What Is 'Disruptive Innovation' and Is it a Path to Political De-Polarization?

Coined by Harvard Professor Clayton Christensen, author of The Innovator's Dilemma, the term “disruptive innovation” is perhaps not common in modern day vernacular, but it is something you have experienced before and likely will again throughout all stages of life. Counterintuitively, disruptive innovations do not necessarily find origin in a specific "invention," rather they foster a different utility for a pre-existing product, service or technology, effectively creating an opportunity for great change that leads to a brand new market. Ultimately, the innovation “disrupts” the status-quo, transforming modern-day life.

The automobile has often been cited as an example of a disruptive innovation. Although a ground-breaking technological invention at the time, its high initial cost prohibited the product from penetrating daily life and commerce. It was not until Ford motor company introduced its affordable Model T in the early 20^th century that the market for horse-drawn carriages was “disrupted” with the widespread adoption of motor vehicles. The automobile itself is a technological innovation, while Ford’s system of mass-producing cost-efficient cars from which the masses could benefit, is a disruptive one. Other examples include the iPod, which disrupted the CD market, and Wikipedia, which disrupted the market of traditional encyclopedic volumes such as the Britannica series.

The Tribeca Film Festival's Disruptive Innovation Awards

While this year’s honorees and the fields they represented made sense from an innovation-standpoint, one of the key questions that emerged is how can the theory of disruptive innovation address the political polarization occurring in modern-day America. It may seem an impossible feat, but Hatkoff, along with Rabi Irwin Cula of the National Jewish Center for Leadership and Learning (CLAL), and The Economist’s Matthew Bishop, led a discussion on this very subject.

Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and how it relates to capitalism 

While many consider Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” his greatest achievement, Smith himself saw the “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” to be his magnum opus, as he intended it to be the underpinning for The Wealth of Nations, explaining how man strives to be virtuous through engaging in moral and proper conduct. This is discerned, according to Smith, through becoming an impartial spectator of others.  He argued that while independent-self interest is in everyone’s nature, humans also innately share the same emotions and instinctual desire to please others while gaining affection, approval and understanding of their own. This, he posited, could only be created through fostering sympathy among even the strangest of bedfellows. Through planting the seed of self-doubt that causes one to question his or her own perceptions and morality, humility is thus fostered.

Shattering perceptions and creating self-doubt

Both Hatkoff and Rabbi Kula argue that the key to forging greater understanding of one’s ideological opposite is through engendering a sense of sympathy for one another. To illustrate this point, they asked participants to share their observations on the following images:

The exercise is meant to underscore how human beings can look at the exact same object yet see something entirely different. Kula argues that through self-awareness and, more pointedly, self-doubt raised through engaging in simple exercises like duck-rabbit, the very basis for political polarization can be mitigated.

Can Disruptive Innovation mitigate political polarization? 

Taking the lesson further, Hatkoff unveiled a clip featuring someone familiar to Blaze readers, but who was, surprisingly, unidentifiable to many in the audience. While the video featured below first came from a conference hosted by The Economist in late-March, the session I attended featured much of the same content. The point of interest begins near the 12:00 minute-mark.

Hatkoff, who notes his ongoing discussions with Beck have been a moving experience for him, explains the exercise reveals that taking the time to listen to others with whom you do not agree can eventually shatter initial false images and first impressions. Consequently, people often find they share more common ground than not. Speaking to only like-minded  individuals is not favorable to producing disruptive change, posits Hatkoff. Rather, the creation of a more robust, flourishing society can be achieved through taking unprecedented and inventive approaches to conflict resolution.

In examining the theory of Disruptive Innovation in the context of Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, one might consider GBTV as quite disruptive. Using the Internet to circumvent traditional broadcast media provides viewers an opportunity to connect with a more diverse array of information in new and more efficient ways. Consider the following excerpt from the Wall Street Jorunal’s profile of GBTV this past March:

Through new media platforms, it is possible, according to both Hatkoff and Kula, for people – be they subject matter experts or cultural icons – to share powerful, transformative narratives that effectively diffuse much of the polarization occurring in the nation today. “We don’t give each other the benefit of the doubt anymore,” notes Kula. “We need to create a culture where we do that again.”

“We can have a series of conversations where we may not agree on everything,” adds Hatkoff, "but our shared core-values" provide a bridge that can enable us to better work together."

The intended take-away here is that fostering a culture which encourages creative problem solvers and intelligent risk takers to act while promoting a moral and ethical entrepreneurial spirit may be the only path forward.

Is Disruptive Innovation a way to bridge the gap between entrepreneurship and government?

In terms of government's role in Disruptive Innovation, Hatkoff believes that while individuals mustn't wait for government to solve all problems, it is not necessary to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" either. He cites TFF honoree, Street Bump, as an example where individual citizens and local government came together using an off-the-shelf software application to locate and repair the city's numerous potholes.  Under this model, stakeholders (in this instance, Boston residents) were given leeway in devising the most creative, cost-efficient approach to solving a genuine problem while local government merely provided the tools. The collaborative effort saved the city money and created a sense of civic pride among residents.

Hatkoff suggests that projects like Street Bump reveal how Disruptive Innovation enables government and citizens to work in tandem, yielding measurable results. Ultimately, of course, creating disruptive change requires that entrepreneurs, philanthropists, activists and government bureaucrats alike step outside their comfort zones.

All of the disruptive technologies featured above fall well within the framework of Adam Smith's notion of moral and responsible capitalism. Dr. Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute points out that capitalists "serve their own interests only by serving other people's." He explains this point using the example of making a product as simple as the cotton t-shirt. The production involves the collaboration of "farmers, truckers, designers, machine-makers, weavers, dyers, packagers, exporters, retailers and many others from all over the world," Butler observes. "Each contributes their effort willingly, for the reward it bring them; and their efforts are coordinated by the market to produce benefits for us all."

Perhaps if ordinary individuals, corporations and governments can learn to work in such a way and find common ground as simple t-shirt makers do, there is indeed a light at the end of the tunnel.  That is certainly the hope of Christensen, Hatkoff, Kula, Beck, and others who seek to carry out the virtues of disruptive innovation as they play out in a moral free market. These are the ideas and actions that would make Adam Smith proud.