To begin, let us compare two workers at a steel mill. Worker A has excellent self-esteem, believes that he/she is part of a team, is dependant on others, understands cultural diversity, is concerned with information more than profit, and, above all, works for personal growth. Worker B is independent, self-sufficient, and, above all, works quickly and efficiently. Which employee is more valuable? Is it the new-age flower-child-employee embodied in Worker A, or the independent Worker B? Logic dictates that since all of Worker A's abilities do absolutely nothing to help in the process of smelting steel that Worker B is clearly more valuable. However, most engineering and efficiency texts list the vapid skills of Worker A as paramount, and the simplicity of Worker B to be downright counterproductive. How could Worker B act counterproductively? Simple: his reduced capacity to appear useful makes him in the eyes of employers (who themselves were promoted on the basis of having Worker A's traits) to be less useful. Now that the problem is clear, what is its cause?
Continued...