Why study convention?
In various fields, including business, software, venture capital, architecture, and (sometimes :)) real estate, there is a prevailing notion that convention is mundane, and innovation is the ultimate prize. While innovation is often celebrated as the key to future success, we should ask ourselves: innovation for whom, and for what purpose? In the context of the climate crisis, the answer to these questions becomes even more urgent. We need new and better conventions, not merely disruptive innovation.
A convention represents a widely accepted method for achieving a specific functional outcome, embraced by multiple parties, whether formally or culturally. It serves as "the norm," the standard approach that shapes collective thinking and actions—whether on the scale of society, within a particular industry or discipline, or among a project team. In various fields, including business, software, venture capital, architecture, and (sometimes) real estate, there is a prevailing notion that convention is mundane, and innovation is the ultimate prize. Disruptive innovation, in particular, is held in high esteem, with forward-thinking leaders celebrated as models for our collective approach to business strategy. The media is saturated with books, articles, podcasts, and conferences extolling the virtues of challenging convention, proclaiming that "the future of X is all about defying norms."
However, we should ask ourselves: "Innovation for whom, and for what purpose?" Is innovation inherently valuable, or are its benefits context-specific? In business, innovation often aims to gain a competitive edge, with the primary beneficiaries being the company, its customers, and shareholders. Yet, innovation is always situated within a particular context, and that context has a lifespan. The longevity of an innovation depends on market dynamics and whether a new disruptive technology emerges to replace it—consider how the cell phone supplanted the landline. Equally, not all innovations succeed; some, fail despite their potential (remember Google Glass?).
As we confront the climate crisis, we should rethink our approach and focus on creating conventions. Why? Conventions wield the most influence because, by their nature, they operate on a vast scale within a given system. Some conventions are monopolistic (like Google’s 90% monopoly on Search [1]), but conventions can also be a cultural “monopoly” that is not company specific - for example concrete is the world’s most used material after water, but unlike Search, no single concrete provider has a dominant market share (the biggest ready mix concrete supplier is CEMEX and they have about a 5% market share in the US. [2]). Concrete has a significant global impact and is technologically and culturally pervasive without being tied to a single entity.
To have the most significant impact on society—a "triple bottom line" impact (Elkington) that benefits not just specific companies, but all stakeholders, including the general public and the environment—we should ask: how can we create new and better conventions?
Conventions often achieve market dominance due to intrinsic values that alternatives or legacy systems lack. Yet, once entrenched, they can outlast their usefulness, becoming difficult to replace due to their deep integration into production and consumption processes.
Innovating from scratch is one thing; changing an established infrastructure is another.
Some questions I’m asking:
By studying conventions, especially those with enduring market dominance, can we uncover insights that foster innovation with substantial benefits for people and the planet?
What makes some conventions succeed while others fail?
Can the creation of conventions be consciously fostered, or is it a complex, multifaceted process?
Are there certain qualities or principles that can be replicated across industries, times, and cultural contexts? Or do our existing conventions, which took so long to become standards, require us to find new ways to accelerate the process—especially given the urgency of addressing climate change?
If you are interested in chatting about this, please drop me a note!
Sources:
1. Google's 90% monopoly on Search: [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-rules-google-broke-antitrust-law-search-case-2024-08-05/)
2. Concrete Companies Market share: [Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/909267/ready-mix-concrete-company-market-share-us/#:~:text=U.S.%20market%20share%20of%20ready%2Dmix%20concrete%20companies%202017&text=In%20that%20year%2C%20CEMEX%20accounted,the%20ready%2Dmix%20concrete%20market.)