Navigation innovations between legitimacy and illegitimacy

Agents of change in government and other public organizations can innovate by creatively navigating the "gray zone" between legitimacy and illegitimacy, employing tactics such as distancing from, circumventing, and mystifying rules to foster innovation.

Innovation within the public sector faces challenges, shaped by regulatory frameworks, institutional norms, and societal expectations. These factors create a rigid environment where new ideas often encounter resistance, with many failing to achieve legitimacy or becoming overly constrained in the process. For innovators, recognizing the critical role of legitimizing their ideas is paramount to unlocking their full potential. Acknowledging that neither the established methods nor the proposed alternative innovations are entirely legitimate or illegitimate carves out a new space for creative solutions. Embracing legitimacy as a spectrum rather than a binary concept, highlights a "gray zone" between legitimacy and illegitimacy. This zone allows for the utilization of three “gray” states of legitimacy: conditional legitimacy, conditional illegitimacy, and unknown legitimacy. Conditional legitimacy occurs when an innovation is accepted under specific conditions, maintaining its legitimacy as long as these are met. Conditional illegitimacy describes a situation where an innovation is deemed illegitimate but gains acceptance due to mitigating factors from for example pragmatic, normative, or cognitive perspectives. Unknown legitimacy refers to cases with uncertain legitimacy, due to either unresolved decisions or conflicting views among stakeholders.

The gray zone of legitimacy

Most groundbreaking ideas are not immediately recognized as legitimate. To navigate this challenge, innovators must strategically reposition their ideas from a perceived state of illegitimacy to a more ambiguous "gray zone of legitimacy." This strategic positioning provides innovators frequently with legitimacy to initiate their projects and gradually build more legitimacy for their ideas through demonstrated successes. We will outline three rhetorical tactics that can be effectively utilized to achieve this transition.

Distancing from Rules: This tactic acknowledges existing rules but presents arguments for why they might not be relevant in specific organizational contexts. It emphasizes on prioritizing societal dilemmas, strategic changes, and organizational values over for example strict adherence to procedures, aiming to reduce bureaucratic red tape. When applied effectively, this approach engenders a state of conditional illegitimacy, acknowledging the necessity of deviating from established rules in specific scenarios where the rules are less relevant or insufficiently critical.

Circumventing Rules: This approach leverages the specific wording of rules to identify loopholes or alternative routes that enable unconventional outcomes without directly violating any rules. By adhering strictly to the letter of the law, innovators can sidestep broader expectations and carve out room for their innovative ideas. This tactic demands a thorough understanding of the regulatory landscape and a sharp ability to identify opportunities that align with innovation goals, aiming to achieve conditional legitimacy through strategic compliance.

Mystifying Rules: This tactic aims to introduce ambiguity or alternative interpretations to existing rules, creating more space for innovation. It relies on the interpretive flexibility of laws and regulations, challenging and reevaluating conventional understandings. By proposing an alternative interpretation of an existing rule, this tactic challenges the legitimacy of current expectations, prompting a reassessment of legal frameworks. This period of unknown legitimacy creates an opportune moment to introduce innovation. As the established interpretation becomes a subject of debate, it opens a window for novel solutions.

Navigating the "gray zone" might be viewed as reckless by some, yet I challenge this assumption. Established rules, while necessary, are not flawless. Questioning their validity in pursuit of innovative approaches is crucial. This process requires a careful balance between adhering to existing regulatory frameworks and exploring new boundaries to better serve the public interest. Innovation within the "gray zone" demands transparency, dialogue, and collaboration with all stakeholders, including regulators, the public, and other entities in the public sector. By clearly communicating intentions, rationalizing decisions, and demonstrating beneficial outcomes, innovators can legitimize their efforts, encouraging wider institutional acceptance and support.

I call on public administrators to take a more critical look at the rules set by the regulatory bodies, challenge the taken-for-granted interpretations, and embrace the “great gray opportunities” as opportunities for greater public value in the gray area between illegitimacy and legitimacy.

In conclusion, the "gray zone" is a vital area for public sector innovation. By understanding and tactically navigating this space, change agents can foster innovations that are better able to meet societal needs. The tactics of distancing from rules, circumventing rules, and mystifying rules provide tactics for public sector innovators to explore new possibilities and implement change.

Acknowledgement: key constructs in the blog are based on the research of Siraz, Claes, De Castro and Vaara (2022) regarding conditional legitimacy, conditional illegitimacy, and unknown legitimacy.