Disruptive Change Agents: Lessons in Innovation
Disruptive Change Agents: Lessons in Innovation
“It takes a lot of money to look this cheap.” — Dolly Parton
Dolly Parton frequently professed to the celebrants of her success and the detractors who disparage her, unnerved by her propensity to break the rules.
Dolly, however, did not break her stride as she busted barriers.
In an industry where men dominate, Dolly owned her narrative, writing her own songs, transcending genres, and fiercely protecting the privacy of her personal life in an era where everything was on display (Parton & Oermann, 2020). Refusing to relent, she famously turned down Elvis Presley’s offer to record “I Will Always Love You,” because he demanded partial songwriting rights (Scott, 2020), a bold refusal with a big payoff when, years later, Whitney Houston recorded the track and ran away with a Grammy.
And this is what change agents do. They rewrite the rules, alter the landscape, and make space for unexpected possibilities to emerge.
How to Recognize a Disruptive Change Agent
Disruptive change agents are principled dissenters who propose novel ideas to address both small and large institutional problems, with the intention of benefiting the broader community. Disruptive change agents are not hard to spot, for they don’t morph through identities depending on the audience. Instead, they stand steadfast in their convictions, rarely wavering when explaining their position.
Armed with an internal locus of control, or a belief in their ability to impact the environment, coupled with high self-efficacy, or the supposition they can successfully accomplish the task at hand, change agents tend to be less susceptible to groupthink, remaining autonomous in their judgment despite often holding the minority view (Judge & Bono, 2001).
This stance of independence makes them open to new experiences (Saleh et al., 2025) and intrinsically motivated to propose creative ideas that lack majority support (de Jesus et al., 2013; Karimi et al., 2022). Pursuing innovation, however, can place change agents on shaky ground, yet they remain moored in their beliefs despite pushback. This ability to navigate complexity and tolerate ambiguity helps change agents resist the temptation to jump to premature conclusions purported by the masses (Zenasni et al., 2008).
Lastly, change agents possess a highly developed ethical code that guides their thoughts and actions. Steeled by their moral convictions, change agents are compelled to valiantly speak out when encountering wronging, a courageous decision that often positions a target atop their back (Alford, 2001; Aramovich et al., 2012; Kenny, 2019).
The Campaign to Quiet Disruptive Change Agents
Organizational leaders frequently tout innovation, but when it comes time to shake things up, they can’t stomach the disruption. Change agents hired to change things regularly come under fire when they initiate the transformative work they were hired to do (Suskind, 2023). To be targeted and villainized for doing one’s job is unsettling, throwing change agents into a tilt-a-world existence, in which they suffer an institutional betrayal by the organization they believed they could trust (Freyd, 2018).
What follows appears nonsensical, yet it is actually a predictable and well-documented phenomenon that Harold Garfinkel (1956) referred to as a degradation ceremony.
The process initiates when a disruptive change agent inadvertently joins a group or organization with strict community norms, where groupthink maintains stagnation and monotony. The change agent unknowingly breaks the rules by proposing a new idea to address an institutional problem or raising a concern about a common practice or cultural norm. In an effort to squash the change agent’s innovative idea and bring them into compliance, the group’s ringleader, or bully, concocts a false narrative that discredits the change agent’s ideas and disparages their character—for it is not enough to say the change agent is bad at their job; they must be fully vilianized, gifting passive onlookers conscience immunity as they participate in pushing the change agent out the door (D’Cruz et al, 2016; Mazzone et al., 2022).
Why People Conform
Anthropologically, conformity is necessary for survival, for being cast out of the group may equate to one’s imminent demise. As the studies by Asch (1956, 1968) famously demonstrated, people often go along to get along with alarming frequency. In an effort to explore the power of social conformity, Asch designed an experiment in which group members were shown a card with a reference line followed by another card with three comparison lines, and then asked to select the match.
