> Your argument is reductive because it requires the assumption that people only want one thing No it doesn't. I explicitly mention that there is one thing the

> Your argument is reductive because it requires the assumption that people only want one thing No it doesn't. I explicitly mention that there is one thing they want to do the most and that other things are closer to or further away from that thing. > Are you going to assign the employee that has said to you this is just transactional? What is his incentive to even do the maintenance. I would assign the employee which I trust more, which could well be the transnational one. Someone who claims to enjoy their job might enjoy it because they don't bother with the stuff that bores them, and someone who hates their job might hate it because they put intense effort into ensuring it is done well. I have family members who fall exactly into the latter group. They are highly committed to the idea of earning their pay and thus have a much harder time of it than they would otherwise. Someone who thinks "I must work because I'm getting paid" is far more reliable than someone who thinks "I'll work because I enjoy it". Of course some people will try to get away with doing less work, but I don't see much difference between avoiding work you don't enjoy because you don't enjoy it and avoiding work you don't enjoy because you can still get paid without doing it. The point I'd like to make is this: someone who works for pay has a clear motivation to do work they don't enjoy. Why would someone who works for enjoyment bother with the parts they don't enjoy? You skirt this problem by saying the employee wants to be there and so wants to do all work, but there are some people who enjoy certain parts of their work and not others. "Wanting to be there" is not a motivation for working but the outcome of that motivation, where "pay" and "enjoyment" are reasons to work and it's not so clear that someone who only works when they enjoy it would be more reliable.