I don't think the failure of Enron is typical of that of other organizations. Enron's very life was founded on cheating, and I assume that at least the senior staff mentioned in the article were aware of this.<p>It seems plausible to me that much of the communications leading up to the actual failure were of a cover-your-butt sort, and not so much the attempts at constructive change that we might hope an organization involved in a more ethical enterprise would experience. Indeed, I'd think that in the unethical cases, where there really is something to hide, communication with the wider corporate community would decrease as desperate scheming between those in on the plot would increase.<p>So I don't think that it's fair to assume that the behavior observed in the Enron case can generalize to other organizations.
1) Sample size of one (or did I misread?) -- Enron. I don't have any guesses on what a wider analysis would reveal, but you can draw all kinds of conclusions from data when you have the data and the backstory and no other data to verify against.<p>2) I wonder if this data is actionable in any useful way (other than leaving immediately before TSHTF). I think the "Hey Guys, we shouldn't be doing this!" emails probably stay down in the noise, and the corner probably turns with the "OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT!" email. Since no company is going to give access to their anonymised on an ongoing basis, I believe the only people that would have access to this would effectively be blocked by insider trading rules, making acting on this data legally <i>dangerous</i>.