Stereotype Exercise o

/in /by

Section 1 Understanding Individual Perspectives of Diversity

Each of the first six sections of this text is organized to facilitate the process of learning about workplace diversity. Sections begin with learning goals and an introduction to the material that follows. Next, we provide an exercise on experiences that will help you to actively participate in the learning process by considering some new perspectives on diversity that are intended to challenge your knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about differences. Because diversity is an interdisciplinary topic, the essays and cases that follow were written by experts from business, psychology, anthropology, economics, and sociology. These articles are followed by additional opportunities for active learning: discussion questions, Diversity on the Web, and Writing Assignments. To provide linkages, each of these six sections ends with a unifying case and a set of integrative questions that cut across the articles in that section. The seventh section is intended to connect all of the course material together by providing three options for a capstone learning experience.

Learning Goals for Section I

· To learn the differences between prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination

· To understand the notion of privilege and how it affects one’s life experiences

· To motivate the student to examine his or her own perspectives on difference

· To explore the relationship between differences and conflict

· To explore organizational diversity

Often, we begin a diversity course by asking the question: “Who in this room is prejudiced? Raise your hand.” As expected, only a couple of students are willing to join the instructor and admit that they have some prejudices! At the end of the semester, we ask the same question and almost every hand in the room is raised. Why does this always happen? We have been socialized by family, society, and the media to think that prejudice is always negative, so it is easier to deny it. Then, why do most students raise their hands at the end of the semester? Because they now realize that everyone treats some people differently than others. It is very natural to prefer people like ourselves. Think about your friends. While they may be of mixed races and genders, are they all close to your age? Are there any people with a handicap in the group, and so on?

Basic to understandingthis text Section I is clarification of some terminology that is often used interchangeably in everyday conversation. Prejudice is a preconceived evaluative attitude based on a person’s social group membership. Prejudices can come from many sources such as our socialization, our peers, our life experiences, and especially the media and it can be positive, negative, and neutral. For example, you find out that you will be getting a new boss next week and she is a middle-aged female. If you find yourself thinking that she is going to be hard to work for, rigid, even bitchy, and so on, before you even get to know her, this is a negative prejudice. Have you ever “prejudged” a professor, positively or negatively, before taking his or her course based on a few comments on a ratings website?

Stereotypes are an overgeneralized belief that a category of people are alike. Like prejudice, stereotypes are learned not innate which means that they too can be unlearned. While the conscious mind often tells us that of course people are unique, the unconscious mind tries to categorize people, unless we make a deliberate effort to think more deeply about them as individuals. For example, if you think, even unconsciously, that Asians are too quiet to be productive in sales jobs, this is a stereotype because you have prejudged or generalized this idea to apply to an entire group of people. Although it may be true of some Asians, it is also true of some Euro-American whites, Hispanics, and African Americans. Individuals need to be judged on their individual merit and qualifications. Stereotypes can be negative as in the example above, but also can be positive or neutral. A student once provided us with the following example of her manager’s positive prejudice. He would only hire Asian women to work in the computer manufacturing facility “because they have small hands.”

Both prejudices and stereotypes are mental processes that we all experience but discrimination is different because it is a behavior or action that occurs when we treat people differently because of their membership in some group. It builds on our stereotypes and prejudices. So, following through on the previous example, when young men applied for manufacturing work at this company, the manager threw away their applications. They were not even considered. His stereotype, even though it was positive toward Asian women, resulted in discrimination to male applicants. Denying or failing to examine our stereotypes and prejudices to ourselves is more apt to lead to discriminatory actions. While discrimination can be individual as in these examples, it can also occur in organizations. This is important to understand because managers need to identify and change policies and practices that the unintentionallydiscriminate, that is, structural discrimination, or intentionally discriminate, that is, institutional discrimination (Pincus, 2000). There will be many examples of the problem that organizational discrimination causes throughout the cases in this text.

Privilege is an unearned advantage that gives those who have it economic, social, or political power. Privilege is socially constructed, that is, dependent on time and place. For example, in some cultures, older workers are revered for their wisdom but in North America, being younger and attractive gives one privilege in the workplace. Most people with privilege

The articles in Section I open with two opportunities to discover what you know about today’s workplace diversity, Diversity Today: Fact or Fiction and the Diversity! game. Then, I Am . . . , Body Ritual Among the Nacirema, and Increasing Multicultural Understanding: Uncovering Stereotypes provide opportunities for introspection and honest discussion about prejudices and stereotypes. Next, Are You Privileged? and White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies explain and provide an opportunity for you to experience the notion of unearned privilege. Since differences can bring out conflict that escalates if ignored, The Emotional Connection of Distinguishing Differences and Conflict addresses this issue. This section closes by providing an opportunity for students to evaluate organizational diversity at their college, university, or workplace and by introducing the reader to an example of how organizational diversity can be well managed with The Pitney Bowes case.

Bibliography

1. Pincus, F.L. (2000). Discrimination comes in many forms: Individual, institutional and structural. Chapter 4, Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, sexism, anti-semitism, heterosexism, classism and abelism. Maurianne Adams et al. (eds.) New York: Routledge.

Diversity Today: Fact or Fiction?

Carol P. Harvey

Suffolk University

Assumption College, Professor Emerita

Which of the following statements are fact and which statements are fiction?

1. While increasing the diversity of an organization’s workforce may be a good thing to do, in terms of bringing more creativity into the decision-making process, it cannot be proved that a more diverse workforce can make an organization more profitable.

2. The United States leads the world in offering paid paternity leave to new fathers.

3. Finnigan’s, a Minneapolis based beer producer, donates 100% of its profits to feeding the hungry.

4. In a May, 2013 Gallop annual survey of Values and Beliefs, 47 percent of the respondents said that they believed that people are born with their sexual orientation and thirty-three percent said that they believed one’s sexual orientation was caused by one’s upbringing and/or environment.

5. The unemployment rate for persons with disabilities, seeking work, is approximately double that of people without disabilities, seeking work.

6. Since the election of the United States first African American President, racial prejudice has decreased.

7. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Hispanics are the fastest growing race.

8. UNIQLO, Asia’s largest retail and fastest growing clothing chain, which has 1295 locations throughout the world, has a goal of employing at least one physically or mentally challenged employee per store. So far, they have met this goal in 90 percent of their stores.

9. Mentoring can be very important to the careers of diverse employees and the most effective mentoring results from relationships that just develop informally between employees.

10. Bullying occurs more often in the workplace than sexual harassment and most bullies are male.

Diversity!

Jeanne M. Aurelio

Bridgewater State University

Christopher Laib

University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

Most Americans in the workforce experience people who are very different from themselves on a daily basis. Those differences certainly include temperament and personality, but also culture, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, ability, age, and size differences. Much is known about the kinds of differences people possess, yet far too much knowledge is available for any single person to know all about diversity. What is needed is openness to differences, and the understanding that everyone’s behavior is partially influenced by their diversity profiles. In the interest of being able to work with others (and they with us), we must continually strive both to educate ourselves on what is known about how and why people are different, and to keep an open mind.

Purpose

The purpose of the game Diversity! is to provide knowledge about many areas of diversity, plus some information about the U.S. laws regarding these differences. Because the game is played in teams, it will also enable students to get to know one another.

How to Play

1. Choose teams of 4–5 people or more. One team will randomly be chosen to select the first question category and level.

2. All teams will debate their answers internally and one team member will raise a hand or use their assigned team noisemaker when the team is ready. The instructor will call on the first team to respond. If their answer is correct, they will receive the number of points indicated and choose the next question category and level. If their answer is incorrect, the instructor will call upon the second quickest team to respond, and so on.

3. In the event that no team answers the question correctly, the instructor will give the correct response. The team that chose last still has control of the board and should choose the next question. Scores will be recorded and the winning team announced at the end of one or two rounds, depending upon the time available. As the class responds to various questions, make note of those you would like to discuss at the conclusion of the game.

 

