One thing that's so confounding about this is that so many hierarchical organizations (companies, non-profits, universities, etc) encourage "initiative", but then when you take that initiative, you may/often catch shit for it, even if you're doing the right thing from an objective point of view. Of course, there are complex politics at play and the reaction you get depends on largely on "who you know" and if you effectively kiss ass.

There was a semi-famous author in my city who did that on a personal level: he would ask his friends to keep part of his paycheck until a certain day, and not give it to him even if he asked, since he knew he'd misspend it all (often by just being generous to friends and people in need).

More than once, not only did he ask for the money before the date, as upon being denied, he went around in coffeeshops and bars defaming them, telling people they'd stolen from him, etc.

If even individuals can be this inconsistent, we shouldn't be surprised that companies - composed of multiple private interests, as many as their employees and board members - exhibit similar behaviors.

It is like a gambling addict who enrolls themself voluntarily on a gambling ban list and then does everything possible to get back into the casino.

I once enabled noprocrast here, that was hell

This was also hard to understand for me. But think about all the benefits people in higher positions have if people in lower positions take initiative. The higher ups can reap most of the rewards of successes while blaming all failures on the initiating people. Of course they like it if you offer such gifts for them.