I'm uncertain exactly what you are referring to as the philosophy. I stand by what I said in the final paragraph because not everyone is cut out to be exceptional given enough effort; if they were, then nobody would be exceptional. Outside of the workplace, nobody cares about your title or what exactly it is that you do or how good you are at it. Nobody is impressed. Individuals whom I think are actually amazing and far exceed my abilities are rarely engaged with or adequately appreciated by others in my experience. In the end, you have to make choices in life for yourself, perhaps having your family in mind at the least, because that's what will lead to satisfaction, not having a constant insecurity about a career "going somewhere".

Also, I didn't list all those micro-strategies off as if I practice all of them. Honestly, yes, I do some of those things, and it depends on how a company turns out for me after I take on a new position. Some of them I've learned from what I've heard from colleagues; an older gentleman once told me that leaning back or slouching in your chair while working can make it seem like you're slacking, and I didn't believe him until I tried to see how long periods of either looking relaxed or ultra-focused affected how I would get treated by bosses and what sort of work they'd give me. Other examples were simply learned accidentally because I'm not the greatest employee in the world, yet I'm at least somewhat self reflective.

But I don't think it's wrong for people to do those things so they can manage to do their job, not do more than they bargained for, make their money, go home, and never end up with a management role they hate. It's moral because, firstly, no one is being swindled, and secondly the companies themselves game their employees all the time to get the most out of them while paying the least amount they can. If it's the company's desire to advance an employee in the hierarchy, and not that of the employee, there should be room for negotiation or termination in an honest way, but instead the imposition of advancement as a norm as well as frequently having employees answer surveys about their "progress" is a psychological tactic to get more out of employees while spending the least amount of money. A lost employee means months of recruiting, which is costly, and a new hire will usually require more pay than a current employee whom they only need to bump the salary of by a few percent.

It sucks, really, but I don't know of a really practical alternative for those whose satisfaction doesn't need improvement other than to play the game within the system we all inevitably must deal with. If humans were completely honest creatures, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. We'd just tell our employers "no way", and then them employer reasonably has the choice to accept it, negotiate, or terminate. It's not that this isn't already possible, but there's a reason why many recommend against such honesty. Management with ego may feel betrayed that you decided not to make their company your life and to aspire to join their club someday, and a common thing to do when they believe they've gotten all they could out of an employee is to start looking for your replacement until they are ready to fire you, all the while not being upfront about it. Don't get me wrong, some companies are great, but many consider complete honesty not worth the risk.

If that doesn't seem right to you, hey, that's cool. I'd love to hear if someone thinks my perspective is immoral.