Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research

Clayton M. Christensen; Rory  McDonald; Elizabeth J.  Altman; Jonathan E.  Palmer

Article | Journal of Management Studies | November 2018

Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research

by Clayton M. Christensen, Rory McDonald, Elizabeth J. Altman and Jonathan E. Palmer

Abstract

The concept of disruptive innovation has gained considerable currency among practitioners despite widespread misunderstanding of its core principles. Similarly, foundational research on disruption has elicited frequent citation and vibrant debate in academic circles, but subsequent empirical research has rarely engaged with its key theoretical arguments. This inconsistent reception warrants a thoughtful evaluation of research on disruptive innovation within management and strategy. We trace the theory’s intellectual history, noting how its core principles have been clarified by anomaly-seeking research. We also trace the theory’s evolution from a technology-change framework—essentially descriptive and relatively limited in scope—to a more broadly explanatory causal theory of innovation and competitive response. This assessment reveals that our understanding of the phenomenon of disruption has changed as the theory has developed. To reinvigorate academic interest in disruptive innovation, we propose several underexplored topics—response strategies, performance trajectories, and innovation metrics—to guide future research.

Keywords: disruptive innovation; innovation metrics; competitive strategy; systemic industries; technology trajectories; Disruptive Innovation; Theory; History; Competitive Strategy; Research;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Christensen, Clayton M., Rory McDonald, Elizabeth J. Altman, and Jonathan E. Palmer. "Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research." Special Issue on Managing in the Age of Disruptions. Journal of Management Studies 55, no. 7 (November 2018): 1043–1078.

In 2020, augmented reality (AR) was still a nascent technology with blockbuster potential, one which Apple was actively developing as its iPhone franchised waned. But the emergence of AR was uneven, including the disappointing Google Glass and the unexpected viral success of Pokémon Go. AR technology was complex—involving integration of numerous advances in hardware and software—and expensive, dominated by Big Tech incumbents such as Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, whose AR applications thus far belied the breadth of vision articulated by their leaders. This left the door open for Apple, whose work on AR headsets had generated both internal conflict and continuing questions about where in the value chain the company should play, and how to win amid competing industry visions of the future of AR.

To succeed, a new company must rally investors, staff, customers, and the media around a good story. But often that narrative turns out to be wrong, and entrepreneurs realize they need to change direction. How that shift is communicated can have a huge impact on a venture’s future. Through extensive research with founders, innovation chiefs, analysts, and journalists, the authors have identified stratagems for maintaining stakeholder support during pivots. Early on, entrepreneurs should avoid a focus on overly specific solutions and instead present the big picture. When changing course, they can then signal continuity by explaining how the new plan fits with the original vision. Once the reboot has happened, it’s critical to be conciliatory and empathetic to stakeholders who may feel abandoned. Employees and customers are far more willing to remain loyal if given guidance about how they’ll be affected and if leaders seem to genuinely care about their situation.

Faculty & Research

Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors