Globalization in the 21st century has put steady changes on the agenda. Changes of yesterday’s status quo are taking place more and more quickly. Politics, business, science and society are facing major challenges in ever-shorter cycles. But where do these disruptions come from? Who benefits from the changes and who outweighs negative effects? Which decisions in dealing with disruption are relevant, who has to make them and how can the best results be achieved in implementing these decisions?
Disruption, a term introduced in 1997 by Clayton Christensen in “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, concerns us all. Despite the controversial thesis of Christensen, two decades later, even critics recognize that abrupt downfalls of market leaders and political institutions occur more frequently. Recently, not many management theories have had such a big impact on the business world as the concept of disruption. However, management is not the only area that faces disruption. Its effects are varied and often can not be assigned to individual areas of life.
As technological progress continues to generate new winners and losers worldwide, dealing with the refugee crisis has disrupted established political systems. The conviction of a united Europe is crumbling, democracy in the United States is in an identity crisis, and China is taking over the lead in driving globalization – all radical developments that cause disruption on a socio-cultural level. The consequences of wrong decisions in today’s networked world are far-reaching and they often provide irrevocable course for subsequent generations.
For this very reason, I wanted to highlight the theme of disruption from a different point of view. To stress out that not only the management and business world is affected by technological disruptions, but also us in our social graces and ways of beeing human.
References:
Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
