Disruptive Innovation: Betting on the Commoners Against the Elite

The story is full of unfortunate predictions, but one of the most memorable is that of the New York Times in 1903, which stated that human flight would not be possible for another ten million years. A classic case of pessimism from a time unable to anticipate technological progress? Not quite. The situation is much more interesting… It’s a story of an elite that takes its failure as a demonstration of impossibility in the face of persistent commoners who eventually succeed.

On December 8, 1903, the Langley Aerodrome, a prototype airplane, failed once again to take off and ended up in the Potomac River in front of journalists and officials. Samuel Langley, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, the great institution of American science, had just sunk the equivalent of two million current dollars of public funds into this device that stubbornly refused to fly. Following this failure, the New York Times asserted that human flight would not be possible for another ten million years.

The implicit reasoning of the journal is as follows: resources, degrees, and institutional legitimacy are the necessary conditions for innovation. If those who possess these conditions fail, no one else can succeed. The frontier of possibility coincides with the capabilities of the accredited elite. If the “best among us” cannot do it, then it is impossible. The journal adds, charitably, that “for the ordinary man, it would seem that this effort is more profitable elsewhere”, an observation still heard about every innovation.

However, just a few days later, on December 17, the Wright brothers Orville and Wilbur ridiculed this prediction by flying their airplane in Kitty Hawk in a historic flight. They were perfect strangers, commoners against the scientific and financial nobility represented by Langley. They were bicycle mechanics, without degrees, without subsidies, without institutional prestige. They had only a few hundred dollars of their own savings as a budget. But they were the ones who succeeded.

This story is instructive in several ways. Firstly, no matter how common they are, commoners have an advantage: they have nothing to lose. Langley was managing a reputation, public funds, an institution. When the airplane failed for the second time and ended up in the Potomac River in front of journalists and officials, Langley’s reputation was lost. The stakes were too high. The Wrights, on the other hand, had no reputation to defend. Their initial failures were known only to themselves, so they were more free to try new approaches. The stakes were limited. A failure? Understand why and try again. This is the famous approach of acceptable loss in effectuation.

Secondly, the elite has a handicap: they can more easily give up. What is striking about Langley is that after the second crash, he decided to stop spending money. He felt humiliated, but above all, he could quietly pursue his career elsewhere. He is like an amateur athlete: he tries a little, but does not insist. The essential thing is to participate. If it does not work, he is frustrated but that’s all. A commoner plays for his life. The Wright brothers are obsessed with flight. They will persevere as long as they can. They succeed because they persist.

Thirdly, the episode illustrates the posture of the elite which is both arrogant and pessimistic. It does not say “we have not succeeded” or “we do not know how to do it”. It says “it is impossible”. This shift is not trivial: it transforms a personal failure into a universal law. It is the mark of a thought that confuses its own limit with that of reality and cannot even imagine that someone else, elsewhere, in a different way, can succeed where it failed. Moreover, it is easier to declare a problem unsolvable than to admit failure. The inability of the elite to consider the solution to a problem results in costly pessimism for society as a whole. This is not the first time it has happened, with Langley, and it will not be the last.

Fourthly, the episode also highlights the narrowness of the New York Times article: only what legitimate actors do counts, and this legitimacy comes from who they are, not what they do. It is an aristocratic thought. If they can’t, no one can. The Ohio unknowns are irrelevant, they are commoners and not part of those expected to make discoveries. Moreover, the feat of the two brothers received very little media coverage. It is a worldview where innovation is the prerogative of the accredited, experts, degree holders, and official stamps, and where the rest of humanity is spectators. Saint Simon would have recognized it. However, it is erroneous: the world has often been changed by amateurs. In many ways, the industrial revolution was the work of brilliant amateurs, not scholars and institutional leaders, and this is still true today with figures like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk.

Mental Model at Play

This story is informative for several reasons. Firstly, despite being commoners, commoners have an advantage: they have nothing to lose. Langley was dealing with a reputation, public funds, an institution. After the aircraft crashed for the second time and was found in the Potomac River in front of journalists and officials, Langley’s reputation was destroyed. The stakes were too high. The Wrights had nothing to lose and were free to attempt new approaches.

Secondly, the elite has a disadvantage: they can easily give up. Langley decided to stop his efforts after the second crash, feeling humiliated. He could pursue his career elsewhere, similar to an amateur athlete who tries a bit but doesn’t persist. The essential thing is to participate. In contrast, commoners, like the Wrights, were driven by their passion for flight and persisted until they succeeded.

Thirdly, the episode reveals the elite’s arrogant and pessimistic attitude. Instead of acknowledging their failure or lack of knowledge, they declare a task impossible, transforming personal failure into a universal truth.

Fourthly, the episode emphasizes the fallacy of the New York Times article, where only actions of legitimate actors matter, and legitimacy is based on who they are rather than what they do. This elitist perspective limits innovation to certain individuals and overlooks the potential of amateurs to make significant contributions.

Place for Commoners!

Langley’s embarrassing experience and the New York Times’ response demonstrate the danger of reserving innovation for large institutions, whether private or public. While these institutions have a role to play, true advantage in disruption lies in the ability to see things differently, question assumptions and dominant mental models, and the courage to do so. These are challenging for products of the current system adorned with degrees and accolades. A society that wants to remain innovative must bet on the commoners.

Source: @HansMahncke and @PessimistArchive on X

See my articles: “120 years after the Wright brothers’ flight, a few insights on innovation”, and “Breakthrough innovation, a key factor in democracy.”

A version of this article in English is available here.

Subscribe to be notified of upcoming articles by email (click on “Subscribe” below).

Find me on LinkedIn to discuss this article.

*You can also subscribe to the podcast format of the articles on your favorite platform: Apple Podcast, YouTube Music, Spotify, Amazon Music/Audible, Deezer.