A Good Worker

Had a conversation with my manager recently as to what were the qualities that made one a good worker. He asked me what the most important criteria would be were I to be hiring a new employee.

I replied that in the final reckoning, I would have to be convinced that he or she would aid in the achievement of the company's or organisation's goals.

"All that I look for," said he, "is a good attitude". Indeed, my boss was adamant and would not be shaken when I raised a possible scenario of someone being keen but totally unsuitable for the job. "If one has a good attitude, everything follows from that. Of course, one must have the basic ability and qualifications - you don't hire and accountant for a lawyer's job - but once that is satisfied, attitude is everything"

I then ventured that such a philosophy, if carried to the letter, could be arbitrary, dangerous and extremely unfair, especially when it came to evaluation of employees. And that was when the conversation got a wee bit more heated.

"What have you got against a good attitude? Your inability to find one?", he asked.

"I've got nothing against it. But did the company hire me to show good attitude or produce results?", I countered.

"If you've got a good attitude, the results will follow," he said with a smirk.

"That means I'm safe, because once I produce results, it means I have a good attitude. Why don't we just look at results then?

"It doesn't mean that. One may not be at a level yet, but having a good attitude means he will get there. Whereas one may already be at a level. But having a bad attitude means one will not improve."

"And how would one feel after producing far better results than another only to be told he or she is graded lower because of an arbitrary decision that someone else far less productive has a better attitude than him or her?" I asked.

"There is nothing arbitrary about a good attitude."

"Then why don't revenue centres like sales departments use sales figures or net profit as a gauge but not attitude? Why do shareholders look at balance sheets?"

My boss looked irritated as he explained, "In a revenue centre, they have very objective indicia such as sales figures which -- What are you smiling at?"

"The word you used - objective."

"Ok. So maybe we have to look at everything in totality. But it is not all that random. I'm sure you'll agree that things like hard work, a sense of responsibility and a willingness to put in the hours which will see the job get done in the end are very admirable traits."

"How do you measure hard work and a sense of responsibility?" I asked.

"Sometimes you just know-- stop smiling... Hours put in, for one."

"I see. So we take two workers who do 10 units of work in 10 hours. One of them stops and thinks about the system of work and realizes that if he makes a few adjustments here and there, he has a more efficient system and can do the same amount of work in 5 hours. So he now works 5 hours a day and slacks the other 5. Does he have a bad attitude?" I asked.

"Of course. He has so much potential but he's not using it. And he may be demoralizing others," my boss said without hesitation.

"Ok. Let's say instead of slacking the other 5 hours, he spends 2.5 hours doing extra work. So now he does 15 units of work and still has 2.5 hours more to slack. Isn't that laudable?"

"No. As I said, he's not maximizing his potential. And it shows he's not motivated. And as I said, he might demoralize others," my boss replied in a voice which might have been a little too loud for the coffee shop we were sitting in.

"But how do you think the worker would feel about it? I asked. "He is the only one to stop and think about how the system really works, he actually dares to put his ideas into practice, he does more work than all the others and after all that, he is penalized for initiative and invention all because he does not see it fit to pretend to be working for the remaining 2.5 hours of the day after exceeding all expectation?"

"Like I said, if he was more motivated then he would spend all 10 hours a day working. Then he wouldn't demoralize his colleagues who would be questioning why he is so special to be able to slack for 2.5 hours a day," said my boss angrily.

"But that's the point," I said. "How do you measure motivation? Why don't you say that this worker was the only one motivated enough to take a closer look at the system - and improve it? And his colleagues - can't you expect better from them? Don't you think that they would be inspired to improve and innovate so that they too could have free time too instead of begrudging their colleague the fruits of his initiative? And how motivated do you think they would be if they saw their colleague who innovates being labelled as one with a bad attitude?

"So you are saying its ok to have a bad attitude?" my boss asked.

"No, I'm not. I'm saying that its dangerous to place too much emphasis on attitude when the very definition of a 'good attitude' is murky in the first place. Like now. I could be seen as a trouble-maker, a rabble-rouser, someone who is disrespectful of authority and the views of the boss. Or I could be seen as someone who is open, forthright, principled and who dares to voice his views in opposition when it is for the good of the company. So which one of that do you think it is?

"What do you think? he asked back as he called for the bill.

I smiled but didn't answer because sometimes in life you just get the feeling that for some questions, no answers are wanted nor expected.