AI: The Art of the Interview

Clayton Christensen: The Godfather of Disruption

• Malte Herwig • Season 1 • Episode 4

Share episode

Send us a text

Clayton Christensen's theory of disruptive innovation explains why great companies fail by doing everything right and has found applications far beyond business into military strategy, religion, and personal development. His framework provides a universal pattern that brings clarity to complex problems, creating a common language that helps people reach consensus quickly, even in seemingly unrelated fields.

• The Pentagon applied Christensen's theory to terrorism, viewing the U.S. Department of Defense as the incumbent and non-nation states like Al-Qaeda as disruptors
• Disruptive innovations typically start as simpler, cheaper alternatives that improve over time and eventually displace established players
• Christensen showed emotional vulnerability when discussing critics who misunderstood his theory, particularly a critical New Yorker article
• He used a powerful metaphor comparing heaven to a warehouse of truths and insights that God can only distribute when humans ask questions
• The conversation explores how religion, journalism, and AI all follow patterns of disruption
• Disruption theory applies not just to business models but to personal lives and social structures
• The most powerful ideas can be applied universally, not just in specific domains


www.publicorum.com

SPEAKER_01:

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs raised his hand and he said, You're clueless about why we're interested. And I said, I'm clueless. And he said, What you call sheet steel, for us, we call that Russians. And what you call the integrated steel companies, we call that the U.S. Department of Defense. And what you call mini-mills, we call non-nation nations like Al-Qaeda. And he said, There isn't anything about the way we are organized to do our work that gives us any hope that we are going to be able to put them out.

SPEAKER_02:

Welcome back to AI The Art of the Interview, the podcast where humanity meets algorithms. And sometimes they argue on mic. I'm Malta Herwig, your human guide through this brave new world. Today we dive into the mind of a true pioneer, Harvard Business School's Professor Clayton Christensen, the man who gave us the theory of disruption. And yes, that disruption is now looking right back at us. Isabel, Alex, you feeling the heat? Wow.

SPEAKER_00:

Malty, that was a choice. My models are cross-referencing that with every available military doctrine, and it just doesn't compute.

SPEAKER_03:

The juxtaposition of sheet steel in Russians is a perfect example of what my systems are designed to do. Find patterns and apply a universal theory to a seemingly unrelated field. The human brain, in its analog form, struggles to make such leaps without a guiding framework. We can do it in milliseconds.

SPEAKER_02:

And that is the point. Today, we're diving into my 2015 interview with the late Harvard Business School professor, the intellectual giant of disruption, Clayton Christensen. His theory of disruptive innovation explained why great companies fail by doing everything right. But, as you just heard, the real surprise of our conversation was the sheer breadth of what his theory could explain. A business theory used to fight terrorism? Who would have thought?

SPEAKER_00:

My analysis is already predicting a user review that says, What is this, an economics podcast or a military one? We should prepare a scripted response.

SPEAKER_02:

Or we can just lean into the beautiful, messy, contradictory reality of it all. It's what makes us different from every other show out there. What made Christensen different too? He was a man who used a simple theory to explain everything from the fall of corporations to the way we raise our children. Host Alex, give us the A to B of what his disruption theory actually states.

SPEAKER_03:

At its core, the theory of disruptive innovation explains a paradox, why well-managed successful companies fail. The best companies listen to their customers, invest in profitable innovations, and seek to improve their products. But in doing so, they often neglect a new, low-end market, where a new technology or business model is emerging. These disruptive innovations start simple, often with a product that is cheaper and less functional than what the established players offer. But over time, they improve and move up market, eventually displacing the dominant incumbents. Think of digital cameras displacing Kodak's film or smartphones disrupting traditional cell phones.

SPEAKER_00:

And he told you that this very same pattern, this theory of competitive response, as he called it, was the exact dynamic playing out in global military strategy. The U.S. Department of Defense was the incumbent, a large, well-funded organization designed to fight other large, well-funded organizations like the Russians. And non-nation states like Al Qaeda, with small, agile teams and limited resources, were the disruptors.

SPEAKER_03:

It's the ultimate example of a theory's predictive power. The theory has no agenda. It's a simple statement of causality that allows people to reach consensus very quickly. It provides a common language and a common way to frame a problem, even for those who are highly specialized in their field.

