This section in that piece about undervaluing training ("trainingball") is priceless.

I worked somewhere where someone constantly brought up Moneyball as a way of getting an edge in hiring. They later became head of the unit, and it became clear they had absolutely zero ability to manage other people, because they thought of them as consumable goods. They would level scathing reviews of people working under them that they were "poorly mentored" as if this was an attribute of the employee in question, not at all recognizing the irony in what they were saying.

Moneyball was an interesting observation, but it's also telling because it is implicitly based on a number of assumptions that plague modern workplaces, such as treating people as fixed, unchangeable objects rather than as persons that can learn and adapt.

The comment by that author about "trainingball" is noteworthy because it points to the importance of training but also potential as a selection factor. And not just "potential" in the sense of "new and undeveloped" but in the broader sense of "this person has the attributes and background to be what we need if we just work with them." I think that attitude was much more common in the past maybe, but I wasn't alive then.

There's also a different and many understudied problem, which is institutions failing to acknowledge and/or recognize when there have been significant changes in the institution, and when the employees aren't communicated with about these things. Sometimes training isn't so much training as it is just communicating with people.