Can't upvote this enough. It is very important to recognize that "comfort zone" also means you must have room to fail, which is actually tough for companies to

Can't upvote this enough. It is very important to recognize that "comfort zone" also means you must have room to fail, which is actually tough for companies to hire for because most companies are actually super risk averse when it comes to hiring. Why else would they want to hire people that know as much about their stack as a filter before asking questions about their potential? I went (foolishly, in hindsight) into areas on the thesis that a lot of organizations simply need some motivation from one or two highly capable people to raise the standards for everyone and that this form of leadership would be a good career path because people are oftentimes rewarded quite well for saving failing / ailing companies. Instead, I was beaten severely for trying to do create too much change for people that just wanted to a 9-to-5 job or (more importantly) given no projects with any risk or even much value even if it succeeded. I've come to realize that organizations without risk or without any sense of leaving their comfort zones are the same thing as people - these are beginner-expert organizations. These are companies who implement a working Hadoop cluster in production and give themselves a big pat on the back... in 2015. These are companies that implement some CMDB... in 2014. These are companies that are rolling out SOAP services seriously on a roadmap... for 2018. The aversion to risk leads inevitably to worse results than if you had accepted some failures, but this only makes sense anyway when your organization is capable of speed. And this becomes the ultimate chicken and the egg problem with large companies. My answer is that you must break your egg to create a new chicken - if you do not sacrifice something, you will lose everything for sure.