It is like the Murphy's law of deletable code "Anything that can be made hard to delete will be made hard to delete".
Which, disclaimer, I generally like what Uncle Bob has to say. But there's this thing, and I don't quite understand how it happens, where it seems to be really easy to implement the cosmetic parts of the programming style he advocates while simultaneously achieving the diametric opposite of the fundamental goals that these techniques are supposed to achieve.
I'd rather have a slow test that doesn't unnecessarily concern itself with implementation details, than a test that is fast, but achieves its speed by getting its dirty little fingers all over the implementation details, and throws a tantrum and refuses to let go of them every time you attempt some spring cleaning.
All of OOP is like this. The most enthusiastic OOP adherents create the biggest OOP messes. Maybe every style of programming suffers from this problem eventually? The style has a go-to form of abstraction and a characteristic kind of mess that results from overapplying that form of abstraction. Once people get comfortable dealing with that kind of mess, they realize, if I program zealously and dogmatically in this style, this is the only kind of mess I will ever have to deal with, and the comfort of always dealing with a familiar kind of mess they know they can slog through outweighs every other consideration.
The observation was that good object-oriented design is inherently unstable. With even slight perturbations, they can quickly spiral away into a mess. And those perturbations tend to happen almost constantly in real life, because writing SOLID code requires vastly more skill, knowledge and effort than not writing SOLID code. So keeping the code clean requires a constant, almost aggressive effort by some (probably self-) designated caretaker who understands and can defend the design. The social factors there are terrible, though, because now you've got a person on the team whose very job is more-or-less to nitpick and have arguments with the rest of the team. Frankly, it might be better to let the code be messy than it is to risk creating that kind of work environment.
If we cannot come up with an alternative or cannot convince ourselves that it is indeed better, then the original implementation goes in. Otherwise we move forward with the new plan. I'd say that that (when I challenge an implementation) around 4 out of 5 times we end up with a new implementation.
The team is very happy with this approach, or so I've been told. It wastes some time in the short term (hey the thing worked, why are you overhauling it?) but our manager's perception of good team motivation and resulting quality is what buys me the leeway to keep doing it.
The “goal” of employees in a corporate environment can be to be promoted and get paid more, on the other hand, leading to the Peter principle.