For most unitary organizations, some of the options that git gives you make no sense at all. That doesn't mean git should change, it means that it's not a great tool for unitary organizations.
Note that some of the choices (e.g. stash vs commit) are choices that each dev has to make individually, and some are pure incidental complexity.
`ls` wouldn't be better if I had to pass a flag to see the output as today, and another flag to print one character per line, and another flag to print each character in a different color etc. (even though that would give me 'more freedom').
Part of the problem is that Git, to make it manageable, requires all of these types of concerns and decisions to be addressed, and secondly, it has somehow become the only standard that people have even heard of. There isn't even a decision about which system to use anymore.
Having used both, I still prefer Perforce over Git. And if it were up to me, I would take a step back and investigate other offerings like Plastic SCM. But trying to make these decisions is nearly impossible now that Git is treated as a given.
From my perspective, these are policy decisions that need to be made by some "management-ish" level. Git provides the mechanism to do all of them. It's up to you/your organization to decide how to work.
In the open source project that I run (20 years, 75+ developers over time, 400-500k LOC) we all have a clear understanding of (e.g.) whether to merge or rebase. On the odd occasions that there's a lack of clarity, it's normally a great sign that it doesn't matter.
The fact the you would be asking those questions suggests to me that the necessary policy-level decisions have not been made (or have not been made clear).