fbpx

Podcast Transcriptions

Pursue What Matters

Episode 8: Innovator’s Dilemma Book Review

Please excuse any typos, transcripts are generated by an automated service

Dr. Melissa Smith 0:00
Have you heard of Clayton Christensen’s book, the innovators dilemma? It’s a fantastic book for all entrepreneurs and I think it’s a book you need on your bookshelf. And today’s episode, I dive into why I think it’s a must have. So let’s jump in.

Dr. Melissa Smith 0:38
Hi, I’m Dr. Melissa Smith. Welcome to the pursue what matters podcast where we focus on what it takes to thrive in love and work. Hey there, I’m back with another great book review. Today I am talking about one of those seminal business and leadership books that should absolutely be on your bookshelf. But more than just being on your bookshelf, this should actually be a book that you read and review and use. It has some really valuable insights that cut across different industries. So it’s really such a good one. Innovation is the key differentiator among businesses. And of course, a common refrain is innovate or die. If a business is not innovating, growing and creating, it is dying. It’s as simple as that. So let’s think about Apple. No other company has innovated like apple, they have changed the way we access media, the way we communicate how we spend our time, it is not a stretch to say that Apple has changed the way we live. And a survey done in 2017, the CNBC all America economic survey reported that 64% of Americans 64% own at least one Apple product, but the average us household owns an average of 2.6. If I think about my own household, we own much more than 2.6 Apple products. So 2.6 I just think like 2.6, that’s like I have more than 2.6 Apple products on my body. So think about my Apple Watch. I think about my apple air pods, I think about my Apple phone. And then of course my apple laptop on my on my lap. So right there, I’m I’m over the average, just like on my person. So if I think about my household, gosh, we totally get into the double digits, like very quickly. So in January of this year, Apple hit a milestone of 1.4 billion, that’s billion with a B active devices worldwide. And of that 1.4 billion 900 million of those devices are iPhones. So pretty, pretty popular product. Apple is just shy of 50 years old as a company, and yet they set new all time records have 19% growth in revenue year over year. So think about that. 19% growth in revenue year over year, those are pretty good numbers. That’s that’s

Dr. Melissa Smith 3:12
that’s nothing to complain about. The last point that I want to make is an announcement actually the apple made earlier this month, so they are once again adapting and innovating. Of course, that shouldn’t be a surprise. iTunes was launched 18 years ago, can you believe that’s been 18 years. And it was revolutionary. So 99 cents was all it took to download a song legally and with high quality are so any of you remember the whole Napster, lawsuit and all all of that fun stuff. So over time, though, iTunes kind of became clunky, as they kept shoving more stuff onto it. We had podcasts, movies, music videos. And so in 2015, Apple launched Apple Music. Of course, they wanted to compete more with Spotify and Pandora, who were really starting tape to take up more of that market share. And of course, they wanted to get in on the monthly subscription game. So people could have more access to music, of course, was what they were saying that they were doing. But of course, the merge was not great. It was clunky. And users couldn’t really figure out which songs they owned, and which they were streaming. This is really funny because I was actually having this conversation with my husband this week. Because like he he was not sure he’s like where are our songs like, and do we? Like do we own them? And I was like, I was trying to explain it to him like no, like we you don’t buy songs anymore. So it’s still like it’s not clear. It’s it’s still confusing for people. Although I would say like I am a I’m a fan about Apple Music. I prefer it but it gets you hooked on subscription, which is what it’s all about. So in the end, Apple announced on Monday, June 3, that they are discontinuing iTunes altogether and there We’ll be a new interface on iPhones and Macs with new and separate apps for music, podcasts and TV. So we’ll see how this new platform goes. But they’re just continuing to, they’re continuing to move forward, continuing to innovate. So now so that’s one company that we have in the world of media. Now, let’s talk a little bit about Blockbuster Video. How many of you at one point in time had a blockbuster video card in your wallet? How many of you still have a blockbuster video card in your wallet? I know I did. And unless you’re, you know, under 25, or 30, you probably had one too. So the company was founded in 1985. And it really was the biggest player in the video rental industry. So at its peak in 2004, blockbuster employed 84,000 people worldwide, and had over 9000 stores. So it was a really big player. But of course, unable to transition towards a digital model, blockbuster filed for bankruptcy back in 2010. So it was a big crash and burn for blockbuster. So this is this, I think this is a very interesting point in 2000. Netflix, anyone heard of Netflix? Netflix approached blockbuster with an offer to sell their company to blockbuster. So Netflix is like, hey, blockbuster, you’re the big year, the big boy in town, will you buy us for $50 million. The blockbuster CEO, though, was not interested in this offer, because he thought it was, quote, a very, very small niche business. And it was losing money at the time. So Netflix was losing money at that time. And blockbuster CEO just saw it as a small niche business, like he did not think that the streaming media services would go anywhere out. Boy, he was wrong about that. And I’m sure he is still cursing himself to this day, because he really got that wrong. So as of July 2017, Netflix had 103.9 5 million subscribers. So they’re, I’m sure they’re at 104 million at this point, because that was in 2017. So they probably have 104 million plus subscribers worldwide, and a revenue of $8.8 billion.

