6 Minute audio
Clayton Christensen’s The Innovator’s Dilemma is a modern classic in business literature, shedding light on why successful companies often fail in the face of disruptive innovations. The book’s central insight is as paradoxical as it is profound: the very practices that make companies great can also lead to their downfall when the rules of the game change.
Christensen argues that disruptive innovations—those that start as seemingly inferior or niche products—often displace established players. Incumbents focus on their core markets, listening to their best customers and allocating resources to higher-margin opportunities. Meanwhile, disruptors quietly build momentum in underserved markets until they’re ready to move upstream and outcompete the industry giants.
The book’s brilliance lies in explaining this process with clarity and evidence, using case studies from industries like disk drives, steel production, and retailing. However, as much as I admire the book, I’ve often found myself questioning its title. It seemed to me that The Incumbent’s Dilemma be a more accurate description of the problem Christensen sought to explore. For my own gratification I decided to dive into why this alternative title might better reflect the essence of the book—and why Christensen may have chosen otherwise.
Why “The Incumbent’s Dilemma” Fits Better
At its core, Christensen’s book is about the struggles of incumbents—established companies that dominate their markets and excel at delivering what their best customers want. These organizations are typically focused on sustaining innovations: incremental improvements to existing products and services that keep their core customers satisfied and their margins healthy. The dilemma arises because these same companies are almost always structurally incapable of embracing disruptive innovations for three specific reasons:
- The innovations target low-end or niche markets with lower margins.
- They lack the performance attributes demanded by the incumbents’ most profitable customers.
- They challenge established processes, metrics, organizational structures, and net earnings streams.
This creates a classic innovator’s dilemma: Should incumbents invest in disruptive technologies that might cannibalize their existing business, or stick to what has historically worked? More often than not, they stick with the latter—until it’s too late. This response raises an interesting paradox: if they are concerned that the disruptive innovation might cannibalize their existing business that should be a strong argument for them to embrace it themselves. If they choose not to do so it’s because they must believe that the odds of success of the innovation are low; in other words they do not view it as potentially disruptive. Or, as Christensen notes, the incumbents happily cede their lower-end customers because they are a less profitable part of their business which allows them to focus their energy and attention on their more profitable customer segments.
The book’s primary audience is corporate leaders grappling with these exact challenges. By focusing on why incumbents fail to adapt, The Incumbent’s Dilemma would arguably pinpoint the book’s thesis more directly. The “dilemma” isn’t as much about the disruptors—who often thrive—but about the incumbents, who struggle to innovate against their own internal constraints.
Why Christensen Chose “The Innovator’s Dilemma”
Of course, there’s got to be a good reason Christensen went with the title The Innovator’s Dilemma. Perhaps that is a broader, more aspirational, and ultimately more marketable title. “Innovator” is a term that resonates with a wide audience, from corporate leaders to entrepreneurs and disruptors. It speaks to a universal challenge: how to navigate the tension between sustaining what works today with incremental improvements and embracing the uncertainty of tomorrow with a radically new customer value proposition.
Christensen also positioned the “innovator” as both the external disruptor and the incumbent trying to innovate from within to better serve its customers. The title he chose doesn’t just describe the disruptors entering the market but also the individuals inside established companies struggling to champion disruptive ideas against internal resistance.
Another consideration is potential reader appeal. A title like The Incumbent’s Dilemma might feel narrower or less engaging, potentially alienating readers outside the world of large, established organizations. In contrast, The Innovator’s Dilemma feels relevant to anyone thinking about innovation, regardless of their position or industry.
The Broader Implications of the Dilemma
Whether we call it The Innovator’s Dilemma or The Incumbent’s Dilemma, the book offers critical lessons for any business navigating change. Christensen highlights the importance of creating separate units to explore disruptive technologies, investing in emerging markets even when they seem unprofitable, and embracing the possibility of cannibalizing your existing product lines.
But these lessons go beyond business strategy. The book challenges all of us—whether we’re entrepreneurs, leaders, or individuals—to think about how we approach disruption in our own lives. Are we stuck in our comfort zones, doubling down on what’s worked in the past? Or are we willing to take risks, explore new paths, and embrace the uncertainty of the unknown?
A Final Reflection
Christensen’s insights have endured because they resonate across industries and contexts. Yet, as much as I admire the title The Innovator’s Dilemma, I can’t help but feel that “The Incumbent’s Dilemma” would more accurately capture the central tension of the book. The true challenge lies with the incumbents—the organizations and individuals who must overcome the inertia of success to adapt to a changing world.
But perhaps that’s the brilliance of the original title. By framing it as “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” Christensen invites all of us to see ourselves as innovators, grappling with the choices that will define our future. Whether you’re an incumbent defending your market or a disruptor trying to create one, the dilemma remains the same: adapt or be left behind.
What are your thoughts? Should Christensen’s book have been called The Incumbent’s Dilemma? Or does The Innovator’s Dilemma capture a broader, more universal truth? Let me know in the comments below!