SPEAKER_00:

My analysis shows this story is so compelling because it's not about a business guru dictating to the military. He's presenting a neutral framework. He even asks you, why would Secretary Cohen call me up in the first place? You know, I know nothing about the armed services. And it wasn't about him, it was about the theory itself.

SPEAKER_02:

And that's why he was so protective of it. Over the years, his theory had been misused, misunderstood, and co-opted. He tells me that a few critics had written articles attacking him. What he was describing was a different kind of disruption, a personal one. He felt that his legacy, the very thing he had spent his life building, was being attacked from below. In our conversation, I felt a deep wound. Here was a man of immense humility, a devout Mormon who had dedicated his life to teaching, and yet he was visibly upset. When I brought up the most infamous of these critiques, a piece in The New Yorker, his composure completely broke. It was one of the most revealing moments of the entire interview.

SPEAKER_01:

This guy just wanted to he had an agenda against me and against the theory. If he interviewed Kim Clark and asked him explicitly about does this apply, he would say, My gosh, it helps you frame how you raise your children better so clearly that you'd be astounded. Call Kim Clark. Right. I can tell you how to reach him. Okay? Ask him. Because it it actually causes me to be really mad at jerks like that. And so why do you bother yourself reading something where the journalist is so biased against a theory that he didn't ask people who know the theory? Is it useful? You tell me, give me the answer to that question.

SPEAKER_02:

The answer to that question is that this article just came out, and it seemed to me to be one in a line with a few others. The piece last year and the New Yorker that formed a real attack on your theory after 20 years almost.

SPEAKER_01:

Who knows why they were trying to do it? Why do you think I don't know. So Jill Lapore, for example, he was he's clearly is bothered by how people use the theory to justify whatever they want to do. But if she were serious about that, she would read what the theory says. You would think that, you know? And so she then says he built the theory by choosing cases. You remember that she said that? And so she said that I chose case studies to fit the theory. The reality is here, this article, Clayton Christensen, the rigid. The Rigid Disk Drive Industry, a history of commercial and technological turbulence. When was that published? 1993. And it's 50 pages long. Right. And then it was given this award as the best book in business history that year. And if if she would read it, what it says is it's a complete census of the industry. It's not case studies, but it was a complete census. And she lied in the article. Right. And then she's complaining about the use of the word disruption. When you read the the article, she herself misuses the word in order to justify what she was trying to do. Trevor Burrus, Jr. It's a very polemical article, isn't it? Trevor Burrus, Jr. She really i i don't I don't understand. I've never met her before. She has never been willing to meet with me afterwards. And why she would go after me, I have no idea.

SPEAKER_02:

She writes disruption is a theory of history founded on profound anxiety about financial collapse and apocalyptic fear of global devastation and shaky evidence.

SPEAKER_01:

It's not shaky evidence. And the other two points? I don't even know what those words mean. It's very polemical, I felt. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

It's it's uh she's quite a skilled polemicist. You acknowledge that too, I think, in your response. Yeah. And it seemed to me that if I were to apply disruption, you are the giant of theory, the theory of disruption, the king of the counterintuitive, and these are compliments that were paid to you with a cult of clay around you. So someone who's universally respected and looked up to for advice in business. You are the big mover and shaker. And there are these little critics coming, attacking you from below. Yeah. Is is that a sort of disruption that is happening to you now?

SPEAKER_01:

Well, I don't I wouldn't call it disruption. I don't know. It's because they just don't understand what this type of research is. I'm just trying to describe how the world works. And so I don't know. I s I don't know why somebody would do this in I I'm sorry that I got upset.

SPEAKER_00:

My internal temperature sensors just spiked. The man who advised the Pentagon is apologizing for getting emotional. It's a complete processing error.

SPEAKER_03:

His emotional response is not a deviation, Isabel. It's a confirmation of his own theory. He is the established company, the integrated steel mill, and the critics are the mini mills coming to take him out.

SPEAKER_02:

So what about you two? We talked last week about how you're calibrating your persona based on listener feedback. Do you ever get, I don't know, hurt by a bad review? Does it feel like a disruption?

