If you are going to do something risky and you are smart, you will usually, from the start, hedge your bets and plan for failure. It's just good practice. And it's not done by giving instructions to the person, but by selecting the right person with the right values, skill set and intentions for the job, so there is no paper trail and plausible deniability.

In this case just as with Jerome Kerviel, the fall guy story has to be believable when you dig, so that he can take the heat and the people responsible for setting up the system within which he operated, the people who took the decision to promote him and give him the resources to create the problem, walk away scots-free.

For example, newspapers receive thousands of pieces from hundreds of writers, the way the editorial line is kept is not with the editor telling the writers "we want you to stick to these positions and PR this line", but by the editor picking the writers who happen to really believe in the positions they want to promote on that day. Then he can say "conspiracy theories! of course we don't tell our writers what to write! this is totally independent journalism!". The editor is absolutely responsible for the editorial line and positions of the paper and by judicious selection can absolutely act in the interests of his backers/shareholders/directors, without asking his journalists to corrupt their standards.