when the failed coup review you will see 1 star - Anonymous employee Disruptive Industries Employee Review

As someone who has been here from the very beginning, I’ve seen first-hand how this business was built, what was actually happening operationally, and why certain decisions were made at the time. This is written, in part, for those who have since left the company and chosen to comment publicly — often anonymously. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, it is disappointing that those views are not expressed openly or owned personally. Honest critique carries far more weight when people are willing to stand behind what they say, rather than hiding behind anonymity. What has been particularly striking more recently is how, with the current team in place, we’ve been able to execute in a matter of days tasks that previously took weeks or even months. Those delays were not always due to unwillingness, but often the result of misaligned priorities and layers of middle and senior management, each operating with their own interpretations, agendas, and narratives. In that environment, information was frequently filtered before reaching teams, and a single version of events was often presented as fact. People had opportunities to ask questions or challenge what they were being told, but many did not. What followed was groupthink rather than informed understanding. With priorities now firmly back on track and a leaner, more aligned structure in place, execution has become clearer, faster, and more decisive. Much of the commentary posted externally reflects only one side of a complex situation and omits critical context about how the business came into existence in the first place. Disruptive Industries was founded by an individual who designed and built the core product from scratch, based on a genuine, lived, real-world need — before there was a company, a funding narrative, or a senior leadership structure around it. This was not a theoretical or consultancy-led venture; it was a founder-led product born directly from experience of the problem itself. When, last year, the founder was sidelined, a number of individuals many of whom had neither built the product, founded a business, nor lived the problem — attempted to redirect the company. This was not about constructive challenge; it was about control. The mindset was one of a coordinated push to reshape the business away from product reality and toward structures that would have made it heavily dependent on external funding and internal power, rather than commercial sustainability. The founder has been formally recognised and awarded for long-standing commitment to excellence and service to the country. That record speaks to integrity, discipline, and leadership. even when difficult decisions had to be made. The suggestion that “competent leadership was removed for challenging the CEO” is therefore misleading. What actually took place was a concerted effort to undermine the founder, author and circulate accusations, and push for control. Had those efforts succeeded, the company would not exist today. The reality now is clear: The business does not rely on external funding to survive It is operationally stable and profitable Significant and unjustified expenditure has been removed Governance has been rebuilt with a new, highly professional and genuinely experienced leadership team Those who were not aligned with building a sustainable business have exited It is telling that, despite the criticism, the product itself is repeatedly acknowledged as strong. That strength exists because the founder designed it and because that vision has been protected. It is especially challenging when a founder has both designed the product and been the customer in need of it. This is not the typical, abstracted CEO role. That lived experience creates a strong sense of responsibility to protect the integrity of the product and the reality it was built to serve. One of the biggest positives of working here is that your work genuinely affects real people at the point of use — you can see the direct impact of what you build, improve, and support on those who rely on the product every day. Leadership during periods of change is rarely comfortable. Many companies face similar internal fractures when competing visions collide. But characterising this period as dysfunction, while ignoring context and the realities of building a business under pressure, is neither fair nor accurate. People rarely understand what it truly takes to found, protect, and stabilise a business unless they have done it themselves. Many of the decisions criticised today are precisely the decisions that ensured this company survived. The outcome speaks for itself. We are in a strong position, and I will continue to support the CEO and the wider business.