A lot (edit: all) of these are dumb correlation = causation crap. The most egregious one is the "don't win awards" point, on which all the following ones are predicated. The suggestion that you can have better performance by not winning the award in the first place is indescribably poorly thought out. It's the same as the Sports Illustrated curse. Think it through: if you win an award, you presumably are at the top of your field, at the high point of your career and your powers. There are those demigods who go from strength to strength, and being the best is the norm for them, but the vast majority of people only reach those heights for a few months or years before their performance normalizes. The awards don't cause your performance to suffer, they simply mark your high-water mark, the moment when the stars aligned and you had a great team, strong vision, and everything went right for you. This doesn't happen all that often so of course everyone's going to drop off after winning an award.
Meanwhile of course you're going to write a book after winning an award, and be invited to sit on panels. And the article doesn't even give evidence that this is a bad thing: it just said that it is linked to winning awards. My God! What an astonishing result! Notably successful people are desirable and feel qualified to speak on their success! Somebody call the New York Times, I think we've got a front page for them!