By Will Hampton

Innovation in local government rarely falters because theidea itself is flawed. More often, it runs into trouble because innovationsurfaces value conflicts—efficiency versus equity, transparency versus trust,speed versus deliberation. A February 2025 article by Jorrit de Jong, Albert Meijer andDavid W. Giles, published by the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiativeat the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University offers asimple and memorable framework for understanding how public organizations tendto respond when those tensions emerge: the ostrich, the chameleon,and the dolphin.

The authors’ central insight is that innovation oftenstruggles not because of technical shortcomings, but because leadersunderestimate the values-based disagreements innovationprovokes. I’ve encountered all three strategies in practice. Each has taught mesomething about when innovation stalls, when it advances, and when it trulysticks.

The Ostrich: Avoiding the value conflict
The ostrich strategy pushes forward while downplaying or avoiding conflictaltogether. I saw this most clearly in our early struggles to change the way wereported department performance to the public. The goal was straightforward:improve transparency, support data-informed decisions, and communicate resultsmore clearly. But beneath the surface were unresolved value tensions. Forsome departments, the effort felt reductive—flattening complex,relationship-based work into simplified metrics. Others worried about publicmisinterpretation or that performance data would be used punitively rather thanas a learning tool. Because there was strong interest from the city council andcommitment from city management, we moved ahead without fully engaging theunderlying value concerns. The dashboard functioned, but adoption wasuneven. The team that met quarterly to review performance noted ongoingchallenges with some of the measures. Those concerns were reported to departmentdirectors, but little changed—and the cycle repeated. The lesson was clear:when resistance is rooted in values—avoidance doesn’t eliminate conflict; itsimply postpones it.

The Chameleon: Adapting to keep momentum

The chameleon strategy acknowledges conflict just enough tokeep moving. This approach proved effective when we wanted to improve the easeand consistency of reporting problems to the city by community residents. Here,the core tension was speed versus capacity. Residents wanted quick responses;departments worried about workload, expectations, andaccountability. Rather than forcing a fully formed solution citywide, weexperimented. We adjusted categories, refined service-level expectations, clarifiedinternal workflows, and learned as we went. The system evolved through use, andgot better and better through refinement. Chameleon strategies don’tresolve value conflicts entirely, but they reduce risk, build confidence, andcreate space for learning. Sometimes, that’s exactly what innovation needs.

The Dolphin: Learning through engagement

The dolphin strategy intentionally surfaces value conflictsand redesign solutions through collaboration and engagement. A strong examplewas an effort to use data collected from various sources about short-termrentals in our community and create an online resource center for neighbors tounderstand short-term rental compliance and report problems.

This effort touched sensitive and competing values: neighborhood stability,property rights, economic opportunity, and regulatory fairness. Instead ofrushing to implementation, we invested time in listening, co-design, anditeration. Significant stakeholder feedback shaped the design. Internalcollaboration improved policy clarity. Both the technology and the assumptionsbehind it evolved. The result wasn’t just a better tool—it was greaterlegitimacy, clearer expectations, and broader acceptance, even among skeptics.While dolphin strategies often require more time upfront, our experience showedthat intentional engagement reduced later friction—accelerating implementationover the life of the program.

Choosing the right strategy

De Jong, Meijer, and Giles remind us that innovationleadership is as much about process as product. The takeaway for public-sectorinnovators isn’t that one strategy is always right, but that leaders mustdiagnose the conflict they’re facing. Is it technical or values-based? Is speedessential, or is legitimacy the greater risk?

Ostrich strategies defer value conflict, often at the costof learning. Chameleon strategies adapt around conflict to maintain momentum.Dolphin strategies confront conflict directly and invest in deliberationand redesign. The art of innovation leadership lies in knowing which approachthe moment requires—and having the discipline to shift when the strategy nolonger fits.

How do you see ostrich, chameleon and dolphin strategiesat play in your innovation work?

The Future Is Uncertain. Your Strategy Doesn’t Have toBe.

‍