Questions on the game board cover five levels of difficulty. Here are some practice questions at various levels. (Answers appear below in Figure 1-1.) Sally Ride   2. 6,800   3. Islam Figure 1-1 Answers to Practice Questions Level 2: In 1983, this astronaut became the first American woman in space. Level 3: This is the number of languages known to be spoken in the world. Level 4: In cultures that embrace this religion, men may have multiple wives while women must remain monogamous. Discussion Questions After one or two rounds of Diversity! the class should focus upon the following questions intended to stimulate interest and learning. Which of the Diversity! questions would you like to discuss further? What did you learn as a result of this game that you did not know prior to it? In what areas did you notice that you and/or class members were particularly knowledgeable? In what areas did you lack knowledge? What is your reaction to this experience? 5 How do you think this experience ties in with the purpose of your course? Jeanne M. Aurelio, DBA, is a professor of management at Bridgewater State University. She has consulted with numerous corporations and federal agencies on topics including organizational performance, diversity, managerial effectiveness, and performance counseling. Christopher Laib is the assistant director of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth–Student Activities, Involvement & Leadership Office. He has worked in higher education administration for over fifteen years, presenting training sessions dealing with diversity, ethics, and organization/team development. Instructor: To access the DIVERSITY! game, see the online Instructor’s Manual under DIVERSITY! Body Ritual Among the Nacirema Horace Miner *From the American Anthropologist, volume 58, #1, 1956, pp. 18–21. The anthropologist has become so familiar with the diversity of ways in which different peoples behave in similar situations that he is not apt to be surprised by even the most exotic customs. In fact, if all of the logically possible combinations of behavior have not been found somewhere in the world, he is apt to suspect that they must be present in some yet undescribed tribe. This point has, in fact, been expressed with respect to clan organization by Murdock (1948:71). In this light, the magical beliefs and practices of the Nacirema present such unusual aspects that it seems desirable to describe them as an example of the extremes to which human behavior can go. Professor Linton first brought the ritual of the Nacirema to the attention of anthropologists twenty years ago (1936:326), but the culture of this people is still very poorly understood. They are a North American group living in the territory between the Canadian Cree, the Yaqui and Tarahumare of Mexico, and the Carib and Arawak of the Antilles. Little is known of their origin, although tradition states that they came from the east. According to Nacirema mythology, their nation was originated by a culture hero, Notgnihsaw, who is otherwise known for two great feats of strength—the throwing of a piece of wampum across the river Pa-To-Mac and the chopping down of a cherry tree in which the Spirit of Truth resided. Nacirema culture is characterized by a highly developed market economy which has evolved in a rich natural habitat. While much of the people’s time is devoted to economic pursuits, a large part of the fruits of these labors and a considerable portion of the day are spent in ritual activity. The focus of this activity is the human body, the appearance and health of which loom as a dominant concern in the ethos of the people. While such concern is certainly not unusual, its ceremonial aspects and associated philosophy are unique. The fundamental belief underlying the whole system appears to be that the human body is ugly and that its natural tendency is to debility and disease. Incarcerated in such a body, man’s only hope is to avert these characteristics through the use of the powerful influences of ritual and ceremony. Every household has one or more shrines devoted to this purpose. The more powerful individuals in the society have several shrines in their houses and, in fact, the opulence of a house is often referred to in terms of the number of such ritual centers it possesses. Most houses are of wattle and daub construction, but the shrine rooms of the wealthy are walled with stone. Poorer families imitate the rich by applying pottery plaques to their shrine walls. While each family has at least one shrine, the rituals associated with it are not family ceremonies but are private and secret. The rites are normally only discussed with children, and then only during the period when they are being initiated into these mysteries. I was able, however, to establish sufficient rapport with the natives to examine these shrines and to have the rituals described to me. The focal point of the shrine is a box or chest, which is built into the wall. In this chest are kept the many charms and magical potions without which no native believes he could live. These preparations are secured from a variety of specialized practitioners. The most powerful of these are the medicine men, whose assistance must be rewarded with substantial gifts. However, the medicine men do not provide the curative potions for their clients, but decide what the ingredients should be and then write them down in an ancient and secret language. This writing is understood only by the medicine men and by the herbalists who, for another gift, provide the required charm. The charm is not disposed of after it has served its purpose, but is placed in the charm-box of the household shrine. As these magical materials are specific for certain ills, and the real or imagined maladies of the people are many, the charm-box is usually full to overflowing. The magical packets are so numerous that the people forget what their purposes were and fear to use them again. While the natives are very vague on this point, we can only assume that the idea in retaining all the old magical materials is that their presence in the charm-box, before which the body rituals are conducted, will in some way protect the worshipper. Beneath the charm-box is a small font. Each day every member of the family, in succession, enters the shrine room, bows his head before the charm-box, mingles different sorts of holy waters in the font, and proceeds with a brief ritual of ablution. The holy waters are secured from the Water Temple of the community, where the priests conduct elaborate ceremonies to make the liquid ritually pure. In the hierarchy of magical practitioners, and below the medicine men in prestige, are specialists whose designation is best translated “holy-mouth-men.” The Nacirema have an almost pathological horror of and fascination with the mouth, the condition of which is believed to have a supernatural influence on all social relationships. Were it not for the rituals of the mouth, they believe that their teeth would fall out, their gums bleed, their jaws shrink, their friends desert them, and their lovers reject them. They also believe that a strong relationship exists between oral and moral characteristics. For example, there is a ritual ablution of the mouth for children which is supposed to improve their moral fiber. The daily body ritual performed by everyone includes a mouth-rite. Despite the fact that these people are so punctilious about care of the mouth, this rite involves a practice which strikes the uninitiated stranger as revolting. It was reported to me that the ritual consists of inserting a magic bundle of hog hairs into the mouth, along with certain magical powder, and then moving the bundle in a highly formalized series of gestures. In addition to the private mouth-rite, the people seek out the holy-mouth-man once or twice a year. These practitioners have an impressive set of paraphernalia, consisting of a variety of augers, awls, probes, and prods. The use of these objects in the exorcism of the evils of the mouth involves almost unbelievable ritual torture of the client. The holy-mouth-man opens the client’s mouth and, using the above mentioned tools, enlarges any holes, which may have been created in the teeth. Magical materials are put into these holes. If there are no naturally occurring holes in the teeth, large sections of one or more teeth are gouged out so that the supernatural substance can be applied. In the client’s view, the purpose of the ministrations is to arrest decay and to draw friends. The extremely sacred and traditional character of the rite is evident in the fact that the natives return to the holy-mouth-man, despite the fact that their teeth continue to decay. It is to be hoped that, when a thorough study of the Nacirema is made, there will be careful inquiry into the personality structure of these people. One has but to watch the gleam in the eye of a holy-mouth-man, as he jabs an awl into an exposed nerve, to suspect that a certain amount of sadism is involved. If this can be established, a very interesting pattern emerges, for most of the population shows definite masochistic tendencies. It was to these that Professor Linton referred in discussing a distinctive part of the daily body ritual which was performed only by men. This part of the rite involves scraping and lacerating the surface of the face with a sharp instrument. Special women’s rites are performed only four times during each lunar month, but what they lack in frequency is made up for in barbarity. As part of this ceremony, women bake their heads in small ovens for about an hour. The theoretically interesting point is that what seems to be a preponderantly masochistic people have developed sadistic specialists. The medicine men have an imposing temple, or latipso, in every community of any size. The more elaborate ceremonies required to treat very sick patients can only be performed at this temple. These ceremonies involve not only the thaumaturge but a permanent group of vestal maidens who move sedately about the temple chambers in distinctive costume and headdress. The latipso ceremonies are so harsh that it is phenomenal that a fair proportion of the really sick natives who enter the temple ever recover. Small children whose indoctrination is still incomplete have been known to resist attempts to take them to the temple because “that is where you go to die.” Despite this fact, sick adults are not only willing but eager to undergo the protracted ritual purification, if they can afford to do so. No matter how ill the supplicant or how grave the emergency, the guardians of many temples will not admit a client if he cannot give a rich gift to the custodian. Even after one has gained admission and survived the ceremonies, the guardians will not permit the neophyte to leave until he makes still another gift. The supplicant entering the temple is first stripped of all his or her clothes. In everyday life the Nacirema avoids exposure of his body and its natural functions. Bathing and excretory acts are performed only in the secrecy of the household shrine, where they are ritualized as part of the body-rites. Psychological shock results from the fact that body secrecy is suddenly lost upon entry into the latipso. This sort of ceremonial treatment is necessitated by the fact that the excreta are used by a diviner to ascertain the course and nature of the client’s sickness. Female clients, on the other hand, find their naked bodies are subjected to the scrutiny, manipulation, and prodding of the medicine men. Few supplicants in the temple are well enough to do anything but lie on their hard beds. The daily ceremonies, like the rites of the holy-mouth-men, involve discomfort and torture. With ritual precision, the vestals awaken their miserable charges each dawn and roll them about on their beds of pain while performing ablutions, in the formal movements of which the maidens are highly trained. At other times they insert magic wands in the supplicant’s mouth or force him to eat substances which are supposed to be healing. From time to time the medicine men come to their clients and jab magically treated needles into their flesh. The fact that these ceremonies may not cure, and may even kill the neophyte, in no way decreases the people’s faith in the medicine men. There remains one other kind of practitioner, known as a “listener.” This witch-doctor has the power to exorcise the devils that lodge in the heads of people who have been bewitched. The Nacirema believe that parents bewitched their own children. Mothers are particularly suspected of putting a curse on children while teaching them the secret body rituals. The counter-magic of the witch-doctor is unusual in its lack of ritual. The patient simply tells the “listener” all his troubles and fears, beginning with the earliest difficulties he can remember. The memory displayed by the Nacirema in these exorcism sessions is truly remarkable. It is not uncommon for the patient to bemoan the rejection he felt upon being weaned as a babe, and a few individuals even see their troubles going back to the traumatic effects of their own birth. In conclusion, mention must be made of certain practices which have their base in native esthetics but which depend upon the pervasive aversion to the natural body and its functions. There are ritual fasts to make fat people thin and ceremonial feasts to make thin people fat. Still other rites are used to make women’s breasts larger if they are small, and smaller if they are large. General dissatisfaction with breast shape is symbolized in the fact that the ideal form is virtually outside the range of human variation. A few women afflicted with almost inhuman hypermammary development are so idolized that they make a handsome living by simply going from village to village and permitting the natives to stare at them for a fee. Reference has already been made to the fact that excretory functions are ritualized, routinized, and relegated to secrecy. Natural reproduction functions are similarly distorted. Intercourse is taboo as a topic and secluded as an act. Efforts are made to avoid pregnancy by the use of magical materials or by limiting intercourse to certain phases of the moon. Conception is actually very infrequent. When pregnant, women dress so as to hide their condition. Parturition takes place in secret, without friends or relatives to assist, and the majority of women do not nurse their infants. Our review of the ritual life of the Nacirema has certainly shown them to be a magic-ridden people. It is hard to understand how they have managed to exist so long under the burdens which they have imposed upon themselves. But even such exotic customs as these take on real meaning when they are viewed with the insight provided by Malinowski when he wrote (1948:70). Looking from far and above, from our high places of safety in developed civilization, it is easy to see all the crudity and irrelevance of magic. But without its power and guidance, early man could not have advanced to the higher stages of civilization. Bibliography Linton, Ralph. (1936). The study of man. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co. Malinowski, B. (1948). Magic science and religion. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Murdock, G. P. (1948). Social structure. New York: The MacMillan Company. Discussion Questions What general message do you think the author was trying to convey in his description of this culture? What stereotypes could you have about the Nacireman culture and its people if this reading were your only source of information? The many strange and interesting rituals observed by Miner led him to conclude that the Nacirema have a strong underlying belief about the human body. What is this belief? Assume that you are carrying on the work of Miner and study the Nacireman culture as it exists now in the twenty-first century. What additional body-related activities could you observe in their culture today? Is Miner’s observation about the preoccupation with body and health still valid today? Explain. Is Miner’s observation about the underlying belief about the human body still valid today? Explain. Describe, as Miner might have, two or more of the body-related activities you listed for question 4(a). How does Miner’s article relate to modern business in terms of outsourcing international business negotiations marketing to growing ethnic populations? On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being very important), how would you rate the appearance and body rituals observed by Miner and by yourself in terms of their importance to personal life? Explain your rating. to the business world? Explain your rating. Other facets of this culture also yield many rituals today. There is, for example, WIKI, a ritual that appears to involve belief in magic. Student Naciremans trade information with each other in this ritual. They believe that when they read a WIKI, whatever it says, it is indeed fact. Somehow, WIKIs magically hold all-knowing truths. How might this ritual relate to prejudice and stereotypes? Vast numbers of individual Naciremans also conduct a Ritual of Networking using magic boxes to weave social “webs.” They exchange pictures of themselves and much personal information with strangers on their webs. “Participants” of the Networking ritual seem to constantly check their webs and respond to them. They walk around webbing; they eat with their boxes and check their webs during meals. The magic boxes are always nearby even when Naciremans are in their shrines devoted to health and appearance ceremonies. It is said that some even sleep with their boxes. This appears to be very ego-centered activity. What does this say about how people in this culture relate to each other? Nacireman market economy also has rituals. Among these is the Business-Hiring ritual. In this ritual, business chiefs check the social webs of those desiring to join their tribes before hiring (sometimes even before interviewing) a position-seeker. Business chiefs do not appear to favor position-seekers who have social webs that indicate values and beliefs different from their own. This is not a secret. It is actually a very curious thing: Large numbers of Naciremans insist upon conducting the social web ritual even though they know that business chiefs may very well disapprove. Business chiefs appear to belong to a different group within this society. When a “participant” is both employment-seeking and networking at the same time, hiring rituals assume great importance. How might the Ritual of the Social Networking help or hurt a position-seeker? How do these clashing rituals reflect the values of the position-seekers and the business chiefs? Participants in the modern Nacireman market economy sometimes create relationships that only exist electronically. They create groups called “Virtual Teams” whose members never meet each other in person. Considering the rituals of Networking, WIKI, and Virtual Teams, what stereotypes might strangers have about Nacireman culture if these three rituals were their only source of information?

