Česky
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
hrvatski
Italiano
日本語
中文 (简体)
Lietuvių
Nederlands
Norsk
Российская
Polski
Português
Suomi
Svenska
Tiếng ViệtDisruptors in Recessionary Times: They Perform!
In the current Forbes magazine, Scott Anthony and Tim Huse of Clay Christensen’s Innosight consulting firm ask a timely question: “Do Disruptors Perform in Recessionary Times?” Christensen, a Harvard professor, in 2003 published The Innovator’s Dilemma, a business bestseller that started an ongoing debate on the fundamental historical causes and effects of innovation in the marketplace.
Now his colleagues have situated his theory in the context of the current financial and industrial crisis – and not surprisingly, they find it still pertinent. So do I.
Christensen’s theorized hat it’s emerging innovative competitors that keep industries fresh. They do this not necessarily by vanquishing existing industry leaders but simply by challenging the leaders. Then, if the leaders react intelligently and effectively, they too will counter-innovate and from their positions of strength, crush the upstarts and in the process, advance the field. If the leaders don’t innovate, but try to stay with their current strategies, the new firms win and their solutions become the industry’s new standards.
Anthony and Huse present convincing evidence – real-world cases – that sustain Christensen’s theory: disruptive firms, firms that really are “game-changers,” can do well in “recessionary times.” They report:
In 1979, 11 such companies, including Intel, Home Depot, Nucor, and Southwest fit our criteria. Their compound annual growth over the recession between 1979 and 1982 was 22%.
Between 1989 and 1991, the sample of 11 up-and-coming disruptors, which included Best Buy, Cisco, and Charles Schwab grew revenues by 33%.
Between 2000 and 2002, 23 up-and-coming disruptors such as Google, Amazon, and Research in Motion grew revenues by 32%.
They continue,
The up-and-coming disruptors have grown in good times and in bad. Notably, the disruptive companies rebounded visibly faster and stronger after each of the three recessions.
Interestingly, the gap between the revenue growth rates of these two groups of companies has been increasing over the past 30 years. … The tendency for disruptors to outperform the market is not likely to reverse any time soon -- if at all.
Of course, not every new, inventive company is disruptive, even though it might want to be. Being considered “disruptive” is a function of established leaders reacting against the challenger. When they ignore a new company, it may be because they’ve overlooked it – or because customers are ignoring it, too. There’s only one way to find out if a company is disruptive or not, and that’s for the company to take its innovations to market. As Forbes’ editors note, “If your firm is considering postponing disruptive new projects until the economy improves, you might miss great growth opportunities.”
According to Anthony and Hume, if a firm is potentially disruptive, moving forward with its innovations is the only credible strategy, recession or no recession. Sowing disruption is no panacea for success, but it is a necessary precursor.
Image: Roper Resources “Mobile Disrupter Vehicle” (this is real)
