I think that is an unrealistically optimistic and friendly interpretation of Christensens' position. I agree that the idealistic aspect of disruption probably explains it's popularity (not to mention the opportunistic aspect). But Christensen cum suis have been propagating disruption as a fact for nearly twenty years, and it has had an enormous influence on the public debate.

And as usual with influential ideas, it's not actually true, and (I think) a very reasonable amount scepticism would have demonstrated that much earlier. As an academic, I really think the global community could have expected more honesty from Christensen.