[inopinatus]

Adding to the other replies: because it’s not just about you. A large environment will include tens to hundreds of colleagues in the immediate blast radius of any change you make (and possibility thousands to tens of thousands beyond), including ringers from external contractors, and ranging in skill and disposition from ninja sorcerer to middle-of-the-road unimaginative plodders, and none of whom particularly wish to deal with someone’s idiosyncratic preferences.

If there’s a crisis in which your unexpected novelty is an impediment to resolution, or (worse) a direct contributing factor, it’ll be your head on a pike.

Conversely, if you introduce a tool that takes “only” fifteen minutes to learn, but a thousand people have to learn it, that’s six weeks of aggregate human productivity you just appropriated. So it’d better be worth it.

You absolutely can introduce new ideas and utilities and capabilities, but you have to bring everyone along with you, and it has to be a material benefit. Good news, the leadership skills required to do so are not innate, they can be learned.

Some organisations are better at fostering change as a matter of their overall strategy, and anyone whose professional disposition is towards constant reinvention would be well advised to seek them out.

[MCFwHFgjPE]

Thank you, that was very clear. Sometimes it is hard to understand simple ideas since I never had real experience in the area.