Everyday Ethics

Ethics for Real People and Real Issues

Everyday Ethics header image 2

Stupid Jobs, Lazy Workers: The Ethics of Motivation

January 24th, 2009 by Elijah Weber · 4 Comments

A “stupid” job has many nuances  and qualities that make it what it is.  Often, stupid jobs are steeped in policies, rules and regulations, or other guidelines that cause the opposite of their intended goal to occur.  For example, I was recently a case manager for a public social program.  This program has the best of intentions, but the combination of excessive bureaucracy and confusing, often arbitrary policy causes workers to spend more time working to preserve their own jobs than serving the needs of their clientele.  Hence the opposite results from those intended. 

Stupid jobs can be low paying or not, but in either case the pay should be disproportionate to the amount of knowledge and skill required, and to the amount of actual work being done on a daily basis.  But the one quality that makes a job “stupid” is an overwhelming sense that the entire organization, regardless of their purpose, is so dysfunctional that society would be better served in simply bulldozing it to the ground than in attempting to repair the damage already done.  We have all had such a job, and most will relate to the ethical dilemma that stupid jobs cause.  It is the moral conundrum that is justifiable laziness.

All employees of stupid jobs face this issue at some point in their careers.  It is the little voice inside of you that says “these guys are idiots anyway, why am I killing myself to try to fix everything?”  It comes in various verbal arrangements, but the essence is always the same:  This job sucks, so its okay to be lazy.  But is this a morally acceptable attitude, or are we just trying to vent our frustration?  More importantly, why does this happen to intelligent, valuable workers who should be capable of avoiding such flawed thinking? 

The first question appears simple enough when we are honest with ourselves.  It is quite clearly not ethical to lower your own job performance in response to negative workplace conditions, regardless of how frustrated you may feel.  By accepting employment, you have effectively signed on to the agreement with your employer that they will pay you a set amount of money for your time, and that they will determine how that time is to be spent.  Should either of you fail to uphold your end of the bargain, you are each justified in terminating the relationship.  Although we have rules and laws that allow for certain other protections and guarantees, such as the right to not be sexually harassed or treated in an abusive manner, these are societal requirements and not specifically part of the core agreement between employer and employee.  From this, one must ask the simple question of whether keeping your word and acting honorably are important to you. 

If the answer is yes, you are morally obligated to work hard and do your best regardless of how stupid your job may in fact be.  If the answer is no, you must accept and deal with the consequences of rejecting the virtue of upholding agreements and being a reliable and trustworthy person in all of your life interactions and relationships.  Most people are not prepared to reject such a virtue.  Rather, this virtue is embraced by most people, as it is conducive to the kind of society that many of us would like to live in, namely one made up of honorable, trustworthy people.  

This feeling of frustration expressed through justified laziness is a byproduct of being an intelligent and capable human in a dysfunctional, ridiculous world.  It is easy to become jaded, to throw in the ethical towel and say “Screw it, I’m tired.”  But if we resort to this, we only feed an always hungrier monster.  This too does not lead us to the kind of world that most of us want to live in.  There are only so many who are blessed with the gift of talent, intellect,  and vision, and we are morally obligated to push the cart forward to the best of our ability and in all that we do, regardless of what anyone else is doing. 

About the Author

author photo

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.

© 2008 Elijah Weber

Tags: Applied Ethics · Business Ethics · Personal Ethics

4 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Lucy Parsons // Jan 29, 2010 at 4:55 am

    I can’t decide if I should sell you straw for your straw-men or pigeons for your pigeon-holes. While the sermon of self-improvement is always a good one, the advancing of “try harder” to the disgruntled discounts an evidenced truth; work slow-downs and work stoppages are ethically demanded in many employment situations. They are the only thing that stands between poor management decisions and institutional failure. (i.e. “I haven’t finished shipping all the Obama ChiaPets) All the “societal requirements” that you neatly sweep under the rug were won specifically by those who stopped working. I propose that the refusal to stop work for ethical reasons has yielded far greater good than the spartan servitude you advocate here. You sound like Boxer from George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

    “I will work harder.”

  • 2 Elijah Weber // Jan 29, 2010 at 11:00 am

    I think this response makes a very good point, but a couple others that are not so good.

    First, the good one. Historically, worker dissent that included slow-downs and stoppages have sometimes been a good thing. When injustices are happening in the workplace, this can be effective, and important. But they aren’t always good. Sometimes they’re just ridiculous.

    But that’s really not what I’m talking about anyway. I’m talking about cases where one’s job is just kind of crappy, maybe a little ridiculous, and not much fun. In these cases, people sometimes don’t give their best effort, and justify it on the grounds that the nature of their lousy job makes it okay. I think this is ethically mistaken. If one has a job where they are criminally mistreated, by all means, go on strike or something like that. But if the problem is just that your boss is stupid or the expectations are stilly, or the place is disorganized, half-assing it really isn’t appropriate. These cases are very different from what you seem to be talking about. So I think the straw man is on your side of the story. Or maybe you just took me to be talking about something that I wasn’t.

    As for the claim that societal requirements like not being sexually harassed were won by work stoppages, that’s just false. Many of these were won through legal action that had nothing to do with work stoppages.

    Finally, I’m not advocating anything like spartan servitude. I’m saying if your job sucks, that doesn’t mean it’s okay to do a lousy job at it. If there’s a legitimate justice issue, that’s a different matter. If you hate your job, get a different one, don’t do it badly and act like that’s okay, because it’s not. As for the proposal that far greater good has come from work stoppages, that’s empirically debatable, but not something I’m prepared to engage in here.

    While I mostly disagree with your criticisms, I do thank you for reading and commenting.

  • 3 Simzee // Mar 19, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Here’s what sux….when they put a good worker with a lazy one & manegment will go after the one that works & drive that person into the ground.

  • 4 Simzee // Mar 19, 2010 at 10:37 am

    Lazy people are the only ones that get hired.

Leave a Comment