Since the 1950s, people have been judging companies based upon their longevity. Wall Street frets over how long these traditional businesses stay on the Fortune 500 list, maintain a leadership position, all the while ignoring the fact that these established and often well-managed companies struggle with disruptive innovation. Why?
Because throughout history and across every sector traditional companies have either failed to embrace disruptive business models, or have failed to maintain their once disruptive edge. As an example, how did the brick and mortar book stores let Amazon get the jump on them? Why didn’t Microsoft see Google coming? It’s simple: these established companies were satisfied with their business models and didn’t even see the innovators coming until it was too late.
Without a disruptive focus companies are merely building or continuing a business model on a “me too” platform of mediocrity. While vision, mission, process, leadership, strategy, branding and a variety of other traditional business practices are important, it is the engineering of these practices to be disruptive that maximizes opportunities.
The most successful companies incorporate disruptive thinking into all of their business and management practices to gain distinctive competitive value propositions. “Me Too” companies fight to eek out market share in an attempt to survive, while disruptive companies become category dominant brands insuring sustainability.
For these reasons and others, we believe that by leading the charge, we will inspire change, innovation, and disruption that allows our business to solve the biggest problems facing the industries we protect, resulting in rapid growth, prosperity, and industry dominance.
So does traditional longevity even matter anymore? Isn’t longevity just a bi-product of something more important?