Perhaps they've transcended and work only for themselves? I know a guy who spent years writing complex threading code, but well written, for the simplest things. Turns out it was just practice because we were underutilizing him. When we gave him more (better) work he did it without flourishes but brought the skill from his tinkering.
Sometimes good corporate behavior even looks like sabotage. An old dev said something along the lines of "We reinvent everything because our review process rewards it. If you try to use an existing library you go to a review process and people undercut you and try to convince management you should use their pet library, only available on their stack of course, and you never get anything done. Instead just rewrite the bit you need and move on. Do what rewards you, not what you think is 'right'. Let the company decide." And indeed, some companies favor this because they can't get their process under control.
Once I was in a design meeting and my product had a config file (10-50 settings, tops) which got noticed. A senior architect said I should put it in a database ... and that the DB should be Oracle. "Nothing else is as stable or respected."
I argued a bit but when it was clear he was huffing and setting himself up for a win-by-authority I folded, left, and removed the config file so I never had to speak to that guy again. Now you set any changes in environment variables.
It literally would have quadrupled the work and footprint to add Oracle, or any DB. Had it been a compliance-req and not an idiot-req I'd have used SQLite or something, but Oracle was insanity. And by contract with our customers, had we used it, we'd have had to hire a specific Oracle DBA who of course would do no useful work in any other area.
Years later though, a friend asked me what would have paid better and I had to admit that I'd probably have gotten my promotion a project earlier by pointing to the big expensive parts we used.