Clayton M. Christensen's Theory of Disruptive Innovation has had an undeniable impact in business over the past two decades. In this Q&A with longtime collaborator Karen Dillon, he discussed the impact of disruption in today's tech-centric world and why theory is still such a powerful tool for decision-making, even as it continues to evolve.

With emerging-market giants such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China experiencing slowdowns, investors, entrepreneurs, and multinationals are looking elsewhere. They've been eyeing frontier economies such as Nigeria and Pakistan with great interest--and enormous trepidation. Can one find serious growth opportunities amid extreme poverty and a lack of infrastructure and institutions? The answer, the authors argue, is yes. The key lies in "market-creating innovations": products and services that speak to unmet local needs, create local jobs, and scale up quickly. Examples range from MicroEnsure, which has made insurance affordable for 56 million people in emerging economies, to Galanz, which has brought microwave ovens to millions of Chinese consumers previously considered too poor to buy such an appliance. What's more, the essentials of development can be "pulled in" by market-creating innovators--and over time, governments and financial institutions tend to offer their support.

Just because your workplace appears civil and quiet doesn't mean it is devoid of conflict. Across industries, teams composed of high-performing individuals are naturally subject to tensions and rivalry. The author, a contributing editor at Harvard Business Review, provides evidence that most workplace disagreements stem from one of three sources: different agendas, different perceptions and different personal styles. She explains these sources in detail and provides tools for working through them.

Firms have never known more about their customers, but their innovation processes remain hit-or-miss. Why? According to Christensen and his coauthors, product developers focus too much on building customer profiles and looking for correlations in data. To create offerings that people truly want to buy, firms instead need to home in on the job the customer is trying to get done. Some jobs are little (pass the time); some are big (find a more fulfilling career). When we buy a product, we essentially "hire" it to help us do a job. If it does the job well, we hire it again. If it does a crummy job, we "fire" it and look for something else to solve the problem. Jobs are multifaceted. They're never simply about function; they have powerful social and emotional dimensions. And the circumstances in which customers try to do them are more critical than any buyer characteristics. Consider the experiences of condo developers targeting retirees who wanted to downsize their homes. Sales were weak until the developers realized their business was not construction but transitioning lives. Instead of adding more features to the condos, they created services assisting buyers with the move and with their decisions about what to keep and to discard. Sales took off. The key to successful innovation is identifying jobs that are poorly performed in customers' lives and then designing products, experiences, and processes around those jobs.

Real strategy-in companies and in our lives-is created through hundreds of everyday decisions. As you live your life from day to day, how can you make sure you're heading in the right direction? The authors argue that the answer lies in taking a close look at where your resources are allocated. In this excerpt from their book, How Will You Measure Your Life? (Harper Business, 2012), they show that If your resources aren't supporting the strategy you've decided upon, you are not implementing that strategy.

Lafley, the former CEO of Procter & Gamble, is regarded as one of the most successful chief executives in recent history. But like everyone else, he's had his share of mistakes. Politicians and winning sports teams draw their biggest lessons from their toughest losses, he says, and the same has been true for him. The company learned more from its failed new brands and products than from its successes. Among Lafley's favorite examples is the color-safe low-temperature bleach that P&G test launched in the 1980s under the brand name Vibrant. It chose Portland, Maine, as the test market, hoping to escape notice from Clorox, which was headquartered in Oakland, California. But Clorox got wind of the plan in time to distribute free gallons of Clorox to every household in Portland, making all P&G's advertising dollars, sampling, and couponing irrelevant. "Game, set, match to Clorox," Lafley says. But the good technology behind Vibrant remained, and when, a few years later, Clorox tried to enter the laundry detergent business, P&G modified that technology to create Tide with Bleach, which grew into a business worth more than half a billion dollars. Lafley also talks about systematically analyzing 30 years' worth of failed acquisitions to uncover five root causes: no winning strategic reason for the acquisition; integrating poorly or too slowly; expecting synergies that didn't materialize; incompatible cultures; company leaders who "couldn't play together in the same sandbox." That analysis led to changes that informed P&G's highly successful acquisition of Gillette in 2005.

Wall Street may have ignited the outrage over executive compensation, but it's now affecting all public companies. Believing that corporate pay practices encourage excessive risk taking, policy makers feel compelled to intervene, and shareholders are angrily demanding input. The battle will rage in boardrooms and annual meetings for years, and it won't be pretty. A bill that will give shareholders a "say on pay" is winding through Congress, and if passed, could affect how U.S. companies pay key employees - and perhaps open other operational decisions to shareholder approval. That would hamstring companies competitively, some argue. Complicating matters, the experts are deeply divided on how to tie pay to performance. Moreover, past attempts to regulate pay spurred companies to find loopholes, such as bonuses, deferred compensation, and huge hidden perks that weakened the link between compensation and company results. Though the answers aren't clear, the practices of household products maker Reckitt Benckiser offer a potential model. Reckitt has overhauled compensation throughout its ranks, linking performance-based pay for all executives to economic value added to the business. No one receives a bonus for individual performance; a separate long-term incentive program rewards individual performance with shares and options, which vest only if the company grows earnings per share by more than 30% for three years. This simple system helped Reckitt turn itself around and generate strong growth - and the executives, in turn, have been well paid for their efforts.