 

 

 

 

Increasing Multicultural Understanding: Uncovering Stereotypes John R. Bowman University of North Carolina at Pembroke Instructions Prior to Class Turn to the Uncovering Stereotypes Worksheet: (Worksheet A). Follow your instructor’s directions for completing the blank category boxes that reflect different special populations. Working individually: Complete the First Thought/Judgment column by writing your first thought about or judgment of each category. Refer to the example given on Worksheet A. Rate each thought/judgment as positive (+), negative (–), or neutral (0) and enter these ratings in the Rating column. Complete the Sources column by indicating the source of your judgment for each category. Instructions for Working as a Group In Class: Turn to the Uncovering Stereotypes Group Summary Sheet: (Worksheet B). Five categories (Family, Media, Experience, Work Experience, Friends) have already been listed on the summary sheet. Add additional categories (derived from your group discussions) to the sheet. Take a quick count of the number of positive, negative, and neutral thoughts/judgments made by your group for each of the Source Categories and enter totals on the last line. As a class, discuss which sources lead to positive, which to negative, and which to neutral judgments. Discuss the implications of having negative or positive stereotypes/judgments from different perspectives; for example, among workers, between managers and workers, and at the corporate level. *(+) = positive (–)  = negative (0)   = neutral

 

 

 

Diversity on the Web Take and score the multicultural quiz found on the website below. Think about your score on this quiz and your responses to Bowman’s “Uncovering Stereotypes” exercise. What are your primary sources of information about social identity groups that you do not belong to? How accurate is your knowledge about these groups? How could a lack of correct information contribute to the formation of stereotypes? http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/quizzes.html

Intervention Strategies Digital Brochure

/in /by

As educators, it is important to remember that parents/guardians may not have prior knowledge about learning disabilities, their risk factors, or early intervention strategies for exceptionalities in children of various ages. Additionally, parents/guardians may not understand how specific learning disabilities affect students in educational settings as well as everyday life. As educators, we can communicate and collaborate with parents/guardians to provide information and resources that help them understand learning disabilities, define the roles of the state, school, and the parents/guardians in accessing and providing intervention services, and navigate the acquisition of information and support agencies and services provided to students with disabilities.

Consider students in the grade level that is the focus of your field of study. Select a specific disability category (intellectual disability, specific learning disability, emotional behavior disorders, autism spectrum disorder, traumatic brain injury, or orthopedic impairment). Create a 250-500 word digital brochure that could be given to families and provide information about services and supports for individuals with disabilities.

The brochure should include the following:

· Short rationale explaining how you will use the brochure to communicate with parents/guardians and establish mutual expectations to help you work collaboratively to support child development and achievement.

· Short definition and explanation of the disability category including the developmental and individual differences typically associated with the disability category.

· Three developmentally appropriate, specially designed instructional strategies that can be used to address the educational needs of students with this disability.

· Three intervention strategies families can implement at home to promote communication skills, social skills, and literacy skills in their children affected by the chosen disability.

· Three communication/collaboration strategies that can be employed by the state, school, service providers, and parents/guardians to implement intervention services to support student achievement and development.

· Recommend local organizations families could use to learn more about the disability and community services that might be available to them. Provide contact information for the organizations and services.

Support the assignment with a minimum of three scholarly resources.

While APA format is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit assignments that are print deliverables to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Course Materials if you need assistance

Construct A Deductively Valid Argument/Deductive Logic

/in /by

Everything in red and or highlighted is important.

 

Discussion 1

Construct a Deductively Valid Argument

The topic of this week is deductive reasoning. Accordingly, in this discussion your task is to create a deductively valid argument for your position (the same position that you defended in the Week One discussion). (Topic:

Examples Only

Option 9- I can’t go to the movies with you- I have a test tomorrow and I have to study. Premises 1- I have a test tomorrow Premises 2- I have to study Conclusion- Therefore I can’t go to the movies with you I was able to identify the statement ” I can’t go to the movies with you” as the conclusion in this paragraph and the other two statements as the premises making up the conclusion. The reason that I was able to determine that the first line in this statement was the conclusion was due to this statement being the end result of the two reasons that were stated of why this person can not go to the movies.

 

“Mike loves pickles. Pickles come from cucumbers. Therefore Mike loves cucumbers”.

P1:As we all know, pickles are made from cucumbers. Most people who like pickles end up being big fans of cucumbers for that reason. For example, Mike loves pickles. It is only sage to assume that he also likes cucumbers. A person cannot like pickles without liking cucumbers.

P2: The missing premise would be that Mike does not like cucumbers. Though pickles are made from cucumbers, they are very different. Pickles are higher in sodium. They are juicier and have more flavor to them. Cucumbers on the other hand, are much lighter. They aren’t quite as juicy and they do not have as much flavor so you can dip them in things like ranch dressing and what not.

C: Mike loves pickles, making him a big fan of cucumbers as well. I was able to identify this as the conclusion because of the word, “therefore”, in the prompt.

Is it important to teach arts and humanities to children?) This is the position.         

Prepare:  To prepare to respond to this prompt, make sure to read carefully over the required portions of Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. See attached file)

View the deLaplante (2013) video What Is a Valid Argument? (see attached file)

Based on the sources, create a deductively valid argument for the position you defended in the Week One discussion. (Topic: Is it important to teach arts and humanities to children?) This is the position.          

To make your argument deductively valid, you will need to make sure that there is no possible way that your premises could be true and your conclusion false. Your premises must lead logically to the truth of your conclusion. Make sure that your argument is sound that is in addition to being valid, make sure that the premises are true as far as you can tell. If your argument is invalid or if it has a false premise, revise it until you get an argument that you can stand behind.

Write:  Identify the components and structure of your argument by presenting your deductively valid argument in standard form, and explain how your conclusion follows from your premises.

 

Discussion 2

Week 2, Prompt option #2:  Fill in the Missing Premises

We have learned this week about deductive reasoning, including what it takes for an argument to be valid. (See attached file examples only) This discussion allows us to get more practice with the concept through making arguments valid. You will see a list of arguments here. These arguments are not presented in standard form, and each is missing a premise that would be necessary to make it valid. Your tasks will be to put the argument into standard form and add the missing premise that would validly link the premises to the conclusion.

Prepare: To prepare to respond to this prompt, reread the section from Chapter 2 of our book titled “Extracting Arguments in Standard form,” all required portions of Chapters 3 and 4, as well as the guidance and required media for this week. (see attached files for chapters) and attached video file

Reflect: Look at the list of argument options below. Choose an argument that has not yet been chosen by any of your classmates. ( I have taken out the ones that have already been taken.)Think through the reasoning and determine what premise is (or premises are) missing that would be needed to make the argument valid. You might also consider challenging yourself by choosing from the more difficult examples in the list (at the bottom).

 

Choose from the following list of argument options.
2.     Football is dumb because it is a waste of time.
3.     If he loved you he would have shown up on time with flowers. He must not love you.
4.     All mammals bear live young, so dragons are not mammals.
6.     He broke the record for rushing yards in a game on that last play. Therefore he holds the record.
7.     He won the election. So he will be the next governor.
8.     He won’t go to the wedding since he doesn’t like mushy stuff and weddings are mushy.
9.     I can’t go to the movies with you – I have a test tomorrow and I have to study.
11.  You shouldn’t go out with that guy. He rides a motorcycle and goes to bars.
12.  Capital punishment is wrong because it is killing and it doesn’t save anyone’s life.
13.  You shouldn’t use drugs because they are addictive and can ruin people’s lives.
14.  To fix your care you will need money. However, to have money you have to have money. It appears that you need to get a job.
15.  To go to the movie you have to have a ticket.  To buy a ticket you must pay money.  Thus, to go the movie you must pay money.
16.  If you don’t do your chores then you can’t have any dessert. You really like dessert, so you will certainly do your chores.
17.  You will get an A if you study hard and always come to class. You came to class every time and studied. You are bound to get an A.
18.  Julie is allergic to gluten. So she won’t be having any bread.
19.  Only women can have babies, so women are more important to the survival of the species.
20.  If I wear that cologne then women will love me. I bought that cologne, so women are going to love me.
21.  I can’t go to the party because there will be alcohol there, and I am a Mormon.
22.  You shouldn’t force me to wear a seat belt because that would violate my rights.
23.  In order to buy a car you will need money. But to have money you need to get a job. But to go to a job you will need to be able to get to work. So you will not be able to buy a car.
24.  Capital punishment kills a human being. It is wrong to kill a human being except in self-defense. So capital punishment is wrong.
25.  You shouldn’t tell someone to do something unless you would be willing to do it yourself. You’ve never gone to war. So you shouldn’t vote for others to go to war.
26.  If you talk to Mike about politics then he will yell at you. If he yells at you then you will be hurt and it will damage your friendship. Therefore, you shouldn’t talk to Mike about politics.
27.  Either the maid or the butler did it.  For the butler to have done it he would have had to have been at the mansion yesterday.  The butler was away all day yesterday.  So, the maid did it.
28.  If the maid was guilty then she would have had to been at the scene during the crime. However, she was seen a mile away only minutes before the crime, and she has no car. She must be innocent.
29.  It is always wrong to kill a human being unless it is necessary to save somebody’s life. Abortion kills a human being. So abortion is wrong unless the mother’s life is in danger due to the pregnancy.
30.  Government intervention is justified if it is necessary to protect the welfare of the people and does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights.  Therefore, government intervention is justified in this specific case because it is necessary to protect the welfare of the people.

Disruptive Innovation

/in /by

Disruptive Innovation . . . in Reverse: Adding a Geographical Dimension to Disruptive Innovation Theory

Simone Corsi and Alberto Di Minin

Based on a literature review on disruptive innovation and innovation from emerging econo- mies, we offer an interpretation of a subset of reverse innovation within the disruptive innovation theory. We argue that the combination of these two theories provides a useful framework to look at emerging economies as sources of new products and technological solutions. Finally, we provide a new categorization of disruptive innovation considering a geographical dimension and future research directions.

Introduction

In a fast-changing world, where emergingeconomies are constantly increasing their importance in the global economy and where innovation assumes an international dimen- sion, an increasing number of scholars have looked at the phenomenon of innovation in emerging economies. Several authors are investigating in what way these countries are not only recipients (Vernon, 1966) but also sources of innovation (Hart & Christensen, 2002; Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble, 2009; Kenney, Massini & Murtha, 2009; Govindarajan & Trimble, 2012).

Scholars refer to this trend in different ways, depending on the aspect they focus on, such as ‘disruptive innovation from emerging econo- mies’ (Hart & Christensen, 2002), ‘innovation at the bottom of the pyramid’ (Prahalad, 2004), ‘cost-innovation’ (Zeng & Williamson, 2007) or ‘reverse innovation’ (Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble, 2009). However, the managerial lit- erature is still lacking both a clear and solid theoretical position and a strong theoretical framework within which a new innovation trend from emerging economies can be read and interpreted (Govindarajan & Ramamurti, 2011). Hence, the aim of this paper is firstly to critically review the literature concerning innovation from emerging economies, and sec- ondly to contribute a rationalization of the related concepts, attempting a reinterpretation

of the concept of ‘reverse innovation’ (Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble, 2009; Govindarajan & Trimble, 2012), defined as a type of ‘disrup- tive innovation’ (Christensen, 1997).

