Good performers, innovators, and disruptors
Jim has raised an excellent issue when he writes in his blog post: "Plenty of people in almost every organization need to be judged simply on whether they do their jobs well." The points about contrasting a constant mandate for innovation with the value of just doing an established job – task, assignment, whatever – well are valuable.
But let me point out that a kind of new animus has begun emerging – disruption. The drive for innovation has been starting to morph into a drive for "disruption". You've got to find ways to disrupt the existing way of doing things. If you can't find a way to disrupt what you're involved in, the way your task is performed, or even what your task is ... you're falling behind, you're becoming obsolete.
Obviously, major new concepts (like the Therory of Relativity) or technological innovations (telephone, motor vehicle, antibiotics) have been "disruptive" – they've disrupted established ways of doing things but have opened better ways and more opportunities and benefits. But I'm having a problem with this frenetic new emphasis of disruption almost for its own sake.
Especially as it affects individual users and consumers, like, say, me.