Oh whoa, Clayton Christensen died? Damn. Probably the single most important business thinker of the last century. I'd put him ahead of even Drucker and Porter. The first to take a fundamentally technology-informed approach to business thinking, rather than people or economics.
-
Show this thread
-
You know how they say about weak thinking, "the part that's good is not new, the part that's new is not good?" Disruption is like the opposite of that. There were versions of it that came before, but they weren't very good. He pulled the perspective together in a powerful way.
1 reply 2 retweets 32 likesShow this thread -
Alfred Chandler is probably the only one I'd put in his class. Even though Chandler wrote a lot more and Christensen was in some sense a one-big-trick pony. Even his own attempts to augment or build on disruption theory proved to be footnotes to the basic ideas at best.
2 replies 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
That's not a criticism, it's a way to appreciate the totalizing power of the disruption idea, which critics hate. The more it got parodied, overloaded, and abused, the more it demonstrated its basic rightness and depth of power.
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
You could even say Christensen "killed" business strategy as a formal discipline. After disruption theory, the strategy literature kinda died. It was similar to OODA in conflict theory (in fact, you could argue it is isomorphic to OODA theory). Both transformed what they touched.
2 replies 7 retweets 44 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
can you draw out the isomorphism a bit for those of us who are only superficially familiar with them?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
the correspondence is in the idea of "getting inside the adversary's ooda loop"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.