Building on our review of the existing work (see Appendix A and Table 1), we suggest that the combination of these two frameworks pro- vides a useful scheme to look at emerging economies as sources of new products and technological solutions.

In the last ten years, scholars have started to look at companies that serve those markets in a different way. Glocalization – adapting to emerging markets products developed for advanced ones – is in fact assumed to be par- tially ‘blind’ or ineffective for the purpose of serving emerging market needs, given its ability to reach only the wealthier part of the population. The new challenge of the twenty- first century has been identified in the profit- able development and sale of new products for the mass markets of less affluent populations of emerging economies that are currently not, or only partially, served by multinational cor- porations (MNCs). The innovation manage- ment literature has produced a limited number of studies (Hart & Christensen, 2002; Prahalad, 2004; Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble, 2009; Hang, Chen & Subramanian, 2010; Govindarajan & Trimble, 2012), largely based on anecdotal evidence, trying to identify new ways of pursuing innovation in emerging economies. Most of these studies build their

76 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 10.1111/caim.12043

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

argument, more or less implicitly, on the well- known ‘disruptive innovation’ paradigm as defined by Christensen (1997) and Christensen and Raynor (2003), further derived as disrup- tive innovation in emerging economies in

Prahalad’s seminal work on innovation for the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ (BOP) (Prahalad, 2004).

Given the specificity of the context for and in which these innovations need to be devel-

Table 1. Main Innovation Concepts Related to Emerging Economies (Literature and Examples)

Concept Literature Examples

Disruptive Innovation

Acee (2001); Anthony et al. (2006); Bower & Christensen (1995); Cefis & Marsili (2006); Charitou & Markides (2003); Christensen (1997, 2006); Christensen & Overdorf (2000); Christensen & Raynor (2003); Christensen et al. (2000, 2006); Chesbrough (2002); Corso & Pellegrini (2007); Danneels (2004); Gilbert (2003); Gilbert & Bower (2002); Glazer (2007); Govindarajan (2012); Govindarajan & Kopalle (2006a, 2006b); Govindarajan et al. (2011); Henderson (2006); Johnson et al. (2008); Johnson (2012); Kanter (2010); Kassicieh et al. (2002); Mangelsdorf (2009); Markides (2006); O’Reilly & Tushman (2004); Rafii & Kampas (2002); Sandström, Magnusson & Jörnmark (2009); Schmidt & Druehl (2008); Simanis & Hart (2009); Suzuki & Kodama (2004); Utterback & Acee (2005); Yu & Hang (2010, 2011)

Hard disk drive; digital photography; mobile phone

Disruptive Innovation from Emerging Economies

Hang et al. (2010); London & Hart (2004); Markides (2012); Ray & Ray (2011); Schanz et al. (2011)

Galanz’s microwave; Suzlon’s windmills; Haier’s washing machine

Innovation for the Bottom of the Pyramid

Akula (2008); Anderson et al. (2010); Ansari et al. (2012); Garrette & Karnani (2010); Gino & Staats (2012); Hart & Christensen (2002); Karamchandani et al. (2011); Karnani (2007); Olsen & Boxembaum (2009); Prahalad (2004, 2012); Prahalad & Hammond (2002); Prahalad & Hart (2002); Rangan et al. (2011); Simanis (2012); Wood & Hamel (2002)

Aravind Eye Care’s hospitals; ICICI Bank’s microcredit; Casas Bahia’s retailers

Cost Innovation Williamson (2010); Williamson & Zeng (2004, 2009); Zeng & Williamson (2007)

China International Marine Containers Group’s shipping service; Dawning’s high performance computers

Reverse Innovation

Govindarajan and Trimble (2012); Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble (2009)

GE Healthcare’s ECG machine; P&G’s honey-based cold remedy; P&G’s feminine hygiene product; Tata Nano

DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION . . . IN REVERSE 77

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

oped, domestic companies seem to be best placed to pursue them. By virtue of their embeddedness, local market knowledge and low cost approach, domestic companies develop new product solutions for emerging markets that challenge the activities of foreign MNCs. This phenomenon has mostly been referred to as ‘cost innovation’ (Zeng & Williamson, 2007). Indeed, growing attention has been paid to companies from emerging economies and how in going global they threaten western MNCs in the home markets that they have dominated for decades. Responding to this threat is a new challenge for incumbent MNCs and, in our opinion, ‘dis- ruptive innovation’ is a useful way to describe the new trend that has recently been defined as ‘reverse innovation’ (Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble, 2009). According to Immelt, Govindarajan and Trimble (2009) and Govindarajan and Trimble (2012), since most current and future global economic growth is likely to take place in emerging economies, innovation specifically aimed at responding to these markets is crucial. Indeed, new products developed entirely in emerging markets for emerging markets are likely to disrupt devel- oped markets and open new business oppor- tunities, as shown, for example, by Zeng and Williamson (2007). This phenomenon thus configures a process of innovation that no longer sees developed economies as the locus where new products are conceived, designed and commercialized, but instead takes on the role of the last recipient of innovations devel- oped in and for emerging economies.

This paper builds on the disruptive innova- tion literature and contrasts its analysis with the concept of reverse innovation. We believe we bring two theoretical contributions:

1. Adding a geographical dimension to disruptive innovation. The original specification of disruptive innovation is a theory that seeks to explain dynamics within established markets. However, a geographical dimen- sion needs to be considered to make disrup- tive innovation useful for interpreting situations where the disruptors originate from emerging markets.

2. A new look at disruptive and reverse innovation side by side. Consistent with Govindarajan and Trimble (2012), we emphasize that the concepts of disruptive and reverse innova- tion have an overlapping, though not a one- to-one, relationship. By looking at these two theories side by side, we are able to better clarify similarities and differences. We dis- tance ourselves from the claim that disrup- tive innovation in reverse stems only from an income gap. On the contrary, disruptive

in reverse rests not only on cost advantage in the market segment but also on new characteristics and features of the disrup- tive product originated and tested in a developing country and appreciated in advanced countries.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we lay the foundations of our analysis by reviewing disruptive innovation theory. This will be used as our framework to interpret the other sections that take into account disruptive innovation as considered in the different streams of literature related to innovation in emerging economies. The third section explores the dynamics of innovation at the Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP), while the fourth section investigates the conceptuali- zation of disruptive innovation from emerging economies. The concept of reverse innovation is introduced in the fifth section and inter- preted within the Disruptive Innovation framework in the sixth section. The seventh section provides a new categorization of Dis- ruptive Innovation, considering a geographi- cal dimension. Finally, conclusions and future research directions are presented together with selected research propositions.

Disruptive Innovation

Introduced in 1995 by Bower and Christensen, the concept of disruptive innovation was refined by Christensen in 1997 with his ‘Inn- ovator’s Dilemma’, asking why great compa- nies pursuing innovation in mainstream markets suffer from market myopia and are overtaken by entrant firms introducing prod- ucts based on new, disruptive technologies.

To explain this phenomenon, Christensen distinguishes between sustaining and disrup- tive technologies. The former are technologies that respond to an improvement, radical or incremental, of ‘established products, along the dimensions of performance that main- stream customers in major markets have his- torically valued’ (Christensen, 1997, p. xv). Disruptive technologies, on the other hand, are innovations for existing products but on attributes that differ from those that are mainly valued by mainstream customers. These inno- vations, which initially underperform with respect to the main attributes of sustaining technologies, become disruptive when they reach the same performance as the sustaining innovations on the attributes valued by main- stream customers. At this point, they displace existing technologies and cause, in most cases, the failure of incumbent firms. Christensen describes as an example the evolution of the

78 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

hard disk drive industry between 1976 and 1992. In this market, mainstream customers constantly required improvements in two attributes, total capacity and recording density. The industry and incumbent firms were led by this trend until an emerging segment asked for improvements on different attributes, in par- ticular, the size of drivers. At the beginning, this segment remained marginal and was mainly covered by small entrant firms that could afford to do so by virtue of their rela- tively limited cost structure, but while the products offered gained improved perfor- mance, including the mainstream segment attributes, the market based on sustaining technologies was progressively displaced, causing the failure of incumbents.

In earlier works, Christensen (Bower & Christensen, 1995; Christensen, 1997) refers to disruptive technology only as an ‘innovation that results in worse product performance in mainstream markets’. It is also described as a ‘typically cheaper, simpler, smaller and fre- quently more convenient to use’ version of an existing product.

In an updated version of the concept, Christensen and Raynor (2003) distinguish between ‘low-end disruptions’ and ‘(new- market) high-end disruptions’. The former are those offering lower performance at a cheaper price but no other performance improve- ments, while the latter are described as prod- ucts and services that offer better performance on attributes that differ from those valued by mainstream customers (e.g., the mobile phone, initially low performing in reception, which disrupted the market for home phones).

Christensen also asserts that disruptive technologies should be framed as a marke- ting, and not a technological, challenge (Christensen, 2006; Glazer, 2007). Firms suc- ceeding in disruptive innovations have a strong attitude in interpreting and addressing needs expressed by a market niche or a new market segment. Thus, the challenge that incumbent firms should overcome in develop- ing and responding to disruptive innovations relates to the development of capabilities to forecast market trends and attitudes as well as ‘riding’ new technological trajectories (Rafii & Kampas, 2002; Charitou & Markides, 2003; Suzuki & Kodama, 2004; Corso & Pellegrini, 2007).

Disruptive innovation has been used from the very beginning to discuss innovation dynamics taking place with the entry of new companies in established and developed markets (Chesbrough, 2002). One of the most convincing responses provided by research- ers, albeit widely discussed and doubted (Danneels, 2004), is that these companies

should promote the creation of spin-off enter- prises in order to better serve and interpret emerging markets (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004; Kanter, 2010; Johnson, 2012). The creation of a separate organization of a smaller dimension with large autonomy allows the problem of resource allocation that is too mainstream cus- tomer oriented to be overcome. Matching the initially small market size to the size of the investment potentially enables the new company to be profitable (Kassicieh et al., 2002; Anthony, Eyring & Gibson, 2006; Cefis & Marsili, 2006; Sandström, Magnusson & Jörnmark, 2009).