Dr. Melissa Smith 7:32
So blockbuster really is a prime example of a company that failed to innovate, and most certainly died and, and like crashed and burned spectacularly. And think about it, blockbuster was actually really well positioned to benefit from the transition from traditional video rental to streaming. I mean, they really could have done that very well, with their access to the media. And then of course, like they had this nice little company, who was offering to sell themselves to them. Just so crazy. So I think there were a few things going on for blockbuster, first of all, they’re you know, certainly their head was in the sand. And they didn’t want to see the coming horizon. But also they absolutely felt innovate. Also, they had this lovely little niche streaming business offered to them on a silver platter, and they refused it. So like I mentioned, I’m sure that former CEO is kicking himself every day as well, he should be this is what I’m really curious about. I wonder if this former blockbuster CEO, I wonder if he has a Netflix account. That’s what I wonder about. Okay. So innovation is the lifeblood of any organization. So it keeps an organization healthy, growing and robust. It also keeps employees engaged and excited and challenged. And that’s so important when it comes to leadership. Innovation is not just about finding new revenue streams and making more money. It’s also about building engagement and investment from key stakeholders such as employees, investors, existing customers, potential new customers, board members, etc. Right? So it’s like we think about, you know, we’ve talked a little bit about employees, right, like getting them excited and engaged and giving them a purpose, giving them a why, so that they can really do good work for the company and for the good of the company. But also think about this in terms of customers, you want to give your customers something to get excited about. Because when that tide changes and customers see your company, as dead, or as boring, or as lacking in creativity or innovation, like at that point, it’s almost too late because they’re just like Done with you. So it’s so so very important to continue innovating and to continue creating so that you don’t lose the engagement from all of your key stake stakeholders. And of course, like I said, you know, your stakeholders include employees, investors, existing customers, potential new customers, board members, you’ve got to think big when you’re paying attention to engagement and investment. Okay, so let’s talk a little bit about the book. And I want to introduce you to the author of the book. So Clayton Christensen is the author. He’s a faculty at Harvard Business School. So he’s definitely very well qualified. And he tackles innovation in this excellent book. So he’s been awarded the number one management thinker in the world. So that’s that’s pretty cool award. He’s very accomplished, in addition to his academic work, having written other books that have been very successful, he also leads a consulting firm, and he’s very well respected as a thought leader in the world of business. I had had an opportunity to hear him speak, I think it was maybe a year ago, maybe a couple years ago. And it was really fantastic. You know, he’s, he’s also just a really humble and engaging guy, I really enjoy listening to him speak. So I definitely think this book should be on your bookshelf, but you don’t have to take my word for it. So this book has been named one of the most influential leadership books by Fast Company in its leadership Hall of Fame. And it’s been a wall street journal and Businessweek bestseller. So reviewers say it’s a holy book for entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. And it’s required reading in Silicon Valley. So finally, Steve Jobs identified it as one of the most influential books he read as he was leading his organizations. So let’s dive into some of the main points of this great book. First, Christiansen talks about why great companies fell.

