Most people who get disrupted by change are not surprised by it. They saw it coming. They read the same articles, heard the same predictions, watched the same case studies get dissected in conference rooms and group chats. What they did not do was act on any of it. And the reason is not that they failed to understand what they were reading. The reason is that understanding something and admitting it are two entirely different things.
Admission is the more dangerous act. Understanding lets you keep your distance. You can observe, analyse, and form an opinion without any of it touching you. Admission collapses that distance. It makes the thing personal, and once it is personal, it demands a response. So people stop just short of admitting it. They understand it intellectually and leave it there, safe, removed from anything that would require them to change.
This is not stupidity. The men doing this are often among the sharpest in their fields. They can identify twenty nuances in any argument. What they cannot bring themselves to do is apply that intelligence to a conclusion that would unsettle the life they have built around their current capabilities. And so they don't. They dress the avoidance up in scepticism, in nuance, in the entirely reasonable observation that predictions of disruption often disappoint. And they wait.
The Gap Between Seeing and Responding
In 1975, a Kodak engineer named Steve Sasson built the first digital camera. It was the size of a toaster, captured an image so low-resolution it was barely legible, and took 23 seconds to save to a cassette tape. Management examined it, acknowledged it was interesting, and concluded it posed no serious threat to film. They were not uninformed. They invented the technology. What they were was institutionally committed to a world in which their existing advantages continued to matter.
Kodak filed for bankruptcy in 2012, nearly four decades after building the thing that disrupted them. The lesson repeated in every business school is that they failed to act on what they saw. The more uncomfortable lesson is that they saw it clearly and chose comfort over response for long enough that the choice was eventually made for them.
The same gap exists for individuals, and it operates on the same logic. A man builds expertise over a decade. That expertise becomes his identity as much as his income. When something arrives that starts to commoditise parts of it, the instinct is not to adapt. The instinct is to construct a case for why his particular version of the skill is exempt. He tells himself his work requires judgment that cannot be replicated. That clients buy from people, not from tools. That the technology is impressive but overstated. Each of these things contains enough truth to be useful as a delay mechanism. And a good delay mechanism, maintained long enough, becomes indistinguishable from a decision.
This content is only available to subscribers
Subscribe now and have access to all our stories, enjoy exclusive content and stay up to date with constant updates.
Unlock contentAlready have an account? Sign In
