The Most Influential Leaders Spend 80 Percent of Their Time on This

He is a professor at Darden University, where he teaches entrepreneurial strategy, ethics, and how to develop and maintain a successful company in disruptive times. Before that, he taught at Harvard Business School for ten years, and Poets and Quants named him one of the 40 best business school professors under 40. His article titled What is Disruptive Innovation? was named one of the key ideas for modern management by the Harvard Business Review. During his visit to IEDC - Bled School of Management, where he led a seminar on Disruptive Innovation, we interviewed him.

Disruptive innovations often shake up industries. Which sectors are currently experiencing the most significant such disruptions?

Artificial intelligence (AI) undoubtedly drives some of the most visible and influential disruptions today, especially in the financial technology (fin-tech) and healthcare sectors. In fin-tech, it optimizes processes, reduces costs, and opens new business models – from smarter credit scoring to real-time fraud detection. In healthcare, it enables faster and more accurate diagnostics, reduces the need for manual labor, and accelerates drug development.

But looking more broadly, while AI significantly accelerates the progress of these industries, it also lays the foundation for even greater transformations in sectors such as supply chains, energy, and sustainable solutions.

The real challenge for all of us – entrepreneurs, leaders, and policymakers – is whether we will merely respond to these waves of disruptions or help create them. The true opportunity lies not just in adapting but in becoming those who will lead future innovations.

What are the key benefits of disruptive innovations for companies and society? Is there a risk that some innovations will cause more harm than good?

Disruptive innovations offer significant benefits for both companies and society. They open entirely new markets or create new business models that established companies often overlook. They allow smaller or more agile companies to serve customers who were previously underserved or ignored, thus creating value where there was none before. Disruptive innovations often provide simpler, more affordable solutions, making products and services accessible to a broader range of people.

Mistakes in themselves are worthless, says Rory. They become valuable when we take the time to analyze them, learn from them, and use the insights for improvements. PHOTO: Boris Pretnar

For society, these disruptions bring broader benefits. They encourage competition, lower prices, and democratize access to technology and services. Historically, disruptive innovations have played a crucial role in improving productivity, raising living standards, and transforming the functioning of industries.

But yes, there are risks. Some disruptive innovations can cause unintended consequences, such as job losses in traditional sectors, environmental impacts, or market instability. A classic example is how some digital platforms have disrupted the media and retail industries while creating challenges in labor practices and social cohesion. The challenge for today's leaders is twofold. First, how can we leverage the benefits of disruptions – growth, efficiency, access – while being aware of the negative externalities? And second, how can we design innovations and business models that are sustainable and responsible? In short, disruptions are powerful but not neutral. They bring both opportunities and challenges.

Last year, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and biotechnology were at the forefront of disruptive innovations. What can companies learn from past disruptive cycles, such as Tesla's rise or Netflix's transformation of the entertainment industry?

Indeed, many large and established companies have found themselves in trouble, and some have even lost their leading positions due to disruptive innovations. What is interesting is that many disruptions initially do not seem particularly impressive. Netflix, for example, was not a top-notch service at the beginning. The key question is whether new, seemingly small or undeveloped phenomena can surprise us with their impact and ability to become significant players.

If we look at today's cycles of disruptions, where we talk about generative artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and biotechnology, the challenge is to recognize what today might seem like a "toy" but has the potential to develop, improve, and ultimately transform entire industries.

History teaches us that true disruptions often start on the fringes, where big players don't even notice them. These early innovations might seem insignificant or too niche, but because they follow a different business model or solve a problem in a new way, they can quickly outgrow traditional solutions.

Companies should remember two things. First, do not underestimate newcomers just because they seem limited or simple at the beginning, and second, do not look only at the technology itself but ask how this innovation could redefine the way customers use a product or service. That's where true disruption begins.

A recent Harvard Business Review study showed that 80 percent of disruptive innovations fail within five years. What are the key success factors, and what can companies do for long-term growth?

