Work It

By Duane Sharrock

On an individual basis, we can’t claim to possess a good work ethic and be automatically believed, and there’s something condescending about being told you have a good work ethic, especially when it’s followed with a “but.” But what does that even mean? What does it mean when we say that a person has a good work ethic? Without looking it up and without using the word “profession” or “professional” in the definition, define “work ethic.” Then make a list of what people have to do and how they need to act in order to show that they have a good work ethic. What are the characteristics?

I tried to do this on my own and mostly failed, but found that my list of good work ethic evidence includes two or three of the items from the “List Of Things You Can Accomplish That Don't Take Talent”: effort, attitude, and passion. I couldn’t fit the other items from the List though, and I didn’t come up with a definition for “work ethic”, good or otherwise. So, I looked it up.

Among the many links offered up, I found the Wikipedia definition: “Work ethic is a belief that hard work and diligence have a moral benefit and an inherent ability, virtue or value to strengthen character.” I also found the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online) definition: “a belief in work as a moral good: a set of values centered on the importance of doing work and reflected especially in a desire or determination to work hard.”

Work ethic is defined differently by each person you consult. Having a work ethic, according to Amelia Jenkins, “is a set of moral principles an employee uses in his job.” These moral principles include integrity, a sense of responsibility, an emphasis on quality, discipline, and a sense of teamwork. Erin Shreiner defines work ethic as a set of principles that produce high-quality work using these five principles or factors: reliability, dedication, productivity, cooperation, and character. Another author, George Lawrence, who has a law degree, lists these work ethics: reliability, positive, helpful character, proper communication, altruism, and goal-orientation.

Unexpectedly, the search also offered up sports-related websites. On one athlete coaching website “Values-Based Sport,” the author work ethic along with a list of “The Big Ten Values”:

1. Honesty;
2. Integrity;
3. Humility;
4. Professionalism;
5. Discipline;
6. Toughness or some variation like ruthless, hard-core etc;
7. Work ethic;
8. Enjoyment / fun;
9. Passion;
10. Respect.

Take a look at this list and note #7. Then, look at #4, #9, and the rest of the list. It becomes clear why so many employers, leaders, supervisors come up with sports analogies. You might find that many of the items on this list are also included in other “work ethic” lists.

There are others--many others--but the main thing to note is that, although each definition you find may say similar things, the factors that make up a good work ethic differ in number. You might also note that some authors stress the importance of “appearance” or “being perceived as” having a good work ethic in addition to maintaining the belief that being good at doing work is a morally good thing. Since people are not mind-readers, they have to interpret what you do rather than believe what you say.

This is where it gets tricky.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--fTInOktO--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/18lqg1dv0l9ocjpg.jpg

The Show-Me State

“Let’s say I'm from Missouri,” your coworkers and supervisors might tell you.

In the United States of America, Missouri is nicknamed “the show-me state.” I don’t know why this is so. I do know that Harold Lauder, one of the characters in Stephen King’s The Stand made this statement in the (1994) television movie. This is a cute way of saying, “actions speak louder than words.” They are watching what you do, not what you say.

We don’t all see the same things though. Even if we look at the same scene, people see and understand what they see, differently. As an example, look at Agent Jay.

In the movie Men in Black with Will Smith, Smith plays Agent Jay, a police detective recruited as a candidate for the secret organization The Men in Black. He is a candidate among about 10 others representing the highly trained, best of the best officers of their law enforcement agencies. He seems to be the least qualified, and it seems that he is only there because of an accidental encounter with a space alien. However, with each test, he proves to be the most awkward of the candidates. Then the candidates are given the shooting range test.

In the shooting range test, the candidates are given weapons. The doors open and they witness a street scene. It is night time, and there are cutouts of creatures. To many of the candidates, the creatures are menacing. The candidates quickly commence firing their weapons, putting bullet holes in the paper cutouts. However, Will Smith, “Jay”, noticeably doesn’t fire immediately. He's considering the scene. He's looking from monster to apparent monster. And then he fires. It turns out, he shoots the little girl walking alone at night carrying a few thick science books in her hands.

His explanation for why he chose her, rather than choosing the apparent monsters, depends a lot on his interpretation of what he was seeing. He identifies not only what each individual creature might be doing in the middle of the “ghetto” at night, but he also takes in what they are holding in their hands. Context is a big factor in each case, but his ability to project his own motivations and habits, anthropomorphizing each creature, ultimately leads him to conclude that the “little girl” is the real monster, and it is the level of knowledge that she is carrying in her hands--some high-level texts on quantum physics--while walking in the “ghetto”, alone, in the middle of the night, that makes it clear to him that she is (probably) the most dangerous creature on that street.

In the movie, you may notice how the candidates at first view Jay. You can see that they think he is not a good candidate. Their annoyance with Jay is evident. You can also see some of the candidates consider themselves superior to him. It’s not a stretch to see that the candidates feel that they are better candidates because they believe they know what is expected of them and believe that they are meeting or exceeding those expectations. They are eventually proven wrong.

Your coworkers and employees and supervisors are judging you. They are deciding whether they think you have a good work ethic or if you are lazy or believe you feel entitled to great status and high salary without “paying your dues”, working for it. This may be done consciously, intentionally, or it may be quietly divined, unconsciously or subconsciously, but as demonstrated in the Men in Black anecdote, your audience’s judgments can be wrongheaded. The social cognitive skills of your evaluators can be unsophisticated, the same ways they appear limited with the judgemental Men In Black candidates, or you might get lucky and be evaluated by people similar to the more creatively-minded Will Smith candidate--which is just as terrifyingly improbable as that sounds.

You will probably get judged by in-the-box thinkers. But what can you do about that?

(to be continued)