Since its coinage, the concept of disruptive innovation has been widely discussed from different perspectives (Christensen, Bohmer & Kenagy, 2000; Christensen, Johnson & Rigby, 2002; Gilbert & Bower, 2002; Gilbert, 2003; Danneels, 2004; Christensen et al., 2006; Henderson, 2006; Johnson, Christensen & Kagermann, 2008; Schmidt & Druehl, 2008; Yu & Hang, 2010, 2011). In particular, Govindarajan and Kopalle (2006a, 2006b) make a clear distinction between low-end and high-end disruptions based on the level of radicalness of disruptive innovations (techno- logically more radical in high-end disruptions, technologically less radical in low-end disrup- tions). The authors also make a clear distinc- tion between innovations that are radical and disruptive and merely radical, stating that radicalness is a technology-based concept while disruptiveness is a market-based concept. Analogously, Markides (2006) draws a clear distinction between different kinds of disruptive innovations: technological, business model and new-to-the-world product innova- tions. From this distinction and from the work of Utterback (2004), Acee (2001) and Utterback and Acee (2005), who recognized the impor- tance of disruptive technologies not in the fact that they displace existing products but in their ability to enlarge existing markets and provide new functionalities, Govindarajan and Kopalle add rigour to an expanded view of disruptive innovation, including both high- end and low-end disruptions and define the concept as follow (2006a, p. 190):

A disruptive innovation introduces a differ- ent set of features, performance and price attributes relative to the existing product, an unattractive combination for mainstream customers at the time of product introduc- tion because of inferior performance on the attributes these customers value and/or a high price – although a different customer segment may value the new attributes. Sub- sequent developments over time, however, raise the new product’s attributes to a level

DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION . . . IN REVERSE 79

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

sufficient to satisfy mainstream customers, thus attracting more of the mainstream market.

In the examples of disruptive technologies provided by Christensen (1997) and Christensen and Raynor (2003), the new market segment that adopts the disruptive solution belongs to the same market where incumbent companies operate. The emergence of new technologies triggers interest within the mainstream segment where these incum- bents operate, hence rendering access to the disruptive offering (initially not desired) also possible to mainstream customers (Govindarajan, Kopalle & Danneels, 2011).

In conclusion, we can argue that disruptive innovation is a theory that seeks to explain changes and new entries into established markets. The result of disruptive innovation is visible when mainstream customers switch to the new disruptive product that is gaining market share on established markets.

What if the new disruptive solution has been brought to maturity and has triggered interest in markets that are geographically distant and disconnected from established markets? Disruptive innovation theory was not developed, and is as yet too unrefined, to explain this phenomenon.

Innovation at the Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP)

While the disruptive innovation paradigm explores the dynamics originating within the hub of an industry, a new approach was devel- oped to understand what was taking place in emerging economies and their markets (Karnani, 2007; Akula, 2008; Gino & Staats, 2012). This orientation brought scholars to thinking of emerging economies as focal markets to which companies should pay increasing attention and develop a new R&D orientation (Prahalad & Hart, 2002).

Traditionally, MNCs delocalized their R&D- oriented foreign direct investment (FDI) in emerging economies for two main reasons (Gassmann & Han, 2004; Von Zedtwitz, 2004):

• access to local markets, • access to high-skilled research personnel at

a lower cost.

Following these two drivers, most R&D carried out by foreign MNCs in emerging countries consisted in the adaptation of global products to the specific needs of the local market. R&D, crucial for the development of new products, has traditionally been undis-

closed by headquarters (Patel & Pavitt, 1991; Di Minin & Bianchi, 2011), and this is particularly true of R&D internationalization in emerging economies.

The new perspective in the early 2000s was that emerging market potential was not exploited with the previous approach and that a new type of innovation management had to be developed. Companies noted that respond- ing to local market needs with a simple local adaptation of global products developed in their (mainly) western headquarters (glocali- zation) was ineffective in exploiting the entire potential of these growing markets (London & Hart, 2004; Rangan, Chu & Petkoski, 2011).

Prahalad and Hart (2002), and later on Prahalad (2004), introduced the new approach to emerging economies as a source of signifi- cant profit generation through the develop- ment and commercialization of ad hoc products and services for the markets of the poor (Garrette & Karnani, 2010; Simanis, 2012). Prahalad’s approach is expressed in the title of his 2004 book The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits. The author identifies a large opportunity both for local and MNCs operating in emerging econo- mies and provides examples such as ICICI Bank, which provides Indian rural populations with bank credit for small projects (which in turn become profitable and make them able to return the loan with low interest), or Voxiva, which developed a text message-based plat- form for favouring communication between urban and health centres in Peru. Both projects, based on low cost and pricing strategies, faced an experimental stage for the purpose of vali- dating their economic feasibility and soon moved forward, replicating their model in other emerging countries and contexts.

According to Prahalad’s perspective, MNCs serving only the top of the pyramid (the wealthier part of the population) in emerging economies suffer from business myopia in a way that closely recalls the marketing chal- lenge that Christensen’s incumbent firms faced in developing disruptive innovation for new or emerging market niches.

What is of great interest to us is that, although there is no direct and explicit link between these theories, the BOP concept shares some similarities with the disruptive innovation theory (Hart & Christensen, 2002; Prahalad & Hammond, 2002; Prahalad, 2012). It suggests developing products and services for a market segment requesting different attributes than those of mainstream customers (Wood & Hamel 2002; Seelos & Mair, 2007; Anderson, Markides & Kupp, 2010) and, in particular, access to the same technology at a much lower price. In reality, it addresses a

80 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

market that does not yet exist, seemingly con- figuring what Govindarajan and Kopalle (2006a, 2006b) identify as disruptive innova- tion that creates a new market. In our opinion, innovation at the BOP cannot be easily, or entirely, assimilated with disruptive innova- tion theory. We will explain why in the next section, explicitly linking the BOP to the dis- ruptive innovation paradigm.

Disruptive Innovations from Emerging Economies

Parallel to the work on ‘Serving the Bottom of the Pyramid’, a further wave of exploration was initiated by scholars linking the disruptive innovation theory and Prahalad’s non-served markets of the poorest in emerging economies (Hart & Christensen, 2002; London & Hart, 2004).

The argument of scholars applying disrup- tive innovation to explain the success of new products originating from emerging econo- mies is as follows: foreign MNCs develop products for emerging markets and later use them to penetrate the low-end segment of developed markets in the US and Europe, and domestic firms leverage on their cost structure and knowledge of the domestic context to serve local, and later developed, markets (Ray & Ray, 2011; Schanz et al., 2011; Markides, 2012).

To the best of our knowledge, Hart and Christensen (2002) for the first time introduced the link between disruptive innovation theory and emerging economies. Their argument is clearly in line with Prahalad’s work referring to ‘innovation from the base of the pyramid’. The authors propose examples of Asian com- panies that succeeded in introducing disrup- tive innovations in low-income countries, enabling poor people to afford certain types of technological products and generating profits for themselves.

Recently, Hang, Chen and Subramanian (2010) demonstrated four cases of Asian com- panies that, starting from their low-income markets (China and India), developed disrup- tive products. Galanz and Haier, for example, developed ad hoc products for penetrating the Chinese domestic market and responding to specific local needs (a microwave for Galanz and a washing machine for Haier). Once they succeeded in China, they were able to export their product to developed countries serving a market segment that was ignored by incum- bents due to its size, a market segment that was eager for low-cost products with strong energy and room-saving attributes and that did not care about traditional attributes for

those items such as capacity. After a few years of internal and external R&D investment, both companies were able to penetrate also the high-end of advanced economies’ markets, disrupting local incumbents. The success pursued in these markets brought them per- formance improvements on attributes that had at first been neglected and valued by main- stream customers in developed economies. This pushed them to invest globally and to steadily grow in developed economies.

We believe that in both works cited above, the disruptive innovation concept is used in a way that differs from the traditional applica- tion of the concept within established markets in developed economies. The traditionally defined disruptive innovation paradigm (Bower & Christensen, 1995; Christensen, 1997) claims that new products (or services) are considered disruptive when they respond to an ignored and new market segment that is usually small, unprofitable for incumbents and has differentiated needs in terms of product attributes. Could we say that the idea of inno- vation originating in emerging markets pre- sented by Hart and Christensen (2002) is indeed a disruptive innovation? We think this is true only in part, and that three limitations need to be considered in relation to the char- acteristics of disruptiveness mentioned above. In particular, we need to consider (1) the categorization of mainstream and non- mainstream customers, (2) market size, and (3) disruptive innovators (see Table 2):

1. Companies operating in emerging econo- mies have traditionally served those markets adopting a glocalization approach to market segmentation, thus serving cus- tomers that correspond and share similar characteristics to those segments served back in their country of origin or in devel- oped markets. These are their mainstream customers, who might represent the great majority at home but in emerging econo- mies represent only the top of the pyramid. Adopting a marketing perspective instead, as the disruptive challenge requires us to (Christensen, 1997; Danneels, 2004), main- stream customers in emerging markets should be defined as the large part of the population (be it individuals or companies) that cannot afford expensive state-of-the-art technology and that are partly served by local companies that can interpret their needs and respond to them thanks to their cost structure.

2. One of the main challenges that incumbent firms face when developing or responding to disruptive innovations in their markets is that the size of the emerging market with

DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION . . . IN REVERSE 81

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

different requirements is too small to cover the development costs of new products (Christensen, 1997; Christensen & Raynor, 2003). Indeed, the size of the market does not match the size of the company and its related cost structure as it does in the case of small entrants or spin-off companies. This is not true in emerging economies, where the market served by innovations, as in the cases presented in Hart and Christensen (2002) and Hang, Chen and Subramanian (2010), is much bigger than that served by glocal products, so that the market size is potentially huge, assuming that access to these market segments is feasible.

3. Disruptive innovations in developed econo- mies generally come from a small entrant firm (e.g., a start-up company) that is gen- erated by either a new entrepreneurial activity or a spin-off company from an incumbent firm (Bower & Christensen, 1995; Christensen, 1997; Walsh, Kirchhoff & Newbert, 2002; Christensen & Raynor, 2003). The generation of disruptive innova- tions in emerging economies could be developed by domestic companies that naturally have a cost structure and a market orientation that fits the local environment and by subsidiaries of MNCs that have evolved and gained enough autonomy to develop new products. The case of compa- nies from emerging markets is well described by Zeng and Williamson (2007) who report on how innovations developed by Chinese companies are disrupting global markets by primarily leveraging on new, low cost based, business models. The inno- vative approach of these companies is defined by the authors as ‘cost innovation’.

Reverse Innovation

In the previous sections, we showed how dis- ruptive innovation theory does not adequately fit the description of innovations developed for emerging economies and afterwards ‘exported’ back to developed economies. ‘Reverse innovation’ (Govindarajan, 2009; Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble, 2009; Govindarajan & Trimble, 2012) is a more suit- able framework that helps us understand this trend. This new line of research emphasizes the role of emerging economies as the new laboratory in the global economy and argues that innovation is less likely to come from, and is adopted in, developed countries first, but is conceived and adopted in emerging econo- mies first to then be introduced to developed markets. It is then ‘exported’ to the developed

economies. These dynamics reverse the inno- vation process as intended in the prior litera- ture and managerial practice. The reasons that support such an inverted process lie in the market growth of the developing countries that are supporting and leading the global economy.

In their 2009 article ‘How GE is Disrupting Itself’, Immelt, Govindarajan and Trimble show how GE is benefiting from its presence in the markets of emerging economies, specifi- cally China and India, to develop break- through innovations that are introduced and successfully commercialized first in develop- ing countries and later, when performance improvements are acceptable, in developed countries. They provide clear examples for GE Healthcare developing and perfecting prod- ucts in both China (Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble, 2009) and India (Govindarajan & Trimble, 2012) before selling them in those markets first and in advanced ones later on, disrupting existing products in some markets as a result of performance improvements on the attributes most valued by mainstream customers.

