The cautionary tales are well known. Kodak built the first digital camera but locked it away to protect its film profits. Blockbuster tested streaming but couldn’t imagine it without late fees and stores. Borders outsourced its e-commerce to Amazon, which promptly walked away with the future. Sony, once the pioneer of portable music, chained its devices to proprietary formats while Apple captured the market with the clean simplicity of the iPod. Instead of letting tomorrow’s innovation stand on its own, we squeeze it into old frames—into yesterday’s hand-me-downs—and wonder why it looks awkward.
Every generation believes it has finally figured out how to manage change. And every generation ends up repeating the same mistake: taking something truly new and stuffing it into something comfortably old.
The pattern is obvious. Incumbents cling to what they know—even when it’s wearing thin. They protect what already exists because it still fits the balance sheet, even if it no longer fits the world. Startups, by contrast, don’t have closets full of past investments. They can’t compete on scale, so they compete on variation. They move quickly, sometimes awkwardly, because they’ve got less to lose. As Bob Dylan sang, “When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.”
Why do we keep thinking this way? Because the familiar feels safe. Because we trust what we’ve already worn in, even when it’s out of style. Incumbents mistake protecting what they have for protecting the future. It isn’t irrational—it’s human. We value consistency, avoid loss, and believe what worked yesterday will work again if we just tailor it slightly. The trouble is, innovation doesn’t arrive as a tailor. It shows up as a stranger with its own shape, and we don’t trust it until someone else wears it well.
And so here we are again. We nod at these stories as if they belong to another time, all while repeating the same error ourselves. The lesson remains clear, and just as hard to follow: never put the new in the old.
Today’s Wardrobe Mistakes
If this were just a relic of the past, we could laugh at Kodak and Blockbuster while polishing our own trophies. But the habit is alive and well. The future keeps arriving with fresh possibilities, and we keep trying to disguise it in yesterday’s look.
AI in Universities
Generative AI could make learning adaptive, personalized, and creative. Yet most universities treat it as a cheat sheet for exams. Faculty commissions debate how to police it, while vendors rush out “AI detectors.” Instead of redesigning the classroom, academia is sewing AI into the same lecture-and-test model it has worn for centuries. The issue isn’t the technology—it’s the refusal to imagine a different cut.
Fighter Jets vs. Drones
Cheap, swarming drones are transforming battlefields. They’re fast, flexible, and disposable. Yet militaries continue to invest billions in next-generation fighter jets—sleek, colossal machines designed for a very different era. Doctrine still casts drones as supporting actors instead of leads. Why? Because scale still feels like strength. Fighter jets look like power; drones look like toys. But history often turns on what begins as toys.
Streaming Services as Cable 2.0
Streaming was supposed to liberate us from bloated cable bundles—on-demand, personalized, no commercials. And yet here we are, surrounded by bundles, ads, and rigid schedules. The old business model has been stitched back onto the new platform until it resembles the very thing it set out to replace. The freedom of streaming now feels like déjà vu.
In each case, the folly is psychological as much as structural. Incumbents feel safer forcing the new into the clothes they already own. It looks familiar. It feels manageable. But the fit is wrong—and the new stumbles not because it’s weak, but because we insist on making it wear yesterday’s cut.
Anton Ego, the food critic in Ratatouille, captured it perfectly: “The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.” Right now, instead of befriending the new, we are trying to make it look like us.
Befriending the New
If the recurring mistake is squeezing tomorrow into yesterday’s cut, then the fix isn’t to tailor harder. It’s to change how we think about fit altogether. The future doesn’t need alterations to match our habits—it needs permission to arrive in its own form.
That starts with making the clash visible. Organizations love harmony, but innovation often looks off at first. Allow AI in classrooms even if it disrupts grading traditions. Let drones operate beyond the familiar doctrines of manned flight. Stop hiding what doesn’t match; sometimes the clash is what signals a new season.
Second, treat experiments as public rehearsals, not private pilots. Too often, companies hide experiments until they’re polished. But new ideas grow when people can see them, remix them, and even laugh at them. That’s how TikTok trends spread and open-source tools improve: in plain view, with rough edges intact. Innovation shouldn’t be a fitting behind closed doors—it should be a runway where even the odd looks teach us something.
Third, steal shamelessly from outsiders. Insiders are invested in keeping the old wardrobe alive. Outsiders don’t care. Students will show professors how AI changes learning. Garage coders will show militaries how to use drones in ways doctrine never imagined. Fintech founders will teach banks what customers really want. The point isn’t to admire them—it’s to copy and adapt before they outpace you.
Finally, retire something every time you add something. Most organizations just keep layering—new initiatives, new systems, new platforms—until they collapse under their own weight. True renewal requires subtraction. If streaming is the future, drop cable packaging. If digital health works, close waiting rooms. Befriending the new means clearing space, not piling more on top.
The point is simple: stop dressing tomorrow in whatever you’re wearing today. Innovation doesn’t look strange because it’s wrong. It looks strange because we won’t let it show up as itself. The new doesn’t want to blend in. It wants its own place, its own style, and its own chance to change what “fit” even means.
The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.
Jeff DeGraff
Source link