Unbeknownst to the participants, the other group members were confederates, or actors working for the study, and at random intervals, they intentionally gave wrong answers. Despite the obviousness of the correct response, a surprising 74 percent of participants conformed to the majority and gave the wrong answer at least once across trials. However, 26 percent of the participants never conformed. This small minority of renegades was likely today’s change agents. Rates of conformity amplify under certain conditions, such as larger group size, the presence of high-status individuals, and when the tasks become more challenging (Asch, 1968). This study has been replicated across populations and cultures (Franzen & Mader, 2023; Mori & Arai, 2010).
Disruption Is a Good Thing
Although disruption can be disquieting, the benefits of principled disruption, such as the type change agents bring to their organizations, are well-documented (Kashdan, 2022). Moreover, without it, things can go awry. For example, institutions that reward conformity often experience a decline in employee engagement as innovation is stifled (Andrighetto et al., 2018). Such cultures foster groupthink, as individuals adopt expected norms and become less willing to work collectively towards positive change (Kreiner, 2006). As a result, employees become reluctant to share their opinions, leading to drops in creativity (Sarkar & Deepika, 2024).
This self-silencing can also lead to tragic consequences such as medical professionals failing to point out errors, leading to preventable deaths (Kohn et al., 2000); mechanics and engineers ignoring design flaws, resulting in aviation disasters (Helmreich & Foushee, 2010); and financial firms dismissing reports of dubious accounting practices, prompting collapse, as was the case for Sherron Watkins at Enron (Lucas & Koerwer, 2004).
Conversely, when just one change agent is present, organizations are more likely to cultivate a culture of psychological safety, where employees feel free to propose new ideas and voice dissent without fear of rebuke (Edmondson, 2019). Dissent creates friction, discouraging groupthink and encouraging teams to consider diverse perspectives, thereby increasing the likelihood of innovative solutions. In addition, dissent appears to be contagious. When individuals are exposed to change agents offering creative ideas and challenging the status quo, they become more inclined to voice concerns and offer new ideas (Nemeth & Chiles, 1988).
What Organizational Leaders and Disruptive Change Agents Can Do to Foster Innovation
Transformative leadership is essential for retaining current change agents and recruiting others. Transformative leaders serve as role models, offer inspiration, provide opportunities for intellectual stimulation, and are mindful of the unique needs of individuals and teams (Nijstad et al., 2014). To support disruptive change agents, transformative leaders extend trust and offer teams a high degree of autonomy to do their work (Li et al., 2025; Nie et al., 2015). When concerns, ethical violations, and safety risks are shared, transformative leaders cherish the whistleblower and thoroughly investigate, protecting the community from peril and sending the message that it is safe and encouraged to speak out (Freyd, 2018; Kenny, 2019; Near & Miceli, 1985).
Despite their positive contributions, disruptive change agents often find themselves in peril as the keepers of the status quo insist on their silence. To stay in the game, change agents are wise to heed Emily Dickinson’s advice: “Tell the truth but tell it slant,” for unvarnished innovation might just get you pushed out the door (Dickinson et al., 1998).
In contrast, sparking curiosity and developing camaraderie enables change agents to establish relationships and cultivate allies as they become familiar with their new community (Kashdan, 2022). Such circles form a protective shield when and if change agents come under attack.
With truth told artfully and alliances carefully cultivated, disruptive change agents can weather resistance and do the innovative work they were born to do.
References
Alford C. F. (2001). Whistleblowers: Broken lives and organizational power. Cornell University Press.
Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., Gabbiadini, A., Sacino, A., Valtorta, R. R., & Volpato, C. (2018). Objectified conformity: Working self-objectification increases conforming behavior. Social Influence, 13(2), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2018.1439769
Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Skitka, L. J. (2012). Opposing torture: Moral conviction and resistance to majority influence. Social Influence, 7(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2011.640199
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
Asch, S. E. (1968). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of Judgments. Perspectives In Consumer Behavior.
D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., & Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2018). Power, subjectivity and context in workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment: Insights from postpositivism. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Dehkordi, S. S., Radevic, I, Cerne, M., Božic, K. & Lamovšek, A. (2025). The three-way interaction of autonomy, openness to experience, and techno-invasion in predicting employee creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 59(1).
de Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W., & Imaginário, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and creativity related to product: A meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990-2010. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 80–84.
