I’ve definitely seen most of this going on in management teams. Especially the forming of committees as a way of bike shedding. ‘We are clueless about the problem but we do know how to make a list of other clueless people.’
Forming committees is mostly useful for avoiding responsibility. If I make a bad technical decision then I get flak. If I organize a committee to justify that decision then I might even get points for "leadership". Also, if the decision is bad then I'm not personally responsible.
To paraphrase: "Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by covering one's ass".
Although there could be legitimate hope, that one of the other people is not clueless and will bring up important points. Not necessarily only "covering ones ass", but probably also a responsible thing to do, when making an important decision. At least, if the list of people actually includes technical people who have experience with the matter.
Just yesterday, someone quoted Paul Hamming on the fact that scientists who have "open doors policy" are more successful long-term.
I have never formally formed a committee, but I often organized small one-off or semiregular circles to get differing opinions on some matter and/or to understand how to align interests. And I believe it paid off for me, usually in form of a better design or a useful shortcut around an otherwise long and dark path.
Committees can be a good fit for issues where the exact shape of the solution does not really matter as long as it aligns with constrains set up ahead of time. It frees up leadership from bikeshedding to focus on more critical issues and can smooth over company politics by ensuring that all relevant parties' opinion is taken into account.
To paraphrase: "Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by covering one's ass".