What to Make of Jill Lepore’s Attack on Disruption?

In 1997, a little known Harvard professor named Clayton Christensen published a surprise bestseller called The Innovator’s Dilemma, where he coined the term disruptive technology, which later evolved into disruptive innovation and became a mantra for the digital age.

Yet in a well argued piece in The New Yorker, his colleague at Harvard, the celebrated historian Jill Lepore, cries foul.  She calls disruptive innovation a “competitive strategy for an age seized by terror.”  “Transfixed by change,” she writes, “it’s blind to continuity.”

It’s not just Christensen’s theories that Lepore opposes, but what she calls the “rhetoric of disruption” which leads us to seek change for change’s sake, undermining productive stability.  She also points out that disruption is no panacea and leads to failure more often than it does to success. Is it time to rethink our culture of disruption?

Why Do Great Firms Fail?

To put Lepore’s criticisms in context, the best place to start is with Christensen’s initial idea.  As a newly minted professor at Harvard, he became intensely curious about why great businesses fail.  Yet he wasn’t concerned with just any failures, but once high-flying firms with strong performance and great management. How did they lose their way?

What he found surprised him. The businesses he studied were doing exactly what they were following the many of the very same principles that his own institution espoused.  They invested heavily in R&D, listened to their customers and relentlessly sought out markets with high profit potential.

His unlikely conclusion was that they failed not because they lost their way, but because they were following established practices. What he found was that in each case, the firm in question encountered something he called a disruptive technology. These had three common attributes:

They didn’t meet conventional performance standards:  Customers tend to want better performance and businesses strive to continually meet higher standards. Yet Christensen found that as technology exceeded basic needs, an opportunity opened up for a product that actually performed worse by conventional metrics.

Lepore calls these “cheaper, poorer-quality products,” but that’s a common misapprehension.  In many cases, they are cheaper, but they don’t have to be. Digital cameras, for example, were a disruptive innovation that was initially far more expensive than conventional cameras.

The important thing is that these innovations change the basis of competition towards new attributes.  So they can be cheaper, but they can also be more convenient or offer other advantages not traditionally associated with the category.

They sold to less profitable markets: One of the things places like Harvard Business School has always drilled into their students was the importance of pursuing higher margins.  Yet Christensen found that disruptive firms often did the opposite. They actually targeted less profitable customers!

He offered steel minimills like Nucor as an example.  In the beginning, they were only able to produce lower quality steel and the large integrated mills happily ceded the territory.  By focusing on higher quality steel, the incumbents migrated upwards and actually increased their profitability initially.

Yet as the minimill technology improved abd the large integrated mills continued to migrate upwards and cede ever more territory, their business went into a tailspin. As Lepore points out in her article, they eventually recovered, but only after a long, painful period of reorganization.

They necessitated a change business model: Perhaps the most important aspect of disruptive technologies is that they require a change in business model. Kodak was unable to compete in the market for digital cameras not because it didn’t understand the concept (in fact, it helped invent it), but because the firm was making too much money selling film.

And that, in effect, is what makes disruptive technologies so disruptive. They challenge incumbents to change not only their products and practices, but what they have come to value.  If you’ve spent the last 50 years striving to make the world’s best film, it’s hard to embrace cameras that don’t use it.

Anatomy of Disruption

Lepore makes a valid point in asserting that we are too quick to glorify disruption. The Arab Spring has certainly disrupted the Middle East, but has yet to demonstrably improve the lives of the people in the region. I was excited to take part in the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, but disheartened by its aftermath. Ten years later, the country erupted again.

Yet Lepore veers off course by essentially affirming the consequent. She assumes that because disruption can often lead to poor outcomes, that Christensen’s ideas are somehow at fault.  In her fervent desire to critique, she conflates. Disruption, innovation and disruptive innovation are, in fact, three distinct entities.

As I’ve explained before, disruption is a function of networks. Innovation is a process of finding novel solutions to important problems.  Disruptive innovation is not synonymous with either, but a special case of both.  Essentially, it is a function of business processes and can only be adequately understood in that context.

The Innovation Matrix

The constant juxtaposition of the terms disruption, innovation and disruptive innovation, makes for some very confusing semantics. Apple, for example, is certainly a disruptive company, but most of its products don’t meet the conditions described above. In fact, they are usually more expensive, perform better and make money the same way others do.

So in order to add some clarity, I developed the matrix below, first published in Harvard Business Review a few years ago.

Innovation Matrix w solutions

Clearly, there is more than one way to innovate, what’s really important is the type of problem you are trying to solve. Apple, as I alluded to above, mostly attacks well defined problems in well defined areas and so focuses its efforts on sustaining innovation.  Conversely, IBM spends a lot of money on basic research to push new frontiers.