Dr. Melissa Smith 12:04
So he talks about these big and successful companies. But then he talks about the fact that many of them or some of them fell, and that it has everything to do with first becoming complacent with the status quo. So think about blockbuster, they definitely became complacent, to resisting change. Think about Blockbuster Video, definitely resisted change. Three, difficulty pivoting in response to changes. Think about Blockbuster Video, for not anticipating disruptive technologies. Think about Blockbuster Video. So to recall the words of the CEO, he thought it was just a small niche business streaming was a small niche business, it wasn’t going to go anywhere. So he did not anticipate this disruptive technology. So great companies fail because they become complacent, they resist change. They have difficulty pivoting in response to changes, and they don’t anticipate disruptive technologies. So those are four really important points. So if you’re a great company that is successful, your success can become your greatest downfall if you’re not careful. So if you’re leading your vulnerability is thinking that you can’t be challenged when it comes to innovation, young, nimble organizations will usually always be able to out pivot larger organizations, especially if there’s a rigid hierarchical structure in place. And so leaders and successful established organizations must be aware of these vulnerabilities and recognize that their strengths may actually be vulnerabilities when it comes to disruptive technologies and innovating. So Christensen begins the book by asking why, you know, why do these large well managed companies fail, right? So these are large companies, they’re not poorly managed, they’re actually very well managed. And then, of course, like I said, he proceeds to answer the question with the thesis of the book. So these companies fell, because the very practices that have made them industry leaders have also made it almost impossible for them to develop the disruptive technologies that ultimately end up stealing their market share. So we’re going to talk a little bit more about what counts as disruptive technology. So these companies have an Achilles heel and I think that’s the important thing to pay attention to. These are strong robust companies, but they have an Achilles heel. And this Achilles heel can definitely be their undoing, if they’re not aware of it, and if they don’t find a way to protect against It. So some of some of these management practices that have helped them to be market leaders, which turned out to be their Achilles heel include listening to customers, investing aggressively in technologies that customers say they want, seeking higher profit margins, and targeting larger markets and ignoring smaller ones. Okay, so four things that these large market leaders do. And they do really well. And it’s helped them to be successful. Okay, so now, listen to this, like those four things, that does not sound bad, that this is a good formula if you want to make more money as a company, and if you want to grow. So what’s the problem here? Well, Christiansen points out that the problem is that these companies are so focused on these priorities, that they do not give any attention to developing disruptive technologies. And that over time, the inattention to developing disruptive technologies leads to their undoing. So

