“Disruptors’ first appeal to the lower end of the market, and to non-consumers, before migrating to the traditional customer base,” explains Clayton Christensen, professor at Harvard Business School, on the concept of disruptive innovation that is so fashionable today. What does this mean when applied to Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders: are they innovative political leaders like Tesla, or like Uber?
Neither. In the light of the analyses of specialists in creativity and innovation, the generation of demagogues in vogue does not in fact meet the criteria of a creative leader and is even worse than creative destruction: it is destructive disruption. By the standards of populists of all stripes around the world, what appears to be a renewal of the forms of political action and thought is nothing more than a desire to bring down the current system for the sake of personal power.
So what do innovation specialists have to say? Clayton Christensen explains how established companies end up ignoring the needs of neglected market segments, which newcomers initially target by offering new functions at a lower price. Can you see the parallel with demagogues? “The established players, in search of greater profitability in the most demanding sectors, don’t usually react very vigorously,” he notes. In the meantime, the new entrants are upgrading their offer and winning over the established players’ regular customers. “When mainstream customers start to opt for the offerings of the newcomers in large numbers, the break has occurred”.
This is certainly where the confusion arises as to the supposed virtue of innovation, for example, of Trump and his entourage. It is true that they are disrupting the system, gaining ground on the duly established parties and creating a rupture. But disruption is not innovative disruption and even less useful innovation. Creativity and innovation in politics do exist, and they enable real progress to be made, but they do not resemble Donald Trump’s proposals or those of other populists.
Schumpeter is turning in his grave
History will regard a policy as creative if it has demonstrated its originality; its effectiveness over time; its efficiency, i.e. its ability to do better with less; its agility, enabling timely intervention; its ability to maximise benefits over the long term and to solve a problem in one area without harming others; its propensity to maximise the number of winners and minimise the number of losers; and finally, its ability to win support.
On all these dimensions, it is a safe bet that the policies implemented by Donald Trump will not pass the test. The wall, protectionism, anti-Muslim screening, the removal of protections for young transgender people, the lifting of financial protections and other hasty decrees favouring short-term ideological satisfaction over long-term effectiveness do not mobilise the energy of the majority, and will therefore quickly be revealed for what they are: fake news with the desire to disrupt the system, not improve it. This underlines the fact that the objectives of the occupant of the White House are not to develop solid and effective public policies. Rather, they are probably to put the political system in a state of crisis and promote himself in the process.
The only hope this situation holds for American and, by ricochet, European democracy is that perhaps Trump’s destruction will catalyse a paradigm shift. Students of Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions know that it takes unexpected aberrations and ‘black swans’ to create a crisis in the existing model, forcing stakeholders to recognise that the predominant model has collapsed. Perhaps Donald is the political anomaly that will enlighten Americans about the dysfunction of their institutions and media. Or perhaps, having reached the bottom of that wall, the system, polarised and gangrenous, will simply collapse under its own weight and that of the new American President, like a black hole.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité… creativity!
But let’s not bank on that and instead draw useful lessons for France and Europe from the troubles across the Atlantic. The far-right parties are giving the appearance of change, because the so-called traditional government parties have failed to renew themselves. Neither in their rhetoric nor in their form. Nor are they in any way the place for the renewal they promise and which the public, accustomed to demonstrating constant innovation in all areas, legitimately expects. By default, it is those who give the appearance of change who seem best able to bring it about.
To avoid more Trumps coming to power, we’re going to have to do what so many other sectors have learned to do: completely renew our political software by placing co-creation and its practical outcome, innovation, at the heart of our political system as absolute priorities. Entrepreneurs, designers, artists and scientists have mastered the art of collective innovation. It’s time for us to get to grips with it as politicians. The signals given during the French presidential campaign show that some candidates have picked up on the desire for a different method, for better listening and involvement. Many civil society initiatives are just waiting to be deployed. Let’s avoid the Désir d’Avenir syndrome. Let’s turn the tide by truly renewing our modes of government and putting creativity in power. Democracy will either be radically innovative, and quickly, or it won’t be.
