Disruption is one of those words that gets tossed around with great enthusiasm. It shows up in boardroom conversations, strategy documents and transformation plans, often accompanied by bold declarations about shaking things up and driving progress. The idea sounds exciting, even revolutionary. But when it’s misunderstood or misapplied, it can quietly derail the very efforts it was meant to strengthen, leaving organizations scattered, staff disillusioned and customers no better served than before.
I’ve seen this play out first-hand. I once worked with a team that was determined to be “disruptive”, but their interpretation of the concept meant side-lining the very people who made the organization function. Staff, and even customers, were treated as barriers to innovation rather than partners in progress. The focus shifted from solving meaningful problems to breaking things simply for the sake of appearing bold and unconventional.
The transformation effort lacked a coherent direction. Tools and tasks were introduced rapidly, but without a clear plan or purpose. From the outside it looked like progress, but internally, however, the organization felt increasingly disjointed. There was plenty of movement, but very little momentum.
Infrastructure issues compounded the problem. The team continued to rely on ageing servers, some running outdated and unsupported operating systems. The server room resembled a museum of obsolete technology, filled with dusty machines humming away in quiet defiance of modern standards. A small virtual environment had been set up, but it offered no real improvement, automation was nonexistent and backup systems were unreliable and ill-suited to the organization’s evolving needs.
Despite frequent references to innovation, there was little appetite for genuine change. While other organizations were embracing cloud infrastructure and modern computing solutions, this team remained tethered to legacy systems. Significant resources were spent maintaining outdated technology, as if repainting the walls of a crumbling building could somehow restore its structural integrity. The result was a transformation that felt stuck. On the surface, there were signs of progress, but beneath that veneer, the organization was weighed down by decisions that resisted evolution in every sense of the word.
Leadership spoke often about modernization and artificial intelligence, and on paper, their vision appeared promising. Yet staff felt excluded from the process. Systems were patched together without proper integration, and the overarching goals of the transformation remained unclear. Customers, meanwhile, saw little evidence of improvement to the service delivery.
It became increasingly obvious that the team had misunderstood the assignment. They spoke confidently about disruptive thinking and innovation, but the substance behind those words was missing. The true objective was to reimagine local markets and gain a competitive edge through purposeful technology, mainly artificial intelligence. Instead, they found themselves caught between dismantling operations and disregarding the people those operations were meant to serve.
Empathy for end users was noticeably absent too, and progress was measured by appearances rather than impact. One example stands out. The team decided to implement Windows Hello, planning to invest substantial sums in infrared cameras for every user so that facial recognition could be used for logins. The laptops staff had been issued were relatively new, but incompatible with the feature. Rather than exploring practical alternatives, leadership proposed issuing high-end laptops and tablets exclusively to the management team, many of whom lacked the skills to use the devices effectively. They were convinced that this initiative marked the beginning of a new era, one that would enhance service delivery and elevate the organization’s image. Yet there was no clear connection between the technology and the outcomes that mattered. It was innovation for its own sake—expensive, performative and disconnected from reality.
Many of the changes introduced during this period left users confused. Minor features were rolled out without explanation, and it became increasingly difficult to understand how any of it contributed to operational efficiency or improved service. Staff began to question whether these tweaks could truly be considered innovative, or whether they were simply cosmetic gestures designed to impress rather than serve. The disconnect grew, and with it, a quiet frustration that few were willing to acknowledge.
When users raised concerns, pointing out that the changes had little positive impact on their work, in many cases a negative impact, the response was predictable. Leadership congratulated themselves on being "disruptive", declaring the mission accomplished without reflection or accountability. There were no lessons learned, only a hollow sense of achievement built on noise rather than substance.
So what went wrong???
The ambition was never the issue. The problem lay in the absence of clarity and connection. Disruption became a shortcut, a way to bypass the hard work of listening, aligning and designing with purpose. Feedback was ignored, rollout was rushed and success was never clearly defined.
In organizations where trust is foundational, innovation that lacks depth doesn’t simply miss the mark, it gradually wears away confidence, leaving people uncertain about what the change is really for and whether it’s worth believing in. When transformation excludes the people it’s meant to support, it breeds resistance rather than progress, and once that disconnect takes hold, even the most promising ideas struggle to gain traction.
What I’ve come to understand is that real disruptive thinking isn’t about chasing trends or discarding the old simply to make room for something new, it’s about solving problems that matter. It begins with empathy, includes the voices of those who live the systems every day, and builds from there.
During the early stages of the transformation work, there was plenty of excitement. Agile workflows, cloud migration, artificial intelligence and data-driven decision-making all held promise. But as the process unfolded, it became clear that the team lacked a deep understanding of what disruptive innovation truly required. Whether it was a gap in expertise or a failure of imagination, they were not prepared to lead a transformation that demanded both strategic insight and technical depth.
That experience reinforced a simple truth. Mindset matters as much as expertise. Disruptive thinking requires curiosity, humility and a willingness to listen before leading. It is not about being louder or faster, but more about being wiser and more intentional.
Real transformation begins when we stop treating disruption as a buzzword and start embracing it as a discipline. It must be rooted in empathy, guided by purpose and powered by people who know how to turn bold ideas into meaningful progress.
At Wildstar Solutions, we help teams define clear, grounded goals that reflect real-world impact. Our focus is on building innovation that lasts, not just the kind that looks impressive on paper. If your organization is exploring digital transformation and wants to do it in a way that truly sticks, let’s talk!