That creates fundamentally different approaches to solving problems. For example, IBM maintains a research division, but Apple doesn’t. Other companies, like P&G, put a lot of effort into open innovation to solve well defined problems that they have become stuck on, but they feel will help them build better products.

Disruptive technologies are different mainly because it is difficult for incumbent businesses to develop them.  They are, in effect, solutions looking for problems. They may present fantastic opportunities for VC firms that are willing to accept a high failure rate, much less so for existing firms who need to pay employees every month and to keep the lights on.

Managing For Disruption

The subject of innovation is a somewhat technical one and its surprising to see Lepore pour so much vitiol into condemning it.  What seems to offend her is not so much that a fellow professor wrote a book or that Silicon Valley hipsters hold conferences, but the glorification of disruption.  She writes:

“A pack of attacking startups sounds something like a pack of ravenous hyenas, but, generally, the rhetoric of disruption—a language of panic, fear, asymmetry, and disorder—calls on the rhetoric of another kind of conflict, in which a upstart refuses to play by the established rules of engagement, and blows things up.”

Yet despite her protestations, the world has clearly become more disruptive.  Since 1960, the average lifespan of a company on the S&P 500 has fallen from more than 60 years to less than 20.  Lifetime employment in one firm—or even one industry—has become a thing of the past (except, of course, for tenured professors at Harvard).

So although her objection to change for change’s sake is reasonable and even welcome, it’s not quite clear what she is advocating for, except perhaps to replace what she sees as blind obedience to disruption with blind obedience to continuity.

Like it or not, we can no longer assume stability, but must learn to manage for disruption.  That does not mean that we need to kill all sacred cows, just that we need to constantly reconsider our devotion to them.

image  credit: enterrasolutions.com

Global Innovation Management Institute certification

Wait! Before you go…

Choose how you want the latest innovation content delivered to you:


Greg Satell is an internationally recognized authority on Digital Strategy and Innovation. He consults and speaks in the areas of digital innovation, innovation management, digital marketing and publishing, as well as offshore web and app development. His blog is Digital Tonto and you can follow him on Twitter.

This entry was posted in Headlines, Innovation, Innovation Perspectives, News, Profiles of Innovators, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to What to Make of Jill Lepore’s Attack on Disruption?

  1. Pingback: Innovation Excellence | What to Make of Jill Le...

  2. Marshall Barnes says:

    “Disruptive technologies are different mainly because it is difficult for incumbent businesses to develop them. They are, in effect, solutions looking for problems. They may present fantastic opportunities for VC firms that are willing to accept a high failure rate, much less so for existing firms who need to pay employees every month and to keep the lights on. ”

    That paragraph pretty much sums up the crux of the problem because nothing in it is set in stone. Who says that incumbent businesses have to have difficulty developing disruptive technologies? And who says that disruptive technologies have to have a high failure rate? The problem in both of these examples is the same one that none of the so-called “”innovation experts” address and that is the ability to train people to think more innovatively. Here’s the unrealized reality – if you have the proper training, you don’t come up with ideas that fail. It’s like any other activity – the more trained you are, the better you get. No one is taking the training to think innovatively seriously, except me. The reason I do, is because I’ve been doing it for over forty years. Name anyone that is competing *against* NASA in anything. I’m beating NASA in the race to warp drive. We start pubic demonstration events next year. NASA has no warp drive technology to even test yet. That’s innovation on a level that dwarfs anything Christensen can imagine let alone talks about.

    This debate over disruption, between Lepore and Christensen is just the tip of the iceberg, it’s not the entire basis for the conflict and Lepore doesn’t have what it will take to actually change anything. I saw this coming, because of all the misinformation and marlarkey that I’ve seen on a scale that is unprecedented and I knew a backlash was coming, and I got ready for it – http://paranovation.blog.com/2014/06/23/i-knew-disruption-was-malarkey-long-before-lepore-did-heres-proof/

    Disruption theory needs an overhaul. The innovation industry needs to learn to talk straight or it will be disrupted (in the traditional sense). The bazaar won’t be dancing with the Cathedral, but instead dancing on its ruins…

  3. Pingback: Innovation Excellence | What to Make of Jill Lepore's Attack on ... | FindMeO

  4. Pingback: Innovation Excellence | What to Make of Jill Le...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Batterii - A premium Innovation Excellence sponsor

Keep Up to Date

  • FeedBurner
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Slideshare
  • Email
  • YouTube
  • IPhone
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Stumble Upon

Innovation Authors - Braden Kelley, Julie Anixter and Rowan Gibson

Your hosts, Braden Kelley, Julie Anixter and Rowan Gibson, are innovation writers, speakers and strategic advisors to many of the world’s leading companies.

“Our mission is to help you achieve innovation excellence inside your own organization by making innovation resources, answers, and best practices accessible for the greater good.”