> This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. Thousands of WF employees engaged in fraud that harmed Wells Fargo in order to make themselves appear more productive than they actually were and take money from WF. WF explicitly instructed employees not to do this.
I agree that Wells Fargo ULTIMATELY didn't benefit much from this mess. Your linked article explains this situation thusly:
> fraud is sometimes an emergent property of complex institutions, and that there can be widespread misbehavior at a bank without senior management approving it, or knowing about it, or wanting it.
Fair enough, good metrics are difficult to find and the managers of huge organizations are basically playing a billion dollar version of the blind men and the elephant.
However, I think this explanation ignores two critical things:
1) Wells Fargo DID benefit from the wide-scale fraud in the short run, because juicing the metrics boosted the stock price and generally made senior management look good.
2) Many employees claim that they reported the fraud to internal ethics watchdogs, who should have nothing to gain by perpetuating the scam, only to be ignored or retaliated against for doing so.
I think these facts totally discredit the "lazy employees cheating their employer" narrative and set up an "assholes or idiots" situation for senior management.