# Reformers are heretics who aren’t kicked out of an institution Is there any difference between a reformer and a heretic besides the fact that one is kicked out of an institution and the other manages to stay with it long enough to change it? Both have divergent policy ideas. There also might be something around heretics being actively hunted, while outcasts are just ignored. Institutions have different tolerance for divergent opinions and are more or less open to change. Four quadrants * High Openess to divergent opinion, high openess to change: Reformers thrive * High Openess to divergent opinion, low openness to change: frustrated potential reformers lead on their own * Low Openness to divergent opinion, High Openness to change: Lots of meaningless changes, lots of heretics * Low Openness to divergent opinion, low openness to change: lots of heretics ### Related * [[Nobody is resigning for failing to do their institutional role]] * [[The default state of an institution is to become a permanent thing dedicated to its own self preservation]] * [[Institutions shape how individuals interact]] * [[Could you design incentives so everyone had skin-in-the-game around institutional purpose and mission?]] * [[Politicization of an institution means that the people in the institution are more aligned with external goals than the institutions mission]] <!-- #stub --> [Web URL for this note](http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Reformers+are+heretics+who+aren’t+kicked+out+of+an+institution) [Comment on this note](http://via.hypothes.is/http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Reformers+are+heretics+who+aren’t+kicked+out+of+an+institution)