I think my analysis needs some more depth then. I'd say most people are adverse to change. Probably key people at c-level and some people across the hierarchy

I think my analysis needs some more depth then. I'd say most people are adverse to change. Probably key people at c-level and some people across the hierarchy are not. I'm talking about when there's been a plan established, and when that plan needs to change. Since managers are the implementers, in my sense of the term, not the planners -- they are highly change-adverse. Whereas plans are implemented "on" the people who are best placed to say change is needed, and managers are typically unable to incorporate this feedback. Perhaps because they cannot persuade the planner c-suite above that change is required. My underlying point was more about how organisations need to be analysed in terms of these incentive structures, say, in more Machiavellian terms -- and what happens with "Manifesto types" is they have no analysis of this, and instead come up with various dogmas that just become corrupted to align with organisational practice.