> The two worse pieces of advice in the article are breaking the rules and making your own decisions on what to work on.

If you read some of his other pieces that are linked. There is other dubious advice and analysis on that blog.

> Even with a mandate that broad, I knew what rules couldn’t be broken or when I needed to ask for guidance from legal, finance, the CTO, etc.

Yes I agree. There are rules that cannot be broken in the organisation. It is highly dependant on industry and the size of the business.

I think there are times when you need to break the rules to get stuff done e.g. Self approving a PRs to get something working when someone else isn't around / available on a non-prod environment. I categorise that as a "bit naughty". I am assuming that is what they mean, but the haven't made that clear if that is the case.

> I didn’t get to “make my own decision about what to work on”. I had broad categories of objectives and I could choose how to prioritize and took some latitude about what to “delegate to the floor”. But anyone who needs to read his advice doesn’t have the experience or professional maturity to know that. I didn’t early in my career and I have the PIPs to prove it.

I have got hosed by acting like a maverick. You learn quickly you can't behave like that.

> If you have an idea that you think is good, first you sell it internally and get buy in - either via a proof of concept or at least a decent write up or conversation - then you implement it.

I work in a small org. I will at least talk to my superior if I am going to implement something that hasn't been agreed or take a significant detour.