I don’t see that (much), but do see a lot of being beaten down by the process and these same client group demands. I’ll stand up and say the request is founded on no actual information, is proven to be a terrible thing, is jargon-laden and nonsensical, violates brand or principles of design, or all of these at once.

But eventually, we just relent and draw out the stupid design request anyway. I tend to be on the most-annoying side and keep refusing to technically “approve” my own bad designs, on the same grounds. I gave it to you, but I disagree with it.

Where I do see exactly your behavior is with 100% of the vendors brought in by enterprises. Wait, that’s not quite right. 10% of vendor solutions are hard fought by them, but have zero relationship to the needs and capabilities of the enterprise (and other vendors like me, or in-house teams also like me in the past, have to fix them). But 90% of the time, vendors do an absolutely horrible job, follow instructions from the client group to the letter, even when it makes so little logical sense it cannot be built that way. I hear tell of great agencies, and have even been in their offices, but on the ground in enterprises who pay these big names, I see none of that innovative thinking happening.

Either way — in house guys giving up or vendors not even trying — I am sure the driving motivator is the same: Because the option is to not be on the project at all. And eventually, to go find another job/client. I’ve been on that side of the line more than once. Recently in fact. And that is why we spend so much time talking about how we can inform the business of what we do, and try to bake in Design Thinking or whatever the best solution today is.