Dr. Melissa Smith 16:11
Christensen isn’t saying that, that they should, that these leaders should abandon these management practices, because these are sound management practices, right? Listening to customers, investing aggressively in technologies that customer say they want, seeking higher profit margins and targeting larger markets, right? Nothing wrong with those. But when it comes to innovation, when it comes to disruptive technologies, those four management practices don’t work. So now let’s let’s look at the characteristics of disruptive technologies. Because this is really key to understanding the innovators dilemma. So disruptive technologies, the characteristics, there are four, so simpler, cheaper and lower performing, to generally promise lower margins, not higher profits. three big firms, most profitable customers often can’t use them and don’t want them. And for they are first commercialized in emerging or insignificant markets. So if you think about this, disruptive technologies, initially are not very attractive. So you can see, if you’re a manager at a big successful organization, and you hear an opportunity to invest in, in a disruptive technology that fits all these characteristics, you might not be very impressed. Like, you might not want to allocate resources to this disruptive technology. But you’ve always got to hold in the back of your mind, this idea of innovate or die, right, that and this is this is always the balance of a leader is you you’ve got to play on the field you are on. But you’ve always got to be watching the horizon, you’ve always got to be paying attention to what’s coming up. And you’ve got to be able to anticipate that and plan for that. And so if all of your attention is on the current game you’re playing, and you don’t have any resources or any attention, or any foresight for what’s what’s coming on the horizon, you will not be prepared to play that game. Because what we know is that disruptive technologies eventually become mainstream technologies. So if we think about streaming music, or streaming media for for everyone at this point that is mainstream, and that’s gone mainstream in a very short period of time. Okay. So like I said, if you’re a manager to success at a successful firm, and you had an opportunity to invest in a technology opportunity with these characteristics, you’d probably be wise to pass on it. And the reality is that most managers do, but this is really the problem. And this is the Achilles heel that Christensen talks about throughout the book. Okay, so let’s think back to Apple and streaming music. So when they began streaming music, we were all listening to Walkmans, or most of us were listening to Walkmans. So if Apple would have listened to customers, first of all, customers couldn’t have said that they wanted to listen, they wouldn’t that they wanted to stream music because most customers didn’t even know what that was. So we wouldn’t have been able to say that we wanted to stream music. We couldn’t have even said we wanted to stream music, because for most of us, we really had little to no conception of what that even meant. So I had heard of Napster and knew that there was a lawsuit but that was about it. So it took a while. It actually took a good While for customers to gain awareness of the technology, and then the benefits of streaming music, and then actually to reach a point where they had to have those little, okay, they were bigger than. But they were, they had to have those little iPods with all their music in their pockets. So I still remember my first generation iPod and how exciting it was to have all 10,000 of my songs in one place. That was a new form of freedom. But right if Apple would have done focus groups with potential customers or with existing customers,

Dr. Melissa Smith 20:38
like there’s no way that, that they could have had focus groups where customers could have said, Yes, I want that, because they just didn’t have an understanding of that technology. So Apple, and streaming music, and certainly the music industry is perhaps the best example of the big players refusing to consider a disruptive technology. So their refusal almost brought down the entire industry. And it was it was really that catastrophic as they clung to the old model of CDs, rather than embracing digital formats and streaming services. And, you know, I think everyone really lost except Apple, Apple, and Spotify and Pandora. But that’s that also took a long time coming. So it was a pretty painful and violent process for the entire music industry, which they’re still, I think, trying to climb out of. So with this thesis, if we think about the Achilles heel, Christensen identifies several key insights. So the insight number one, the pace of progress, that markets demand may be different from the progress offered by technology. And this is always the tension. So products that don’t seem useful to customers today, think of disruptive technologies, may be very useful to them tomorrow. So we didn’t even know what streaming music was. And then before you knew it, we all had to have an iPod in our pocket. And now for most of us, we can’t imagine listening to music any other way, was so funny. My kids are out of school for the summer. And so of course, the first thing I made them do was do a deep clean of their room, because I’m that kind of mom kind of mean that way. And in the deep bowels of my son’s closet, he came across a Walkman. Which was kind of hilarious, because first of all, he did not know how to open a cassette tape case, which he made the mistake of displaying that inability on a Marco Polo to the entire family. And now he’s been teased mercilessly about it. But like, I saw him trying to play this tape in this Walkman. And he’s a smart kid, like he sees he’s an honor student, and he did not have a blessed clue about how to operate this

