That's an excellent employee-centric viewpoint. What about the other side? People are typically capable of a range of performances. Employees, being human, d

That's an excellent employee-centric viewpoint. What about the other side? People are typically capable of a range of performances. Employees, being human, don't always perform at the upper range of that performance through the duration of their employ. Also, the only real way for an employer to 100% know this range is to observe the employee working for a while. So employing anyone is a gamble unless you make someone sign a contract and ensure they have the financial backing to pay the contract if they don't deliver. (People with such financial backing typically don't need you as an employer and your relationship will be a business one and not an employer/employee one) Employers are of course free to terminate those that fall under a threshold of performance immediately and replace, but this is potentially inefficient due to costs associated with hiring, onboarding, etc. So is it better for an employee to use soft skills to try to keep performance as high as possible or commit to higher overhead incurred due to turnover? Different industries have different tradeoffs here.