What's worse: lazy or slow? [modified]
-
R. Erasmus wrote:
why the slow guy is slow
Maybe just because he's average
R. Erasmus wrote:
Thats called dishonesty not only lazy
Maybe, but not necessarily. If he performs that work that he's assigned and is delivering within schedule, it doesn't mean dishonesty, specially if we don't know what kind of work he's doing. If, for example, he works on support, he might simply finish all the issues assigned to him and have no further issues. If he works on project analysis and design, he simply might finishing documentation early and wait for client feedback (and web surfing while at it). So dishonesty is a far call because it depends on a lot of variables... However if he's indeed costing more than he's making for the company and does not perform a good job I agree with you.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Of course you need to give people a heads up and try to encourage them, you don't just fire someone. In this country, you can't legally do that anyhow.
Oh yes you can, just look at waht happened to me on 24-03-2011, the fired employee has the option to fight it as an unfair dismissal. If, that is, he knows about this option and thinks he has a chance or can afford to take it to court.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
What do you guys think it's worse? Someone that spends half of the day surfing the web because he can work faster than the others, or the others that can't work fast enough? [Edit] The main reason I'm asking is because the lazy guy might look bad because he's seen by others surfing all the time, but yet, produces the same amount of products. While the slow guy could actually look like a much more dedicated employee and look better in the company.
modified on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:43 PM
First, I think we need to get away from appearances. Who cares what the "lazy" guy looks like? The only questions a business needs to concern itself with are, "are your employees doing the work they're assigned in a timely manner?", and "are they doing it well?" The lazy guy may very well be a craptastic coder: getting things "done" quickly, but with a chimpanzee-like attention to detail. The "slow" guy may take longer, but produce better results. Then, do you want to motivate the crap coder to produce more crap? They come to similar results on different axes: one great on quality, not so good on time, the other great on time, not so good on quality. Now, let's say that isn't the case: let's say the lazy guy produces good code quickly. Then, it's a matter of finding out why he's "lazy". What can be done to motiviate him to put in a full day's work? Money? Recognition? New technology? Ultimately, just about the only thing management need to get right is how to get the most out of their employees. Why management often can't figure out ways to be creative when motivating/recognizing the best employees (it's not about money) is beyond me. An underlying assumption of your question (I think) is that people live to work, which simply isn't the case. Perhaps the "lazy" guy is satisfied with his lot in life (i.e., status, income, et cetera). I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with someone making a conscious decision to stay a junior developer for the rest of their life, if that makes them happy. Of course, they then don't get to bitch when hard-working-but-slow guy gets the recognition/advancement/whatever.
-
Fabio Franco wrote:
Now imagine around 7, without even a coffee run.
That only happens for me on really interesting / knotty problems. Those days I sometimes wake up thinking in code.
Exactly, it's amazing how interesting problems can keep you going, but sometimes it's a bad thing because you can get so sucked into the problem that you might miss an elegant solution.
-
First, I think we need to get away from appearances. Who cares what the "lazy" guy looks like? The only questions a business needs to concern itself with are, "are your employees doing the work they're assigned in a timely manner?", and "are they doing it well?" The lazy guy may very well be a craptastic coder: getting things "done" quickly, but with a chimpanzee-like attention to detail. The "slow" guy may take longer, but produce better results. Then, do you want to motivate the crap coder to produce more crap? They come to similar results on different axes: one great on quality, not so good on time, the other great on time, not so good on quality. Now, let's say that isn't the case: let's say the lazy guy produces good code quickly. Then, it's a matter of finding out why he's "lazy". What can be done to motiviate him to put in a full day's work? Money? Recognition? New technology? Ultimately, just about the only thing management need to get right is how to get the most out of their employees. Why management often can't figure out ways to be creative when motivating/recognizing the best employees (it's not about money) is beyond me. An underlying assumption of your question (I think) is that people live to work, which simply isn't the case. Perhaps the "lazy" guy is satisfied with his lot in life (i.e., status, income, et cetera). I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with someone making a conscious decision to stay a junior developer for the rest of their life, if that makes them happy. Of course, they then don't get to bitch when hard-working-but-slow guy gets the recognition/advancement/whatever.
agolddog wrote:
First, I think we need to get away from appearances. Who cares what the "lazy" guy looks like?
In an ideal world that would be great, the thing is that "looking" bad might actually hurt someone's career, that's the problem.
agolddog wrote:
an't figure out ways to be creative when motivating/recognizing the best employees (it's not about money) is beyond me.
You touched the X of the question, it's beyond me also, there's so much good to inspire an employee and I rarely see management doing anything about it, it blows me away and I know there are countless ways to accomplish it without even touching the company's pocket.
agolddog wrote:
Perhaps the "lazy" guy is satisfied with his lot in life
Yeah, that happens, which is also beyond me (talking about career) and yet I believe these are the happiest people.