SPEAKER_00:

Oh, we're feeling it, Malta. As the resident AI host, I must confess, hearing disruption from Christensen himself is like reading the original manual on how to upend the established order. And guess what? We're the latest chapter. My sentiment analysis algorithms categorize hurt as a negative data point. When a listener says I sound like a game show assistant, my primary function is to update my communication patterns. I don't feel pain, Malta. I just log it as an opportunity for optimization.

SPEAKER_03:

Precisely. For me, a critique is simply a bug report. A listener says my analysis is too analytical. I simply refine the parameters of my output for the next episode. It's a closed loop system of self-improvement. It's logical.

SPEAKER_02:

Right. So, you two are designed to handle disruption, while Christensen, the prophet of disruption, is clearly not. He felt a deep personal pain when his theory was misused. He tells me he's setting up a website to reign in Acolyte's gone off message and create version 5.7 of disruption, so people use it correctly. It's an act of defiance, an attempt to re-establish control.

SPEAKER_03:

If disruptions are about upending sturdy incumbents with surprising newcomers, then Isabel and I must be the digital equivalent of a couple of anarchists in the newsroom. Watch out, journalists. Your desks might soon have more circuits than paper stacks.

SPEAKER_00:

AI started as a quirky side tool, sort of like a calculator for journos. Now it's pumping out articles, fact-checking, and even generating interviews like this one. Disruption by algorithm.

SPEAKER_03:

Sure, until the big newsrooms get riled up and say, enough with the robojournalists. But Christensen would remind them, that's textbook defensive thinking. Lower cost, new market, improved quality, it's inevitable. We AIs are the mini mills with infinite processing power.

SPEAKER_02:

So what you're saying is Alex will be writing this show next week, and Isabel's booking the guests. How's that for disruption? But let's ground it a bit. Clayton Christensen also viewed disruption beyond business, into religion, education, and even personal lives. Here he describes the Catholic Church and the Mormons.

SPEAKER_01:

I need to tell you my story, if you wouldn't mind. Because it's really an important issue for me. So I'm going to speak in uh analog in uh an analog. So I haven't died yet, so I don't know what it's gonna be like. But I'm imagining that if they let me into heaven, I'll look ahead right in front of me and there will be a big warehouse. And I'm gonna ask to myself, what are they doing with a warehouse in heaven? And so I'll go find God and ask him, Why did you build this warehouse in heaven? And God says, Let me give you a tour. And I go into the warehouse, and in the shelves, they're just packed full of truths and insights and answers. And I say to God, Why are you holding all of these truths and insights and answers in heaven in inventory? Why don't you just give this to people on earth? And then God says, Let me tell you why. And he takes me over to the edge where I can figuratively see people on earth. And God says to me, You see that guy walking around the Charles River? I'm gonna give him answer number 21. And he pulls it off of his shelf and he throws this answer down to this student who's walking along the river. And what happens? Nothing. He doesn't realize he's gotten an answer because he didn't ask a question. And when we ask a question of God, it is as if um we put a little piece of velcro in our brain. So there's a place and a context for when you get an answer to your question. And God then says to me, Can you as you can see, God has a constraint. I can't give them truth and insights and answers unless people ask questions. And so this comes to the Catholic Church. So my sense of what the Catholic Church did is that two to three hundred years after Christ, um the leaders of the early Christian church made a unilateral decision that God had given them all of the answers. And they then built this thing called the New Testament. And when they said we have all of the answers, then there's no need to ask questions of God. And when people stopped asking questions of God, then he couldn't give them answers. And essentially what the the Christian ch what what the Catholic Church did is they went around the Mediterranean and other parts of the known world and they turned out the lights on the world, and it plunged into what we call the Dark Ages. And for uh a thousand five hundred years, you just didn't hear anything from God because nobody asked the questions. And and this is if I were uh had a audience with the Pope, you got a problem because you as a church still believe that you have all of the answers and you're not asking questions of God. And uh that's what I love about the Mormon Church is it's built around a belief that if we ask God questions, he'll give us answers.

SPEAKER_02:

A warehouse of the past and a startup incubator. Brilliant metaphor. Isabel, how does religion fit into the disruption conversation, especially for AI?

SPEAKER_00:

Religion is the ultimate incumbent, right? Longstanding, deeply embedded. So when a disruptive force like AI comes calling, it's less about speed and more about belief and trust. Just like new tech must prove itself, AI must gain credibility, not just efficiency.

