Leading Change vs. Leading Through Disruption
How recognizing the difference between change and disruption shapes the leadership response
For decades, organizations have invested heavily in building the capability to lead change. We have developed proven models, practical tools, and a much deeper understanding of what it takes to help people move from a current state to a desired future state. That work remains essential. Organizations will continue to implement new technologies, redesign structures, integrate acquisitions, shift strategies, transform cultures, and change the way work gets done.
At the same time, I have found myself thinking more about a different leadership context. It is one many executives are experiencing as they navigate emerging technologies, changing business models, scientific advances, geopolitical shifts, evolving customer expectations, workforce changes, regulatory uncertainty, and other forces that can alter the assumptions on which organizations have historically operated. These situations certainly involve change. The question is whether change and disruption describe the same leadership challenge.
I don’t think they do.
The distinction matters because the environment shapes the leadership response. A change environment and a disruption environment share some characteristics, and organizations may experience both at the same time. The leadership emphasis can be quite different. Recognizing the environment leaders are operating in can help determine where to focus attention, communication, planning, decision-making, and execution.
What Is Change Leadership?
In a change environment, the future state can usually be reasonably defined before implementation begins. Leaders may not know every detail of the journey, and the plan will almost certainly require adjustment along the way. They do, however, have enough clarity to describe where the organization is headed and what success should look like.
Consider a new enterprise technology implementation, an organizational restructure, a merger integration, or a redesigned performance management process. Each can be extraordinarily complex. People may disagree with the direction, worry about how the change will affect them, or struggle to adopt new behaviors and ways of working. Leaders will encounter setbacks, competing priorities, and unexpected obstacles. None of that makes organizational change simple or linear. The defining characteristic is that leaders can describe the future state well enough to organize people and resources around reaching it.
This is where established change leadership approaches provide tremendous value. In a previous Harris Whitesell Consulting article, we explored the difference between change management and change leadership, a distinction that matters because organizational change requires both structure and leadership. John Kotter’s work has shaped how generations of leaders think about large-scale organizational change, emphasizing the importance of creating urgency, building a guiding coalition, developing a strategic vision, enabling action, and sustaining momentum. Prosci’s ADKAR model approaches change at the individual level, focusing on the awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement required for people to successfully adopt change. We have also written about best practices in organizational change management, including the importance of planning, leadership support, communication, stakeholder engagement, and reinforcement. People have to understand the direction, engage with it, and ultimately work differently for the change to succeed.
In this environment, the primary leadership challenge is helping people move from the current state to the desired future state. Communication focuses on the vision, the plan, and the path forward. Planning establishes a roadmap for execution. Success is measured through adoption, execution, and achievement of the desired future state. Leaders build confidence through clarity, consistency, and disciplined execution.
Execution brings the strategy to life.
What Makes Leading Through Disruption Different?
A disruption environment creates different conditions. The future state continues to emerge as decisions are being made, which means leaders may know the general direction in which the organization needs to move without being able to describe the destination with the same level of clarity. New information continues to surface. Assumptions change. Decisions made today influence the options available tomorrow.
Disruption can come from many directions. A technology breakthrough can alter how work is performed. A scientific advance can create opportunities that did not previously exist. A geopolitical event can reshape markets or supply chains. A new competitor can challenge an established business model. Regulatory changes can alter the economics of an industry. Shifts in customer expectations or workforce demographics can force organizations to reconsider assumptions that have guided decisions for years. Disruption can also emerge from within an organization through innovation, a new business model, or a strategic decision that changes the basis on which the organization competes.
A quote often attributed to the late business professor and author Oren Harari captures part of this distinction:
“The electric light did not come from the continuous improvement of candles.”
The point is not that continuous improvement has little value. Organizations must continually improve their products, processes, and ways of working. The point is that disruption can change the assumptions on which improvement itself has been based. A better candle still assumes that the future of lighting is a candle. The electric light creates an entirely different set of possibilities.
Leaders navigating disruption face a similar challenge. They cannot focus exclusively on improving what already exists. They also have to pay attention to signals that the environment itself may be changing, including the possibility that strategies, capabilities, and assumptions that have served the organization well may not be the ones that carry it forward.
The source of the disruption matters less than the leadership conditions it creates. Leaders still have to act. They still have to allocate resources, set priorities, develop talent, communicate direction, and make strategic commitments. Waiting until every variable is known is rarely an option. Acting as though the destination is fully understood can create a different kind of risk.
Ronald Heifetz’s work on Adaptive Leadership provides a useful lens for understanding this kind of environment. Heifetz and his colleagues distinguish technical challenges, which can largely be addressed through existing expertise and known solutions, from adaptive challenges that require learning because the situation, the solution, or both continue to evolve. That distinction becomes particularly relevant when leaders have to make consequential decisions before the future can be fully defined.
Peter Senge’s work on learning organizations adds another dimension. Long before today’s conversations about continuous disruption, Senge argued that an organization’s ability to learn could become a source of lasting advantage. That capability becomes even more important when execution itself produces information that requires leaders to revisit assumptions and refine strategy.
During disruption, execution does more than bring the strategy to life. Execution continuously informs and refines the strategy.
