I want to put this article into context, which is why I'm illustrating it with my own image, rather than an image from the article. It is common to say that "technology should not drive change". But why? In a nutshell, it's because drivers in general do not push you (or your organization, or your society) in any particular direction. What you want to focus on are the attractors of change - what you want, what you need, what you value. That's why this and other articles like it argue that "business transformation” should be "people-led transformation aided by technology". But let's be clear (especially in business publications) about what these attractors are. In each of the four items listed (purpose, transparency, agility, diversity and inclusion) the argument is that they increase employee value, earnings and stock prices. Those (and not purpose, transparency, etc) are the attractors in this article. But are those people-led? No, it's the same old toxic mix. The logic should be that we value earnings and profits because they support purpose, transparency, etc., not the other way around.