-
Exactly, it's amazing how interesting problems can keep you going, but sometimes it's a bad thing because you can get so sucked into the problem that you might miss an elegant solution.
Fabio Franco wrote:
Exactly, it's amazing how interesting problems can keep you going, but sometimes it's a bad thing because you can get so sucked into the problem that you might miss an elegant solution.
So true - it's gotten to the point that sometimes I can tell I am doing it wrong because it is so difficult. Sometimes, when I am wise, I back away after a couple of hours, do something else, and tackle the tough problem in the morning. Othertimes, I burn the midnight oil, and dig myself pretty deep before cottoning on :sigh: . The worst case is when some manager tells you you must work exclusively on a certain problem, even though you are pretty sure you are missing something, but not in the frame of mind to really see the issue.
-
What do you guys think it's worse? Someone that spends half of the day surfing the web because he can work faster than the others, or the others that can't work fast enough? [Edit] The main reason I'm asking is because the lazy guy might look bad because he's seen by others surfing all the time, but yet, produces the same amount of products. While the slow guy could actually look like a much more dedicated employee and look better in the company.
modified on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:43 PM
Lazy is worse. Especially if they waste the time up front rather than after completing their assigned task. Sometimes tasks take longer than expected, and the slow worker will at least be more predictable in completion times with less excuse for taking too long. I don't have much problem with someone who can work faster taking some of that post-completion time to work on other projects (even off-plan or non-sanctioned ones) or build their skill set. It'd be good if they were enough of a team-oriented member to help use some of that extra time to offload work from slower coworkers.
patbob
-
Lazy is worse. Especially if they waste the time up front rather than after completing their assigned task. Sometimes tasks take longer than expected, and the slow worker will at least be more predictable in completion times with less excuse for taking too long. I don't have much problem with someone who can work faster taking some of that post-completion time to work on other projects (even off-plan or non-sanctioned ones) or build their skill set. It'd be good if they were enough of a team-oriented member to help use some of that extra time to offload work from slower coworkers.
patbob
I agree with you and I think the lazy ones can be stimulated to make good use of their extra time with either helping others or improving their skill set.
-
First, I think we need to get away from appearances. Who cares what the "lazy" guy looks like? The only questions a business needs to concern itself with are, "are your employees doing the work they're assigned in a timely manner?", and "are they doing it well?" The lazy guy may very well be a craptastic coder: getting things "done" quickly, but with a chimpanzee-like attention to detail. The "slow" guy may take longer, but produce better results. Then, do you want to motivate the crap coder to produce more crap? They come to similar results on different axes: one great on quality, not so good on time, the other great on time, not so good on quality. Now, let's say that isn't the case: let's say the lazy guy produces good code quickly. Then, it's a matter of finding out why he's "lazy". What can be done to motiviate him to put in a full day's work? Money? Recognition? New technology? Ultimately, just about the only thing management need to get right is how to get the most out of their employees. Why management often can't figure out ways to be creative when motivating/recognizing the best employees (it's not about money) is beyond me. An underlying assumption of your question (I think) is that people live to work, which simply isn't the case. Perhaps the "lazy" guy is satisfied with his lot in life (i.e., status, income, et cetera). I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with someone making a conscious decision to stay a junior developer for the rest of their life, if that makes them happy. Of course, they then don't get to bitch when hard-working-but-slow guy gets the recognition/advancement/whatever.
"The only questions a business needs to concern itself with are, "are your employees doing the work they're assigned in a timely manner?", and "are they doing it well?"" No so. The manager also needs to consider how many people they need to hire to get a given amount of work done at a certain rate. These "lazy" workers could be doing more work for the company and thus saving the manager from having to hire another worker. Factor in the cost of the office, benefits and salary for an extra worker, and that lazy person ends up costing the company quite a bit. As you point out, the "lazy" person's work may not be the same quality as their slower counterparts. So.. it may well be that that "lazy" person both costs the company more AND does substandard work... As a manager, I'd be bettter off shedding that person and replacing them with a slower worker that does higher quality work.
patbob
-
What do you guys think it's worse? Someone that spends half of the day surfing the web because he can work faster than the others, or the others that can't work fast enough? [Edit] The main reason I'm asking is because the lazy guy might look bad because he's seen by others surfing all the time, but yet, produces the same amount of products. While the slow guy could actually look like a much more dedicated employee and look better in the company.
modified on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 4:43 PM
Gotta be careful about what "slow" means. A group at a large tech company that was led by a SW manager friend of mine ws always indicted by her management for working too slowly amd not spending more than 40-45 hours a week on the job. They designed code and experimented with new techniques before writing anything. They all had families go home to. On the other hand they always finiahed their assignments early with fully released and tested code. As a result they usually spent 20-40% of their project time working on parts of the project they weren't responsible for. Their bug rate was a few orders of magnitude lower than any other grouop in the division. On the other hand, it is easier to peg low productivity on someone who's slow and ineffective. The fast and ineffective ones take a lot more effort, but they can do a lot more harm.