I'd add that the benefit/risk is being evaluated by an individual or a group of individuals, as opposed to the company at large, so what might be insanely terri

I'd add that the benefit/risk is being evaluated by an individual or a group of individuals, as opposed to the company at large, so what might be insanely terrible for the greater good of the company can also provide a ton of benefit for a specific individual or a group. In that case, the individual or the group would act contrary to the benefit of the company. It's the classic agency costs argument. I'm actually rather sad that we tend to jump on the company, forgetting that it's individuals that make these things happen.