Abstract
Disruptive thinking is associated with entrepreneurship through innovation. This study explores, through documentary research and inferential analysis, those aspects can be considered fictions and disenchantments associated with the exercise and practice of disruptive thinking during entrepreneurship. The main objective of this research was achieved by documenting three fictions and four disenchantments related to the use of disruptive thinking in the field of entrepreneurship.
Introduction
Entrepreneurship and innovation go hand in hand. Innovation enables entrepreneurs to differentiate themselves from competitors by offering novel responses to market needs that have not been fully or in any way met.
When talking about innovation, it is necessary to talk about changes. When talking about changes, it is imperative to differentiate among gradual, significant and radical. Radical changes are intimately related to disruptive thinking, and, at the same time, this type of thinking is related to innovation. It is very easy to understand that innovation is essentially breaking and improving with what has been done.
But, for that claim to be a coherent rupture, there must be another feature that allows ‘Creative Destruction’ that Schumpeter, Thomas K. McCraw, and Richard L Nolan and David C. Croson told us about.
In books, classes, events and seminars, talking about innovation and disruptive thinking to successfully carry out design thinking is related to entrepreneurship; It sounds possible, attractive and even easy, but, in reality, it is different.
Not all what is said about disruptive thinking is true; sometimes the facts are confused with some perceptions of reality, and, when they are faced with evidences, those perceptions can cause frustrations and disenchantments.
Based on the aforementioned issues, the following question has been asked: what fictions and disenchantments can be related to disruptive thinking in the entrepreneurship field?
The study has been structured following a scholarly line—to answer the aforementioned question and explain and document the fictions and disenchantments found during the research—as follow: (a) first, a review of the literature has been made to establish the conceptual bases subject to analysis and discussion; (b) the objectives of the study have been explained; (c) the rationale of the study has been developed; and (d) analysis and discussion were carried out on the fictions and disenchantments associated with entrepreneurship and disruptive thinking.
After the conclusions, the managerial implications of the study have been established, as well as its limitations, and, finally, the corresponding references have been listed.
Review of Literature
Disruptive Thinking
Martin (2015) indicates that the word disruptive comes from ‘the word, disruption that means break or sudden interruption’ (p. 1).
For her part, Regina Jiménez, in a conference held at the University of Piura and documented by Belletich (2016), stated that disruptive thinking ‘is the engine of innovation and gives the necessary freedom to do different and new things’ (p. 1).
Luke (2010) thinks differently, unconventionally and, above all, demanding to go beyond the preconceived limits of traditional models, aimed at generating wealth and to explore others that are somewhat heterodox.
Now, disruptive thinking is not the only concept that invites us to challenge the traditional and explore new even controversial ways of observing, impacting and transforming a scenario, market or environment through innovation and change. Among those alternative ways, one might consider critical thinking, lateral thinking, systematic thinking and divergent thinking.
Each of them calls for a break from the pre-established conditions and invites us to exceed our limits.
In terms of this study, disruptive thinking is understood as the action of breaking, in a planned way, the manner in which something is accomplished or understood, thereby seeking to create something new or different from what already exists.
Innovation and Disruptive Thinking
According to Ricardo (2013), apparently, it cannot be possible to talk about innovation without a moment where disruptive thinking has not been present. The author states that:
In physics the word ‘disruptive’ is explained as an agent that produces an abrupt rupture. Innovate is defined as the action of altering things by introducing novelties. Hence, all innovative inventions have required disruptive thinking, which breaks with all dogmas and cliches. (Ricardo, 2013, p. 1)
The rupture of what is known to drive change can be understood as innovation, and vice versa, but it is not always necessary to break something to innovate, it is not always innovated because there is something to break.
Innovation can arise as the result of the absence of a particular something, a need or requirement that does not have something that satisfies it or the opportunity to create that need or requirement to be met later.
For example, when cell phones became popular, innovation was present and not necessarily due to disruption, but rather because of ‘evolution’, since they had limited characteristics, like the duration of their battery (which started at just 15 minutes), and the level of coverage, but they were basically nothing more than the portable version of the conventional phone.
The innovation emerged without a disruptive process, since the market did not know that it needed or required portable telephones. At that time, public telephones and other services (such as beepers) supplied the need to communicate for those who believed they were genuinely interested in an almost immediate communication.
At that time, advances were being made in different separate devices: cameras, personal digital assistants (PDAs), calculators, a songs file device (MP3s) and video cameras, to name a few.
Therefore, the appearance of Smartphone arises as a result of disruptive thinking: why have separately what we can have on the same device?
Today, almost all smart cell phones offer the same characteristics; therefore, the disruption will not be associated with technological innovation, but rather with its stagnation and will require that it breaks with what is known in a significant way as it was done at some point.
It can be said, then, that innovation does not depend on disruptive thinking, but disruptive thinking does depend on innovation, it is simple: for there to be a break, there must be something to break.
Entrepreneurship and Disruptive Thinking
Reynolds (2005) cited by Cuervo et al. (2007), explains that ‘entrepreneurship (…) can be conceptualized as the discovery of opportunities and the subsequent creation of new economic activity, often via the creation of a new organization’ (p. 6).
For Drucker (1985), quoted by García and Saiz-Alvarez (2017), entrepreneurship ‘is the act of innovation involving endowing existing resources with new wealth-producing capacity’ (p. 2).
Gartner (1990) identified 90 attributes that showed up in definitions of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship provided by entrepreneurs and other experts in the field. One of these 90 attributes is innovation.
So, as innovation is related to entrepreneurship and, at the same time, innovation is related with disruptive thinking, it is logical suppose that entrepreneurship is related with disruptive thinking.
Benjamin Kohlmann, cited by Campbell (2012), describes entrepreneurs as those who ‘see a need and without consulting higher authority, simply go ahead and try and solve. Their very nature inclines them to disrupt the status quo’. (p. 1).
By her part, Davis (2013) affirms that ‘plenty of entrepreneurs claim that they are «disrupting» their industry’ (p. 1). Also, Davis (2013) explains that, according to Luke Williams, 1 disruption means ‘changing the way things are done before your business is backed into a corner’ (idem).
Therefore, disruptive thinking can guide to an innovative entrepreneurship and change the way work is done, a market is attended or a business is made.
Objective
The main objective of this study is to document at least three fictions and four disenchantments related to disruptive thinking as part of the entrepreneurship sphere.
Likewise, it is expected to offer an academic analysis of these fictions and disenchantments to contribute to the critical and analytical thinking of entrepreneurs.
Rationale of the Studies
If a study can offer a way to observe a phenomenon objectively, thereby offering a perspective that can facilitate decision-making, the choice of tools or strategies, as well as experiencing expectations more adjusted to reality, then that study possesses a logical rationale.
Nevertheless, the rationale of this study can be seen in three points of view:
From the academic point of view, the study offers a documented and observed vision from the perspective of several authors who support the contents presented here, thereby offering a bibliographic background that can serve as support for future contributions in the area.
From the point of view of entrepreneurship, it offers a direct vision, contrasted with reality and events that can be verified, serving as a basis for understanding the concepts presented here practically and empirically.
This study aims to help entrepreneurs to know and face the fictions that can be associated with their initiatives and reduce wrong expectations about the development and behaviour of their businesses.
Methodology
This study has been made through qualitative methodology, based on documentary review with an emphasis on inferential analysis. The inferential analysis was used to support the concepts and interpretations expressed in this article and the analysis of the sources linked with the general purpose of the research.
Analysis of Fictions and Disenchantments
Ihemekwa (2018) explains that the world fiction is:
(…) derived from the Latin word fictum which means created. Fiction is a term used to denote anything, mainly stories or accounts that are not real. (...) Fiction is therefore any form of narrative which deals, in part or in whole, with events that are not factual, but rather, are imaginary and invented by its author. (...) The important factor here is that the story or presentation is not factual or real. (Ihemekwa, 2018, p. 5)
For the purpose of this investigation, talking about fiction is related to affirmations not based on factual events.
Yánez (1997) conceptualizes disenchantments as ‘the existence of a mythical thought’ (p. 10), and relates it to ‘the loss of magic’, (p. 12), of something or someone.
Romero (1998) explains that Max Weber includes disenchantment as part of the three phenomena associated with rationalization as a negative issue.
For the purpose of this investigation, disenchantments are consequences of the loss of magic that occurs when an idea or aphorism based on non-factual facts is confronted with reality.
Now, talking about innovation and paradigm breakdown is very common in classrooms, conferences, specialized magazines and books destined to drive change.
But, beyond what is read, said or heard, there is a reality that defies the idealism that surrounds entrepreneurship and disruptive thinking, which it has been associated with fictions and which it has been described below, from a critical and reflective perspective.
Fictions of Disruptive Thinking
The Fiction of Applicability
Disruptive thinking is excellent for transforming schemes, making changes and driving innovation, but unlike what is believed, its applicability in the business world is not as common or easy as it may be assumed after listening to talks and conferences where its facilitators encourage the use and promotion of it.
Gallo (2016) agrees with Maristany (2007) when explaining, in both cases, that the interpretation of power continues to be observed in a traditional way and, therefore, this prevents collaborators, or entities other than those who can exercise it, from introducing significant changes in companies in an expedited manner.
Disruption is more plausible when it comes from a figure of power or influence, meets less resistance and shows greater interest in the approach it offers.
The opposite case occurs when disruption comes from the base personnel, being common to question it, minimize it, belittle it and even ignore it in many cases.
Nonetheless, disruptive thinking does not require a privileged position to be applied, but the consequence of its exercise tends to demand the possession of privileges.
The Fiction of Standardization
Not everything is susceptible to disruption. In this sense, its exercise cannot be standardized. There are elements, customs, habits, positions, schemes and paradigms, to name a few, that are susceptible to be improved, transformed, modified and even replaced by others that are totally innovative and challenging.
Therefore, it can be concluded, in a preliminary way, that not everything can be subject to a rupture.
When we talk about disruptive thinking in entrepreneurship, organizations and companies, we usually assume that we are talking about the change in policies, procedures, products or services, which may evolve, change or adapt according to the new scheme to which they are subjected, for example, when artificial intelligence is used instead of a human operator to answer recurring questions through an automated telephone service.
However, it can be deduced that all of the above will depend on the characteristics, conditions and scenarios where the company, entity, entrepreneur or organization is located, and the social, political, technological and cultural freedoms that prevail in them.
It seems simple, imagining that a person in Louisiana, USA, can apply disruptive thinking under the same conditions as a person in North Korea, Iran or Belarus. However, it is indispensable knowing the variables that interact, prevent or facilitate not only disruptive thinking but also of the materialization of it.
Therefore, sometimes it is a fiction that disruption and disruptive thinking can be used as tools for innovation and change in any scenario or situation, as this aspect depends on different factors, whether they are economic, social, cultural, political or even religious.
The Fiction of Utility
According to Bentham (1823), cited by Kapteyn (1985), utility is meant that ‘property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness’ (p. 1).
Bentham (1823), quoted by Broome (1991), also explains that utility ‘is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or thing to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered’ (p. 1).
In general, it is a mistake to think that disruptive thinking is useful per se. Usually, it would be useful when it generates a profit. These aspects coincide with the way that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) defines innovation 2 and the way that Rao et al. (2019) has described it. Panigrahi (2016) suggests that profitability is the way that an entrepreneur’s success is measured and, as it was already explained, innovation and disruptive thinking are part of that success.
Therefore, disruptive thinking can be considered useful if and only if it generates profit, it is convenient or something can be obtained from it.
It is a fiction, then, to suppose that all disruptions are useful or, at least, can be understood and accepted as such.
Disenchantments of Disruptive Thinking
Disenchantments Regarding Understanding
Nikola Tesla remains a valid example on this point. According to Rodriguez (2017), Tesla was a ‘genius who lived absorbed in his investigations, inspired by a unique passion that was the progress of science for the benefit of humanity. On the other hand, Edison was only looking for fame and focused on his “entrepreneurial talent”’ (p. 1).
Such passion did not coincide with the paradigm of the time, driven by profitable inventions like those proposed by Thomas Alva Edison.
Therefore, one of the disenchantments of the fruit of disruptive thinking has its origin in the understanding of the break and the associated, linked and present interests in what you want to break.
While Tesla wanted to bring free electric power to the towns, Edison saw it as an economically promising company. How many similar scenarios can disruptive thinking face today?
Another example of this is the use of alternative energy compared to fossil fuels; disruptive thinking has travelled from solar to geothermal energy, and, even today, they are industries in an emerging state. Given the existence of elements that are not foreseen in this content, it can only be pointed out that not only acceptance but also convenience and economic feasibility could limit the implementation or materialization of a disruptive idea.
For all of the above-mentioned consideration, it can be observed as a disenchantment, with regard to disruptive thinking, the lack of understanding and/or convenience of it.
Disenchantments Regarding Lack of Vision
Disruption requires seeing beyond what is generally accepted and that is where the rupture appears because, when exercising that kind of thought, the limits expand, and it is not possible to observe and stand by normal limitations.
That futuristic and challenging vision is not as common in companies as desired. Gil (2014), in his article ‘Lack of Vision in Organizations Affects their Development’ ensures:
Many organizations do not put enough emphasis on this task of visualizing their future and, therefore, their leaders do not know where they are going, except to meet the results of the following month. The lack of this type of tasks, together with the lack of communication, no longer only to external clients, but also to internal clients, the most important ones, means that they end up suffering from acute myopia and that their vision is short-term. (Gil, 2014, p. 1)
Therefore, the work of those who want to introduce a change can be considered as a disenchantment, based on disruption, when it can be affected, in a negative way, by the lack of vision of the people who manage the company or institution.
This disenchantment, which has been discussed in the previous paragraph, can also be related to the power that people have in companies: if the person who would have the power to promote disruption does not have the vision of its scope and relevance, it will be difficult to support its implementation in the process or function, product or service to which it would be directed.
As such, it will unlikely be able to generate changes in products and/or services, due to the lack of vision possessed by those who could support and promote it.
The aforementioned issues are also related to the moment of proposing an entrepreneurship; the lack of vision on the part of shareholders or entities dedicated to financing can cause the same effect.
Disenchantments in Relation to Pragmatism
According to Ormerod (2006), pragmatism is:
(…) a philosophical doctrine that can be traced back to the academic sceptics of classical antiquity who denied the possibility of achieving authentic knowledge regarding the real truth and taught that we must make do with plausible information adequate to the needs of practice. (Ormerod, 2006, p. 892)
Ormerod (2006) also explains that ‘pragmatism is a word we commonly use to describe a particular way of addressing and resolving issues, a way of acting’ (p. 893).
Barrena (2014) points out regarding pragmatism:
(...) the meaning of a notion resides in the practical or experimental consequences that result from the application of that notion, and a difference in meaning will consist of a possible practical difference. Those ideas that are strengthened by the consequences in practice will be true. Pragmatism therefore does have to do with the practical. (Barrena, 2014, p. 4)
So, if the disruption is not considered practical (and pertinent), associated with the perception of people who have the power and exercise it, it is very likely that the approach will be dismissed for not possessing the expected value and/or usefulness at the time, under a vision that omits speculation and is not in favour of ‘what if’.
Barker (1990) offers an example, which supports the previous statement, when he explains how difficult it was for Chester Carlson, in 1938, to sell his idea, the same one that gave rise to the photocopier and that, at the time, due to the inability to see its usefulness, the people who evaluated his proposal rejected it repeatedly.
This can be seen as disenchantment since it depends on the ability of third parties to foresee, assess or visualize the usefulness of an idea, a disruption or a proposal that breaks with what is known, making this an obstacle that can prevent the introduction of a shift aside.
Disenchantments in Relation to Paradigms
According to Huitt (2019), a paradigm ‘may be thought of as a mental representation of how an entity is structured (the parts and their interrelationships) and how it functions (behaviour within a specific context or time dimension)’ (p. 1).
And for Harmon, quoted by Huitt (2019), defined a paradigm as ‘the basic way of perceiving, thinking, valuing, and doing associated with a particular vision of reality’. (idem).
But Barker (1990), based on Thomas Kuhn, considers that paradigms are ‘any set of rules and regulations’ (p. 25). Therefore the policies, norms and conditions existing in a company can and should be considered as paradigms.
Barker (1990) also talks about the paradigm effect, which he describes as the impossibility of seeing what does not conform to our rules and regulations.
Therefore, if the disruption does not conform to the existing paradigms, either in the company or in the people who have the power to implement, promote or support it, it may go unnoticed, it can be rejected or simply ignored.
As it happened with Chester Carlson in 1938, and in so many other examples that can be extracted from history. One of them was documented by Marchiori (2018), when he talks about the phrase expressed by Ken Olsen, cofounder of Digital Equipment Corporation, in 1977: ‘there is no reason for anyone to want having a computer at home’ (p. 194). Both innovations and disruptive proposals have been rejected by intelligent people because they suffered from ‘paradigmatic paralysis’, as Barker (1990) explained.
Due to the aforementioned topics, facing entrenched, dominant and conservative paradigms can be considered as a disenchantment, especially when you have the expectation of introducing a change in scenarios that seem to be open for it, but in reality, the doors are closed.
Discussion
As can be seen throughout the study, the fictions and disenchantments related to disruptive thinking as part of the entrepreneurship sphere are varied, although, in this case, only three of them have been studied.
Even though this study takes into account three main fictions—applicability, standardization and utility—they are not the only fictions that exist in the field of entrepreneurship. It is possible to claim that there are expectations related to the fictions that do not necessarily correspond to the reality of each of those three aspects.
It would be convenient that the entrepreneur understands that—although a disruptive idea may seem the correct one to impact the market—it must be subjected to a rigorous review to ensure that it can be applied successfully. The aforementioned action can contribute to reinforce a competitive advantage by preventing the launch of products and services that do not necessarily conform to what customers expect or want to experience.
However, any innovative and disruptive idea can come from any part of enterprise, so the entrepreneur must be attentive and open to listen to it, without letting his/her privileged position prevent it.
About standardization, the information is very clear—not everything can be disrupted. This affirmation invites to the entrepreneur to be more creative and newfangled. This reality implies to know the limitations of any kind of a particular product and services and how to introduce a convenient disruption.
Finally, as far as utility is concerned, the fiction that disruptive thinking can be profitable immediately—due to its nature—must be discarded and, instead, checked if the disruption is aimed at a market that is willing to accept it.
One cannot speak of fictions, in the entrepreneurial field, without the existence of disenchantments, since the latter are part of the equation.
As documented in this study, disruptive thinking must not only overcome certain fictions, it will also face some disenchantments, usually related to the ability to understand them, the lack of vision on the part of the people who must decide whether or not to implement them, pragmatism and, without a doubt, with the dominant paradigms present in an undertaking, community, society or market.
Although these fictions and disenchantments may be perceived like a problem, in reality, they are not. Their existence, identification and knowledge allow the entrepreneur to develop the necessary skills to overcome them, and even to use them for identifying new disruptive thoughts.
Conclusions
Usually, we tend to talk about disruptive thinking in an idealistic way when we talk about entrepreneurship.
Within this study, the idea is fuelled, in that when a breakdown is made, we leave our comfort zone, and this will help to significantly transform what is done and how it is done.
After the documentary review, it can be said that in disruptive thinking, there are fictions and disenchantments that can significantly affect the materialization of a business idea when starting an enterprise.
It can also be said that when speaking of disruptive thinking, part of the reality that most entrepreneurs face is omitted, leaving aside the challenges and obstacles that not everyone manages to overcome. With some exceptions, the breaks and innovations (to be materialized) must come from people very close to power or holders of it.
In practice, entrepreneurs tend to be inspired to break paradigms, but at the same time, they are limited through the existing rules and regulations in society and the underlying business vision.
It is required to understand that there are fictions and disenchantments associated with disruptive thinking, since this invites to see, analyse and extend the variables that exist around it.
An entrepreneur should ask herself/himself the following questions before starting his business: is disruptive thinking a competitive advantage in the environment where the business will be developed or is it a limitation? Who can support a business that proposes a break in the dominant paradigm? Is it the time, place and setting to use disruptive thinking?
Entrepreneurs must be prepared to know and face the fictions and disenchantments that surround disruptive thinking; doing so will allow them to analyse, plan and act with greater possibilities of success.
If the fictions and disenchantments related to disruptive thinking are omitted, when studying an entrepreneurship activity, it will seem that theory does not coincide with practice.
Managerial Implications
From a management perspective, all information, approach or discussion that broadens the vision of the entrepreneur and allows her/him to observe, discern and make better decisions represents an advantage when digesting a company, starting a business or initiating a change in the market where it operates.
Therefore, the fictions and disenchantments documented in this study have managerial implications because it observes, studies and contrasts each of these expressions. Moreover, this study exposes fictions and disenchantments in such a way that it provides content that allows us to see and understand objectively the reality of entrepreneurship.
This study might help a manager to understand that disruptive thinking can arise from any level within the organization. This aspect can be one of the managerial changes related to the fiction explained in this study because it allows him/her to be attentive to any disruptive proposal without underestimating its provenance.
Another managerial implication can be found in fiction related to the usefulness of disruptive thinking. As already stated, disruptive thinking is only useful if it generates profits. Therefore, a manager must be careful when proposing or promoting a disruptive initiative because it needs to demonstrate its ability to be profitable.
All documented fictions and disenchantments have managerial implications because they offer a direct, real and critical vision of the experience of entrepreneurs regarding their intention to introduce novel ideas, either in the market or in the different areas of a company.
The review of each of the entrepreneurial fictions and disenchantments previously studied allows the development of an open attitude to changes and disruptions.
This study promotes the deep study of the market, as well as the understanding of the client, the analysis of society, its culture and customs, including the barriers of each one of them.
This information can allow an entrepreneur to overcome the obstacles that the fictions or disenchantment may represent and, at the same time, offer to him a broad vision that encourages a successful impact on the operation that is carried out or it wants accomplished.
Limitations and Future Research
Although the fictions and disenchantments documented in this study can occur in any region or country, regardless of its culture, this study emphasizes the Latin American entrepreneurial experience and the concerns that entrepreneurs in that region tend to present.
The existence of other similar expressions—related to entrepreneurship and disruptive thinking—that have not been included in this study cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, this study has been limited to those expressions that could be contrasted with reality and whose existence could be analysed through verifiable experiences and those who had historical documentation.
Because it has been possible to document three fictions and four disenchantments in the entrepreneurial field—from the Latin American perspective—it is possible to think about conducting a study that can determine whether these aspects are also experienced in the same way in other regions.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the article. Usual disclaimers apply.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
