4 ms·

I think that is an unrealistically optimistic and friendly interpretation of Christensens' position. I agree that the idealistic aspect of disruption probably e

by brrt 11y ago

I think that is an unrealistically optimistic and friendly interpretation of Christensens' position. I agree that the idealistic aspect of disruption probably explains it's popularity (not to mention the opportunistic aspect). But Christensen cum suis have been propagating disruption as a fact for nearly twenty years, and it has had an enormous influence on the public debate. And as usual with influential ideas, it's not actually true, and (I think) a very reasonable amount scepticism would have demonstrated that much earlier. As an academic, I really think the global community could have expected more honesty from Christensen.

notahacker 11y ago
In fairness, I think the popularity of Christensen's terminology far exceeds the acceptance of his theory. "Disrupt" has become a startup cliche widely applied by people that haven't read his books to startups that don't fit the pattern he purported to identify. So social networks get described as "disruptive" even though the closest thing to a financial edge they have over competing distractions is not being under any pressure whatsoever to make a profit. Tesla gets lazily labelled as "disruptive" even though it's offering a high-priced, technically-superior product to the incumbents and the CEO is actually on record saying he's not a fan of Christensen's theory and he instead aims to grow businesses by expanding technological possibilities.