Christensen’s work offers important insights, with the growth trajectory of innovation being recognised as one of its important features.1 The theory can also be applauded for
highlighting that incumbents tend to lack interest in investing in smaller markets, which nevertheless grow to become dominant and present them with competitive challenges. Thus, it contributes towards prior narrative that incumbents tend to be slow to respond to
discontinuous market changes. Christensen demonstrates that despite the fact that firms may initially start within such niches, when they are established they tend to keep holding on to their established markets – holding on to the sustaining path . That is, both entrants and incumbents tend to ultimately gravitate towards a sustaining path, overlooking to establish new markets.
However, the resource dependence theory of resource Pfeffer and Salancik2 seems to have led Christensen to present incumbents almost as “beggars” who do little to influence the supply of needed resources from their customers. The theory’s central argument is that
“organizational survival hinges on the ability to procure critical resources from the external environment.” 3 It is interesting to note, though, that Pfeffer and Salancik offer an extended view of firms in relation to how Christensen portrays incumbents. The authors explain that despite the constraints placed by external resources, managers make efforts to make their environments favourable,4 which include various tactics to minimise constraints imposed by the necessary resources.5 According to Casciaro and Piskorski, one method is through circumventing “the source of constraint by reducing the interest in valued resources,
cultivating alternative sources of supply, or forming coalitions.”6 The point here is less about
1 Danneels (2004, p. 241)
2 Pfeffer & Salancik (1978[2003]) 3 Casciaro & Piskorski (2005, p. 167) 4 Pfeffer & Salancik (1978[2003]) 5 Casciaro & Piskorski (2005) 6 Casciaro & Piskorski (2005, p. 181)
an exhaustive list of manipulative acts, but their existence rather, which bring into focus incumbents’ active role in making their environments hospitable.1
It remains a question as to the consequences, or as Weeks puts it, the ambiguities of
managerial behaviour, following manipulations.2 Cognition affects actions as represented by explanations of decisions to account for organisational outcomes, but that does not exclude the opposite, in which actions affect cognitions.3Pfeffer and Salancik seem to recognise this
point, as when they explain that the majority of “constraints on organisational action are the result of prior decision making.”4 In explaining value networks, Christensen makes a
(perhaps inadvertently) related remark by highlighting that “each firm's competitive strategy, and particularly its past choices of markets, determines its perceptions of the economic value of a new technology.”5 Accounting for actions in this regard – through demonstrating how
prior conduct ties with subsequent cognitions – should bring to light what remains obfuscated by current expositions of the theory of disruptive innovation.
Christensen explains that he “examined the phenomena through the lenses of marketing and finance.”6 The marketing departments, other than doing market surveys to understand user
needs - an aspect touched on in the theory of disruptive innovation – they also advertise, the intention of which is to influence how customers perceive their organisations.7 That is a
direct form of environmental manipulation which, for both ontological and epistemological as previously discussed, remained unattended to. Casciaro and Piskorski have already begun addressing incumbents’ actions from a financial point of view as cited. These observations, then, invite an inquiry which considers prior decisions or behaviour in explaining conduct, but also sensitive to the consequences of current decisions and behaviour in placing some constraints in subsequent behaviour.8
1 Huber & Glick (1993, p. 9) 2 Weeks (2015)
3 Weick (1964); Weick (2001) 4 Pfeffer & Salancik (2003, p. 18) 5 Christensen (2016, p. 32) 6 Christensen (2006, p. 52) 7 Huber & Glick (1993, p. 9) 8 Brunsson (2007); Weick (1995)
Christensen also places greater weight on the deeper organisational filtering processes, especially individuals at varying levels of hierarchy but mostly middle manager, which shape organisational processes of innovation. He stresses the role of people at lower hierarchical levels of incumbents, although he seems to blame decision-making of middle managers and their beliefs in explaining the negative organisational outcomes. What is discernable in these jarring references is recognition that individuals have needs for success, which influence how organisations manage innovation projects. Despite this recognition, he gives these needs and how they influence human conduct less attention.
Further, his explanation about individual organisational members’ needs seem to show that the prior debates about organisational values and how they contribute to organisations abilities and disabilities are partial. They are partial to the extent that the needs and values of individuals are not accounted by the RPV model, despite seemingly playing a critical role in directing innovation projects. More important though, they also clash with those of the organisations in which they work, to a degree – for example, this is notable by explanations of frustrated people leaving. Additionally, although there is a hint that Christensen recognises uncertainty as a critical aspect of what challenges established organisations in their response to disruptive innovations,1 he remains silent as to how these organisations deal with this
problem.
As previously hinted, the theory of disruptive innovation has gained much appeal from practitioners and scholars alike, except this has largely not been accompanied by academic scrutiny, at least initially.2 Weeks correctly notes that Christensen’s publications about the theory have largely been published by the Harvard Business Review, and that include The
Innovator’s Dilemma. Hence, these publications are editorially-reviewed, rather than peer-
reviewed.3 While some have made efforts to develop it,4 arguing for its usefulness, some scholars have challenged its core tenets.5 Some of the core arguments Christensen makes are thus beginning to be exposed to criticism as notable voices from the academia continue to
1 Christensen & Overdorf (2000, p. 73)
2 Gans (2016b); King & Baatartogtokh (2015); Weeks (2015) 3 Weeks (2015)
4 E.g. Yu & Hang (2010); Govindarajan & Kopalle (2006) 5 King & Baatartogtokh (2015); Markides (2006); Danneels (2004)
scrutinise it.1 These scholars contribute to the development of the theory by highlighting its limitations. This section has built upon previous discussions in the Problem Development section, which make contribution to these critiques. However, the ultimate goal is to highlight the aspects which will be addressed by the alternative perspective of sensemaking which is presented in the next chapter.