The psychology of disruptive innovation

This post Originally appeared on the Christensen Institute blog. and is republished here with permission.

Key points:

In the early 2000s, Netflix co-founders Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph found themselves in a meeting that could have drastically altered the trajectory of their fledgling company. In the aftermath of the dot-com crash, Netflix was struggling to gain traction as a mail-order DVD rental service. Desperate for a lifeline, Hastings and Randolph managed to secure a meeting with John Antioco, the CEO of Blockbuster, in hopes of forming a partnership that would combine their online rental service with Blockbuster’s extensive network of brick-and-mortar stores.

Hastings pitched the idea with passion, proposing that Netflix would handle the online side of the business while Blockbuster would focus on stores. He envisioned a synergy that would make the combined company a dominant force in the industry. Antioco, however, was not impressed. dismissed Netflix as a “very small niche business” and with confidence declared that “the dotcom hysteria is completely exaggerated.”

This moment illustrates a common pattern of disruptive innovation. New business models that rethink an industry’s core technologies, processes, and success metrics often fail to resonate with that industry’s established players. When Apple and others launched the first personal computers, indomitable incumbents like Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC) didn’t see the point in selling cheap, inferior computers to consumers who had previously demonstrated no need for computers. Likewise, taxi companies didn’t take ride-sharing apps seriously until Uber and Lyft revealed the demand for that kind of convenience—and taxis were never going to see the point in ride-sharing.

As I have come to discover in recent months, this same pattern also applies to education.

A journey through new perspectives on the transformation of education

During the first few months of this year, I spoke at several conferences to share my knowledge. investigation on how to create the conditions to disrupt conventional schooling and transform education. I also organized meetings with foundation officials and leaders of nonprofit organizations whose work focuses on innovation in primary and secondary education.

My main aim was to try to persuade people who care about transforming mainstream education that their opportunities for achieving meaningful change are limited if they start from work within existing mainstream schools. At the same time, I wanted to offer a message of hopeBy seeking the right circumstances, educational leaders can create the conditions for new models of schooling to emerge, evolve, and ultimately transform conventional education.

Potential is in the eye of the beholder

The comments on my presentations were diverse.

Some people showed palpable enthusiasm for what I shared. This group tended to include leaders of schools like the ones I was highlighting: alternative schools, hybrid virtual schools, and micro-schools. For them, my presentation raised their hopes and brought clarity to their challenges, while providing them with language to describe their journeys.

At the other end of the spectrum, a good number of people from foundations, nonprofits, and mainstream school systems were politely skeptical of what I shared. They tended to dismiss emerging new education models as mere fringe experiments. Or they expressed concern that these schools were not prepared to deliver immediate improvements in equity or student achievement. Notably, many of these people also emphasized that since the vast majority of today’s students learn in mainstream settings, their funding commitments and partnership priorities lay with mainstream schools.

The way forward for disruptive innovation in education

Just as John Antioco was skeptical of Netflix's initial business model, I came to see that people working to improve conventional schools are unlikely to see the merit of emerging new models of education.

To be fair, your skepticism might be justified. Right now, no one knows for sure whether today's microschools, hybrid virtual schools, and alternative schools will pan out. Some could become smash hits that transform the field like Netflix. But they could also become niche solutions that enjoy their moment in the spotlight (e.g., Mapquest.com) or shooting stars that shine for a moment and then fade away (e.g., Mascotas.comOnly time will tell which ideas have truly disruptive potential.

However, the fact that many people today do not know is that… believe Just because new teaching models are successful doesn’t mean they aren’t. Those working to improve existing schools have a cognitive bias that determines where they see potential. In their view, new models don’t follow “best practices,” don’t measure up to conventional quality metrics, and don’t follow the patterns of innovation that veteran leaders recognize.

But this is not because the new models fail to provide value to the people they aim to serve, but because the established models value networks that most people have been swimming in shape in their way of seeing the world. Or to put it bluntly in the words of Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary (or his finances or his ideological commitments) depend on his not understanding it.”

The way forward

So my advice to those working on creating new education models is not to waste time trying to convince skeptics. Your success will not depend on advocacy and movement building. Instead, you will be better off investing your time and effort in continuing to refine your new education model outside the realm of mainstream actors and in creating new sets of evidence to demonstrate the impact and success of your model.

When Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph failed to get John Antioco to accept their proposal, they didn't try hard to convince him that Netflix had potential. They moved on without him. Similarly, those developing new education models shouldn't try hard to gain popular acceptance for their ideas. Instead, they should continue working with people who understand what they're trying to do.

When significant numbers of students, families, and educators begin to migrate to new education models, skeptical thought leaders will come on board. Until then, focus on developing and evolving current initial models into the kind of programs that mainstream students and families won't want to miss.