“Always been done this way” as shield and sword

“It’s just always been done this way,” has seen its last battle in organizations across America. I’ve noticed that even diehard office traditionalists lost their patience for this phrase in 2021. I think the need for immense amount of post-pandemic office reform has profoundly weakened the don’t-mess-with-success line of argument, but I want to study this phrase for a moment.

As far as I’m concerned, I consider it a regressive argument intended to quash attempts to reform systems. I don’t tolerate the phrase in my office, and my employees have always (thankfully) been much too intelligent to use a verbal crutch like that. But to fight the phrase within the confines of a larger organization, you have to understand it. In studying the uses of the always-been-done, I’ve seen tactical use for it as both a shield and a sword.

Its use as a sword

Using the above phrase as a sword roughly translates to “we’ve never received any complaints about the process before. Why are you messing with something that works?” This is both the active and traditional version of the argument. It can really be used as a line of attack to defend anything, such as:

• “There are a ton of other priorities right now, so why are you dredging this one up?”
• “Stop adding work for us. This isn’t your area.”
• “Stop talking about this. We need to talking about that instead.”

…or, most often:

• “Are you actually questioning how we do things?”

Its use as a shield

Using “it’s always been done this way” as a shield is basically an “I’ve never really thought about the process before.” That is, it’s an admission that the respondent just expected everything to hang together and didn’t consider that there are multiple levels to an organization.

Just look at the wording — “always been done” is passive — it’s a reflection that things just “get done” by some nameless, faceless person. It reflects a lack of control of a process. The common wording of the phrase in the consulting community is actually “we’ve always done it that way,” but I’ve seen much more passive wording on the ground.

For example, an office director may conduct their duties in an otherwise diligent and intelligent way, but when pressed on an individual procedure within a larger process, the executive may be at a loss for an answer. It’s at that point that the phrase trots its way into the argument, with the executive hoping that the conversation moves on to more knowledgeable pastures.

In contrast to the sword, I’ve personally experienced the shield much more often. In many ways, the shield is actually more pernicious and dangerous in an organization — getting over apathy is much more challenging than breaking though the walls of people who have a strong belief. But I’m thankful that we’re much more comfortable, as organizations, with stopping the response dead in its tracks and demanding a detailed review.