There is a similar fallacy that I've seen many engineers & teams fall into. The occupy "critical" roles which without, the whole chain would break and everything would fall apart

However often times the project only needs that one critical role and can replace it fairly easily. (the on-ramp off-ramp costs are lower than the cost of redundancy or other political costs)

Ironically, "non-critical" roles can be more important from a business narrative or core competency pov.

E.g. "the AI expert/team" leaving breaks the narrative of being an AI company even if all they do is non-critical path exploratory research. The inability to get new hires breaks the narrative of a growth-company etc...

There is more leverage in being able to direct narrative energy than in being nominally critical