Interview: Clayton M. Christensen

Clayton Christensen

Christensen is the Robert and Jane Cizik Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School, with a joint appointment in the Technology & Operations Management and General Management faculty groups. Previously he was a faculty member at the Harvard Business School where he taught courses in Technology and Operations Management, General Management, and Operations Strategy. He then developed a course called Managing Innovation. Currently, he teaches an elective course he designed called Building a Sustainably Successful Enterprise, which teaches managers how to build and manage an enduring, successful company or transform an existing organization. He is the author of several best-selling books: The Innovator’s Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book That Will Change the Way You Do Business (1997, The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth co-authored with Michael E. Raynor (2003), Seeing What’s Next: Using Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change co-authored with Scott D. Anthony and Erik A. Roth (2004), and Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns (2008) co-authored with Curtis W. Johnson, Michael B. Horn

Here is a brief excerpt from my interview of Christensen.

Morris: You have identified what you call four “laws or principles” of disruptive technology. Are they not, also, guidelines (as well as check points by which to detect early-warning danger signs) unless and until it becomes obvious that a given technology will create sustaining rather than only temporary disruption?

Christensen: That’s a superb insight. The principles of disruptive innovation are indeed intended to be guidelines to assist managers both in introducing disruptive innovations as well as identifying disruptive developments in their market. By the time it becomes obvious that a technology will have truly disruptive impact, it is often too late to take action. This is one reason why we are such advocates of using theory to try to analyze industry change. Conclusive evidence that proves that a company needs to take action almost never exists. In fact, the data can fool management, lulling them into a false sense of security. With these guidelines in mind, managers can have a much greater chance of spotting a seemingly trivial development actually has transformational impact.

Morris: How can managers address and harness the four principles by which to prevail against disruptive technologies?

Christensen: Unfortunately, the answer is complicated. The reason why it is so difficult for existing firms to capitalize on disruptive innovations is that their processes and their business model that make them good at the existing business actually make them bad at competing for the disruption. Companies in fact are specifically organized to under-invest in disruptive innovations! This is one reason why we often suggest that companies set up separate teams or groups to commercialize disruptive innovations. When disruptive innovations have to fight with other innovations for resources, they tend to lose out. Another key to success is broad-based education. We have found that companies need to speak a common language, because some of the suggested ways to harness disruptive innovation are seemingly counter-intuitive. If companies don’t have that common language, it is hard for them to come to consensus on a counter-intuitive course of action.

If you wish to read the entire Christensen interview, please contact me at interllect@mindspring.com.