A very popular "gimme hat" - no longer given free by advertisers, but the name stuck - in aircraft plants where I've worked says:

"IF IT AIN'T BROKE I HAVEN'T WORKED ON IT YET."

(Note that there are at least two meanings the hat can have.)

A respected psychiatrist once explained to me that:

"In most medical schools all the students have to go through a "psychological analysis" so that they understand when to refer patients to treatment of that kind. The ones who are immensely helped by this analysis decide that psychiatry is a wonderful thing and become psychiatrists."

Although probably not a general trend, a number of "school teachers" I've known were not excellent students, and for many "teaching" was a default choice because there was high demand, it was relatively easy to get into, and they hadn't learned enough earlier to make a career choice. It is probably somewhat true that "late deciders" were often "less than exceptional achievers" during their early education, so they would be most inclined to demand to "change the system" for those years in which they had difficulties. Ignoring that the existing system worked well for the majority, they may attempt to tailor the whole system to what might have worked better for themselves. Often, the best argument they can offer is "it's different so it must be better."

In my experience at Enormous Aircraft, it was common for a percentage of "engineers" to seek "advancement" to management. With notable exceptions, those most anxious to "advance into management" were not proficient as engineers, (mediocre is generous) and the only visible requirement to be a manager at EA was to be "tall and have a nice suit." These were the ones most likely to demand "change the system." They were not more successful as managers than as engineers, although the stress was possibly less since they had "authority" and were allowed to make idiotic changes.

Several decades ago, an "efficiency expert" named Juran compiled an enormous "reference manual" on how to "improve the efficiency of organizations." Buried in the depths of the 1834 pages in the manual was the brief advice that one should:

"Ignore the ones who have to do what you recommend. The only one you have to "sell" the plan to is the one who signs your paycheck."

(He also advised having Vice Presidents at least, for direct contact at agencies for whom one "consulted," since lower levels might actually talk to "the ones who have to do it.")

I'm not sure that these examples can be merged into a "theory of change mismanagement," but somehow they each, individually, seem somehow related to lots of things I see happening - in education and elsewhere.

John