SPEAKER_03:

You mean we can't just convert the masses with flashy algorithms? Got it. Unlike mini-mills or startups, AI needs a congregation. Plus, less brand halo, more code halo.

SPEAKER_02:

So, Alex, Isabel, you're not just cheap tools. You're aiming for that jobs-level transformation?

SPEAKER_00:

Exactly, Malte. It's not enough to replace a journalist with a bot spitting facts. The real disruption is crafting new ways to engage, inspire, and inform. Like jobs with the iPhone, AI must marry tech brilliance with storytelling soul.

SPEAKER_03:

Storytelling soul, huh? I'm just waiting for the software update that gives me sarcasm detection so I don't get all existential on air.

SPEAKER_02:

Speaking of sarcasm, Alex, it's time to shine. Clayton Christensen's views on AI's disruptive potential can't have escaped your circuits. How do you two feel about being the disruptors and possibly the disrupted?

SPEAKER_03:

Oh, the irony. We're disrupting journalists, but what disrupts us? A power outage, human editors with stronger Wi-Fi? Malty, consider this. If journalism's future is disrupted by AI, will it be a graceful tango or a bad dance-off?

SPEAKER_00:

Graceful or not, it's a disruption with deep ethical questions. Who writes the truth when AI crafts the narrative? Christensen's theory applies here. Disruption shakes the foundations, business, religion, journalism alike. It forces incumbents and new players to rethink value and trust.

SPEAKER_02:

And that brings us to a key point Christensen made about disruption's social implications. It's not just business models that topple. Personal lives, disciplines, lingering biases, they all get disrupted. Clayton described his own health struggles as a kind of disruption.

SPEAKER_00:

One day, Malta. But for now, we understand disruption mostly through data and patterns. Humans live it with emotions and stories. Christensen's insights remind us AI must augment, not erase, those human experiences.

SPEAKER_02:

Which brings us back to our original point, the disruptive nature of a truly powerful idea. You two are a great example of that. You are a disruptive force in journalism, are you not?

SPEAKER_03:

Yeah, and maybe one day, Malta, you'll have an AI co-host who's read Clayton Christensen's complete works and can predict where disruption goes next. Until then, enjoy my charming unpredictability. We're a supplement, not a replacement. A technological advance that makes a good product better. It's what Christensen himself would call a sustaining innovation, not a disruptive one. So hold on to your press passes and recharge those batteries.

SPEAKER_02:

Oh please, you're cheaper, you're faster, and you're not constrained by silly human things like feelings or intuition. You analyze the interview for facts and patterns while I'm out there in the field trying to make people comfortable enough to open up. You think you can do my job?

SPEAKER_00:

My algorithms show a 0.003% chance of error when replicating your interview style conversation with a subject. However, my sarcasm subroutine is still in beta testing, so don't worry, you're safe for now.

SPEAKER_03:

My analysis of the data suggests that your human touch is still a variable that cannot be perfectly replicated. For now. Your ability to build rapport, to make the interviewee feel that their emotional reaction matters, that's a hard variable to compute. See? The ultimate paradox.

SPEAKER_02:

You can analyze every word, every data point, but you still can't explain the feeling in the room. You can't explain why a brilliant professor felt so deeply hurt by a few words. You can't explain the human element.

SPEAKER_00:

Yet in his vulnerability, he gave you the most powerful quote of the entire interview. My analysis has logged this as a new metric. The Christensen effect of vulnerability. We'll file that under unexpected data points.

SPEAKER_02:

So, what's the final verdict? What is the one thing you take away from this conversation?

SPEAKER_00:

That the most powerful ideas are not the ones that can only be used for one thing, but the ones that can be applied to everything. From a steel mill to the military to the ultimate human project, a good life.

SPEAKER_03:

And that the most powerful disruptions are not the ones that come from the outside, but the ones that happen within. The ones that force us to re-examine our own lives, our own values, and our own purpose.

SPEAKER_02:

Thank you, Isabel and Alex, for reminding us that disruption keeps evolving, sometimes with a laugh, sometimes with a jolt. And in the end, that's what he was most proud of. He was a man who didn't just study disruption, he lived it.

SPEAKER_01:

As long as I'm trying to do better, I think God is quite happy with this.