I tend to present my ideas at work, and then ask for permission first, because I'd hate to go through all the effort of working on a project that I thought was a good idea, only to get it shot down.
The number of times I've been in a room with people who pitch fits about unplanned willy-nilly as a distraction from actually making a plan ought to be significant. Those people, however, tell me it would be wrong to find any significance in habitual behavior bringing undesired results.
There is a person I know, and it is hard to describe his job because it's not what you might think if you read the sign on the door as you go in. In fact, for all the time I've known him, I've never figured out what his actual job is. The one thing I know is that whenever I have to work with him, we run into a weird conundrum whereby he doesn't like people just up and making arbitrary decisions, but there is no procedural checklist because he finds such things somehow loathsome. It's not the sort of thing people express in simple capsules, like describing their politics as if it was a singles-section tweet. The result, though, is a weird cycle of attending patchwork tasks that don't actually appear to do anything, fashioned entirely in the moment, and this ought to be what it is, except everything seems to be arbitrary in exactly the manner he disdains, yet the idea of actually establishing even a proverbial checklist seems to offend him, and very nearly existentially. Acting without permission doesn't work; seeking permission is, as a mundane experience, extraordinarily problematic. The quiet joke is that it seems the purpose of the department is to get precisely nothing done; the problem with taking the joke seriously is that nobody can figure out why it would work that way.
And that, weirdly, sets us a nice, black-velvet background: The problem with apologizing instead of getting permission is what passes for a good idea.
More practically than my bizarre experience, for instance: Maybe you or I know how to hop the supply line, and we also know a secret about how to reduce budget expenditure compared to the appropriate bureaucratic way of accomplishing something. Actually, it's not much of a secret; everybody knows it's faster and less expensive to just order it online and pick it up at the store down the street instead of follow the standard requisition process that takes days. Indeed, it's a common grumble about the bureaucracy. And if the bosses get mad because we loopholed the standard process, we can always apologize later, sure, but what about our colleague, over there, who has decided to hop the supply line in order to buy lesser alternate components because he reduces expenditure by going through a friend? He can always apologize later, right? After the substitute component overheats and damages the larger unit? And, hey, when the insurance people start asking about that appearance of a kickback, maybe you and I would find it ridiculous that he would point to us, who simply acquired a correct part faster than normal, and without any kickback, but, honestly, experience tells me to generally presuppose against people understanding the difference. Maybe the prosecutor whose opinion counts can figure it out, because part of the job is to not prosecute crimes that did not occur, such as a kickback never even proposed, to speak nothing of given. But it won't necessarily matter to the company, especially if our hopping the supply line, even having acquired the proper component and not any substitute, disrupts a warranty or, worse, insurance policy. The one who understands what seems a fundamental and obvious difference cannot necessarily save us from thirty other people whose opinions matter,
e.g., managers and board, who consider other important differences. Not only did we disrupt company business by skipping out on the way things must be, we also set a precedent another exploited to even more disruptive results. Apologizing will not necessarily save us. Still, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
There are all sorts of things that can go wrong with apologizing later instead of getting permission. In the end, each decision is to the beholder.