Surprise by Design: The Risks for Social Innovation when Surprise is Imposed as a Governing Strategy

Kimberlyn Rachael Leary & Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld

Negotiation Journal2026https://doi.org/10.1162/ngtn.a.59article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Abstract Social innovations are at risk at a time when surprise is employed as a unilateral government strategy in order to shrink and refocus government operations. Social innovations involve collective efforts, frequently spanning public and private stakeholders. The needed trust and reciprocal understandings are undercut when government employs the logic of reengineering combined with surprise as a strategy—what we term “Surprise by Design.” This contrasts with past federal restructuring initiatives that employed a mix of administrative expertise (top down) and frontline continuous improvement (bottom up) as strategies for negotiated changes. Surprise is a particular type of top-down imposed change, which disrupts patterned roles and routines in order to impose a reconceptualization of how government will function in society. This article documents surprise as a change strategy and identifies needed adjustments to two relevant lateral models for negotiated change. By taking this into account, social innovation initiatives can be more resilient in the face of Surprise by Design.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/ngtn.a.59

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{kimberlyn2026,
  title        = {{Surprise by Design: The Risks for Social Innovation when Surprise is Imposed as a Governing Strategy}},
  author       = {Kimberlyn Rachael Leary & Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld},
  journal      = {Negotiation Journal},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/ngtn.a.59},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Surprise by Design: The Risks for Social Innovation when Surprise is Imposed as a Governing Strategy

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.