This is a really valuable point and we faced a lot of ground-level resistance because of this. Teams and people were incentivized to care about the wrong things

This is a really valuable point and we faced a lot of ground-level resistance because of this. Teams and people were incentivized to care about the wrong things. Those things made sense in the past, but the structure and incentives of the engineering org did not keep up with the changing business needs. Again: not a knock on historic decisions (which made sense at the time), but a reflect of necessary change. Changing the incentive structure was implicit in the reorg we did and it was one of the most painful parts of the process. That said, the reorg allowed for more effective parallelization by making teams more independent, and thereby avoiding the "I'm sitting here and unable to get anything done" problem. But yes, if people are not in consensus, you'll have sabotage. The Lippit-Knoster model for managing complex change does a great job highlighting this.