[lazarus01]

You completely missed the crux of the story.

I'm speaking specifically to the example given by the author.

He was approached by an engineer that saw a critical flaw in the software that goes beyond simple "backlog prioritization".

The engineer "quietly" escalated his concerns by showing a thoughtful approach to fixing a global problem that goes beyond his assignment, that if left unsolved can cause problems for everyone.

Given the managers experience, he understood the engineers intrinsic motivation to do good (not biased in self promotion) and believed that the idea would speak for itself and gain the confidence of other engineers, which it did.

This approach is antithetical to what you described. The engineer did not advocate for himself or his idea, he identified a bigger problem that was far more important than his assignment. He brought the idea to leadership out of concern, to deal with conflicting priorities above him. He was not caught up in politics or transactional thinking.

The message the author is trying to convey, people with significant talent that have higher order values, are not concerned with labels such as "wanting to be a 10x engineer". They just focus on what they believe are the most important problems that they can solve that benefits everyone, not just themselves.

These people are truly rare and your argument that playing politics is necessary to promote ideas, proves how rare it is to come across these people.