Internally, G+ is marketed as a unified login/account system. Management's stated reasoning goes something like:

  * It's silly to force users to have separate accounts for
    Google services because most users would prefer to have
    Gmail, Docs/Drive, YouTube, Calendar, and so on under the
    same account/identity.

  * Users who want to have separate public identities will
    create pseudonymous "Pages" for each of their identities.
    These pages will still be owned by the same account, so
    the user only has to log in once.

  * Users who are strongly opposed to a unified Google account
    are a sufficiently small population that it is acceptable
    to inconvenience them if doing so improves the experience
    of every other user.

By itself, these arguments are reasonable and could probably have been implemented without too much trouble (though "Pages" continues to be a confusing and unclear term). The problem is that the new account system was introduced at the exact same time as a social network, with the /same name/, and that the social network decided to inject a hard requirement of Facebook-style name validation rules into the new profile system.

Now the term "Google+" has become so strongly connected with the Google+ social network (and its infamous names policy) that any attempt to expand the Google+ account system is met with fear and outrage. I don't think upper management expected this or understands why the community reacted thus, just as they didn't expect or understand why requiring a Firstname Lastname format on the Internet was problematic.

I don't believe Google+ management is malicious, but they do seem woefully unaware of how internet-native communities behave.