IMO the difference is, it’s usually pretty easy to excise offending code from the Linux ecosystem, but not on windows.
Don’t like Wayland? Stick with X.
Don’t like systemd? Don’t use it.
Dont like cortana or recall? Tough, it’s gonna be on your machine.
Sysadmins at the places you listed use windows because that’s where the software support is and Active Directory exists.
Cortana and recall are just examples. Microsoft (or OEMs) can put anything they want in the OS and make it difficult to remove.
It’s harder to do that kind of stuff for the Linux foundation and the kernel team.
If one was fed up enough with Ubuntu, they could switch to Debian or mint and all their programs would still run and their workflows likely will not change too much.
But for windows you’d have to switch to osx or Linux, neither of which is going to easily support your software (unless it happens to run great under wine, but again that’s a different tool)
Just as an example, I spent a couple hours yesterday fighting USB audio to have linear scaling on my fresh Debian stable install, and I'm not getting that time back ever. Haven't had that sort of issue in more opinionated platforms like Windows/MacOS in living memory.
The knowledge floor for productivity is much higher because most Linux projects aren’t concerned with mass appeal or ease of use (whether or not they should be is another discussion)
Debian, for example, is all about extreme stability. They tend to rely on older packages that they know are very very stable, but which may not contain newer features or hardware support.
The strength is extreme customization and control. Something that’s harder to get with windows and even harder to get with macOS.