Is the Theory of Disruption Dead Wrong?

Perhaps no sexier product has emerged from American business schools than the theory of disruptive innovation, introduced in 1997 by Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen. Disruption—the theory that innovators with cheap solutions to a vexing market problem can unseat larger, more established rivals—has become an unavoidable part of conversations about companies and the people who work in them. It has been hailed as the answer to everything from making health care more efficient to reducing poverty. But what if the theory is bogus?

A recent study published in the MIT Sloan Management Review suggests that the vast majority of cases that Christensen cited in support of his theory do not actually fit the model.