What is obvious is that OP is really into IQ elitism. Looking at the ‘A More Realistic Framework’ suggestions, it asks people to aim for the bare minimum.
No, it's not suggesting the bare minimum. It's asking the person to openly do what can be proven to provide the best value as long as the missed administrative tasks or fails are down-playable enough to not damage your reputation. This is a very easy framework for me to funnel my thought process through.
Recently, I've been in the position where I'm the only one taking ownership of new work and initiatives, sometimes to my own detriment. For example, I took on a feature that required an entire validation system be put in place. Though I succeeded in successfully completing the system, the feature was not fully complete. The validation system was not visible. Though if leverage, it would lighten everyones load, it largely went unnoticed and what was observed was that I pushed out a buggy feature. Though I resolved the bugs within a sprint, my reputation was damaged to the point where I took on a new feature and promised it would be done in a sprint. I succeeded but wasn't able to complete it due to the api team only finishing 2-3 of 8 apis. This sort of test I made for myself also had low visibility so even though it was an impressive feat by my team's efforts, it also largely went unnoticed.
Though the author is wrong to equate work-throughput with IQ, he's right to find a way to inform trusted management with this work ethic and he's right to make sure when high value tasks are taken on, that it be made clear to product so credit can be given.
I have team members that are doing the bare minimum but cross lots of t's and dot many i's and that gets them equal recognition as me who often misses deadlines but does lots of heavy lifting.