The authors stress the importance of local growth teams (LGTs) as new units, independ- ent from their MNC headquarters (HQ), built from scratch in emerging economies. They are responsible for the complete development and commercialization of products leveraging HQ technology but developing completely new offerings that match the market they operate in. While GE Healthcare is a well-known example, there are other cases that present similar innovation paths. Esaote, an Italian medium-sized company that designs and manufactures medical diagnostic systems, is currently sourcing product ideas for the global market from its R&D laboratory located in Shenzhen (Corsi & Di Minin, 2012).

These cases explain how in order to compete in emerging economies, foreign MNCs have to rely on LGTs in order to develop innovations that fit local needs and overcome local constraints. At the same time, they do not neglect the glocalization paradigm in line with which MNCs have to continue to operate to serve high-end markets and build part of the technological knowledge that is essential for the activities of LGTs in emerging economies.

Overlapping Areas between Disruptive and Reverse Innovation

Given the above considerations, the disruptive innovation theory can provide a useful tool for interpreting the phenomenon of innovation

82 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

from emerging economies. As we showed in the above sections, scholars have already iden- tified this opportunity, but we think it needs to be refined and integrated with reverse innova- tion to effectively frame a reversed cycle of innovation. The characteristics that Immelt, Govindarajan and Trimble (2009) and Govindarajan and Trimble (2012) list and illus- trate to describe reverse innovation partly match those described in the previous sections of this paper recalling disruptive innova- tion theory as illustrated by Bower and Christensen (1995), Christensen (1997), Acee (2001), Christensen and Raynor (2003), Utterback and Acee (2005) and Govindarajan and Kopalle (2006a, 2006b). In particular, under specific circumstances reverse innova- tion shares great similarities with the idea of disruptive innovation from emerging econo- mies as illustrated by Hart and Christensen (2002), Zeng and Williamson (2007) and Hang, Chen and Subramanian (2010).

Govindarajan and Trimble (2009) responded to this parallelism themselves following the requests of some readers of their paper who asked for clarification between disruptive innovation and reverse innovation. In one of Govindarajan’s blog posts (30 September 20091), they list a set of conditions that reverse innovation can originate from, stating that the one concerning a lower price offer is the only one configuring it also as a disruptive innova- tion. The same issue is addressed by Govindarajan and Trimble (2012). They thus consider disruptive innovation only from a price/performance point of view, and not as a market widener or as a provider of new functionalities, implicitly stating that disrup- tive innovation can only have a lower price.

We do not believe this is completely true. Referring back to Govindarajan’s works on disruptive innovation, we note that Govindarajan and Kopalle (2006b) define dis- ruptive innovation as ‘a powerful means for broadening and developing new markets and providing new functionality, which, in turn, disrupt existing market linkages’.

Therefore, the focus now lies in the alterna- tive attributes that are offered by the innova- tion in relation to an existing product. These new products are able to penetrate the market starting from early adopters and improve per- formance in the ‘mainstream’ thanks to the experience accumulated in serving the new segment. In line with Christensen and Raynor (2003) and Utterback and Acee (2005), Govindarajan and Kopalle (2006a) define dis- ruptive innovation in the way presented in the second section of this paper and include both new, low-end and high-end attributes to exist- ing products that initially are tempting only to

new customers (thus not necessarily price- focused) or the most price-sensitive main- stream customers, but in developing over time they also gain the attention of mainstream cus- tomers and the market.

In summary, Govindarajan and Trimble (2012) state that reverse innovation has five drivers, named ‘gaps’ (performance, infra- structure, sustainability, regulatory, prefer- ences), but the examples they provide in their work (Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble, 2009; Govindarajan & Ramamurti, 2011; Govindarajan & Trimble, 2012) stress funda- mentally the income (or performance) gap (Logitech Mouse in China, P&G feminine hygiene product in Mexico, Deere Tractor in India, Harman infotainment system in India and China), and indirectly lead us to under- stand that reverse innovation takes the direc- tion of a potential disruptive effect only when an equivalent income gap can be found isolat- ing a segment of the market in an advanced economy. While we acknowledge that indeed the income gap is a key driver, the emphasis of Christensen’s low-end disruptive innovation is on new markets being created, and new value networks displacing the old ones. Such dyna- mics in reverse-disruptive innovation happen not only when a company from emerging coun- tries enters advanced ones to serve the needs of a less affluent market segment, but indeed dis- ruption occurs when the technological evolu- tion and market experience lead this offering to go from the niche to the main market. In these situations of reverse-disruptive innovations, we indeed identify the following common elements between reverse innovation and dis- ruptive innovation: the same risks of cannibalizations for companies that have previ- ously invested in the same industries for main- stream customers (Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006a, 2006b; Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble, 2009), which is also a tool for measuring the potentiality of firms to develop disruptive innovations (Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006b).

As anticipated by Williamson and Zeng (2004, 2009), Seely Brown and Hagel (2005), Williamson (2010) and Zeng and Williamson (2007) with reference to business models, dis- ruptive innovations are a tool to pre-empt giants from emerging economies that are going global with a new price-performance offering, which is exactly the same purpose of reverse innovation (Immelt, Govindarajan & Trimble, 2009).

LGTs that Immelt, Govindarajan and Trimble (2009) and Govindarajan and Trimble (2012) explain as crucial for the development of innovations for emerging economies mirror the spin-off companies described by Christensen and Overdorf (2000), Christensen, Bohmer and

DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION . . . IN REVERSE 83

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

Kenagy (2000), Christensen and Raynor (2003) and Danneels (2004, 2006), as the best solution for incumbents that want to compete with or develop disruptive innovations.

We therefore believe that disruptive innova- tion theory can be a rich tool for interpreting a subset of reverse innovation as defined by Immelt, Govindarajan and Trimble (2009) and Govindarajan and Trimble (2012). Adopting this perspective, we believe we can enrich the disruptive innovation theory from an emerg- ing country perspective.

Geographic Dimension of Disruptive Innovation

As discussed in the previous section, it is pos- sible to interpret a subset of reverse innova- tion, and the considerations that follow are limited to this subset, as a particular manifes- tation of disruptive innovation. In fact, Govindarajan and Trimble seem to suggest the same by proposing an uphill flow of reverse innovation to marginalized first and, often, mainstream markets in advanced economies (2012: 22). Can we thus simply generalize the findings and implications of disruptive inno- vation originating from developed countries to situations of reverse innovation?

The answer is no. Such a generalization does not work, since success stories of disruptive innovation originating from developed markets differ substantially from success stories that export successful products back to developed markets that were first introduced in emerging economies. Table 2 summarizes the main differences discussed below:

• Early market: in disruptive innovation theory, the market segment served by the new technology is characterized by early adopters. In reverse innovation, the early market is instead represented by the large part of the population, or BOP, that has no access to the established technology because it is either too expensive or too complex. This is hardly the case with early adopters and developed markets. These differences should lead to completely different market- ing strategies.

• Actors: the small size of the early market in disruptive innovation theory makes spin-off companies or small new entrants the only actors able to serve this market profitably. On the other hand, the vast size of the new market segment to be served in emerging economies allows both local start-ups, foreign MNC subsidiaries and large local companies to make profit from it by exploit- ing economies of scale. The key question is

whether local start-ups will find the com- plementary assets to reach international markets. Conversely, there are examples (see the case of Aravind Eye Care in Prahalad, 2004) of successful disruptors in emerging economies which were not able to expand internationally.

• Expansion: the evolution of disruptive prod- ucts conceived in and for developed markets brings innovative technologies to commercialization in the same markets as the established ones, while disruptive prod- ucts introduced in and for developing economies allow foreign MNCs and domes- tic companies to export their evolved disruptions to mainstream markets in developed countries, configuring a process of reverse innovation.

• Maturation of technology: the technological evolution of disruptive innovations is the same in both cases, but while in disruptive innovation theory this occurs in the same country market, in reverse innovation we see it happening in developing economies and brought to developed economies once the technology has evolved.

• Challenges: the development of a technology on a new trajectory puts new entrants in established markets in competition to reach new technological standards. In emerging economies, the main challenge is the diffi- culty of reaching a vast market that often lacks adequate complementary assets (such as distribution and logistics infrastruc- tures). Furthermore, cultural and institu- tional differences make it difficult for foreign firms to understand and properly respond to market needs.

• Basis of competition/success: in traditional dis- ruptive innovation theory, the ‘battle’ is won by the company that develops the new tech- nology better and faster, satisfying at first the request for new attributes and, along within technological evolution, catching up on the mainstream attributes. In reverse innovation, competition is instead based on the ability to develop a new business model that allows companies to serve a large portion of the market in order to achieve large sales volumes and economies of scale.

Research Propositions and a Research Agenda

In light of the discussion presented in this paper, we can conclude that reverse innovation has the potential to take the form of disruptive innovation that originates not from the same geographical market that incumbent compa- nies dominate, but rather from the markets of

84 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

T ab

le 2.

D iff

er en

ce s

be tw

ee n

D is

ru pt

iv e

In no

va ti

on in

E m

er gi

ng an

d D

ev el

op ed

E co

no m

ie s

C h

ar ac

te ri

st ic

s/ L

oc at

io n

E ar

ly M

ar k

et A

ct or

s E

xp an

si on

M at

u ra

ti on

of T

ec h

n ol

og y

C h

al le

n ge

s C

om p

et e/

S u

cc ee

d b

as ed

on

D is

ru pt

iv e

In no

va ti

on in

D ev

el op

ed C

ou nt

ri es

• A

d va

nc ed

/ In

no va

ti ve

ea rl

y ad

op te

rs se

ek in

g to

be “e

du ca

te d

” an

d to

tr y

th e

ne w

te ch

no lo

gy .

