I see 2 problematic issues at play. 1. Most large bureaucratic organizations come to depend too much on command and control style standardized practice. Would it not be that most large intrenched orgs are the opposite of a wirearchical org. It leads them to sense - respond with little or no room for analysis or probing. In difference to critical thinking, they would not know what to do with disconfirming evidence. 2. Infrastructure plays a role where there is disruptive change. IBM is a master at developing new infrastructure. From one that supports a main frame company to one that supports a micro computer company, to a mini computer Co., and eventually to a software and service organization. (This idea came from a Harvard Bus. podcast I'd have to look it up Let me know if you need it). It is very difficult to make such drastic change. I believe the podcast suggested that IBM was successful because it did not change so much as set out to create a new organization at each stage of it's business.