As a consultant, I'm in and out of various companies now and then. I have frequently observed their employees' insistence on using certain tools, not so much because it helps their performance of their duties, but more because those tools' appearance on the resume' is helpful to the employee in finding a "better" job.

It's bad enough that when six guys are assigned to a task, two do the job and the remaining four fight over who takes credit, but much of the effort people expend at the expense of their employer seems to be "resume-padding" rather than useful work.

They get their managers to buy tools like Mathcad, which is a great teaching tool but has little real-world application, or "yet another" PCB or schematic editor, which really doesn't do any thing other than take up space among the other tools in the resume'. How many site-licensed versions of SPICE does a company need?

It's no wonder that serious employers hire only people who are completely equipped to do the job that needs doing today, then let them go when they're done. Why should they invest in training or equipping people who are just going to "move on?"

RE