• Ty

pi ca

lly sm

al l,

ad va

nc ed

ni ch

e

Sp in

of fs

or ne

w en

tr an

ts ab

le to

be fl

ex ib

le en

ou gh

to se

rv e

th e

ni ch

e

In to

m ai

ns tr

ea m

m ar

ke t

of th

e sa

m e

co un

tr y

th ro

ug h

a pr

oc es

s of

up gr

ad in

g “m

ai ns

tr ea

m te

ch no

lo gi

ca l

at tr

ib ut

es ”

Pr ofi

ts fr

om ea

rl y

m ar

ke ts

ar e

in ve

st ed

(d ri

ve n

by ea

rl y

m ar

ke t

re qu

es ts

) in

to th

e d

ev el

op m

en t

of te

ch no

lo gy

th at

is im

pr ov

ed w

it h

re sp

ec t

to th

at fr

om in

cu m

be nt

s th

ro ug

h pa

th d

ep en

d en

ce

St an

da rd

ba tt

le am

on gs

t st

ar t-

up s

• Sp

ee d

of d

ev el

op m

en t

• H

ig h

m ar

gi ns

on ce

th e

in cu

m be

nt s

ha ve

be en

d is

ru pt

ed

D is

ru pt

iv e

In no

va ti

on in

an d

fr om

E m

er gi

ng E

co no

m ie

s

• L

ar ge

m aj

or it

y of

po pu

la ti

on w

it h

no m

ea ns

to ge

t to

es ta

bl is

he d

te ch

no lo

gi es

• Ty

pi ca

lly la

rg e

B O

P

Su bs

id ia

ri es

of M

N C

s an

d la

rg e

lo ca

l co

m pa

ni es

th at

ar e

ab le

to ex

pl oi

t ec

on om

ie s

of sc

al e

In to

m ai

ns tr

ea m

m ar

ke t

of em

er ge

d co

un tr

ie s

th ro

ug h

a pr

oc es

s of

re ve

rs e

in no

va ti

on

Sa m

e pr

oc es

s of

m at

ur at

io n

• D

is tr

ib ut

io n

in va

st m

ar ke

ts •

R eq

ui re

m en

t to

ac ce

ss m

ar ke

t ne

ed s

• R

eq ui

re m

en t

to un

d er

st an

d an

d re

sp on

d to

m ar

ke t

ne ed

s

• V

ol um

e •

C os

ts an

d re

or ga

ni za

ti on

of pr

od uc

ts /

se rv

ic es

DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION . . . IN REVERSE 85

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

emerging economies, where a technology/ product has been commercialized to fit the characteristics of those markets, particularly serving the vast bottom of the pyramid.

The disruptive innovation framework pro- vides us with the dynamics to look at innova- tion that originates for emerging economies. However, the challenges, evolution and factors leading to success or failure of reverse innovation are different from those that are relevant when disruptive innovation originates from a developed market. We therefore argue that instead of simply generalizing the find- ings of disruptive innovation to emerging economies, future studies should take into consideration innovations that originate for those markets. We have thus added a geo- graphical dimension to the disruptive innova- tion paradigm, explaining the variables that should be taken into account when consider- ing such an innovation emerging in develop- ing economies.

Given the above considerations we develop four research propositions that we believe may be of inspiration for innovation management scholars and thus fuel future research.

Christensen and Raynor (2003) have illus- trated the importance of spin-out companies as a way to overcome the innovator’s dilemma. Incumbents are often disrupted by new entrants because they are not able to see emerging technologies entering the market and to address new needs while improving also on attributes of the technologies adopted by the mainstream market. The establishment of a new autonomous company that rises from an incumbent firm has the potential to respond to the marketing challenge posed by disruptive technologies and to address a new emerging market. Market myopia can also be found in the case of advanced MNCs that operate in emerging markets, often trying to commercialize only small adaptations of their products previously developed for the advanced markets. Hence, the ordination of a subsidiary operating in emerging markets with autonomy regarding product develop- ment can be an important source of reverse innovation with disruptive potential also in advanced markets.

RP1: Subsidiaries of ‘advanced’ MNCs in emerging economies can act as the spin-off com- panies theorized by Christensen as a way to overcome the innovator’s dilemma.

Scholars should thus focus on organiza- tional and host country factors that may affect subsidiary autonomy as well as its ability to trigger processes of reverse knowledge trans- fer (Ambos, Ambos & Schlegelmilch, 2006). Of particular importance is the role of people

appointed to manage the subsidiary. These managers are in fact vectors of innovation stimuli coming from emerging markets. They thus need to know well both the company culture and its technological endowment in order to optimally interpret the best means for product development. At the same time, they need to have enough authority with their headquarters for the ideas they propose that may diverge from the traditional technological path their company follows to be taken into appropriate consideration.

In order for companies to be able to trigger reverse innovation processes, two essential conditions need to be present: a strong knowl- edge of emerging market needs and business environment and a good technological base. This is not always the case for a single company. Very often an ‘advanced’ MNC has a strong technological base (given by its experi- ence and the quality of its R&D engineers), but lacks a deep knowledge of emerging markets. On the other hand, ‘emerging’ companies know very well their home market but often lack an appropriate technological base given their relatively short history.

RP2: Despite a liberalization trend of emerging economies which allows foreign companies to operate more freely, we will see a new technology-focused generation of joint ventures between ‘advanced’ and ‘emerging’ MNCs.

As in the past, the creation of joint ventures and other forms of interaction between foreign and local firms seem to be relevant. But while in the past foreign companies were legally obligated by host country FDI policies to engage in joint ventures in order to get access to the emerging economies’ markets (see, for example, the case of China described by Long, 2005), this need for cooperation may increas- ingly emerge with the aim of merging comple- mentary competences for developing products that are globally marketable. This potential trend suggests a focus on new drivers of cooperation between foreign MNCs and local firms in emerging economies, as they may diverge from previous ones. In particular, we believe it would be interesting to see how R&D teams of such joint ventures are com- posed and what the dynamics occurring between foreign and local engineers are.

This intensification of interaction between foreign and local firms in emerging economies can be read and extended from an open inno- vation perspective.

RP3: Open innovation dynamics will facilitate the triggering of reverse innovation processes.

Future research should try to understand whether and how open innovation dynamics

86 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

are different in an emerging economy context. Intuitively, ‘advanced’ MNCs operating in emerging markets can benefit from outbound open innovation performed by local compa- nies that are willing to share or sell their product ideas or nascent technologies for developing and selling them worldwide. This could lead to inbound open innovation per- formed by foreign MNCs which source tech- nologies from local firms or universities and research institutions.

Strong intellectual property regimes are required to implement an innovation strategy that is based on an open model. This may be a problem in developing countries since they are shown to have weak intellectual property regimes (IPR) (Zhao, 2006).

RP4: As emerging economies will strengthen their intellectual property regimes, we will see more reverse innovation processes.

Despite the fact that foreign MNCs are worried about their IP protection in emerging economies, recent contributions show how this problem can be overcome in developing econo- mies such as China (Keupp, Beckenbauer & Gassmann, 2009; Quan & Chesbrough, 2010), presenting successful cases of foreign compa- nies that implement R&D activities in China, providing useful tools for overcoming the risk of IP violation. Future research has the oppor- tunity to study how IP strategies of companies operating in emerging markets will evolve along with the evolution of these countries and how these will probably change, passing from having a local perspective to a more interna- tional or global breadth. An evolved patent system would help researchers to investigate even further the reverse innovation processes by using patents to identify innovations origi- nating from emerging economies which are potentially disruptive, as has already been done for disruptive technologies (Pilkington, Dyerson & Tissier, 2002).

In terms of managerial implications, this paper provides companies with a set of basic attributes of reverse innovation with disrup- tive potential. Managers of ‘advanced’ MNCs can thus use these insights to both trigger innovation processes for their own companies, leveraging on their technological basis, or interpret actions underpinned by competitors from emerging economies who are trying to enter foreign advanced markets. Managers of ‘emerging’ MNCs can identify patterns of technology and market development which occurred from an emerging to an advanced market.

As reverse innovation dynamics unfold, we expect to see new business models evolve, new forms of interaction between MNCs and

local partners, as well as new opportunities for entrepreneurs trying to adapt technologies across distant markets and to explore the role of emerging markets as the new laboratory of the global economy.

Note

1. We are aware that an author’s blog is not a strong source but, given the novelty of the topic, the explanation provided in this post is crucial for understanding the concept.

References

Acee, H.J. (2001) Disruptive Technologies: an Extended View. SM Thesis, Management of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Akula, V. (2008) Business Basics at the Base of the Pyramid. Harvard Business Review, 86, 53–57.

Ambos, T.C., Ambos, B. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (2006) Learning from Foreign Subsidiaries: An Empirical Investigation of Headquarters’ Benefits from Reverse Knowledge Transfers. International Business Review, 15, 294–312.

Anderson, J.L., Markides, C. and Kupp, M. (2010) The Last Frontier: Market Creation in Conflict Zones, Deep Rural Areas, and Urban Slums. Cali- fornia Management Review, 52, 6–28.

Ansari, S., Munir, K. and Gregg, T. (2012) Impact at the ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’: The Role of Social Capital in Capability Development and Commu- nity Empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 813–42.

Anthony, S.D., Eyring, M. and Gibson, L. (2006) Mapping your Innovation Strategy. Harvard Busi- ness Review, 84, 104–13.

Bower, J.L. and Christensen, C.M. (1995) Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard Busi- ness Review, 73, 43–53.

Cefis, E. and Marsili, O. (2006) Survivor: The Role of Innovation in Firms’ Survival. Research Policy, 35, 626–41.

Charitou, C.D. and Markides, C.C. (2003) Responses to Disruptive Strategic Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 55–63.

Chesbrough, H.W. (2002) Environmental Influences upon Firm Entry into New Sub-Markets: Evi- dence from the Worldwide Hard Disk Drive Industry Conditionally. Research Policy, 32, 659– 78.

Christensen, C.M. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms To Fail. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA.

Christensen, C.M. (2006) The Ongoing Process of Building a Theory of Disruption. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 39–55.

Christensen, C.M. and Overdorf, M. (2000) Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change. Harvard Business Review, 78, 66–76.

DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION . . . IN REVERSE 87

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

Christensen, C.M. and Raynor, E.M. (2003) The Inn- ovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA.

Christensen, C.M., Bohmer, R. and Kenagy, J. (2000) Will Disruptive Innovations Cure Healthcare? Harvard Business Review, 78, 102–12.

Christensen, C.M., Johnson, M.W. and Rigby, D.K. (2002) Foundations for Growth. MIT Sloan Man- agement Review, 43, 22–31.

Christensen, C.M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R. and Sadtler, T.M. (2006) Disruptive Innovation for Social Change. Harvard Business Review, 84, 94–101.

Corsi, S. and Di Minin, A. (2012) Cina: Da Mercato Emergente a Nuovo Hub di Innovazione? Mondo Cinese, 150, 80–87.

Corso, M. and Pellegrini, L. (2007) Continuous and Discontinuous Innovation: Overcoming the Innovator Dilemma. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 333–47.

Danneels, E. (2004) Disruptive Technology Recon- sidered: A Critique and Research Agenda. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 246–58.

Danneels, E. (2006) Dialogue on the effects of dis- ruptive technology on firms and industries. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 2–4.

Di Minin, A. and Bianchi, M. (2011) Safe Nests in Global Nets: Internationalization and Appropriability of R&D in Wireless Telecom. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 910–34.

Garrette, B. and Karnani, A. (2010) Challenges in Marketing Socially Useful Goods to the Poor. California Management Review, 52, 29–47.

Gassmann, O. and Han, Z. (2004) Motivations and Barriers of Foreign R&D Activities in China. R&D Management, 34, 423–37.

Gilbert, C. (2003) The Disruption Opportunity. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 27–32.

Gilbert, C. and Bower, J.L. (2002) Disruptive Change. Harvard Business Review, 80, 95–100.

Gino, F. and Staats, B.R. (2012) The Microwork Solu- tion. Harvard Business Review, 90, 92–6.

Glazer, R. (2007) Meta-Technologies and Innovation Leadership: Why There May Be Nothing New Under the Sun. California Management Review, 50, 120–43.

