1/ Two possible reasons why sustaining innovation fails to compete with true (external) disruption: finance, sociology
Conversation
Replying to
2/ Finance reason is well known: sustaining innovation looks for measurable, quick top-line impact that disruptive does not show early on
2
1
2
Replying to
3/ Sociological reason: due to cooperative nature of work (individual contributions buried), the default internal tribe is the slacker tribe
1
3
2
Replying to
4/ Finance reason does not truly explain why "self-disruption" fails (a strong leader *could* get the time constants and $ right)
1
1
1
Replying to
5/ Sociological reason does explain: slacker tribe does not *want* to accelerate.
1
3
3
Replying to
6/ Attempts to create an inner, faster tribe will lead to ostracization from essential support function.
2
3
5
Replying to
7/ Only way to resist that is to create a "full stack" internal tribe with independent soup-to-nuts capability, not just P/L.
1
2
4
Replying to
8/ This is impossible in a sufficiently old company because years of cost-discipline ==> shared services. You can't pwn an entire function.
1
1
2
Replying to
10/ If marketing, say, hasn't been consolidated and centralized, one marketing node could be pwned exclusively by disruptor tribe
1
1
2
Replying to
11/ This means a CEO who wants internal disruption will have to sacrifice *margins* by forgoing organizational efficiencies.
3
2
3
Show replies
