Of course, there are downsides to the "lazy IT" method. The main problem is that the "lazy" approach doesn't play well with non-technical executives. The issue is that a well-designed and implemented infrastructure makes everything look easy. Modifications, additions, and tweaks become simple if the foundation is solid, though they can lead to disaster if the foundation is poor. In the right environment, major projects can be implemented with great speed and competency -- but giving the impression to those outside of the IT department the idea that anyone can do it.
Regardless of the stability and performance of the IT infrastructure, there are many that believe that unless the IT staff is red-faced and sweating, they're not doing their jobs. This can lead to staffing cuts, which then cause major problems when those that were most capable of maintaining a stable infrastructure are let go since "they weren't doing anything". New, cheaper staff are bought in and the stability and resiliency of the network infrastructure soon begins to falter. But those new admins sure seem to be working hard, running in circles trying to keep the roof from collapsing. I've seen this happen far too many times. Quite often, I've been the consultant brought in at a high hourly rate to perform CPR and stop the bloodshed.
To executives that lack a concrete grasp of how IT should work, a solid IT department needs to be presented as the best insurance policy available. After all, those insurance premiums don't do anything unless they're needed, but what happens if you stop paying them?