believing that the organization thrived best when teams operated as a cohesive unit rather than as a collection of individual contributors. However, the workplace culture reinforced individual ambition, personal achievement, and status-driven recognition—placing greater emphasis on individual prestige than on interdependent collaboration.
Manifestation in Employee Behavior:
Rather than prioritizing shared success, employees were incentivized to focus on personal achievements, which sometimes led to competition rather than collaboration. While teamwork was encouraged on the surface, employees found that recognition and career progression were often tied to individual accomplishments rather than team contributions. This dynamic created tension, with some employees withholding knowledge or competing rather than working together toward a common goal.
Needed Change for Alignment:
To foster true interdependence, leadership needed to shift incentives away from purely individual performance metrics and toward collective achievements. Recognizing and rewarding team-based contributions, creating systems that measured collaborative impact, and ensuring that success was shared across teams rather than concentrated in individual accolades would help reinforce the value of interdependent working.