The biggest cause of this in my experience is too much codified process, not too little. This is cause #1 in this article, which is vindicating.
Adding process is a delicate balance and most large companies err on too much of it.
Every checklist you add, every new approval, every sheet that needs some rows filled out, every brief - all of them add friction.
New projects are inherently speculative, and most things don't move the company's bottom line. The power law that says 10% of work get 90% of results is true. Friction means whoever is doing the work is just a little less likely to propose a bold test, to push on a tweak they notice, because they know it will become an ordeal.
Obviously you can't be 100% wild west and some process is needed. But you have to be very very careful when adding it.
There is another, opposite force that manifests in humans arising from almost the same inputs, they will often happily tolerate 99% friction, as long as they actually get at least those few 1% of wins.
Even with a ton of nice safe ossified process to make the owners feel safe, if you just make it a policy to give them a win once in a while, they'll live off of that and not even be all that unhappy.
The 99% friction is felt less like a waste and more like a high bar.
I think in a lot of places, they just don't allow even that calculated IV drip of dignity and purpose.
Adding process is a delicate balance and most large companies err on too much of it.
Every checklist you add, every new approval, every sheet that needs some rows filled out, every brief - all of them add friction.
New projects are inherently speculative, and most things don't move the company's bottom line. The power law that says 10% of work get 90% of results is true. Friction means whoever is doing the work is just a little less likely to propose a bold test, to push on a tweak they notice, because they know it will become an ordeal.
Obviously you can't be 100% wild west and some process is needed. But you have to be very very careful when adding it.