I presume there is said opportunity, after all that's what company-hired "headhunters" are for.
But you also need to find people who are useful, undervalued (in the sense of the article, not in the sense of pay), and who are also willing to take the risk of jumping into a new environment even if that's uncomfortable at first. That means they need somehow to check that they'll be really valued at the new place, not just given a fancy title but no real decision-making involvement.
My guess is there's a positive correlation between useful-but-not-valued people and ones who are risk-averse and/or not the best social climbers, because the people who are both technically and socially brilliant or risk-taking are either valued already, or have already left your organisation.
Depends how safety-critical the system is? If you're one of the few that can maintain an old aircraft, medical equipment, COBOL software for a nuclear power plant etc.- then you don't want risk-takers, you want steady hands that keep your system running.
But you also need to find people who are useful, undervalued (in the sense of the article, not in the sense of pay), and who are also willing to take the risk of jumping into a new environment even if that's uncomfortable at first. That means they need somehow to check that they'll be really valued at the new place, not just given a fancy title but no real decision-making involvement.
My guess is there's a positive correlation between useful-but-not-valued people and ones who are risk-averse and/or not the best social climbers, because the people who are both technically and socially brilliant or risk-taking are either valued already, or have already left your organisation.