Organizations optimize for order, not for truth.

Because if it goes against the grain, it's potentially dangerous.

It could erode the hard-won order and structure.

Or even cause an explosion that throws everything into chaos.

There's a reason there's a grain: the grain works.

It has at least worked in the past, and is known to be viable.

Going against the grain has to prove not only that it is valuable but that it is viable.

Imagine a 2x2 of correct and going with the grain.

Going with the grain and correct: Extremely easy to do.

Everyone agrees it's important and will celebrate you for doing it.

Going with the grain and incorrect: No one ever got fired for doing it.

It didn't end up working, but at least you didn't upset the apple cart.

You're very unlikely to get punished for it.

Going against the grain and incorrect: Everyone can agree to not do.

Dangerous and value destructive.

Going against the grain and correct: Might be game-changing, but very dangerous to attempt.

Because it goes against the grain, if it turns out to work, it could change the system, possibly in a game-changing way.

But also the organization will fight it strongly, because it goes against the grain.

The bar for convincing other people it's not dangerous and is worth doing is much, much harder.

If you fail, you'll get punished and maybe even knocked out of the game.

As an organization you want to encourage some of that last bucket.

But as an individual, it's significantly more downside than upside to try an against-the-grain idea.

So the emergent equilibrium is individuals in the organization working to maintain order, not truth.