“That’s cute—but don’t tell anyone about it.”- when Kodak engineer Steve Sasson invented the first digital camera in 1975, Kodak executives could not spare a better reply for the history that was made. As a profitable company and contender of monopoly in the film business back in the day, Kodak failed to understand the potential of digital prints. In the market, consumer convenience and the prospects of digital prints were deemed disruptive changes. While industry outsiders like Sony and Nixon perceived the change as an opportunity, Kodak failed to redefine itself. In today’s era of AI and Insta filters, Kodak remains synonymous with vintage print, a reputation that made them part of history but failed to symbolise innovation and change. Disruption and change are more consistent than anything in the world today. Not identifying this chasm of disruption may be the first reason an organisation fails.

Understanding the disruptive age

It will not be a crime to say that disruption is today’s status quo. The disruptive age is not a term of the future anymore. For any organisation, disruption means much more than the change in consumer preference; disruption can be wrapped in trends, technological advancements or even employee attitudes. Economic and institutional changes have gripped societies for the past decade, making change the only consistent factor. COVID-19, changing the world on a whim, has made us believe how instances can change the future of industries, businesses, societies and individuals. Hybrid workplaces happened, technologies boomed, cultural appreciation increased, and the world learned to embrace new realities. If coronavirus has taught us anything, it’s the pace at which change occurs—fast, unpredictable—often placing us in challenging situations. Adapting to these changes requires settlements in multiple layers, from leadership to customers and employee management. Only the brands that nail adaption at each level have the final laugh, only to jump into adapting to the next “new” normal. Here are some pitfalls your organisation can fall into during this disruptive age.

Lack of Authenticity

Changes demand innovation and adaptation. But brands that promise quality and authenticity have a bigger role to play while reinventing themselves. Authenticity in a brand comes from aligning every channel with the same message of prosperity and growth. Maintaining authenticity in employee management and consumer offerings can create difficulties during change and disruptive customary switches. From business executives to the marketers and production of a company, authenticity builds up with elements of connectivity from each layer. In times of disruption, the views of individuals shake, creating bias and chaos in multiple layers. This failure often takes a toll on a consumer’s trust and emotional attachment to the brands; hence, the downfall occurs. Financial service company Wells Fargo learnt this the hard way when their employees were found opening several accounts illegally to meet aggressive sales targets. The scandal shook the economic world, impacting customer loyalties and reputation in the process.

Inconsistency in Communication

Coronavirus has taught us how even the smallest instances can cause major consequences. Miniscule disruptions or minor delays can be deadly at times of change, which applies to organisations. The shift in visions, responsibilities, and messages can bring a downfall if they are not communicated properly. Lack of involvement, engagement, and commitment, indifference, reduced productivity, and no contribution from employees can occur when change is happening in management. In an organisation with multiple levels of hierarchy, it is important to ensure that everyone inside is well-informed and on board with the terms of change the organisation is opting for. The incident with United Airlines in 2017 becomes an example of such inconsistency. The airlines faced criticism and a crisis in the industry when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of their overbooked flights. The crisis had already disrupted the airline’s reputation, and continuous inconsistent statements from the airline’s CEO made the issue more complex to solve. The damaging fallout of the organisation was caused by public condemnation fueled by the inconsistency of the organisation’s stand in the situation.

Failing to Adapt

Adaptation is the first word that comes to mind when change is mentioned. Change is unavoidable and often abrupt; adaptation is the only way out in this competitive business landscape. Organisations may need to adapt to any situation with any given consequences, be it the surge of online shopping, where every business needs to provide online service that was unheard of a decade ago or simply the education system that considers a hybrid system normal that was unimaginable before the pandemic. And what could be more exemplary in the case of adaptation than Kodak itself? We started our article with the mistakes that led Kodak to extinction. And Nokia followed suit the same way. Nokia reminds me of the sturdy handsets that were unbreakable. However, being the market leader does not come with the perks of resisting change. Nokia’s failure to adapt to the smartphone trend and the delay in offering competitive products labelled the once innovative company as outdated. Eventually, Nokia sold its mobile phone business to Microsoft in 2014, marking the end of an era for the once-dominant brand in the mobile phone market.

But despite it all, organisations do prevail, stretching their brand and product life cycles. Companies like Apple and Amazon have been glowing examples of successfully adopting disruptive landscapes. With innovation, brand authenticity and continuous alignment with market demands, these brands have mastered change management. So next time your employee brings an innovation to your desk, you may need to reconsider saying, “That’s cute—but don’t tell anyone about it.” to save yourself from doom.

Author: Subeh Tarek