Govindarajan, V. (2009) The Case for ‘Reverse Innovation’ Now. BusinessWeek Online, 26 October.

Govindarajan, V. (2012) A Reverse-Innovation Play- book. Harvard Business Review, 90, 120–4.

Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. (2009) Is Reverse Innovation Like Disruptive Innovation? Harvard Business Review Blog Network [WWW docu- ment]. URL http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbr-now/ 2009/09/is-reverse-innovation-like-dis.html [accessed on 14 June 2012).

Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. (2012) Reverse Innovation: Create Far from Home, Win Everywhere. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, MA.

Govindarajan, V. and Kopalle, P.K. (2006a) Disrup- tiveness of Innovations: Measurement and an Assessment of Reliability and Validity. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 189–99.

Govindarajan, V. and Kopalle, P.K. (2006b) The Use- fulness of Measuring Disruptiveness of Innova- tions. Ex post in Making ex ante Predictions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 12–18.

Govindarajan, V. and Ramamurti, R. (2011) Reverse Innovation, Emerging Markets and Global Strat- egy. Global Strategy Journal, 1, 191–205.

Govindarajan, V., Kopalle, P.K. and Danneels, E. (2011) The Effects of Mainstream and Emerging Customer Orientations on Radical and Disrup- tive Innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1, 121–32.

Hang, C., Chen, J. and Subramanian, A.M. (2010) Developing Disruptive Products for Emerging Economies: Lessons from Asian Cases. Research Technology Management, 53, 21–26.

Hart, S.L. and Christensen, C.M (2002) The Great Leap. Driving Innovation from the Base of the Pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 51–6.

Henderson, R. (2006) The Innovator’s Dilemma as a Problem of Organizational Competence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 5–11.

Immelt, J.R., Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. (2009) How GE is Disrupting Itself. Harvard Business Review, 87, 56–65.

Johnson, M.W, Christensen, C.M. and Kagermann, H. (2008) Reinventing your Business Model. Harvard Business Review, 86, 50–9.

Johnson, W. (2012) Disrupt Yourself. Harvard Busi- ness Review, 90, 147–50.

Kanter, R.M. (2010) Block-by-Blockbuster Innova- tion. Harvard Business Review, 88, 38.

Karamchandani, A., Kubzansky, M. and Lalwani, N. (2011) Is the Bottom of the Pyramid Really for You? Harvard Business Review, 89, 107–11.

Karnani, A. (2007) The Mirage of Marketing to the Bottom of the Pyramid: How the Private Sector Can Help Alleviate Poverty. California Manage- ment Review, 49, 90–111.

Kassicieh, S.K., Kirchhoff, B.A., Walsh, S.T. and McWhorter, P.J. (2002) The Role of Small Firms in the Transfer of Disruptive Technologies. Technovation, 22, 667–74.

Kenney, M., Massini, S. and Murtha, T.P. (2009) Offshoring Administrative and Technical Work: New Fields for Understanding the Global Enter- prise. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 887–900.

Keupp, M.M., Beckenbauer, A. and Gassmann, O. (2009) How Managers Protect Intellectual Prop- erty Rights in China Using de facto Strategies. R&D Management, 39, 211–23.

London, T. and Hart, S.L. (2004) Reinventing Strat- egies for Emerging Markets: Beyond the Transna- tional Model. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 350–70.

Long, G. (2005) China’s Policies on FDI: Review and Evaluation. In Moran, T., Graham, E.M. and Blomstrom, M. (eds.), Does Foreign Direct Investment Promote Development? Institute for International Economics, Centre for Global Development, Washington, DC, pp. 315–36.

Mangelsdorf, M.E. (2009) Good Days for Disruptors. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50, 67–70.

88 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

Markides, C. (2006) Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 19–25.

Markides, C.C. (2012) How Disruptive Will Innova- tions from Emerging Markets Be? MIT Sloan Man- agement Review, 54, 23–25.

Morris, H., Harvey, C. and Kelly, A. (2009) Journal Rankings and the ABS Journal Quality Guide. Management Decision, 47, 1441–51.

O’Reilly III, C.A. and Tushman, M. (2004) The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–81.

Olsen, M. and Boxembaum, E. (2009) Bottom of the Pyramid: Organization Barriers to Implementa- tion. California Management Review, 51, 100–25.

Patel, P. and Pavitt, K. (1991) Large Firms in the Production of the World’s Technology – An Important Case of Non-Globalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 1–21.

Pilkington, A., Dyerson, R. and Tissier, O. (2002) The Electric Vehicle: Patent Data as Indicators of Technological Development. World Patent Infor- mation, 24, 5–12.

Prahalad, C.K. (2004) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Eradicating Poverty through Profits. Pearson Education, Harlow.

Prahalad, C.K. (2012) Bottom of the Pyramid as a Source of Breakthrough Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 6–12.

Prahalad, C.K. and Hammond, A. (2002) Serving the World’s Poor, Profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80, 48–57.

Prahalad, C.K. and Hart, S.L. (2002) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Strategy + Business, 26, 54–67.

Quan, X. and Chesbrough, H.W. (2010) Hierarchical Segmentation of R&D Process and Intellectual Property Protection: Evidence from Multinational R&D Laboratories in China. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57, 9–21.

Rafii, F. and Kampas, P.J. (2002) How to Identify your Enemies before they Destroy you. Harvard Business Review, 80, 115–23.

Rangan, V.K., Chu, M. and Petkoski, D. (2011) Seg- menting the Base of the Pyramid. Harvard Busi- ness Review, 89, 113–17.

Ray, S. and Ray, P.K. (2011) Product Innovation for the People’s Car in an Emerging Economy. Technovation, 31, 216–27.

Sandström, C., Magnusson, M. and Jörnmark, J. (2009) Exploring Factors Influencing Incumbents’ Response to Disruptive Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18, 8–15.

Schanz, C., Hüsig, S., Dowling, M. and Gerybadze, A. (2011) ‘Low-Cost High-Tech’ Innovations for China: Why Setting up a Separate R&D Unit is not Always the Best Approach. R&D Management, 41, 307–17.

Schmidt, G.M. and Druehl, C.T. (2008) When is a Disruptive Innovation Disruptive? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 347–69.

Seelos, C. and Mair, J. (2007) Profitable Business Models and Market Creation in the Context of Deep Poverty: A Strategic View. Academy of Man- agement Perspectives, 21, 49–63.

Seely Brown, J. and Hagel III, J. (2005) Inno- vation Blowback: Disruptive Management Practices from Asia. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 34–45.

Simanis, E. (2012) Reality Check at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Harvard Business Review, 90, 120–5.

Simanis, E. and Hart, S. (2009) Innovation from the Inside Out. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50, 77–86.

Suzuki, J. and Kodama, F. (2004) Technological Diversity of Persistent Innovators in Japan: Two Case Studies of Large Japanese Firms. Research Policy, 33, 531–49.

Utterback, J.M. (2004) The Dynamics of Innovation. Educause Review, January–February, 42–51.

Utterback, J.M. and Acee, H.J. (2005) Disruptive Technologies: An Expanded View. International Journal of Innovation Management, 9, 1–17.

Vernon, R. (1966) International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle. Quar- terly Journal of Economics, 80, 190–207.

Von Zedtwitz, M. (2004) Managing Foreign R&D Laboratories in China. R&D Management, 34, 439– 52.

Walsh, S.T., Kirchhoff, B.A. and Newbert, S. (2002) Differentiating Market Strategies for Disruptive Technologies. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 49, 341–51.

Williamson, P.J. (2010) Cost Innovation: Preparing for a ‘Value-for-Money’ Revolution. Long Range Planning, 43, 343–53.

Williamson, P.J. and Zeng, M. (2004) Strategies for Competing in a Changed China. MIT Sloan Man- agement Review, 45, 85–91.

Williamson, P.J. and Zeng, M. (2009) Value-for- Money Strategies for Recessionary Times. Harvard Business Review, 87, 66–74.

Wood, R.C. and Hamel, G. (2002) The World Bank’s Innovation Market. Harvard Business Review, 80, 104–13.

Yu, D. and Hang, C.C. (2010) A Reflective Review of Disruptive Innovation Theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 435–52.

Yu, D. and Hang, C.C. (2011) Creating Technology Candidates for Disruptive Innovation: Generally Applicable R&D Strategies. Technovation, 31, 401– 10.

Zeng, M. and Williamson, P.J. (2007) Dragons at your Door: How Chinese Cost Innovation is Disrupting the Rules of Global Competition. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Zhao, M. (2006) Conducting R&D in Countries with Weak Intellectual Property Rights Protection. Management Science, 52, 1185–99.

DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION . . . IN REVERSE 89

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

Simone Corsi (s.corsi@sssup.it) is a post- doctoral researcher at the Institute of Man- agement at the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy. He has a PhD in Management from the same institution. His research focuses on foreign R&D investment in emerging economies and reverse innova- tion. Simone was one of the 2009 recipients of the Associazione Toscana Cina Insieme Fellowship for his Masters dissertation (‘Relationship Marketing in Chinese Busi- ness to Business’) on Italian investment in China, and he has been Visiting Doctoral student at the Research Center for Global R&D Management at Tongji University, Shanghai. His research interests also include open innovation and disruptive innovation.

Alberto Di Minin is an assistant professor at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, and Research Fellow at the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy (BRIE). He has a PhD from University of California Berkeley. Alberto works with the Istituto di Management at Sant’Anna, and he is an instructor at the Executive School, International School of Advanced Educa- tion (SIAF). His research deals with the appropriability of innovation. He focuses on open innovation, business models, tech- nology transfer, intellectual property and R&D management. On these topics he has published widely in international journals such as Research Policy, California Manage- ment Review, R&D Management and Journal of International Business Studies.

Appendix A

For our literature review, we used the following procedure. Relying on the Academic Journal Quality Guide (Version 4, 2010) of the Association of Business Schools (Morris, Harvey & Kelly, 2009), we selected Grade Four and Three journals from the following management fields: General Management, International Business, and Innovation (see below for a list of the selected journals). We searched over these journals for papers whose abstracts contained at least one of the following keywords: disruptive innovation, reverse innovation, cost innovation, bottom of the pyramid. We excluded from the resulting articles book reviews and articles whose abstracts contained words composing the keywords put in a different order (hence meaning a different thing).

General Management International Business Innovation

Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Harvard Business Review, British Journal of Management, California Management Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, International Journal of Management Reviews, Academy of Management Perspectives, Journal of Management Inquiry

Journal of International Business Studies, International Business Review, Management International Review

Journal of Product Innovation Management, R&D Management, Technovation

The search resulted in 44 total papers. Given the novelty of the topic of innovation from emerging economies, such a low number and

concentration of papers in a very limited number of journals is not a surprise. (The papers appeared mainly in practitioner-oriented journals and two innovation management journals. Furthermore, the majority of papers refer to disruptive innovation.) As a further effort, we ran a search using the same keywords over Google Scholar to increase our literature base and especially looking for practical examples. The number of papers grew to 65. The literature we relied on for this paper is schematized in Table 1.

90 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 23 Number 1 2014 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

 

Copyright of Creativity & Innovation Management is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.