Besides you cannot qualify these people as Herbie, unless you have data supporting the claim.
Now be pragmatic: have you ever tried truly applying constraints management in those pathological cases? If not, try!
What happens is a classical instance of the sunshine kills the germs.
The extreme transparency that is brought about with this approach will expose such counter productive behaviors. What typically happens is that those folks, once they become the true constraint of the system (with incontestable metrics; which if they contest they will appear stupid; and nobody wants to appear stupid…), will be uncovered.
They will have no place where to hide. Then they either change (because of “enlightened self-interest”); or - more likely - they will leave the company on their own behalf. In either case, the organization will gain.
Now note very, very well: If they are not the constraint, then you don’t have to worry about their “bad” behavior. Simple! If they are not the constraint, their behavior doesn’t change a nano-particle of the result. But if they are truly damaging the system, with the data supporting the fact that they are the constraint, then - sooner or later - the lens of the constraint will put them under focus. And then the heat will be too much to bear.
Besides… AGAIN! “Zero resistance” is not said in relation to constraints management. Please don’t quote it in this context! OK?
The zero resistance statement relates to reducing wait times. See the first chapters of the book for that!
If you got the impression that “Zero resistance” was in relation to constraints management, may I ask you to please point out in the draft book where it comes from… because then there is something that went wrong in the draft; and I would be happy to correct accordingly.