Disrupt!

It seems like everywhere you turn someone is talking about disruption: disruptive innovation, disruptive thinking, Tech Crunch’s Disrupt conferences, etc. Although the word is fashionable, it is also too often misundertood.

Clayton Christensen coined the term to refer to a particular type of innovation that he wrote about in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma.

Disruptive innovation…describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market, eventually displacing established competitors.

(If you are not familiar with Christensen’s concept of disruptive innovation follow this link for a more detailed explanation: http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/)

Why is this concept so easily misunderstood? My argument is that this is mostly a branding issue. The choice of the word disruptive instead of some other word is the cause of the misunderstanding. What too often happens when people first encounter the term is that they just naturally interpret it with the common usage of the word. As a result they react negatively to it and have no interest in inquiring further. That’s bad branding. The words you choose should capture the imagination, inspire a positive response, and motivate people to learn more. This piece published at USNI is a good example of how people misunderstand and react negatively to the term disruptive:

But what does it mean to be a “disruptive thinker”? For as much as the term has been used, I have been unable to find a clear, universally agreed upon, definition. We can certainly find the dictionary definitions of the subcomponents:

disruptive: to throw into confusion or disorder; to interrupt or impede; to break or rupture;

thinking: to use the powers of the mind, as in conceiving ideas, drawing inferences and making judgments.

When placed side-by-side, these two concepts appear to be diametrically opposed. Where we’ve gotten tangled up is that many would-be disruptive thinkers have placed their emphasis on disruptive , in the sense that “If I keep putting together a number of disruptive ideas — particularly if they raise eyebrows with senior leaders — then some of these will qualify as a new concept/strategy.”

While this can be very frustrating for people who understand how Christensen is using the term, ultimately the burden is on the persuaders to choose the most effective words. And disruptive is proving to be an obstacle to understanding.

Too often, though, the response is to double down on disruptive and insist that people accept that term. This is the wrong approach. Let’s not lose sight of the goal: to increase understanding of the concept. If the word disruptive is an obstacle to understanding for many people (as it clearly is) then stop using that word and experiment until you find one that facilitates understanding. There is no reason to be so attached to that word.