If you're in the business of thinking about management and leadership, you'll get this post.
Of course, the dirty little secret is that we only love the disruptors that don't get capped at the knees by the cultures they are trying to change. The disruptors who don't make it? We hate them.
We only celebrate the disruptors who make it. The ones who don't are freaks/abnormals/cancers. To tell the difference, you probably need to focus on the ideas rather than the behavior.
On my mind today related to this great post on LinkedIn by Bob Lyons (read it all, but here's a snippet):
"The legend of Steve Jobs is immortal. There have been countless articles, books and movies made about him and the way he founded and ran Apple. He was such a hard ass, he got fired from his own company in 1985. The establishment people he personally hired and surrounded himself with said they wanted him out. These were not strangers he inherited. How bad did it have to be for that to happen? In 1997 , on the verge of bankruptcy, Apple acquired the company Jobs created and made him CEO once again. Shortly after, products like the iPod, and iPhone started to hit the market. Apple even created a phenomenal customer centric experience through its Apple Stores unlike any consumers had experienced before (and some say since). Jobs certainly goes down as one of the great disruptors of our time, but going through it during its formative years was considered "hell on earth."
Bob's got some other great examples in his post so go check it out.
I'll leave you with this from my notebook after thinking about Bob's post:
Shit stirrer + no good ideas = fire immediately.
Shit stirrer + good ideas = incubate from rest of company and find mentor to round the corners. Fire later if experiment fails in epic fashion.
Shit stirrer + good ideas + ability to execute through others = execute employment contract and find handler similar to Tom Cruise handling Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.