Puddle Baths and Disruption

We use the word “disruption” very loosely, as a hipster-synonym for “change”. This is one of the points made by the article published recently in the New Yorker by Harvard Professor Jill Lepore. The article started a real French-style polémique (see here and here) between Lepore and Clayton M. Christensen, author of the book The Innovator’s Dilemma, who coined the phrase “disruptive technology”. Leaving aside the score keeping between the two authors and their acolytes, I want to highlight a few points of interest inspired by this discussion.

1- The origin of the buzzword “disruption”

First, the context in which the word came about: “disruption” comes from Christensen’s book The Innovator’s Dilemma, published in 1997 (in 1995, Christensen had published an article where he coined the phrase “disruptive technologies”). Christensen was interested in understanding why companies fail. To summarize his argument: companies fails because they get stuck in sustaining innovation (they keep doing and refining what they have been doing, e.g. personal computers) and do not realize that a new market is being created by the disruptive innovators who have surprised everyone with a new piece of technology (e.g. the smart phone, to use an example that will put a smile on the lips of those of you who know me).

2- New technology does not necessarily mean “disruption”

New technologies don’t necessarily create new markets. The first cars were a new technology compared to the horse-drawn carriage, but because cars were a rare luxury good, they didn’t disrupt the market of horse-drawn carriage. Disruption only happens when a new market is created. The classical example in the car world would be the Ford Model T.

3- D-blanket

Disruption is selling really well: Disruption specialists, D… conferences, D… gurus. USC is creating a program for creative entrepreneurs nicknamed “the degree in disruption”. Why not. It is certainly reassuring and comfortable to join forces with the other “disruptors”, and be subsumed in the current wave of optimism that disruptive technologies will change the world and make it a better place.

However, using the D-word so loosely puts a blanket thumbs-up on all types of changes, good and bad. Historians never fail to remind us that concepts such as “progress”, or “evolution”, should be unpacked and questioned: not all things new are necessarily better. This is where irony and self-criticism come in to restore more down-to-earth thinking.

4- Let us rejoice in irony!

Valley boys are poking fun at themselves and we love it — heck, we might even want to help. I’ve been delighted in the past few months to hear the voices, coming from within Silicon Valley, who are inviting us to push aside the D-blanket. When a group of people connected by a shared culture and by a network of institutions starts to poke fun at itself, this is a great sign of maturity and critical awareness. We’ve seen this self poking with the eponymous TV show Silicon Valley, and with hilarious “Trap Crunch”.

Some voices have even been more caustic. I’m thinking of Josh Constine’s article “Stop the JerkTech”, where he points a middle finger at some startups whose business model comes down to “scalping a public good”. Apps that sell reservations at in-demand restaurants for a fee are making it harder for the general public to get in, and increase the likelihood that the restaurant will have an empty table if the phony reservation isn’t bought.

The mocking voices are bringing us forward, helping us shake unrealistic claims out of our feathers the way birds do after a good puddle bath.