Interview Question

When you work with a random new person frequently, you discover a rather simple commonality.  The obvious is their level of work, either this person is a hard worker seemingly conscientious or they are a slacker who wishes to put in time rather than effort. Beyond these two blatant categories, are the reasons for their work ethic.  Lets ignore the hard worker, everyone from the employer to fellow employees and customers want someone who does their job well.  This leaves us with the slacker and our judgement of this person.

As a co-worker, working together toward a common goal, we may wonder about the reason for their lackluster performance.  "Is that person working with me lazy or stupid?"   This is likely the question in our mind when things are not done properly or done half-way.   When we must pick up the unspent effort of those who are supposed to be helping achieve our end result, we can only get frustrated especially when that slacker is not seen for who they are and we gain no credit for the additional energy we burn.

So then, lazy or stupid, this is the quandary.  If we were forced to choose out of this no win situation between the two, which would it be?  Would it be preferable to work beside someone who by their nature never puts forth their full ability, or someone who is inherently limited and can only provide a lesser level of performance?  Which would irk you most, knowing that the other person could do more but does not, or someone who you may need to spend more time training and may need to be instructed more frequently?

This is a lose-lose choice, but between the two people, one is more honest.  If you know your limitations and strive to work to their fullest, you are not cheating anyone including yourself.  Those people who are lazy heap the burden of their diminished productivity upon everyone else.  They purposefully choose to do much less than they are capable of doing, simply because it is possible and they do not seem to care.  As an employer, it would be best to maximize effort, output, efficiency. 

A lazy person by definition will not do more than they choose to do and will self-limit their effort to an arbitrary and inconsistent level.  They cannot be relied upon because the results of laziness may be entirely random since it occurs at the whim of the individual.  This uncaring attitude would not be conducive to a good work environment and would negatively affect all those around it.

So then, if a lazy person would be a worse choice, why would a stupid person be better?  It is true that neither is optimal but there is a definite reason why one can be considered preferable over the other.  If we consider that a stupid person has an immutable quality of reduced intellect, we know already that there will be a height that cannot be attained through no lack of trying.  This sort of person may get frustrated when overwhelmed, rather than frustrating co-workers who become overwhelmed (as due to a lazy person's reduced performance).  There will need to be extra effort placed upon training, but much can be gained by reducing the task to simpler terms.  After a short time, the individual's limits will be known and positions or tasks can be matched to their ability.  There would be consistency, real effort, steady effort, a striving to do better.  What sort of employer or co-worker wouldn't want someone who always gives 100% instead of someone who may or may not do as tasked?

The bottom line really is about effort, put forth the entirety of your capability and you will be valued, period.