Seems to me the key issue is few people in corporate leadership roles actually want responsibility or care about the mission. It's the classic Peter Thiel line

Seems to me the key issue is few people in corporate leadership roles actually want responsibility or care about the mission. It's the classic Peter Thiel line that "competition is for losers". Far easier to change something arbitrarily without considering the consequences, because it makes you look "dynamic". If anyone criticizes your plan, talk about "necessary trade-offs" and just shrug off the criticism. I see it at my own large corporation which is going through a top-down reorg right now under the new executive administration. For those of us actually creating and delivering products, the conversation is: "So this plan is somewhere between meaningless and stupid and will solve a whole lot of nothing, how can we use it to get more funding?" No one outside of fresh college grads expects leadership from the executives, they're largely clueless assholes engaged in corporate peacocking and backstabbing for their own shallow reasons, but the clusterfuck of high-level backstabbing spits out money; so like kids playing in the sprinkler, we position ourselves to catch the water as best we can. I wish it operated differently, and at smaller companies where the executives are closer to the ground or have an actual vision it appears that it can. But the norm is mediocre and shallow leadership, like those aristocratic 19th century British officers who could literally buy their commissions, and did things like haul grand pianos into war zones.