Your criticism is fair. I didn't spend much time articulating that post and I'm sure there are words that much better convey the essence of what I wanted to say.
7 is about being able to shift blame, being able to pass along a live bomb before it explodes, and being able to get people who hurt your productivity out of your hair. I realise now that "defame" is really not a good word to describe that and it's not often you get into these situations, but when you do, you need to know how to control the damage to your own person. It's extremely important. I'm not advocating bullying but I'm even more against the thought of martyring myself to protect others. Most of the time there really is no middle line, when something goes wrong, someone will have to wear the dunce cap and you have to make sure it's not you. Maybe this is industry-dependent.
Not sure what you mean is wrong with 4 though. I mentioned it because many people are control freaks and don't know how to tap into their subordinates.
If a candidate reveals any kind of antisocial traits at the interview or during any sort of probation period then they are incompetent idiots and should be rejected rightfully. There's a reason I put kissing up as number one.
My experience is based on not staying with one employer for longer than two or three years so the strategy might be different if you want to invest yourself in one employer long-term.
In other words, we should agree a self-interested action over crowd thinking to increase the productivity in a particular
labor system, right?.
Is true what you said that often you would never see a middle line, But theres many way to reduce damege in a workship population.
For example theres a mathematical concept in theory of games called Nash equilibrium.
This is called the prisoner dilemma or coordination game (I am sure that you see it before).
In summary both convicts (Player B/A) been suspect of a crime, your superior here is the judge.
If you defect your partner in crime and he defect you too (Taking A strategy), both are sentenced by 5 years of jail (What I want to say is that your strategy is good as long as nobody have a similar one).
Otherwise if you defect or kept silence without convince your partner to cooperate (Taking C-B strategy) you or your partner would be setenced 10 years and one would be free (This is the case you said we should avoid being the one who is being setenced or taking the oportunity defect our partner and be free), doing both is just gambling.
The best solution in John Nash words is to cooperate (Strategy D) and take both the minimal damage (A/B=1years of jail)
This is a overwhelming popular argument used in economy and theory of decision, and maybe unrealistic because is just mathematical scheme in theory of games. Mostly this never gonna happen and you should take (Strategy C) until other person take (Strategy B) and damege you.
P.S: This maybe is a strawman fallacy of your advices and maybe all this is just pure a priori argument, Please Makko
have mercy on me and i'm just a student. I don't wanna die to young by your superior labour experience :(