Most of these sound pretty insane tbh (though some completely sane).

> Another is they just changing their ui/ux lead and they have different views.

This one specifically irritates me. Even under the assumption that that new lead is correct and the new interface is cleaner and more usable, it still needs to be weighed against the time it takes to retrain users to the new format. You have to deal with what you were given. You can't just burn Rome to the ground, rebuild it in a day, and expect everything to be fine. For the love of god, at least do testing to show that this the cost doesn't outweigh the benefits.

It's not something that's confined to design/UX though.

Bring in a new CTO/tech lead and they'll tell you the current architecture is outdated or the code is spaghetti and needs a rewrite in [insert architecture/language doing the rounds on HN]. Bring in a new project manager and they'll want to introduce [insert Agile framework du jour]. Someone has been hired for presumably a lot of money, and if they just go "meh, it's fine, we just need to tidy things up a bit here and there" people might question why they were hired for a lot of money.

Of course, but the difference is that there’s a much higher impact for the users if the design keeps changing. Technical infrastructure is pretty much entirely hidden from the users.

Sure, but it's not the users being fired if they "make no impact".

The benefits for the new UI lead are that they don't lose their job due to "having no vision" or something like that. Human psychology is just super bad at recognizing when "no action" has saved the day so to make any progress in a corporate setting you need to have visible achievements.

Giving such downsides to not changing the UI, no cost is too high for a new UI lead.