3 ms·
"Being a slacker is not an innate human quality" I really can't swallow this. Laziness is /the/ primary motivator for invention. People want to do the least po
by jheriko 14y ago
"Being a slacker is not an innate human quality"
I really can't swallow this. Laziness is /the/ primary motivator for invention. People want to do the least possible to attain their goals - this isn't a negative quality - but in the context of earning a paycheque it hurts the employer.
I've noticed the larger the company i've worked at, the more people treading water and hiding inbetween people who actually do work.
On the other hand I do broadly agree that window dressing is not enough. We end up judging employers by actions more than words by nature...
- kolektiv 14y agoLaziness does not have to equate to being a slacker. Lazily (or inventively) pursuing your employers goals is not a problem - generally if you find a way to satisfy them with less work, everyone's happy. Slacking would be following your own goals (loafing around, hiding) when they conflict with your employer. As the article says, if your people aren't bothered or motivated by your goals, they probably shouldn't be there (at least in skilled positions - of course there are plenty of jobs which are purely for the paycheck). It's not worth changing your company based on the attitudes and motivations of people who shouldn't be there anyway. It is easier to hide in (many) big companies, but that doesn't mean that the solution should be to remove all potential hiding places - it should be to remove (or re-motivate) those who are hiding.