My understanding of this study is that the high percentage refers to innovations in general, not necessarily disruptive innovations. This distinction is important because we have different tools and frameworks that can significantly improve the chances of innovation success. A common misconception is that innovations are merely a matter of chance, something that just happens. While luck certainly plays a role, it doesn't mean we can't take structured steps to improve our chances of success. There are specific methodologies and strategic approaches that companies can adopt to increase the likelihood that an innovation will establish itself in the market. One key point is that a new idea, initiative, or product is not inherently disruptive or sustainable when we first think about it. It takes shape as we implement the strategy and test it in the market. The way an organization designs and develops an innovation plays a significant role in determining its long-term success. If we can intentionally design innovations to be more disruptive, focusing on underserved markets rather than just improving existing offerings for customers, we can increase our chances of success.

We will never have a perfect formula, but by strategically positioning innovations as disruptive rather than sustaining, we have better chances of breakthrough and achieving long-term growth. We will never completely eliminate uncertainties, but by using structured thinking – whether through the theory of disruptive innovations, the Jobs to be done model, or agile experimentation – companies can navigate the world of innovation much better. The key thought is that success should not be left to chance. By focusing on overlooked segments, timely adjusting the business model, and remaining flexible in the growth of innovation, we can significantly increase the chances of long-term success, even in an uncertain environment.

What is the concept of Jobs to be done?

Jobs to be done is a framework that helps companies understand what customers are really trying to achieve in their lives. It's not just about product features or demographics. It's about discovering the deeper goal that drives a customer to choose a product or service.

For example, someone doesn't buy a drill just to make a hole in the wall; they buy it to hang a family picture. But if we go deeper, they might actually buy it to create a sense of home or to feel accomplished.

This framework forces companies to shift their focus from merely improving the product to understanding and solving the real problems of their customers on a functional, emotional, or social level. When we truly understand what job the customer wants to get done, we can innovate much more effectively and create solutions that connect with customers on a deeper level.

Apple and Ikea are well-known examples of successful implementation of this concept, helping companies understand the actual needs of customers. Which other companies are currently excelling with this approach?

Apple and Ikea are classic examples. Apple solves jobs like "help me express my creativity" or "help me stay connected in a simple way," while Ikea solves the job "help me quickly and affordably furnish my home."

But today, many other companies are successfully doing this. Airbnb, for example, has rethought travel and solves the job "help me feel like a local when traveling," something hotels couldn't do. Zoom is an excellent example of a company that hit the mark with the job "help me communicate remotely face-to-face, quickly and without hassle," especially during the pandemic. Another good example is Spotify, which not only offers music streaming but solves the job "help me create the perfect musical background for my mood or activity," which goes beyond just accessing songs.

The key advantage of this model is that it helps companies discover hidden growth opportunities. It encourages innovation not only in product design but also in business models and user experience. Companies that internalize this thinking are often better at predicting customer needs – even those that customers themselves have not clearly expressed.

Some companies, like General Motors and Nokia, have misjudged the real needs of their customers in the past and lost significant market share. How can long-established companies rediscover their customers with this concept?

Some established companies have focused so much on improving what they already offered – sustaining innovations – that they missed the deeper question: what are customers really trying to achieve? What job are they hiring us for?

The Jobs to be done tool is valuable because it forces companies to stop thinking only about product features and instead think about customer progress. GM, for example, could ask: Are people buying us for status, safety, simplicity, or something entirely different? Nokia focused on hardware, while Apple solved a different job – creating a seamless digital experience. But it's not just about frameworks; it's also about structure. Take Toyota, for example. Tom Fux, one of their former executives, talked about how Toyota physically separates internal startups from the company headquarters. They are far enough to protect the startup mindset – speed, creativity, and unconventional thinking – but close enough to still use the parent company's resources.

