I saw it firsthand. I worked for 30 years in the daily newspaper industry - at a time when big presses cranked out thousands of copies of the day's news and carriers delivered them to homes throughout their communities.
We not only informed our readers and kept watch on local issues, we also made money. Advertising and subscriptions paid for the costs of salaries, newsprint, ink and delivery costs. For decades, this business model worked. Newspaper owners made a profit and bought bigger presses.
Then came the internet...
Success is supposed to be liberating. It validates strategy, rewards effort and builds reputation. Yet Michael L. Tushman and Charles A. O’Reilly of Harvard coined a provocative phrase to describe a hidden danger: the tyranny of success. Their insight is simple but powerful — what makes an organization successful in one era can trap it in the next.
When companies achieve strong performance, they double down on the behaviors, processes and products that delivered results. Structures solidify. Incentives align with the existing business model. Leaders rise through the ranks by mastering the current playbook. Over time, this success formula becomes deeply embedded in culture and operations. It feels rational to protect it — after all, it works.
Then, there is a disruption in the force. Markets shift. Technologies evolve. Customer expectations change.
In these moments, yesterday’s strengths can become today’s blind spots. The very systems that once drove growth begin to resist experimentation. New ideas are dismissed because they threaten margins, brand identity or operational efficiency. Managers prioritize short-term performance over long-term adaptation. The organization becomes optimized for exploitation — refining what it already does well — while neglecting exploration of what it must learn next.
Besides daily newspapers, our history is littered with discarded business models impacted by change: whale oil for street lamps, rotary telephones, film cameras, Sears and other department stores and Blockbuster video rentals.
Avoiding the tyranny of success requires intentional tension. The goal isn’t to abandon what works — it’s to prevent yesterday’s wins from quietly dictating tomorrow’s limits.
Here are practical ways organizations (and leaders) can avoid the trap:
1. Separate Exploration from Exploitation
Tushman and O’Reilly emphasize organizational ambidexterity — running today’s business efficiently while exploring tomorrow’s opportunities.
- Create dedicated innovation teams with different metrics and incentives.
- Protect them from short-term performance pressures.
- Give them senior leadership sponsorship.
Innovation rarely survives inside systems optimized for efficiency.
2. Reward Learning, Not Just Performance
If promotions and bonuses only reward quarterly results, people will avoid risk.
- Measure experiments, learning cycles, and new capability development.
- Celebrate intelligent failures that produce insight.
- Evaluate leaders on adaptability, not just execution.
What gets rewarded gets repeated.
3. Institutionalize Dissent
Success breeds conformity.
- Encourage constructive challenge in leadership meetings.
- Rotate talent across functions to bring a fresh perspective.
- Invite external advisors or customer voices into strategy discussions.
Healthy friction prevents strategic blindness.
4. Stay Close to Disruption
Study emerging technologies and adjacent industries.
- Allocate a fixed percentage of resources to experimentation.
- Run small pilots before competitors force a response.
- Monitor weak signals, not just current revenue streams.
Complacency begins when metrics look too good.
5. Develop Adaptive Leaders
Leaders must be comfortable managing paradox — efficiency and innovation.
- Invest in leadership development focused on change management.
- Promote people who can build new businesses, not just optimize old ones.
Ultimately, avoiding the tyranny of success means accepting a paradox: The discipline that creates excellence must be balanced by the curiosity that disrupts it.
Success should fund reinvention — not prevent it.
