I know that I've seen situations where departments critical to this access control policy system were chronically understaffed, because they are cost centers. They don't generate value. In the same way I've heard security and access control dissuaded from software development, because "we just need to get this out".
What all of these situations end up with is "performative" access control. You have to act as though you need the data, but beyond that it's a free for all. This lets the company pretend like it's fulfilling it's obligations, while saving money.
Where does the magical privilege end? Who is responsible when the all-seeing CEO is compromised personally and data or cash is exfiltrated?
A common fraud committed against public institutions like school districts or small businesses is compromise of a business manager’s account, which allows an attacker to empty the checking account.
In a public company, that sort of fraud for finance is mostly controlled by regulatory compliance. But as we know, information or data has value. Value as a commodity, value as a competitive advantage, etc.
A system where access control policy is capricious is a system that is fundamentally broken. I have been in jobs where I had the authority to hire and fire people, and make significant decisions that impact important things and spend lots of money. But guess what? I don’t have access to employee applications with PII. I don’t have access to the accounts for the business. Don’t know about employee healthcare or retirement.
If I tried to use my position to get access to that data, I would expect that issue to be escalated, even if I were the CEO. A data driven company with casual disrespect of basic principles is a problem waiting to happen.