Dr. Melissa Smith 23:23
Walkman. And it was just like, the most hilarious thing ever. But this has been in his lifetime. He’s He’s 14 years old. So products that don’t seem useful to customers today may be very useful to them tomorrow. And the the pace of change is only accelerating, of course, with technology. And so it’s it’s really fascinating to me. So the point here is don’t expect your customers to tell you what they need, they may not know. And for many of us in companies, the technology is moving so fast. Often we don’t know it takes a lot to stay on top of that. Of course, you still want to listen to them. But the data might be misleading when it comes to disruptive technologies. So that’s why it’s really important to pay attention to what are the underlying needs? What are the what are the underlying pain points, if you can really pay attention to the pain points, that’s going to be more valuable because then you can match the pain points to what you understand about the technology. And that’s probably going to be much more useful than asking customers to tell you what they want and what they need. Because often with disruptive technologies, they will not know. And that’s just the reality of the world we live in at this point. Insight number two, managing innovation is just like managing resource allocation. So I think this is a really helpful analogy. So if innovation projects get funded, of course, they are more likely to succeed. If they don’t get funded, they will likely won’t succeed. So right, that’s not rocket science. So managing innovation is so challenging, because managing resources related to innovation is so challenging. It can be a really big black box, especially with new technologies. So you may not know how much things cost until you get down a rabbit hole. And so it does get tricky, especially when managers are trying to make decisions about resource allocation, and deciding how much how much money to give to a project or to disruptive technology. Now, the work is in having a leader who can make the tough decisions about what to fund and what to starve. Of course, that’s always the tough decision. You can’t fund everything the way you would like, obviously, because the funds are not limit limitless. And this is where I think one of the greatest tasks of a leader is you get paid to make the hard decisions, and you get paid to pay attention to the landscape you’re on. And the horizon, you have to have the insight and the foresight, you’ve got to have hindsight. Your job is one of perspective. And that is unique to your role as a leader. And so we really want to keep that in mind when it comes to innovation. And so if you never, if you never are funding innovation, what is your plan for the future? What is your plan for growth, and moving forward, because you’ve got to have a plan for innovation, you’ve got to have a plan for growth, insight number three, similar to matching resource allocation to innovation, you also need to match the market to the technology. So those companies who thrive are successful in taking sustaining technology. So these are technologies that are that are already, they already exist, they’re accepted, they’ve kind of gone mainstream, to market and consistently delivering better versions of tech, and products to customers. So those companies who thrive are successful in taking sustaining technologies to market and consistently delivering better versions of tech and products to customers. This keeps customers engaged rather than frustrated. But when it comes to disruptive technologies, don’t try and take these mainstream, it’s highly likely to fell. So that’s what Christensen says, Don’t try and take disruptive technologies mainstream. Instead, find a market that values the disruptive technology. So focus on your early adopters with the disruptive technologies. He says that one of the mistakes that he sees is that the successful organizations try and take disruptive technologies mainstream too quickly,

Dr. Melissa Smith 28:07
and the market isn’t ready for it. The market isn’t ready. And so don’t do that. Rather, go find the market that values the disruptive technology, let your early adopters lead that wave. And if you’re familiar with this wave of the early adopters, and then right you’ve got that process of adoption, following that way, and let that natural progression happen rather than trying to force it, because it’s much more likely to fail. If you try and force it. Plus, it costs a lot of money to try and do that. Christensen says disruptive technology needs to be seen as a Marketing Challenge, not a technological challenge. insight for most managers think they can pivot to accommodate disruptive technologies. While the reality is that the capabilities of most companies are far more specialized, and context specific then their leaders recognize this is a really important insight. So capabilities are developed within a specific value network and so are quite specific. And most organizations think that they are way more capable than they actually are. And Christiansen argues that this can lead to innovation failures, because there’s a misunderstanding of these capabilities. So organizations assume that they can do more than they can do. Insight. Number five disruptive technologies, by definition are risky. So let’s get that clear first, and leaders will not have the information they need to make large and decisive investments, mostly because the information simply doesn’t exist. And so that’s really important to have clarity about from the beginning. It’s going to be risky and you won’t have the answers. information because the information just isn’t there to be had. So you know, often this information is gathered through what is often termed ghetto testing, where you just let’s, let’s get, let’s get a quick and dirty product out there and start testing and and see how it goes, You recognize that failure as a given. So if there’s no allowance for failure, then that’s a problem. Because when it comes to disruptive technology, there absolutely will be failure. So you’ve got to be able to tolerate that. And then of course, iterative learning is a given. So this is going to be a process, you’re going to have to repeat this, it’s like research, you’re going to have several different steps in this process to learn what works and what’s effective. And so iterative, iterative learning is a given. And then finally, leaders must be able to tolerate these realities, or they need to get out of this game, or they need to turn it over to someone else. insights six, don’t just pick one strategy when it comes to technology. So for instance, to be a leader or a follower. So this is from Christiansen. So he says what is more important is the kind of technology you are developing. So if it’s a disruptive technology, he says, You need to be a leader, because of course, there are huge first mover advantages, that if you are primarily focusing on sustaining technologies, so these are technologies that are already mainstream and already accepted in the market, being a follower, conveys almost as many advantages, as does the industry leader, but with many fewer costs and upfront risks. So it’s sometimes it’s okay to be a follower. And so you just want to pay attention to what technology are you working with. So if you’re working with a disruptive technology, you do, you do want to be the leader, if it’s a sustaining technology, you’re probably better off to be a follower, because it’s a lot fewer, a lot, lot lower risk, lower costs. And you have almost all the same advantages as that first mover,

