In general, there are two forms of disruptive change. One which cannot be anticipated (per Jill Lepore) i.e. product vs product substitution and one which can be anticipated (per Christensen) i.e. product to utility substitution - blog.gardeviance.org/2014/03/what-i… ->
The problem is, if you can't see the context (i.e. the environment and the patterns by which things evolve) then all you can see is "one form of disruption" and end up with pointless arguments as per - newyorker.com/magazine/2014/… versus bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
The more predictable form of disruption (i.e. supporting Christensen's idea) only disrupts because of inertia combined with blindness to the environment. It shouldn't really occur. It's actually a signal of executive failure e.g. IBM vs AWS etc.
The more unpredictable form of disruption - supporting Lepore's idea e.g. Nokia vs Apple - can only be defended against through a highly adaptive culture. This is almost impossible without a clear understanding of doctrine (which needs you to understand the environment) ...
... however, it's not a signal of executive failure (e.g. failing to plan to protect against the predictable) but instead an issue of failing to build the right culture for an unpredictable change. That's very hard and forgivable.
i.e. the execs at Nokia have no shame for losing their industry to Apple. An unpredictable change is hard to defend against. Whereas the execs at IBM who lost to AWS should cover their heads in shame - utter muppets.
