This is how companies plateau and become stagnant. The issues described do not spur action (e.g. "these two just need to collaborate better"), they fester, and eventually, a non-trivial number of internal teams are "captured." They won't burn the company down, the under-performing individual is not likely to do anything to warrant actually being moved/fired, and so, the status quo remains...and spreads.
And then we wonder why large companies simply cannot innovate or execute on broader change initiatives?
Makes me think of the Peter principle. Pretty depressing conclusion though: a large company is bound to be an environment with many distractions by underperformers. Any way out?
It's just entropy, honestly. Growth = complexity/debt/escalating coordination cost. Success = complacency/greed. Like a cancer, the fruits of growth and success eventually burn the house down.
It's just the way of things, apparently. I try hard to not worry about it too much and instead side-step it as best I can.
And then we wonder why large companies simply cannot innovate or execute on broader change initiatives?