If there is a buzzword that deserves to be strangled before New Year’s eve it is “disrupter”. Like many neologisms, it originated in Silicon Valley and has spread like a virus into US politics and media. Even as I write it is preparing to colonise global forums such as Davos through online Ted talks and other channels. Other examples include “thought leader”, “fire lighter” and the word “pivot”, which it seems we must all practise even if we are unhinged. But disrupter gets first prize. Rarely in the history of bad terms has a new one been so misconceived.
In its place of origin, a disrupter is a swashbuckling entrepreneur who comes up with a new product or way of doing business that upends the market. Think of Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg or Peter Thiel. It is also linked to the bigger concept of creative destruction, whereby the old dies in order to make way for the new.
Yet even in Silicon Valley it can be misleading. Like so many coinages from the US tech sector, this term flatters to deceive. Most innovation comes from patient and collaborative teamwork rather than solitary eureka moments in suburban garages. But in Palo Alto, at least, disrupter retains some link to what people should aspire to do.