It's ironic isn't it?
It's actually a psychological phenomenon called "functional stupidity" and unfortunately it's widespread in the corporate mindset. And the bigger the corporation, the stronger the influence of functional stupidity.
Corporate infrastructure is by necessity quite rigid. But such stability comes with a downside : any candidate who's seen as maverick, or quirky, or even just a little rough around the edges can be seen as 'undesirable' because they don't quite fit in the given job slot. Plus, the act of employing such a person could actually negatively impact the position of whoever hired them.
But there's worse - the sting comes when someone actually gets a job, and they realise what they're now expected to do does not remotely make full use of the skillset that got them the job in the first place. So what can they do? Do they go rogue and push for their full skills to be used?
Nope - the infrastructure already has them in its grasp, so they willfully dumb down their capabilities to fit the job they've been put in.
And that's functional stupidity.
And it's why we've seen such a rise recently in maverick, breakaway indie companies who realise that sometimes when you have a square peg, you don't carve it to fit the round hole, it's better to make a square hole for that peg instead.