Dr. Melissa Smith 32:24
insights happen. The traditional barriers to entry considered from an economic perspective relative to entry, new markets, just do not apply with disruptive technologies. So I think this is really fascinating, everything you learned in econ. So I think about all my econ instruction in my MBA program, they don’t seem to apply so much when it comes to disruptive technologies, which I’d love to hear my econ professors take on this, I’d love to have a conversation with him about this. But Christensen says, in fact, smaller organizations may have a distinct advantage to entry then do large established organizations. And right this is really where Christensen is talking about this Achilles heel. So this really turns the economic mainstay of barriers to entry on its head, when it comes to disruptive technologies. So this is what Christiansen says about this paradoxical insight. So quote, perhaps the most powerful protection that small entrant firms enjoy as they build the emerging markets for disruptive technologies, is that they are doing something that it simply does not make sense for the established leaders to do. Despite their endowments in technology brand names, manufacturing prowess, management experience, distribution, muscle, and just plain cash. successful companies populated by good managers have a genuinely hard time doing what does not fit their model for how to make money. Because disruptive technologies rarely make sense. During the years when investing in them is most important. Conventional managerial wisdom at established firms, constitutes an entry and mobility barrier that entrepreneurs and investors can bank on. It is powerful, and pervasive. And quote, okay, I love I think that’s really a very insightful quote. So Christiansen argues that managers can overcome these barriers, though, by having an awareness of these inherent conflicts and then creating a situation in which they can support disruptive technologies within the larger organization. So it is a barrier to entry, but it’s not insurmountable. But I do think that this really makes the case for venture capitals, capital firms, obviously entrepreneurs, angel investing that sort of thing because you got to be able to think outside of the box. You got to be able to tolerate risk. And with some of the big established firms, they may just not be set up to do to do that. Okay, so now let’s talk about solutions. And some of the recommendations that Christiansen talks about. So Christensen identifies three key lessons from the innovators dilemma. And all three really speak to the leaders need to tolerate uncertainty in order to create and grow in the marketplace. So right, the title of the book is the innovators dilemma. So he is he’s really wanting to help leaders innovates, he really wants you to, to overcome some of these barriers, and identify if some of these vulnerabilities exist for you, how can you overcome them? So the three key lessons, first of all, innovation is not equal to the improvement. So failure is not an obstacle, it’s indispensable. It’s an indispensable part of success. There are no guarantees, even when you do everything right. You must tolerate uncertainty. So I think that could be a key lesson for life right there. But certainly for innovation. The second key lesson is think smart, but don’t push too hard. That’s also good key lesson for life. So innovate and add value, know when to pause and breathe. Another good life lesson right there. His third key lesson is ROI or return on investment, right is the most important concept for any investor. To be in business means accepting risk, to not take any chances is a risk. leaders must understand this investors must understand this, there will always be uncertainty. So there again, he’s underlining this point around uncertainty and that to invest in disruptive technologies is certainly a risk. But to choose not to invest in disruptive technologies is also risky. And at the end of the day, you make the best decision that you can. But the reality is that there will always be uncertainty. So if we think about those three key lessons,

