I think your reply is a bit disingenuous though, because whether that leader is deemed to be in the first case or the second case will be a matter of opinion mostly. Otherwise all you are talking about is having good manners and diplomacy, which is not what the article is talking about.

If you propose the changes, you’re rocking the boat. And if they are urgent and can’t be overlooked for the convenience of sticking to the status quo for others, you’ll be internally persecuted for saying so, no matter how diplomatically.

The article’s advice is about reading the room and doing what won’t upset the others, because if we reinforce this as a norm, then existing leaders don’t feel threatened, and we can all celebrate mediocrity and keep our jobs. The more we advocate for this to have a hallowed place in our most critical workplace social norms, the more that the dissent of intellectual integrity can be quelled, so people write like this to popularize that tribal norm.