Pardon the disruption
When firms succumb to new forms of competition, inflexible organisation is usually to blame
DESTROYING the old to make way for the new is the essence of market economies. Karl Marx thought it one of the nastier qualities of capitalism whereas Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian economist, cast “creative destruction” in more positive light, as the only route to sustained growth. In the 1990s Clayton Christensen, a professor at Harvard Business School, gave the notion a modern sheen with his theory of “disruptive innovation”. The term is now everywhere. Uber is said to be disrupting the taxi business, Cronuts are disrupting breakfast and Twitter is disrupting communication.
A disruptive innovation, in Mr Christensen’s work, is a very specific thing: a new technology that is inferior in certain respects to existing ones, but has other desirable attributes. He cites eight-inch floppy disks, which could store more data than smaller ones, but were nonetheless supplanted because they were too big and expensive for desktop computers. By the same token, publishers of music and newspapers were wrong-footed by the advent of online distribution, which was initially of lower quality. So was digital photography, but it nonetheless ended up displacing film.
This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline "Pardon the disruption"
More from Finance & economics
What campus protesters get wrong about divestment
Will withdrawing money hurt Israel?
Hedge funds make billions as India’s options market goes ballistic
The country’s retail investors are doing less well
Russia’s gas business will never recover from the war in Ukraine
Hopes of a Chinese rescue look increasingly vain