The real question is why business allows them to. I find it entertaining to try to substitute another profession for engineer in the sentence above and see if it still works. Lawyers, teachers, doctors, civil architects...
Tooling breaks down more often when it's more complicated, and you need more complexity when your tooling abstracts over a large amount of complexity, so the more that your tooling is supposed to reduce your cognitive load, the more likely it will break in such a way that it actually increases your cognitive load.
Still works, mostly. Certainly true of architects, partially true of lawyers and doctors, less true of teachers.
The key difference is the amount of f2f time with users/customers/clients. If you add a dumb feature to your site and you have to talk to users about it f2f - not over Twitter or Slack or Medium, but in person - you're going to give yourself a much more realistic idea of what matters to them.
They seem particularly enarmoured with re-arranging the org-charts.
This problem usually indicates a weak team, or lack of leadership within engineering. But granted, selecting a weak CTO (who picks snowflake & diva engineers) should be attributed to the business.
Ahhhhh! You got me!