True Disruption

“Uber is not genuinely disruptive.” Such is the thesis defended by the well-known Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen. Having worked on “disruption” for more than two decades, I thought that such an assertion needed a counterargument.

My contention is that Christensen’s statement defies logic. Of course Uber is a true disruption.

Only it doesn’t fit into his “disruptive innovation box,” since for him, disruptive innovation is about entrants that penetrate at the low end of a market (and subsequently move up market). With such a definition, a majority of recent but already legendary business successes, such as Xiaomi, Alibaba, Burberry, Big Bazaar, Red Bull, Toms, Haier, Spotify or Zappos are not disruptions.

That’s the problem with many theories, however brilliant they may be. They end up having to bend the truth to squeeze it into a pre-established theoretical model.

Christensen’s definition of disruption is clearly too narrow.

I prefer to respect the etymology. Disruption comes from the Latin word “disrumpere,” which translates in English as “breaking from.” So the true meaning of the word is much broader than his definition. Disruption refers to everything that is not gradual change.

This is the definition agreed to by many business analysts and heads of corporations. Take A.G. Lafley, former CEO of Procter & Gamble. For him, there are quite simply two kinds of innovation: incremental innovation and disruptive innovation. By incremental, he means marginal progress. A formulaic improvement. The extension of a range. Entry into an adjacent market. But in contrast, disruptive innovation brings radical change, as is brilliantly illustrated by the examples cited above.

Incremental innovations obviously feed revenue streams short-term. But, even if they are a minority, disruptive innovations generate more top-line growth and more profit than do incremental ones. And again, when I say disruptive innovations, I mean it in a broader sense.

Most companies not born out of the Internet and that are not linked in priority to new technology suffer from a rate of innovation that is too slow. Even P&G has been faced with the same problem. They’ve ranked among the most innovative companies in the world, but in recent years have only launched two truly disruptive innovations: Swiffer and Febreze.

Many corporations are often short of inspiration, lacking truly disruptive ideas. I am not sure that Christensen’s theory can help to resolve this. I do not, of course, take exception to this theory, which is relevant, as he says himself, only within a strict frame: “It doesn’t apply to every company in a shifting market.” I understand that it has helped established firms to figure out how to resist new market entrants. But this is not sufficient. Far from it. 

For companies looking to imagine new sources of growth, Christensen tends to exclude from their thought process every disruptive strategy, every disruptive business model, and every disruptive idea that exceed the bounds of his theory. He limits the field of the possible. Which for companies in dire need of innovation is particularly counter-productive. 

We also need to fight against the widely held view that disruption is destruction.

This thought has been originated by Christensen’s theory, which has been very often applied to digital newcomers, to start-ups that radically overturn the market. As a result, many think that the only choice lies between incremental, evolutionary strategies at one end and revolutionary but destructive strategies at the other. In truth, a whole range of strategies is available, so that corporations can improve market share by adopting a disruptive approach, without going so far as destroying their marketplace.

Not everyone has to be Netflix or Airbnb. Or Uber. 

A version of this article was first published on Forbes.com 

Follow Jean-Marie Dru on Twitter @jeanmariedru