The Chronicle
of Higher Education examines challenges to Clay Christensen’s theory of
disruption. His The Innovator’s Dilemma has become one of the bestselling and most
influential books on business strategy. The
historian Jill Lepore wrote an
interesting critique of Christensen’s work for the
New Yorker last year. Now, Andrew King and Baljir Baatartogtokh have a new paper in
MIT Sloan Management Review, asking “How
Useful is the Theory of Disruptive Innovation?” King
and Brent Goldlfarb also have evidence of broader problems in empirical
research in management (the problem they examine is not unique to management
research). The Chronicle article is interesting both on the specific issue of
Christensen’s theory but also on the difficulty King faced in publishing a challenge to Christensen’s work:
“King and Tucci presented their findings at a
conference in 1999. King recalls sitting at a restaurant soon after and a
well-known figure in the field approached, shook his hand, and said,
"You’re the guy who burst Christensen’s bubble." But it didn’t turn out
that way. "We wrote a couple of papers, which we had to tone down a little
bit because of the referees," says Tucci. The paper — working title:
"Wrong. Wrong. Wrong." — was too polemical, they were told. When it
finally appeared in Management Science, in 2002, the article had been smothered
in theory and jargon. The published title: "Incumbent Entry Into New
Market Niches: The Role of Experience and Managerial Choice in the Creation of
Dynamic Capabilities." As Brent Goldfarb, an associate professor of management
at the University of Maryland business school and friend of King, says,
"You have to look really hard to realize King and Tucci slaughtered
Christensen." - See more at: http://chronicle.com.ezproxy.umw.edu/article/The-Undoing-of-Disruption/233101/#sthash.LUXodkFg.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment