With all these topics of elections coming up here one comment I read was how many people feel the only reason a certain candidate is on the list is because whomever is in charge would rather have weak people that can be controlled easily per se versus someone who can think on their own. Hence, those people are likely to be more difficult to handle if they constantly question company directions. You would think on paper you should always just go for the “yes” people as one would rather not waste time dealing with strong opinionated people. At the same time, I have often seen that work against business where those who are easily controlled end up not being able to actually help the company innovate, when necessary, versus simply being labor.
That goes into the other category where one who is high qualified but speaks their mind are more likely to be more demanding and is a greater risk to leaving a company if a better opportunity comes by. So like there, it would just make more sense for most to invest in people the can be controlled. By that I don’t mean say one person refusing to follow directions. It’s more like if a procedure was for a company to do everything on paper another guy can then question why they don’t just do everything digital.
Just from my personal experience, I have always saw it as equal risk in terms of companies losing employees where instead of focusing in trying to get say someone unqualified to try and do a great job where the trade off is they will likely stay longer, you could invest the time where instead of needing to train someone to do the job you can work in improving the work environment to encourage them to stay. Which one sounds like the better choice?