From experience I can say that contrarian leaders in large & established companies walk the fine line between pushing for change versus self-preservation. There

From experience I can say that contrarian leaders in large & established companies walk the fine line between pushing for change versus self-preservation. There is an enormous amount of pressure/politics/resistance they face from the "old guard". If they are too blunt and direct in suggesting change, their established rivals paint them out as someone who "does not understand or value the organization's history", or "does not get the culture" etc. The CEO often prefers to sit on the fence, without putting his/her entire weight behind the contrarian. Because s/he does not (or cannot) risk antagonizing the majority of the old guard. In the absence of a CEO's or board's full support, the contrarians start getting stymied in their plans as time goes on. Their words become less sharper, their plans less disruptive and their canvas much less "blue sky". Till comes a time when they prefer to just leave rather than tilt at windmills.