If you want to rediscover your customers and create something truly disruptive, you need the right mindset, the right tools, but also the right organizational setup to protect agility. In other words, companies need to create space – both mentally and physically – for actual innovation without being pulled back to old habits.

Jobs to be done is not just about what the customer functionally wants to do with the product, but also how they feel about it and what it communicates to others.

A customer doesn't choose a minivan just to drive the kids to school but also to feel like a good parent and show their care for the community. Emotions and social aspects are important, not just functionality.

Many companies think only about technical features, but successful companies like Apple know how to address deeper emotions and social values. When we understand what the customer is looking for on a functional, emotional, and social level, we can create solutions that truly connect with them.

What would you advise the media: to be trend followers or trend creators?

We often hear the answer: Of course, we must always be the ones setting trends. But in reality, the answer is more complex. Being the one who creates trends has many advantages. It allows us to co-create market-interesting stories, influence audience expectations, and differentiate ourselves faster. This is the path disruptive innovators take – they create patterns and do not just follow them.

On the other hand, smart and timely trend-following can also be very important, especially in the media, where timely response and execution are essential. The key is to find a balance. Not to follow trends blindly, but also not to reject them just to swim against the current. It is important to understand what job our audience is hiring us for. This tells us when it makes sense to create a new trend and when it is wise to follow an established one but with our added value. Of course, we cannot ignore that digitalization has significantly changed journalism. Today, the real challenge is to re-establish journalistic integrity and eliminate doubts about the credibility of reporting. I believe that successful journalistic stories will be those that uncover deeper layers, seek real causes, and offer interpretation. People are still willing to pay for quality stories. Journalists and media houses must think practically, also from a survival perspective, but at the same time, they carry a broader mission: social, emotional, and cultural. And today, this mission is more important than ever.

Studies show that companies that promote a learning culture are 30 percent more innovative and resilient to change. How can companies create an environment where mistakes are not punished but are opportunities for growth?

A learning culture is crucial, especially in environments where changes happen quickly and where innovations are constant. One of the most effective ways a company can develop such a culture is by normalizing small failures, but only if mistakes are treated as learning opportunities.

But let me be clear, mistakes in themselves are worthless. They become valuable when we take the time to analyze them, learn from them, and use the insights for improvements. Mistakes are functional only if they are part of a continuous cycle of learning and constant improvement.

The best innovators, both startups and large companies, encourage structured experimentation. Leaders must create a psychologically safe environment while clearly expecting teams to learn from failures and not repeat them.

I always recommend that companies distinguish between good mistakes, which arise from thoughtful experiments, and mistakes due to carelessness. When teams see that thoughtful risks are accepted and learning is expected, they are more willing to test, share knowledge, and strengthen resilience.

Organizations with such an approach are ultimately more successful because they create a system where knowledge accumulates and provides an advantage in both innovation and adaptability.

Success is in the hands of decision-makers. What qualities and habits do future leaders have?

I believe that future leaders will be those who can correctly direct their mental energy. The most influential leaders I have worked with or studied spend about 80 percent of their time thinking about what is coming – new markets, new business models, and emerging technologies.

In a world constantly shaped by disruptions, merely managing the present is no longer enough. The role of leaders is shifting from operational excellence to strategic future orientation. Of course, execution is important, but what truly makes great leaders is their ability to see a step ahead and prepare their organizations for what is coming.

This does not mean neglecting current operations. It is about balancing the care for ongoing operations with curiosity and openness to change. Future leaders will need to be explorers. They will consciously need to take time for experimentation, recognizing weak signals of disruptions in the environment, and fostering a culture where new ideas have space.

It is also crucial to create an environment where learning and taking thoughtful risks are normalized. Only with openness to failures and learning from mistakes will their organizations remain innovative and resilient to change.

In the end, successful leaders will not only solve today's problems but will act as architects co-creating the future while strengthening a culture of learning and courageous experimentation.

____

This article has been translated from Slovenian into English with the help of AI-powered machine translation. We apologize for any possible inaccuracies.