Everyone knows damn well enough that internal politics can either make this story shine like a diamond, be pushed into a black morass, or everything in between. Internal politics supersedes all best practices in any country, market, or decade
I've found myself, peers, superiors, etc. to be on bell curves with respect to sharpness, being open to new ideas, articulateness, being able to see through buzzwords and BS, etc. Some people are good in some areas and not quite as good in other areas. Pair a "used car salesman" peer (articulate, not so bright, looking to their own advantage) with a "gullible buyer" superior (not so sharp, can't detect that they're being played) and your "better-suited" ideas that rise to the top truly are mediocre, bad, or outright wrong with respect to whatever characteristic "better-suited" applies. Of course there are examples of good ideas being well-received and acted upon, but don't pretend that only the cream rises to the top or that there are only isolated instances of the dregs rising to the top.
I say this as an introvert and as a person who chooses words carefully to reflect my best guess at the truth, which non-engineers commonly mistake for lack of confidence in product/estimate/my ability. Dealing with architects (or even seniors) who can't sell their vision or opinion and/or fail to amicably disagree on technical issues is always a painful experience. It does not have to be that way.
And then of course people disagree about if it's good or bad or normal?
> Engineers who do not master these skills are putting a cap to their career growths,
Maybe can make sense for an organization to give everyone some practice in communication and presenting ideas -- to give the good ideas better chances (also if the idea person initially wasn't a good communicator)
New university graduates don't, at least I didn't :-)
And they can stay clueless for many years, if they're a bit shielded from office politics by a caring manager