> Devs often want the inherent safety of the boring, easy stuff for a while.

Part of the problem is that in big orgs, you need to show consistent progress in order to not get put on some PIP and kicked out of the company. There are performance review cycles and you have to show something continuously.

That ONLY works if you have boring, easy work. It's easy to deliver consistent progress on that.

Interesting and difficult work is nice only if you are trusted to try your best and given the freedom to fail. That's the nature of hard problems; progress in those domains is very sudden and Poissonian and not consistent by nature. If you're going to be judged on your ability to be sub-Poissonian and consistent, and get put on a PIP for not succeeding at it one review cycle (and possibly risking income that you use to put a roof over your head or feed your family) it's not worth the career risk to try difficult things.

Not saying this is the way I think, it's just the reality of how things often work in big orgs, and one of the reasons I dislike many big orgs.