I am not perplexed.
Individuals in high-ranking positions within big businesses often experience a significant disconnect from the day-to-day operations. They rely on reporting systems and the prevailing organisational culture to get insight into the current state of affairs.
The accountability for an organisation engaging in malevolent or malicious conduct rests with all levels of the hierarchy. Frequently, it is the individuals in the middle who are the genuine culprits, while the prominent leaders are the ones who are clearly held responsible. (However, it is noteworthy that the leaders of these organisations get exorbitant compensation, and one would expect that it is their responsibility to address the issues inside their own entities.)
Once a major company computer system is established and in operation, there is a reluctance to criticise it, even if problems arise. Especially in cases when there are champions inside the organisation who actively support and protect it. Individuals in technical and middle management positions refrain from expressing their opinions or ideas. If they really engaged in such behaviour, it might have severe repercussions on their professional trajectory. Subcontractors who may voice concerns or provide criticism are marginalised or compelled to conform due to similar factors.
In a seemingly harmless environment, you find yourself in a problematic situation that is disliked by everyone on the ground, but is officially favoured by management. Individuals adapt to it and just acknowledge the existence of idiosyncrasies. After a decade, it is replaced with a supposedly 'superior' alternative that resolves some problems but introduces other difficulties.
The transition of the PO world into a legal framework did not make it harmless, since individuals encountering technological difficulties with the IT system were subjected to criminalization.
However, disregarding that point, the fundamental systemic breakdown at all levels remained essentially same.
