Don’t know about solving, but at least can see the signs:

• If there’s a lot of layers of middle management between you and the head of the company
• There are people with oddly narrow scope of responsibilities, a scope that doesn’t make any sense to be a dedicated full time job
• Excessive numbers of “cute” acronyms to apply to everything and everyone

Problem in some teams are the respective audiences for the commit activity v. the ticket activity.

The people who will engage on commit activity tend to have a greater common ground and sensibilities. Likely have to document your work and do code reviews as the code gets into the codebase and other such activity.

However, on the ticket side you are likely to get people involved that are really obnoxious to contend with. Things like:

• Getting caught up in arguments over sizing where the argument takes more of your time than doing the request
• Having to explain to someone who shouldn’t care why the ticket was opened in the first place despite all the real stakeholders knowing immediately that it makes sense.
• Work getting prioritized or descoped due to some political infighting rather than actual business need
• Putting extra work to unwind completed work due to some miscommunication on planning and a project manager wanting to punish a marketing person for failing to properly get their request through the process
• Walking an issue through the process to completion involves having to iterate through 7 states, with about 16 mandatory fields that are editable/not editable depending on which state and sometimes the process is stuck due to not having permission because of some bureaucratic nonsense that runs counter to everyone’s real world understanding.

In a company with armies of project managers the ticket side is the side of dread even if the technical code side is relatively sane.