TL;DR: The Amish Innovation Playbook for Product Teams
- Guided constraints work: The Amish use the Ordnung (community rules) to evaluate tech against core values; product teams need similar governance frameworks
- Empower early adopters: Designate trusted team members to test new tools with explicit permission and clear boundaries
- Tame before adopting: Modify tools to fit your culture rather than letting them reshape your processes
- Reward exploration, not just outcomes: Measure experiments run and hypotheses tested, not just successful deployments
- Keep it segmented: Allow different teams to adopt at different speeds while maintaining overall coherence
The goal isn't to deny technology; it's to innovate responsibly within guardrails that protect what matters most.
Every product leader faces this paradox: move fast with emerging tech or protect your team from shiny object syndrome.
Teams often regret adopting the latest JavaScript framework when its community support fades within two years. Yet product leaders must test new tools and drive innovation. How do you balance these competing demands?
I first glimpsed a solution to this tension as a kid driving to Keuka Lake with my family. We'd pass horse-drawn buggies heading to "The Windmill," a sprawling outdoor flea market run mostly by Mennonite vendors. These communities somehow thrived while staying true to their values, even as the world modernized around them.
Years later, I discovered Kevin Kelly's writing on Amish technology adoption. It turns out they're not anti-technology; they're controlled experimenters with a focus on community impact.
Why the Amish Model Matters Now
In corporate environments, emerging technologies arrive like waves. AI tools, no-code platforms, blockchain solutions all promise to revolutionize work. Board members ask CEOs about their "AI strategy" or "blockchain roadmap," pressuring product leaders to respond quickly. But how do you test innovative tools without unleashing shadow IT, governance breakdown, or team fragmentation?
The Amish have figured this out. They've maintained community cohesion for centuries while selectively adopting technologies that serve their purpose. Their secret isn't avoiding innovation; it's innovating within constraints.
How the Amish Vet New Technology
1. Values-First Evaluation (The Ordnung)
Amish communities use the Ordnung, written and unwritten community rules, to evaluate whether new technology aligns with core values like modesty, community cohesion, and separation from worldly vanity.
Technologies get adopted incrementally, ensuring they don't promote individual ego or undermine communal ties. A generator might power a workshop but not electrify a home. The tool serves the community, not the other way around.
2. Designated Early Adopters
Within each settlement, certain individuals, usually entrepreneurs or business owners, are known early adopters. They test new tools with explicit consent from church leaders.
For example, a shop owner might place a "black-box" phone in a separate structure. This allows business communication without violating norms about technology in the home. The innovation is visible, controlled, and reversible.
3. Taming Tools to Fit Culture
The Amish don't just adopt or reject technology; they modify it. Pneumatic tools replace electric ones in workshops. Gas refrigerators substitute for electric models. The function remains, but the form fits their values.
This isn't compromise; it's intentional design. They're asking: "How do we get the benefit without the baggage?"
4. Segmented, Contextual Adoption
Different Amish districts allow different technologies based on local needs and leadership decisions. Some permit gas appliances; others remain stricter. This decentralized approach respects local context while enabling experimentation.
Translating Amish Principles to Product Teams
Start with Lightweight Governance
Like the Ordnung, organizations need risk-tiered frameworks for evaluating new tools. Create simple approval forms that define:
- Connectivity requirements: Is it sandboxed, cloud-connected, or externally integrated?
- Data exposure: Does it touch PII, proprietary IP, or sensitive workflows?
- Integration depth: Standalone experiment or embedded in core processes?
It's on executive leadership to balance the risk and reward, providing expiremental pods clearance to do the testing. Early adopters can move fast only when leadership is willing to sign-off on risks and trust their teams.
Empower Your Innovation Pod
Innovation flourishes when motivated early adopters get explicit permission to experiment. Management's job:
- Clear procurement obstacles
- Enable sandbox provisioning
- Protect pilots from process drag
But maintain governance with clear kill criteria, approval workflows, and time limits before scaling decisions.
Measure Exploration, Not Just Success
Organizations should reward learning, not just winning. Track:
- Number of tools tested
- Hypotheses formulated and validated
- Pilots run to completion (pass or fail)
This reframes failure as insight and encourages smart risk-taking within guardrails.
Balance Enthusiasm with Safety
Early adopter enthusiasm needs management:
- Embed risk-aware processes from day one to avoid shadow IT
- Remember early adopters may not represent typical users
- Guard against team resentment by clarifying selection criteria and involving others in future pilots
Risk-Aware Processes That Actually Work
Corporate teams need processes that enable fast experimentation and provide a roadmap to wide-scale adoption.
1. Risk-Tiered Security Reviews
Instead of treating every new tool as a high-risk enterprise deployment, reviews get scaled by exposure:
- Low risk: Sandboxed environments, no sensitive data
- Medium risk: Vendor SaaS tools, non-critical internal data
- High risk: Customer PII, financial systems, regulated workloads
This keeps bureaucracy light for safe pilots but adds rigor when stakes are higher.
2. Data Classification and Handling Rules
Every experiment starts by tagging data types: public, internal, confidential, restricted.
- Public/internal: Free to use in pilots
- Confidential/restricted: Needs masking, synthetic datasets, or approval
This prevents sensitive IP or PII from leaking during tests.
3. Time-Boxed Pilot Access
Pilot environments and accounts auto-expire after a set period (e.g. 90 days).
This ensures experiments don't quietly roll into shadow production and forces a decision: scale, extend with review, or shut down.
4. Lightweight One-Page Pilot Charters
Every pilot begins with a short charter that states:
- Hypothesis being tested
- Guardrails (budget, data exposure, integration scope)
- Kill criteria (conditions under which the pilot stops)
- Review Date (Booked on Sponsors/Committee Calendar)
This creates clarity and accountability without heavy process.
5. Embedded Compliance Partner
Rather than a long queue of reviews, assign a compliance or security partner to the innovation team. They pre-approve sandbox patterns, advise on guardrails early, and attend readouts to ensure a compliance partner that understands the trade-offs of the project.
This compliance team member should be one that avoids "blocker" behavior, improving relationships between product, engineering, and compliance/security groups at the company. Hopefully providing an internal advocate that will help smooth the process when it comes time to scale a successful solution.
The Hard Parts
Even structured experimentation has trade-offs:
- Security risk: Sandboxed pilots can still expose vulnerabilities
- Representativeness: Early adopter feedback may not reflect broader needs
- Pilot fatigue: Repeated experiments without follow-through scaling demotivate teams
The best leaders are willing to personally accept the risks and defend the teams "freedom to operate" based on trust, communication, and engagement.
Simple Tools Win in Messy Environments
The Amish model demonstrates something profound: you can innovate while protecting what matters most. The key isn't saying no to new technology; it's building a testing process that insures the technology aligns with your mission.
Corporate teams can learn from this approach by creating lightweight governance, empowering trusted early adopters, and rewarding exploration over perfection. The goal is rapid learning with guardrails, not innovation theater.
The hardest challenge is driving a successful pilot to scaled adoption. Let me know if you're interested in a follow-up blog post on that topic.
Questions for Reflection
What values guide your team's technology decisions? Who are your trusted early adopters, and do they have permission to experiment? How might you tame the next emerging tool to fit your culture instead of reshaping your team around it?