Leading Change vs. Leading Through Disruption
Looking at the two environments side by side makes the distinction clearer.
| Change Environment | Disruption Environment |
| The future state can be reasonably defined. | The future state continues to emerge.
|
| The focus is moving people toward the desired future state. | The focus is on making sound decisions while continuously learning and adapting.
|
| Communication emphasizes vision, plan, and path forward. | Communication emphasizes what is known, what is being learned, and how decisions will be made.
|
| Planning establishes the roadmap for execution. | Planning establishes direction while incorporating new learning.
|
| Execution brings the strategy to life. | Execution continuously informs and refines the strategy.
|
| Success emphasizes adoption, execution, and achievement of the desired future state. | Success emphasizes decision quality, learning, adaptability, and organizational responsiveness.
|
| Concerns often center on adoption of the change. | Concerns often center on ambiguity, evolving assumptions, and an uncertain future.
|
| Leaders build confidence through clarity, consistency and disciplined execution. | Leaders build confidence through transparency, thoughtful decision-making, continuous learning, and adaptability. |
The comparison is not intended to suggest that one environment is more difficult or more important than the other. Both require strong leadership, and many of the same capabilities remain valuable in each. The difference is where leaders need to place greater emphasis.
During organizational change, people often need clarity about where the organization is going, what will change, how the transition will occur, and what will be expected of them. During disruption, some of those answers may still be developing. Leaders need to provide as much clarity as the environment allows while also being transparent about what is known, what is still being learned, and how decisions will continue to be made.
The ability to learn and adapt also depends on how leaders and organizations make sense of conditions that are still unfolding. Karl Weick’s work on sensemaking offers a useful perspective. In ambiguous environments, organizations do not always understand a situation completely before acting. Understanding can develop through action as people interpret what happens, revisit assumptions, and determine what to do next. That dynamic is particularly relevant during disruption, when leaders may have to act before all the information they would prefer to have is available.
Change and Disruption Can Exist at the Same Time
One of the reasons this distinction matters is that organizations rarely fit neatly into one category. A company may be leading a well-defined technology implementation while simultaneously navigating disruption in its industry. A leadership team may know exactly how it wants to restructure one part of the organization while remaining uncertain about how an emerging technology will reshape its business model. A biotechnology company may have a clearly defined organizational change underway while scientific, regulatory, and market conditions continue to evolve around it.
The more useful question is not whether an organization is experiencing change or disruption. Leaders need to consider the environment surrounding the particular challenge they are leading.
When the future state can be reasonably defined, leaders can create clarity around the destination, build commitment, establish a roadmap, and execute with discipline. When the future state continues to emerge, leaders still provide direction. They also create the conditions for learning, revisit assumptions, make thoughtful decisions with incomplete information, and adjust as the organization develops a clearer understanding of the environment.
Both require strong leadership. They simply place different demands on it.
Effective Leadership Begins With Diagnosing the Environment
We have spent decades developing increasingly sophisticated approaches to change leadership, and that work should continue. The challenge is making sure we are applying the right leadership assumptions to the environment in front of us.
At Harris Whitesell Consulting, our work with leaders and organizations has reinforced the importance of distinguishing between leading change and leading through disruption. The distinction can shape how leaders approach strategy, communication, decision-making, and execution.
A leader facing disruption may struggle if every unknown is treated as a communication problem that can be solved by providing more certainty. Sometimes the certainty simply does not exist yet. In those moments, credibility may come from being transparent about what is known, acknowledging what is still unfolding, and demonstrating that the organization has the capacity to learn and respond.
Likewise, a leader facing a clearly defined organizational change should not create unnecessary ambiguity by treating every decision as open-ended. When the destination is known, people need clarity, commitment, and disciplined execution.
Before selecting a leadership approach, leaders need to understand the environment. Some situations call for the discipline of change leadership with clear direction, thoughtful communication, stakeholder engagement, adoption, and execution. Others require leaders to operate differently because the future state is still emerging and the organization must continue learning as it moves forward.
In reality, leaders may be managing both change and disruption at the same time, and the balance can shift as conditions evolve. That makes the distinction even more important. When leaders understand the environment, they are better able to focus on the capabilities the situation requires most.
Change and disruption are both part of organizational life. Each places different demands on leaders.
The environment shapes the leadership response.
About HWC
Harris Whitesell Consulting, LLC is a global human capital and talent management consulting firm. We partner with organizations to strengthen leadership, elevate culture, and align people systems with business strategy. Our work spans leadership development, executive coaching, organizational effectiveness, culture and engagement, change and transition, talent optimization, and helping leaders navigate complex and evolving business environments. Our approach is simple: evidence-based insights, practical solutions, measurable impact. From assessment to action, we help organizations build capability and grow with intention.
Learn more: website | info@harriswhitesellconsulting.com | +1 (910) 409-0202 | LinkedIn.
About the Author
Lynn Whitesell is Partner and Principal at Harris Whitesell Consulting, specializing in executive leadership, organizational effectiveness, and leadership development. A Human Capital Strategist and Organizational Effectiveness Advisor with 30 years of global leadership experience, Lynn helps executives and organizations navigate transformation, strengthen leadership capability, and align culture with strategy.
Her work spans executive coaching, leadership development, organizational transformation, and talent optimization, with deep experience supporting organizations through change, integration, and cultural alignment.
Contact: (910) 398-2953 | lynn.whitesell@harriswhitesellconsulting.com
References
Harari, O. (attributed). “The electric light did not come from the continuous improvement of candles.”
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Harvard Business Press.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Prosci. (n.d.). The Prosci ADKAR® Model.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Revised edition. Doubleday.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. SAGE Publications.