True. It comes from a zero-sum game view of the company. But there are true inefficiencies that may be solved by A that make B actually more likely. For instance, if A causes lower attrition and therefore training costs, it _may_ cause sufficient higher productivity across the board for every organization as a worker gets skilled and stays in his job for longer. And that increased productivity may manifest as better company performance. It is plausible that we could have A & B.

I didn't even consider the time-axis myself (implicitly assuming zero-sum) so that's a good objection.