Following Darwin’s idea it is a common belief today that it’s not the strongest that survives but the most adaptable.
This belief is especially strong in the corporate world where it is supported by empirical evidence, especially in the lower echelon of organizations. Why the lower? Because it is there where adaptability is an articulated expectation. When it comes to the top guys, there is no expectation of adaptability: if the strategy must be changed the board (almost) always simply replaces the CEO.
The game is of course quite sinister: it is implicitly, in gross cases explicitly expected that employees identify with the company, including its strategy, goals, plans, etc.. This by itself is quite ill-willed and stupid. But to expect people to keep on adjusting to the whims of always clueless management is exponentially worse and degrading.
This explains why we view being adjustable as a negative trait.