>or find subversive, incremental ways to undermine it.
I'm asking for concrete examples of what "subversive, incremental ways to undermine it" would be.
You basically just reworded the vague suggestion of "fight back". What are some specific examples of what the NSF director could have done that are subversive, incremental ways to undermine the orders which ultimately came from the president?
In labor circles, the "subversive, incremental ways" are known as "work to rule".
You simply do as you're told. Orders are never completely without ambiguity, and the person giving the order has less direct experience with the subject than the person receiving the order. There's wiggle room.
Concrete example: The order is "Do X". The person charged with executing it actually understands that the consequences will be that Y and Z (which the person giving the order cares about) will actually be on fire if you do X.
In a functioning relationship, you speak up and say "Happy to do X, but here's what'll happen, maybe we should consider a different way to achieve your goals". If you're going the subversive route, you say "Sure thing. I'll get right on X. I'll overdeliver on it". Then you do X, and nudge it towards maximally bad impact on Y/Z.
Followed by "Oh, who could've foreseen! Y and Z are in ruins! What would you like me to do, boss?"
Mire things down in bureaucracy. Try and make everything take substantially longer than it should. Throw up hurdles in the face of progress. "Forget" to do important steps in the process so that you have to re-do work. Implement things on the face of it that are correct, but that don't achieve the same result, etc.
I'm asking for concrete examples of what "subversive, incremental ways to undermine it" would be.
You basically just reworded the vague suggestion of "fight back". What are some specific examples of what the NSF director could have done that are subversive, incremental ways to undermine the orders which ultimately came from the president?