It's easier to call out bad and outdated advice (Welch's) than to offer good advice, which the OP doesn't.

The problem with Welch's advice is that it's what successful people say, not what they do. You should pay attention to what unsuccessful people say and know (they're the ones who know the organization's true character) but what the successful people do. Take knowledge from the losers, but copy the actions (often unknowingly competent actions) of the winners.

I'm not a VC, haven't completed an exit, nor am I an executive or technical architect at a brand-name company. At age 30 and an IQ over 150, not being in a decision making role is failure. While I'm OK by objective standards, you should count me as unsuccessful, because I should be leading with my talent and I'm not, because I've picked some terrible startups. You should take advice from someone like me in terms of what I say. You shouldn't do what I do, because it obviously hasn't worked. Cognitively, I understand how to play politics; in the field, I'm bad at it.

Likewise, you should ignore what Jack Welch says but watch what he does. You should listen to what I say, but not copy my footwork. That's counterintuitive, for sure, but unknowing competence is superior to learned, analytical insight when you're in the field.

Basic point: what successful people say about the career game is the socially acceptable bullshit (work hard, over-deliver, never lie, be a team player) that has nothing to do with how it actually works. If they were the type who'd talk about how the career game actually works, they wouldn't be successful. They'd be pissing too many people off (like I do) by telling too many ugly truths.

Welch says: Don't panic. Just get in there and start thinking big. If your boss asks you for a report on the outlook for one of your company's products for the next year, you can be sure she already has a solid sense of the answer. So go beyond being the grunt assigned to confirm her hunch. Do the extra legwork and data-crunching to give her something that really expands her thinking -- an analysis, for instance, of how the entire industry might play out over the next three years.

Terrible fucking idea. Executives don't see a young grunt trying to work on the big picture as "initiative". (I learned this at Google when I pointed to a superior G+ Games strategy.) They see it as a challenge to their turf. They hit back hard, and they have all the power. It doesn't end well.

In reality, overperformance is a lot more dangerous than underperformance. Underperformance gives you about a 30% chance of being fired within 12 months, usually in the context of a layoff that affords severance. If you underperform smartly (and focus on building contacts and skills for your next gig) you'll have plenty of time and energy in reserve to tackle any consequences. Overperformance gives you a 5% chance of being tapped as protege of someone important and a 95% chance of being fired (usually with a dishonest but humiliating "performance" case being manufactured; if you're a star, your job duties will be rearranged so you can't perform) inside of 4 months. Not fucking worth it.

In general, this is even more true of VC-funded startups than large companies, so I don't want to hear the "startups are the antidote" retort. The median VC-funded startup is way more dysfunctional and political than, say, a large investment bank.