“Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, and expecting different results," said Albert Einstein.
In chemistry, like in business nothing shifts unless the elements change. In a stable system—same elements, same conditions, same energy -- produces the same outcome every time. You can observe it, measure it, even complain about it. But nothing shifts. In business – how do we need to add energy and new elements to create a profitable chemical reaction? Will a 90-day strategy and innovation sprint produce the business chemistry needed
To get a different reaction, a chemist has only a few options: add a new element, increase the energy, introduce a catalyst, or alter the environment. Does business work exactly the same way?
Senior management team at Red Oak Bank may say they want different results—more revenue, faster growth, better clients — but continue operating with the same inputs: same strategy, same operations, same conversations, and the same risk tolerance. But that is not strategy. That is inertia. Mediocre results are not because the market is unfair, or the timing is wrong. It is because the ‘reaction conditions’ of a business like Red Oak Bank haven’t changed. In essence: the bank remains a closed system. And, closed systems don’t evolve.
Most businesses are not underperforming because they lack intelligence. They are underperforming because they lack intervention, with a distinct strategy and genuine innovation. Real innovation means ‘creating out of nothingness’ not copying what competitors do, hoping for the best.
Can’t force from sameness
At some point in time, managers realise you can’t force a different outcome from the same formula.
Chemistry doesn’t negotiate—and neither does the market. As Red Oak’s Bank board realised — if you want a different result, you must change the reaction. Not slightly, cosmetically, but fundamentally. In both chemistry and business, performance is never accidental. It is engineered.
Managers at Read Oak Bank may chase after better results with solid discipline -- refining processes, setting clearer targets, and holding teams accountable. [You know the drill.] Yet, despite these efforts, outcomes frequently remain stubbornly unchanged. Perhaps this is not a failure of execution, but more a breakdown in design?
Look at the problem through the eyes of a chemist. In any chemical system, a reaction is defined by its inputs and conditions. If the same elements are combined under the same conditions, the result will be predictably identical.
No amount of observation or ‘mumbo jumbo’ exotic jargon alters the outcome. To produce a different result, one must change the reaction itself— by introducing new elements, increasing energy, adding a catalyst, or altering the environment.
Just like a chemical reaction in a lab, or a metal part quietly corroding away, Red Oak Bank operates under similar constraints. An organisation’s results are not random, they are the logical consequence of its strategic ‘reaction conditions’: its capabilities, resource allocation, operating model, and market positioning.
When these remain constant, outcomes will also remain persistent regardless of how strongly the senior management teams desires a shift.
‘Transformation’ has become part of the standard business jargon. But a fundamental paradox remains. Companies attempt to drive different outcomes while preserving the very structures that produced the current state. Same elements and conditions, just hoping for the best.
Levers of a changed reaction
Looking for meaningful change at Red Oak Bank means focusing less on incremental improvement, and more on altering the underlying conditions of performance . This involves:
Introducing new elements – better outcomes often require capabilities that do not yet exist within the organization. This may involve acquiring talent, forming strategic partnerships, or investing in new technologies. Without introducing these ‘elements’ the system lacks the raw material for real transformation.
Increasing energy in the system – in chemistry, reactions require activation energy -- a threshold that must be exceeded before change occurs. In business, this translates to concentrated effort: reallocating capital, prioritising fewer initiatives, and committing leadership attention. Diffuse effort rarely produces breakthrough results.
Deploying catalysts – that accelerate reactions without being consumed by them. In organisations, this role is often played by external advisors, structured innovation processes, or bold strategic interventions.
A catalyst is designed not to replace internal capability, the knowledge, skills and mindset of capable staff. It just allows the system to move faster than it otherwise could.
Changing the environment– Sometimes, the desired upbeat reaction cannot occur within the existing business context. In other words, doing the things, the way they have always been done. Entering new markets, redefining customer segments, or adopting new business models can fundamentally alter the context.
90-day strategy and innovation sprint
The implication for is straightforward — aspiration alone, does not produce change. One way to shift the chemistry is a 90-day sprint. Why a sprint? Because for genuine change to happen, it has to be treated fast and urgent. For Red Oak Bank this meant: ditching the suits, skip the jargon, stressing solid analysis, questioning fundamental assumptions, escaping from a sea of sameness.
Sprint approach works for managers who are tired of slow plans, stale thinking, and sluggish results. With a fun and engaging approach, one can uncover hidden value, break from the competition, and co-create a razor-sharp strategy to launch new growth. Say good-bye to the insanity of the ‘same old’.
