Another way to say that is: • The first group sees something in the world as wrong / broken / requiring change, or just "could be better"; they see themselves

Another way to say that is: • The first group sees something in the world as wrong / broken / requiring change, or just "could be better"; they see themselves as a force for that change; and they see any organization they're a part of, as infrastructure to enable/multiply their force. To these people, the organization is only relevant/valuable as long as it is providing leverage for individuals like them "on the front lines" to accomplish change. To these people, "everything staying the way it is" is an awful concept — if they were willing to accept things as they were, they wouldn't have bothered to become $profession! They will consider their life wasted if things don't end up changing for the better! • The second group sees nothing wrong with the world, because (in part) they see those frontline people working toward positive change, to be an inherent part of the equilibrium-state of the world. They do think the problem is a problem worth solving! (That's probably why they gravitated to this industry.) But they think that "things are going great" in addressing the problem, insofar as there are these other people who are willing to "fight the good fight." They don't think it matters much whether any particular individual is involved in that fight, as long as in aggregate "people who are motivated to solve the problem" are minted faster than they burn out. People in this group don't feel motivated to be directly involved in solving the problem; and they also aren't much concerned with "losing" people who are directly involved — since they believe that there will always be new "new blood" coming in with a fresh reserve of morale. The first group ("vocationals") will focus on the work to the exclusion of maintaining the organization. In a crisis, they will let the organization fall apart so that the work can continue happening. The second group ("professionals") knows this, and thinks this is silly — to them, the work will always get done soon enough (because, if vocational A can't do it, vocationals B/C/D will feel compelled to pick up their slack, at their own expense.) But the organization itself might become paralyzed or fall apart — which these people believe would prevent the work from happening for a much longer time. So they dedicate themselves to keeping the organization functioning — which often involves cutting costs (i.e. making the first group's lives harder), imposing regulations (i.e. punishing the first group for the times they go above-and-beyond to get the work done at the organization's expense), etc. These groups are rarely aligned, because their world-views are rarely aligned. It can happen, though. If it becomes clear that the number of people in the first group is declining over time, such that the organization cannot simply rely on "new blood" — then the second group's behavior toward the first group changes dramatically.