For the past 30 years, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and startups have embraced the concept of disruptive innovation. We’ve seen this in Silicon Valley’s TechCrunch Disrupt, the Bluetooth suppository, and the Glass Onion disruptors that assemble in layoff mode. We’ve also seen a parade of TV shows about disruptors turned scammers, and Teslas that keep blowing up. It seems that disruptive innovation may not be as solid of a business strategy as we were led to believe.
Disruption culture emerged in the mid-1990s in reaction to the massive layoffs of the 1980s. Aspiring C-suite rebels created startups to take back power from the establishment and forge their own commercial destinies. This was later dubbed disruptors by Harvard professor Clay Christensen, who wrote about the startup phenomenon and the downfall of well-established companies in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma.
Disruptive innovation took the business world by storm and was eventually dubbed the most influential business theory of the early 21st century. Companies like Tesla, Uber, Airbnb, Facebook, and Netflix were applauded as major disruptors and everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon. Even long-standing companies hired innovation specialists to help their businesses wreak profitable havoc.
However, no one really questioned whether or not disruptive innovation actually worked until Harvard professor Jill Lepore came along with several critiques of the theory in 2014. ummy way to make a buck
Laporte took issue with Christensen’s advice to use Theory to guide data collection, as anyone who has taken 8th grade biology knows this is the opposite of how good science works. It turns out Christensen had selectively included case studies that supported his theory of how disruptive companies beat their more established competitors, and neglected evidence that made him look kind of dumb - such as Dippin Dots failing to disrupt any well-known companies in the ice cream market.
The second issue Lepore had with Christensen’s theory is that it is not reliably predictive; it only works in hindsight. Lepore points out that in 2007 Christensen told Businessweek that the prediction of the theory would be that Apple wouldn’t succeed with the iPhone, yet 5 years and 850 billion dollars later, Christensen took back his original prediction and argued that iPhones had been disruptive after all.
The third major issue Lepore had with the theory of disruptive innovation is that it is basically bulletproof via circular reasoning. Despite these obvious issues, the majority of the problems surrounding disruption culture stem from how the theory has been co-opted by Venture capitalists, thought leaders, and society. The term “disrupt” has been used so much it almost ceased to have any meaning. Christensen himself wasn’t thrilled with some of the ways his theory was being applied, saying he never thought people would “flexibly take an idea, twist it, and use it to justify whatever they wanted to do in the first place”.
Why was the concept of disruption too tempting to resist? Quite frankly, it’s because Americans were obsessed with innovation. In the wake of the Enlightenment, technological innovation was connected to humanistic principles, but the twin forces of global militarism and capitalism stepped in as war and commercial exploitation became profitable. Now, innovation is driven wholly by the market, even innovations that actually hurt human Manatee are still good in the light of market logic.
The hype around disruption culture is so huge it’s difficult to know whether it’s deserved or not. MLMs (multi-level marketing schemes) are technically disruptors by turning everyday people into sales people who sell directly to their networks, but of course the business world views MLMs as a scummy way to make a buck. Recent studies in the UK have shown that a four-day work week can be a win-win for both employers and employees. Employees reported 39% less stress, 71% less burnout, and overall increases in mental and physical health. Additionally, organizations reported an average revenue increase of 35%, and the number of staff leaving companies decreased by 57% during the trial period. 56 of the 61 companies that participated are going to continue with the four day work week.
In the current economic climate, employees are facing high inflation and fear of an impending recession, resulting in a power shift back towards employers. Over a hundred thousand employees have been laid off by big tech this year, and 80% of people regret quitting in the so-called “Great Resignation”. Despite this, 61% of American workers are still considering quitting in 2023.
So, is disruption culture the best path to progress? Can employees use disruption to reclaim power and beat the system? Let us know what you think in the comments.
We’d like to thank our patrons for their support, who use a really cool disruptive platform to help support our channel directly. We also appreciate the likes, comments, and subscriptions from everyone who watches our channel. Stay disruptive and we’ll see you later!