Yeah...
I was once farmed out to a man who ran a project which was the product of two different large organizations with a history of non-cooperation. The system would only work if everything was swiss-watch locked-down. Naturally it never happened.
I swept in, assessed the technical and political issues and announced that I thought I could stop the suite breaking for a day every time there was a database upgrade. This was greeted with "Meh" and I was gradually sidelined and messed around by the very manager I was trying so hard to help until I quit.
It was only after I transferred out of this operation that I reflected that said manager had a reputation as a firefighter without peer. Things would go publicly and catastrophically wahoonie-shaped and he would sweep in, loudly coordinating several departments and over the course of a few hours he would wrest a victory from the ashes of disaster. He'd built a very successful career out of this behaviour.
My offer to fix what was systemically wrong was not the gift from the gods I had in mind, but a threat to his very livelihood. No wonder he would cut me dead in the corridors some days.
I'm not fond of the things this article's author writes, nor of his style, but in this article he has hit the nail on the head and those arguing otherwise ought to think again.
However, it isn't enough to be loud. That just makes you annoying (and in all likelihood a Unix SA). You have to be loud and visibly productive, like the article actually says.