Dickinson, E., Franklin, R. W., & Cairns Collection of American Women Writers. (1998). The poems of Emily Dickinson (Variorum ed). Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Dzurec, L. C. (2020). Examining ‘sticky’ storytelling and moral claims as the essence of workplace bullying. Nursing Outlook, 68(5), 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2020.05.007
Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.
Franzen A, & Mader S (2023). The power of social influence: A replication and extension of the Asch experiment. PLoS ONE 18(11): e0294325.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294325
Freyd, J.J. (2018). When sexual assault victims speak out, their institutions often betray them, The Conversation, 11 January 2018. (Republished by Salon, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, AP, and others.)
Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61(5), 420–424.
Helmreich, R. L., & Foushee, H. C. (2010). Why crew resource management? Empirical and theoretical bases of human factors training in aviation. In Kanki, B. G., Helmreich, R. L., & Anca, J. M. (Eds.), Crew Resource Management (pp. 3–45). (2nd ed). Elsevier.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits-self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
Karimi, S., Ahmadi Malek, F., & Yaghoubi Farani, A. (2022). The relationship between proactive personality and employees’ creativity: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation and creative self-efficacy. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 4500–4519. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.2013913
Kashdan, T. B. (2022). The art of insubordination: How to dissent and defy effectively. Avery.
Kenny, K. (2019). Whistleblowing: Toward a new theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J., & Donaldson, M. S. (2000). To err is human: Building a safer health system. National Academy Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10038653
Kreiner, G. E., Ashforth, B. E., & Sluss, D. M. (2006). Identity dynamics in occupational dirty work: Integrating social identity and system justification perspectives. Organization Science, 17, 619–636.
Li, B., Chen, W., Liu, C., & Xu, Y. (2025). Job autonomy, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: Cross-level moderating effects of team conflict. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 53(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.14170
Lucas, N., & Koerwer, V. S. (2004). Featured interview Sherron Watkins, former vice president for corporate development of Enron. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190401100106
Mazzone, A., Pitsia, V., Karakolidis, A., & Norman, J. O. (2022). Bullied, bystanders, and perpetrators in the workplace: The role of empathy in teachers and school leaders’ experiences. Psychology in the Schools, 59(3), 515–534.
Mori, K., & Arai, M. (2010). No need to fake it: Reproduction of the Asch experiment without confederates. International Journal of Psychology, 45(5), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207591003774485
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 1–16.
Nemeth, C. J., & Chiles, C. (1988). Modeling courage: The role of dissent in fostering independence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180306
Nijstad, B. A., Berger-Selman, F., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Innovation in top management teams: Minority dissent, transformational leadership, and radical innovations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(2), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.734038
Parton, D., & Oermann, R. K. (2020). Dolly Parton, songteller: My life in lyrics. Chronicle Books.
Sarkar, P., & Deepika, M. (2024). Impact of social conformity on organisational silence: A conceptual model. Global Journal of Enterprise Information System, 16(1), 26-34. Retrieved from https://www.gjeis.com/index.php/GJEIS/article/view/759
Scott, H. A. (2023, November 17). Dolly the disruptor: The queen of country’s barrier-breaking milestones. Newsweek. Retrieved August 30, 2025, from https://www.newsweek.com/2023/11/17/dolly-disruptor-queen-countrys-barrier-breaking-milestones-1839373.html
Suskind, D. (2023). Workplace bullying: Finding your way to big tent belonging. Rowman and Littlefield.
Zenasni, F., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: An empirical study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01080.x
Also published on Psychology Today
Workplace Bullying: Finding Your Way to Big Tent Belonging
From the Publisher: Workplace Bullying: Finding Your Way to Big Tent Belonging is a lifeline for people who have been targets of workplace abuse and are desperately trying to make sense of the trauma. It is a resource for partners trying to help their loved ones heal. And, it is a toolkit for managers and industry leaders inspiring to create inclusive cultures by proactively addressing toxic behaviors that stagnate innovation, fracture work communities, and drive out top employees. To simplify a complex topic and make the book readable and engaging for a wide audience, the author uses the elements of story to tell the tale of workplace bullying, zooming in on the characters, settings, and plotlines of cultures that allow and/or encourage workplace abuse.