Rethink Word ‘Innovation’ as Foundation for Change Theory

Note to readers: I initially posted this blog on LinkedIn in 2014. I’m introducing it here because of its continued relevance amid global disruption.

The theory of disruptive innovation has moved well past the tipping point. It’s now running over – and smack into scrutiny. The ensuing debate has unfolded an ideal opportunity to rethink how we describe desired change.

The controversy began in June when Harvard University American History Professor Jill Lapore put disruptive innovation under the magnifying glass, challenging the pervasive theory of change in her New Yorker article.

She wrote: “The idea of innovation is the idea of progress stripped of the aspirations of the Enlightenment, scrubbed clean of the horrors of the twentieth century, and relieved of its critics. Disruptive innovation goes further, holding out the hope of salvation against the very damnation it describes: disrupt, and you will be saved.”

Clayton Christensen, who coined the term “disruptive innovation,” came back swinging – even as he made an important admission. In late June, Christensen participated in a live webinar event with Harvard Business Review Editor-in-Chief Adi Ignatius in which he said: “the choice of the word disruption was a mistake I made 20 years ago.”

According to ClaytonChristensen.com, "disruptive innovation ... describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market, eventually displacing established competitors. "

This week, Forbes published the article “If It Isn’t Disruptive Innovation Then What Is It? Try ‘Quantum Innovation’ On For Size.” In the article, authors Craig Hatkoff and Irwin Kula discussed the problem of the term’s ubiquity: “It follows that if everything is disruptive, then nothing is disruptive.”

For his part, Christensen is mulling over replacing “disruptive innovation” with “quantum innovation,” which would tackle some of people’s nagging concerns, according to the article. Principally “quantum innovation” will broaden the focus beyond “the technology itself.”

Christensen has said: “If we are to develop profound theory to solve intractable problems in our societally-critical domains … we must learn to crawl into the life of what makes people tick.”

Christensen is talking about drawing on empathy and solving pressing problems in large, significant ways. This, in turn, puts the word “innovation” under the lens. Does its meaning align with his statement?

Some would say yes. At the SXSWedu conference earlier this year, Charles Wood, a marketing professor at the University of Tulsa who teaches students how to jump-start innovation, described it as creativity that solves a problem, relieves pain, or adds value, and helps others. This high-minded meaning has echoed elsewhere.

But does Webster’s Dictionary concur? Not really. It defines innovation as 1. “the introduction of something new,” and 2. “a new idea, method, or device.” It is neither good nor bad.

Now, on the surface, innovation appears to have a positive, storied context. An explosion of new ideas and methods has been welcomed in some periods.

As Concise Encyclopedia notes under Webster’s definition of innovation, “Leonardo da Vinci produced ingenious designs for submarines, airplanes, and helicopters and drawings of elaborate trains of gears and of the patterns of flow in liquids.

“Technology provided science with instruments that greatly enhanced its powers, such as Galileo's telescope. New sciences have also contributed to technology, as in the theoretical preparation for the invention of the steam engine.

“In the 20th century, innovations in semiconductor technology increased the performance and decreased the cost of electronic materials and devices by a factor of a million, an achievement unparalleled in the history of any technology.”

For added historical context, consider the definition of innovation in the American Dictionary of the English Language: Noah Webster 1828, the dictionary that is contemporary with the American Constitution.

It reads: “Change made by the introduction of something new; change in established laws, customs, rites or practices. innovation is expedient, when it remedies an evil, and safe, when men are prepared to receive it. innovation is often used in an ill sense, for a change that disturbs settled opinions and practices without an equivalent advantage.”

In her article, Lapore referenced Webster thus: “Noah Webster warned in his dictionary, in 1828, ‘It is often dangerous to innovate on the customs of a nation.’ ”

She also noted that “Edmund Burke called the French Revolution a ‘revolt of innovation’; Federalists declared themselves to be ‘enemies to innovation.’ George Washington, on his deathbed, was said to have uttered these words: ‘Beware of innovation in politics.’ ”

There’s no doubt that the definition of innovation has evolved from these pernicious associations, but today’s definition makes clear that innovation is still not necessarily good.

So what does capture good? As mentioned above, Lapore puts the focus on progress, an idea embraced since the 18th century. She describes progress as “the notion that human history is the history of human betterment.”

Meanwhile, Webster’s current definition of the noun progress includes “a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal)” and “a gradual betterment.” As a verb, it means “to move forward” and “to develop to a higher, better, or more advanced stage.”

At the core, we’re striving to progress – and to see progress. That means the word – nay, the concept – ought to form the foundation of any theory of change.