[brailsafe]

Seems like not being trusted is the only consequence to being wrong, but otherwise whatever system is in-place is designed to reward people who try and do things they're confident in approaching, but not necessarily sure of or measured to be good at, and that's a very common theme in management in every bureaucratic structure I've seen. It's not particularly relevant what choices they made or whether they're good or bad or have residual effects if they were either the only one who stepped up to try it or they were selected arbitrarily. It's the system that enables balancing effects or risk, not individual components.

No manager I've ever had has been good with people, their job has never been to be good with people, and there are rarely any consequences that have anything to do with that, other than perhaps high turnover and lots of complaints, but that only happens when there are other options for subordinates and a valid place to complain to, which also never exists.