Something is “wrong” when it isn’t accurate or reflective of “reality” (for practical purposes, reflective of how life works). 1+1=3 is wrong.
In much the same way, the reputation of “transformation”, “personal transformation”, “organizational transformation” is also wrong. In part, the inaccuracy is that it is held in the wrong grammar — it isn’t a thing, a permanent state, an end state, or even necessarily a stable state. And in part, the inaccuracy about “transformation” comes from a hoped for permanent resolution. Ultimately, held in these ways, “transformation” becomes its own mode of being stuck — with a better story, a better “self-identity”, and a better gloss on the situation.
What the term “transformation” hides is its worst enemy. It hides that a “transformation of the kind of self a human being is” is called for many times in life. It hides that no one of them is a permanently fitting answer to life and living. Also hidden is that a “transformation” in the kind of self one considers oneself to be calls for an appropriate investment in ongoing development to mine the territory made available by the “transformation” and to move from unaware, to aware to competent to masterful of its powers. The conversation regarding “transformation” also hides that it has its limits, and that at some point it will call for its own transcendence –– another transformation — that resolves the crystallized limitations of the last one.