It's a rhetorical question.The writer doesn't seem to ramble, but my workbook's question seems to. What does the underlined mean? Is it a rhetoric question to mean that they rarely hire such people as have emotional strengths but do hire people with working competence to complement the exisiting shortcomings? The theme seems to go back and forth in every line, confusing me.
ex)Rarely are people recruited to an executive team because their strengths are the best complement to those of the existing team members. When is the last time you heard a leader talking about how your team needed to add a person who not only had the technical competence but who could also help build stronger relationships within the group? The vast majority of the time, we cruit by job function - and all but ignore individuals' strengths. What's worse, when leaders do recuirt for strength, they all too often pick people who act, think, or behave like themselves, although unintentionally in most cases. It's an age-old dilemma. How is a company supposed to grow, adapt, and change if a domineering CEO continues to pick people who agree with him and who have similar background and personality?
Student or Learner