Why Great Companies Fail in Times of Technological Change.

Kodak. Nokia. Digital Equipment Corp. Giants in their industries. Leaders in innovation. And yet—each of them faltered in the face of technological disruption.

Why?

Not because they lacked innovation. Not because they were poorly managed. On the contrary—they were exceptionally good at doing things right. But they failed to do the right things.

As we now enter the age of AI, understanding this paradox is more important than ever. Why do competent, well-managed organizations struggle to adapt when the technological game changes? What blinds them? And more importantly—how can we avoid falling into the same trap?

This article explores the theory behind disruptive innovation, draws from real-world examples, and offers a lens to reflect on your own organization. It's a timely invitation to reassess how we make decisions and what it truly takes to lead in times of deep change.

Part 1: The Disruptive Pattern

To anticipate the future, we need theory—because theory gives us an "if–then" formula. And when it comes to technological disruption, Clayton Christensen’s disruption theory, outlined in The Innovator’s Dilemma, remains one of the most powerful. It describes how an innovation can reshape a market by introducing simplicity, accessibility, and affordability—displacing established leaders in the process. The disruption pattern generally unfolds like this:

1. Technology improves faster than customers can absorb it.

2. Incumbents move upmarket to chase high-margin customers and sustaining innovations.

3. New entrants start with inferior, but cheaper or more accessible products, and then improve rapidly—eventually appealing to the mass market and flipping the basis of competition.

This is not a random accident. It’s a recognizable pattern—and once you know what to look for, you can spot the warning signs.

Part 2: How the Pattern Unfolds

Let’s zoom in on one specific element:Why do established companies often ignore emerging markets, while new entrants are drawn to them?

More importantly, even when incumbents recognize the threat, why are they so often too late to act?

The answer is counterintuitive: Five classic management strengths turn into weaknesses under disruption. Let’s explore them.

1. Listening to Customers

How it backfires:

• Ignores emerging, latent needs

• Adds features to serve existing high-end users

• Avoids the imagination needed to see what customers really want
  

This is where the concept of Jobs To Be Done comes in.Steve Jobs famously said not to rely on customer research—and in some ways, he was right. He didn’t mean ignore customers entirely, but rather, focus on what they truly need. Not the product, but the job they’re trying to get done. (“People don’t want a quarter-inch drill—they want a hole in the wall.”) That insight led to the iPod: “1,000 songs in your pocket.” A product no focus group ever asked for, but millions wanted.

For the essentials on jobs to be done go to our librairy and click on videos (milkshake story) or articles ('Finding the right job for your product')

2. Chasing Big Markets

How it backfires:

• Overlooks small, early-stage markets where disruption begins

Disruptive innovations often start in low-end or fringe markets that seem unattractive to incumbents. By the time those markets mature, new entrants have already gained a foothold.

3. Focusing on ROI, ROA, Gross Margin

How it backfires:

• Avoids low-margin innovation

• Shuns uncertainty

• Diverts capital away from long-term bets (e.g., manufacturing, R&D, new markets)

“Financial metrics like ROA may look scientific, but they systematically push companies away from innovation.” Clayton Christensen

So even if you see the change coming, there’s a good chance your organization still can’t move fast enough. Why? Let’s look at two more strengths that become liabilities.

4. A Culture Focused on Consistency and Quality

How it backfires:

• Unproven ideas don’t get priority

• Bureaucracy slows down response time

There are deeper issues here. For instance:

• Hidden rules of the game: In many organizations, career advancement depends on delivering short-term, low-risk wins. That creates siloed thinking, discourages collaboration, and disincentivizes experimentation.

• Fear of loss: Whether it’s fear of incompetence, status loss, or punishment for failure, anxiety around change runs deep. And it stalls innovation.

5. Optimized Processes

How it backfires:

• Not built to handle new business models

Organizations become optimized for what they already do well. That’s great for sustaining innovation—but disastrous for disruptive innovation. Common culprits include:

• Stable, stage-gated processes

• ROI-driven decision-making

• Long approval cycles

• Lack of de-risking mindset

• Skeptical, adversarial review culture

“The very processes that make companies good at sustaining innovations are the same ones that make them bad at disruptive innovation.” Clayton Christensen

Part 3: So What Can You Do?

This is ultimately a conversation about values.Values are the hidden forces behind decisions—what your organization rewards, what it punishes, and what it believes is “better.”

Often, you’re faced with a dilemma, like “Protect our short-term income stream” vs. “Invest in the long-term future.”

Both are legitimate. But they seem to pull in opposite directions. The challenge isn’t to choose one over the other—or settle for a compromise.The real trick is to reconcile the two: to find ways to secure today through investing in tomorrow.

Final Reflection

So, let me leave you with a question:

Which of these five classic strengths might be a hidden weakness in your organization today?

1. Listening to customers

2. Chasing big markets

3. Focusing on ROI, ROA, and gross margin

4. Prioritizing consistency and quality

5. Relying on optimized processes

Recognizing these dynamics is the first step to navigating change. The second step is being bold enough to act.

We’re in an era where disruption is no longer a one-time event—it’s a constant. How we lead, think, and adapt will define whether we simply survive… or shape the future.

Amsterdam, April 2025