Asimov, legacy, leapfrogging & self-disruption

In Asimov's science fiction classic series 'Foundation', there is an interesting galacto-political saga that plays out. A group of revolutionaries is trapped on a planet, completely encircled by the military of the massive empire. The situation looks dire. However, in a sudden reversal of the situation, the general in charge of the campaign is recalled to the empire homeworld, presumably because he is now seen as too powerful. The revolutionaries survive and go on to win their revolution.

Does it sound familiar to any of you in a business context?

We enjoy the unique position in history of seeing a multitude of startups emerge, grow and come to become serious, or even dominant players in their respective business landscapes. This happens despite the tremendous advantages enjoyed by existing players, be it money, customer base or others. Existing market leaders and players notice these upstarts and avow to do the same thing better, going through elaborate digital transformations fueled by inspiring visions of the art of the possible, in no small part due to efforts of consultants like myself. However, there are few success stories to speak of. Why is that?

Having observed some of these efforts first hand, I cannot help but marvel at the tremendous, black-hole like gravitational pull of legacy. Like Asimov's fantasy empire fighting fantasy rebels, there seems to be a strong gravitational pull almost destined to negate the efforts of legacy players to compete with and defeat the next generation of players in their industry.

What is this legacy? I see many distinct-but-interrelated kinds of legacy at play.

1. Legacy technology
2. Legacy ways of working
3. Legacy business models
4. Legacy ways of thinking
5. Legacy power centers

What worked in the past may not work in the future, but it keeps working well for a large part of today. Unfortunately, the future creeps up gradually, without announcing a launch date, and it's very, very hard to set a date for a divorce from legacy and a leap into the future.

This leads to the inevitable 'leapfrog', where newer players without the baggage of legacy are able to adopt the 'next generation' of technology, ways of working and business model and are able to be more nimble, efficient and effective.

Of the legacies above, I think legacy ways of working, ways of thinking & power centers are the most difficult to overcome, because they are able to create a stable equilibrium towards the old.

Old ways of working suck the energy out of people, since they have been designed not to leave anyone idle and for the risks - and rewards - of the old business model. New ideas simply don't get the energy required to thrive.

As new initiatives are launched with good intentions, old ways of thinking & making decisions amongst leaders frustrate the young blood, but nobody is willing to say the emperor is naked (In fact the opposite). So you get 'wrong hiring decisions' repeatedly and new things die a quiet death.

Finally, old power centers exert a massive resistance, more covert than overt, thwarting the success of what are seen as competitors for their power. Basically what happened to Asimov's brilliant general of the empire.

Which brings us to the last reference in this note, viz. self-disruption. The supposed route out of legacy traps. There's a whole book written about it - 'The disruption dilemma' - which promises to be an interesting read. Will write back on whether it has goods answers to overcoming the gravitational pull of the different kinds of legacy.

As a final thought - I can clearly see how the ability (or the mandate) to 'burn' money is like a superpower that the upstarts are increasingly blessed with, which the DNA of legacy players stops them from achieving. Is that the simple(st) answer to overcoming legacy?

Some interesting reads:

https://hbr.org/2018/11/research-self-disruption-can-hurt-the-companies-that-need-it-the-most

https://rmbolton.medium.com/big-companies-cant-self-disrupt-but-here-s-what-they-can-do-239ea7c41f34

p.s. - Do correct me if I'm getting the Asimov reference wrong