If you see someone trying to skip for the first time, getting their feet tangled up and failing miserably, what do you do? Do you tell them, ‘Hey, the rope is hitting your feet!” or do you offer them advice as to how to skip correctly?

Of course, you do the latter.

Now, if you were to explain to a friend what skipping is, do you say “skipping involves repeatedly slinging a rope against your ankles” or do you say that “skipping involves repeatedly jumping over a rope”?

Of course, you say the latter.

So why is that so many management academics continue to define a concept based on how it is incorrectly applied, rather than by how it is done successfully? Take Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as an example. There is a strong business case for CSR, whereby firms that invest in acting socially responsible can see large returns from an enhanced reputation, reduced risks, and more. Yet academics preach that CSR is a reactive approach, and is often done to respond to crises as they occur. Customers are therefore skeptical, believing that companies are merely covering their backsides.

This is not the reality of CSR, but rather the reality of CSR done poorly. Effective CSR is done proactively. It is not just about window-dressing. It is about actively seeking to do what is right and ethical to all stakeholders, preventing an issue from arising in the first place. This is how CSR should be taught. Yet I fear that the next generation of managers will strut around thinking CSR is ineffective. Or worse, that it should be done reactively.

Another example- disruptive technology. This term can be defined as technology that supersedes existing technology, and over time it renders current products obsolete. For example, the personal computer replaced the typewriter. Digital cameras replaced film cameras. Conservative academics teach the concept of disruptive technology as technology that leading firms defensively adopt in order to achieve competitive parity with pioneering firms.

Of course, this may happen, but it is not what should happen. The pursuit of disruptive technologies by leading firms should be highly sought after, as whilst creating a new product may cannibalise existing products, if it is not done, somebody else will do it, and by acting first you can achieve a first-mover advantage. So while we are taught that the adoption of disruptive technologies is done reactively, in reality, disruptive technologies should be developed and adopted proactively. Companies that fail to do so end up like Kodak, or Nokia.

While It is good to understand why concepts may fail, the failures should not define the concept. Just as skipping is not defined as getting a rope tangled around your feet.