Dr. Melissa Smith 37:22
I really think those are three key lessons about life, we can definitely generalize those beyond innovation. Christiansen also gives some great advice to managers in large organizations who want to become more nimble. So how do we protect that Achilles heel, so if you’re faced with disruptive technologies, this is his advice. First of all, set up a separate organization small enough to get excited by small gains. So whether it’s a small work team, or just like a little bit of break off organization, that might be very useful to plan for failure, you won’t get it right the first time and consider your investment as part of the learning curve, make revisions as you gather data. And this is for me, plan on ghetto testing, you’ll need to three Don’t count on breakthroughs, move ahead early and find the market that best fits the technology. So right match the match the market to the technology, and recognize that this market will be outside the mainstream, and that’s okay. And that’s actually a given with disruptive technologies. You’ll notice I love this insight, you’ll notice that the attributes that make the disruptive technology on attractive to the mainstream markets are the very attributes on which the new markets will be built. And isn’t that true? I mean, think about ride sharing. This is a perfect example the evolution of a disruptive technology. And early on the characteristics of the ride sharing market were very unappealing to the mainstream market. So disruptive technologies will always be the domain of the early adopters, just always and it will turn off the mainstream market. I hope you’ve enjoyed this book review of the innovators dilemma. I think it’s got so many useful tidbits for anyone in a leadership position. But really, anyone ideas are so intriguing. If you’re an entrepreneur, this can be a very useful guidebook. It also provides a lot of reassurance about what to expect on the path. I love that it does that and in terms of tolerating uncertainty, recognizing that failure is part of the process. And also that don’t expect big breakthroughs and you really just you just kind of have to keep plugging away. If you’re a leader within a larger organization, this book can also be so useful to help you see some Some of the pitfalls that can undermine your effectiveness when it comes to innovation. And I think it can help you make make that case to the other leaders and managers in your organization, I think it can be a really useful shift in perspective, attention to the inherent conflicts that exist with disruptive technologies. And large organizations can really help you sidestep these concerns, so that your company can be one of the ones that can continue to grow, innovate and lead into the future, because of course, that’s what you want for your organization. And even if neither of these two situations apply to you, this book is still incredibly helpful for identifying some of your potential blind spots. Sometimes we get stuck in mental ruts. And we fail to see the larger picture in terms of what is happening both within our own organization among our team members, but also in the larger market. I think this book serves as a really good check in point to help us as leaders, do some self reflection and recalibrate priorities so that our practices, policies and processes are really supporting growth and innovation, rather than undermining them. And finally, perspective is everything and great books like this one can help broaden our perspectives and our thinking. I certainly hope my discussion of this excellent book has done this for you today. I’d love to hear your thoughts about this book, or this episode. Let me know what you think. Thank you so much for joining me today. Make sure you head on over to my website to check out the show notes, with all the great resources for the episode at www.drmelissasmith.com/episode-8. And of course, you can check out the show notes there that include a link to the book, which I totally recommend, and also a link to the website for Clayton Christensen. You can learn a little bit more about him, which I think is also really interesting and great to learn about.

Dr. Melissa Smith 42:10
And of course, if you like this episode, we’d love to have you head on over to iTunes and review. The show that always helps helps to get more people to hear about the show and to check us out. So I certainly appreciate that. I’m Dr. Melissa Smith. Remember love and work, work and love. That’s all there is. Until next time, take good care.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai