by Robyn Bolton | Jul 21, 2026 | Leadership, Leading Through Uncertainty, Stories & Examples
“Disruption [is] driven by the pursuit of profit. That’s the causal mechanism for these things…”
Clayton Christensen at the 2011 Gartner Symposium ITExpo
When I told a client that peak profit was one of the signs that they were about to be disrupted, his jaw fell open. He didn’t believe me because, like any businessperson, achieving record profit is THE reason to celebrate. His company had just doubled revenue in the past five years and was positioned to double again in the next five. AND they supply mission-critical systems to build out data centers.
Business literally could not be better.
Which is exactly what the CEOs of Big Steel thought in 1968.
It wasn’t too big to fail.
“US Steel posted record profit margins in the years prior to unseating by the minimills; in many ways it was blind to its disruption.”
Clayton Christensen in HBR
Since the mid 1850s, steel was produced in integrated steel mills that performed every function required to produce the material that was building America. The costs to build a mill were high, about $8B in today’s dollars, and, to operate efficiently, mills ran 24/7 to produce at least 2M tons of steel per year.
In 1968, a metallurgist at Nucor invented something called the minimill. It could only perform half of the functions of an integrated mill and produced only rebar, the lowest quality of steel. But the minimill cost only $6M and could be profitable at just 50,000 tons of production.
Christensen called the minimill “not good enough.” He was being nice. The minimill was a joke.
Rebar was a joke, too. At just 4% of the steel market, it had the lowest gross margin of any type of steel. Ceding it to minimills freed up integrated mill capacity to produce more high profit steel. By 1977, Nucor was the leading manufacturer of rebar.
It had also spent 7 years improving the minimill.
The pattern continued:
- 1984: Big steel cedes the angle iron, bars, and rods to Nucor
- 1989: Bethlehem Steel’s market value jumps to $2.4B, from $175M just 3 years earlier
- 1993: Minimills directly compete with integrated mills in all segments of the market.
- 1995: Bethlehem Steel’s primary plant ceases operations
- 2001: Bethlehem Steel files for Chapter 11
- 2003: Minimills production exceeds integrated mills while Bethlehem Steel ceases to exist.
By 2017, only 9 integrated mills were still operating in the US, compared to 111 active minimills. The disruption took 35 years to play out.
You don’t have 35 years
The steel industry isn’t the only example:
| Company |
Time to Disruption |
Peak |
Disruption |
Disruptor |
| Sears |
30 years |
1969: World’s largest retailer |
1999: Removed from Dow Jones Industrial Average |
Walmart, Kmart, Target, Amazon |
| Kodak |
16 years |
1996: Record $16B revenue |
2012: Filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection |
Digital photography |
| Blockbuster |
6 years |
2004: Record revenue: $6B |
2010: Filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection |
Redbox, Netflix |
| Nokia |
7 years |
2007: Record Net Profit $51B, 40% of global handset market |
2014: Handset business sold to Microsoft for $7.2B |
iPhone, Android |
| Intel |
3 years |
2021: Record revenue $79B |
2024: Worst ever stock year as price goes below $18/share |
TSMC, Nvidia |
It’s happening right now. Are you seeing it?
“Financial results measure how healthy the business was, not how healthy the business is. Financial results are a particularly bad tool to manage disruption, because moving up-market feels good financially.”
Clayton Christensen and Michael E. Raynor, The Innovator’s Solution
Executives and shareholders may feel good right now because, despite supply chain disruptions and high interest rates, earnings are buoyed by “margin expansion” and “revenue beats.” AI feels like an opportunity, not a threat. And there’s no reason to believe that tomorrow’s results will be worse than today’s numbers.
It’s exactly how the CEOs of Big Steel felt in 1968.
You still have time to find the joke.
by Robyn Bolton | Jun 23, 2026 | Leadership, Leading Through Uncertainty, Tips, Tricks, & Tools
For eight days, the Tartan Army filled Boston’s streets with kilts, bagpipes, and the constant refrain of “No Scotland. No Party.” Bars ran out of beer, traffic cones adorned statues, and resident’s souls were healed.
Now, some are saying corporate managers should have the same effect on the people around them (presumably without consuming all the beer in the office).
The possibility of collective effervescence
Collective effervescence is everywhere right now: in New York at the Knicks’ championship parade, the Tarps Off shirtless section at baseball games, at every unexpected draw or win at the World Cup.
It’s the “emotional electricity or excitement that lifts people outside of themselves and makes them feel like they’re connecting to something transcendent,” explains Christina Simko, and associate professor of sociology at William College. “They (members of a crowd) have to have a common focus and a common mood, and through that physical interaction, they generate something … greater than the sum of its parts.”
Greater than the sum of its parts.
Where have a I heard that before?
Could it be in every press release announcing an acquisition, all-hands meeting kicking of a transformation, and email confirming a re-org?
Which explains why I’m reading about the need for executives to create collective effervescence to ensure the success of transformational initiatives.
Seventy percent of transformations fail and one of the leading causes of failure is insufficiently high aspirations. Collective effervescence is sufficiently high but setting that as a metric of success will only drive up the failure rate.
The probability of emotional contagion
Emotional contagion is also everywhere: in the laugh that spreads through a room, the frown that moves around a conference table, the yawns that can’t be suppressed in meetings.
It’s the “phenomenon in which a person unconsciously mirrors or mimics the emotions of those around them” through nonverbal, conversational, or behavioral cues. It can be positive, like smiles and laughs, or negative like frowns or the tension from a tough conversation.
That’s good news for executives.
Leaders are “emotional amplifiers” because team members are more likely to mirror the leader’s tone than their peers. Research out of USC also indicates that, historically, positive emotions are more contagious than negative ones.
It’s also bad news for executives.
The emotional amplifier role cuts both ways and research shows that people tend to “overperceive” negative cues from leaders, even magnifying small emotional cues well beyond what a leader intended.
That means the frown everyone on the company-wide Zoom was most likely interpreted as disagreement, even opposition, to what was being discussed. And not that your shoes are too tight.
The reality of leading humans through change
Leading people through change is hard. It’s even harder when you’re under a microscope and every smile, frown, sigh, cough, and eye roll is scrutinized and interpreted as if it were a secret code foretelling the future of thousands.
It’s not. But your team believes it is.
And perception is reality.
Here’s how to start shaping reality to make the changes happen:
- Start with self-awareness. What is your mood right now? If it’s useful to the team, spend time with them. If it’s not, reschedule the meeting or send a proxy.
- Make direct eye contact with people. According to the research, eye contact during verbal communication activates brain regions that help us understand what someone is saying and what they mean. Just don’t stare. That’s creepy.
- Neutralize the negativity publicly. A bit of skepticism can be healthy for teams going through change but too much easily crosses over into pessimism and even hostility that spreads throughout the team. So stop the spread by publicly and patiently calling out the behavior and seeking to understand the root cause.
You don’t need collective effervescence to successfully lead change.
You do need spread the belief that change is possible and beneficial.
And you can do that without wearing a kilt.
by Robyn Bolton | Jun 17, 2026 | Leadership, Leading Through Uncertainty, Tips, Tricks, & Tools
Up and down New England’s coastline you’ll find lobster (pronounced “lob-stah”) shacks. These weathered wood structures produce the freshest lobster and crispiest fried seafood anywhere, enjoyed on picnic tables as the sun beats down and the waves crash against the rocky shore.
It was at one of these shacks that, many years ago, I learned priceless lesson.
As my friends and I placed our orders, I asked that the head of my lobster be removed before serving. The waitress looked at me like I had nine heads but wrote down my request and returned to the kitchen. A few minutes later she reappeared and announced that the kitchen refused to decapitate the lobster prior to serving.
“I don’t like making eye contact with my food,” I stammered.
She nodded and walked away.
When she returned with our lobsters, they all had heads but one was noticeably different. It was wearing “sunglasses” made of olives and toothpicks.
“Here,” our waitress said. “Now you don’t have to make eye contact with it.”
A short-term “solution”
As VUCA-ness (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) accelerates, C-suite executives do everything possible to create certainty and construct safety. After all, if the company doesn’t survive the short-term, even the best long-term plans don’t matter.
Evidence of this approach is everywhere:
When these decisions land on your desk, you sigh, knowing they are short-sighted but understanding the rationale. Then, you go implement them, knowing unintended consequences are coming.
Unintended doesn’t mean unpredictable
In fact, because you are on the frontlines of your business, striving to deliver today and build tomorrow, you can predict what those consequences will be:
It’s frustrating to see the problems coming but feel powerless to avoid them.
But what does any of this have to do with a lobster wearing sunglasses?
When you know the Why, you can choose the How
When directives land on your desk, don’t sigh and roll them out. Ask for the Why behind the What.
- Why are employees being forced back to the office? Did productivity decrease? Are mission-critical operations not occurring? Are top-performers leaving for in-person roles?
- Why are experienced people being let go? Is the work being outsourced or has it genuinely gone? Why are you no longer hiring entry-level people? Are they too expensive to train? Is retention genuinely poor?
- Why are innovation initiatives being cut? Is the core business in that much trouble? Do we lack the talent? Are we pursuing growth through other means?
Each directive’s Why is different which means you have more options than you realize for delivering the How. Understanding the outcomes the company needs, reveals options for delivering it while minimizing the unintended consequences.
Don’t decapitate the lobster. Find opportunities for sunglasses.
The kitchen could have easily removed the head from my lobster, but they foresaw the unintended consequences of a disappointing dining experience. When they understood my why, they created a spectacular how.
You don’t control the system so asking “Why?” feels scary, hostile, even mutinous.
You do control your piece of it. You know it better than anyone, so there’s no one better to determine the how.
by Robyn Bolton | May 5, 2026 | Leadership, Leading Through Uncertainty, Stories & Examples, Strategy
Sunday morning, my phone blew up. Thirty-three text messages. Most mornings, I have zero, so my first thought was “who died?”
The texts were about a death. Sort of.
Sloan Management Review died (ceased publication) and a group chat filled with academics, thought leaders, and consultants were having an absolute meltdown.
Knowing that my husband, an actual Sloan graduate, hadn’t yet seen the news, I broke it to him gently. “Okay,” he shrugged, not even glancing up from his phone.
This was in stark contrast to his reactions to the demise of Spirit Airlines (howling with laughter at the memes) and the resurrection of Allbirds as an AI company (thoughtful and incredibly technical analysis).
Lesson 1: The Race to the Bottom Never Ends Well
CNN’s headline said it all, “Why did Spirit fail? Too many passengers hated flying it.” To prove the point, the article opens,
“Lousy service, not the Iran war, killed Spirit Airlines. Spirit was doomed to fail because of mismanagement, deep financial problems, and – crucially – its reputation for poor customer service. The spike in jet fuel prices during the war just accelerated Spirit’s inevitable demise.”
If that can be written about your business, you don’t deserve to be in business.
It’s only a matter of time until you’re not.
Lesson 2: Be Patient for Growth and Impatient for Profit
Allbirds raised $348 million when it IPOed in 2021 and, at one point, was valued at $4.1 billion despite never turning a profit. Six years later, its stock price had fallen 95% and it sold its business and IP to a brand management company for $39 million.
How did this happen? There are plenty of theories – it expanded too aggressively into bricks and mortar retail, it made ugly shoes but operated like a fashion brand, its Tech Bro image is no longer aspirational for Gen Z customers – but the fact is that it prioritized growth over profit and that ultimately bit them in the balance sheet.
Lesson 3: Some Businesses are Butterflies
While my colleagues’ alarm was understandable, it missed the bigger picture.
Sloan Management Review (SMR) didn’t die. It metamorphosed.
Yes, the SMR brand is going away, but future ideas, research and findings will continue to be shared through digital newsletters, short-form videos, podcasts, and social-first content.
In effect, SMR is metamorphosing to better reflect how its subscribers consume information. Busy executives don’t have the time to read long-form, dense research articles. They grab information in snippets and soundbites. This change ensures the people who need the ideas the most get them.
3 Questions to Find Your Fate
- Do you treat your customers like they exist for your benefit? In other words, are you more focused on value extraction than value creation and delivery? If yes, start planning your business’ funeral and don’t expect anyone to attend.
- Do you have a financially and operationally sustainable business model? If no, start planning your funeral but take comfort in the fact that people will attend and may even say nice things about you.
- Do you know the unique, relevant, valuable, and hard to imitate reason why you exist? Can you articulate the rare and essential Job to be Done you do for your customers? If no, you’re on life support. When you can answer yes, you’ll be ready to be a butterfly.
One quick caveat
When businesses die, people lose their jobs and that is incredibly tragic. The psychological, financial, and relational impacts of job loss are tremendous, impacting people far beyond the individual laid off. It can take months, even years for people and families to recover and, for some, it never happens.
Creative destruction is real and necessary for long-term economic, technological, and societal growth. But the short-term impact has human consequences that should never be ignored.
by Robyn Bolton | Apr 28, 2026 | Leadership, Leading Through Uncertainty, Strategy
“Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.” – Ron Swanson, Parks and Rec
With all due respect to Ron Swanson, leaders today need to whole-ass two things. In a world of constrained resources, you don’t have enough time, money, or people to put against your highest priority, let alone multiple high priorities.
But if you think you must choose between investing in today or the future, know that you’re most likely choosing between killing your company quickly or slowly. That’s what “And, not or,” and it’s required in these three areas.
Development AND Research
“Right now, it’s not sufficient to just keep treading water.” – L. Rafael Reif, former MIT president and current professor of electrical engineering and computer science
“America Is Losing the Innovation Race” screamed the Foreign Affairs article in which Reif detailed evidence that America is falling behind China in electric vehicles, nuclear energy, war technologies, and other areas of critical technology.
Since 2015, as China invested in science and technology to develop the capability to produce high-end products at scale, US federal spending on basic research, as measured in real 2017 dollars, has declined.
Even the research that is funded isn’t keeping up. A paper published in 2022 examined nearly 50 million academic papers and patents from 1945 to 2010 and found a precipitous decline in the “disruptiveness” (i.e. makes previous findings obsolete or pushes the field in a new direction) of research across all scientific fields, including a 100% drop in the physical sciences and a 78.7% decline in computer and communications patents.
The funding story is quite different but no less alarming on the corporate side. Between 1964 and 2022, business funding as a source of R&D funds more than doubled but the vast majority of those funds are spent on applied research (13%) and development (80%), not the type of fundamental research that launches a country forward economically or societally.
Operators AND Innovators
“It’s a trap” – MBA student
For two hours, we discussed Netflix’s culture: the no vacation policy” policy, the “act in Netflix’s best interest” expense policy, and the management philosophy that stresses hiring people for their expertise and then trusting them to make decisions.
To me it sounded like a dream. So, when I asked who wanted to work for Netflix, I was shocked when not a single hand went up.
To my students, it sounded like a trap.
And that’s ok. Not everyone wants to face the accountability and repercussions of taking risks, exercising judgment, and making decisions.
Companies need people who want to follow processes, become experts in their fields, and keep the business steady and growing. AND they need people who question processes, explore far beyond their industries, and challenge the business to do better and grow further.
AI AND Humans
“What keeps me up is the fact that so many people are being convinced that they don’t matter anymore.” – Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
When 16,000 jobs, on average, have been lost each month for the past year due to AI, it’s pretty hard to convince a human and they matter.
Yet a growing body of research shows that humans enabled by AI generate new and novel ideas more quickly and cost efficiently than either AI or humans alone. In a battle between 125 “global problem solvers” and one expert in prompt engineering, the latter produced 180 ideas in 5.5 hours at a total cost of $27.01 and none of the ideas were meaningfully different in terms of strategic viability, environmental or financial value, or overall quality than the human-only ideas. At P&G, researchers found that the most innovative ideas were generated by AI-enabled teams and that those teams worked about 12% faster than other teams and AI-enabled individuals.
Ultimately, the companies that succeed won’t be the ones that make the best bets.
They’ll be the ones that learn to whole-ass two things.
by Robyn Bolton | Apr 22, 2026 | Leading Through Uncertainty, Strategy
“Weeks. Always weeks. Man, the last time I talked months was a million weeks ago.”
Jim Halpert, The Office, 2013
Last week, I spoke to the Chief Human Resources Officer of a tech company about an engagement that would take 2-3 weeks to complete. Her response? “We don’t talk in weeks anymore. We talk in days, preferably hours.”
At first, I wanted to remind her that just because a woman can make a baby in nine months, doesn’t mean nine women can make a baby in once month.
But we weren’t talking about making babies. We were talking about leading a company in a world that feels like it’s changing faster than ever and we’re scrambling to catch up or keep pace. But is speed really the solution?
She’s right. We need to move faster.
An increase in the pace of change isn’t just a feeling. It’s facts:
The World Economic Forum and Bain & Company put it plainly, “What was once a five-year strategic horizon has compressed into a 12-month horizon, while a two-to-three-year plan is now a six-month view. The strategy machinery must spin at a speed no company is used to managing.”
They go on to say that “waiting is not caution – it is abdication.” But as dangerous as doing nothing is, how does it compare to do the wrong thing quickly?
She’s not wrong. But speed isn’t the (whole) answer.
McKinsey’s research begins to answer that question. It found that, of the 70% of large-scale transformations that failed, neither a lack of urgency nor insufficient speed were root causes. Instead, the most common root causes were:
- Setting targets based on incremental thinking rather than bold vision
- Failing to engage the full organization in the change
- Never embedding new ways of working into how the business actually runs day to day
These findings are reinforced by The Project Management Institute’s 2025 global study of nearly 6,000 projects finding that that found that 50% of projects successfully delivered the intended outcomes and create value while only 13% failed. For projects without a clear vision of success, the number are flipped, failures exceeded both successes and projects with mixed results.
None of those failure modes are solved by moving faster. In fact, compressing timelines makes them all worse. Less time to clarify and communicate a vision of success and build commitment. Less time to engage broadly. Less time to make anything stick.
The solution isn’t speed. It’s clarity.
Without clarity, every new technology, every competitor move, every shift in the market feels equally urgent and equally threatening. And when everything is urgent, nothing gets done well. Just quickly.
But when you have clarity about who you are as a leader and why your organization has a uniquely relevant, valuable, rare, and hard to imitate reason to exist, you aren’t overwhelmed when things change. You see relevant choices faster, understand trade-offs better, and move with confidence instead of chaos.
This is why the WEF and Bain report doesn’t focus on speed but on the imperative to treat strategy as a continuous cycle: constantly updated, scanning for signals, recalibrating as new information arrives.
The time pressure you feel is real, but the answer isn’t only to move faster. It’s to root yourself in clarity about who you are and what you do so that when you need to move in days, you already know what you’re moving toward.
Clarity leads speed. Not the other way around.
