You have to pick one. — schopenhauer1
Too easy. — schopenhauer1
On the contrary, comparing one kind of virtue and failing with another is extremely difficult and subtle, especially when both kinds are present to some degree in all of us. — Cuthbert
"Pick one" who "is more important" how,? in what way? for what reason?You have to pick one. Which is more important, to have a good character or to be useful? — schopenhauer1
Pick one" who "is more important" how,? in what way? for what reason? — 180 Proof
You posed the "dilemma" but framed it ambiguously enough not to be taken seriously. Try again, make it clear and compelling. — 180 Proof
how,? in what way? for what reason? — 180 Proof
As Bob is such a nice guy he can presumably see that he's getting on his colleagues' wick by failing at work and he will out of kindness seek another job that requires being nice to people whilst producing nothing at all. The modern Western economy is full of such opportunities for a charming useless layabout like Bob. Larry, on the other hand, should slow down and try to be less productive or he may excite the envy of the many Bobs around him. — Cuthbert
HOWEVER, Larry is also REALLY good at his job. He is the most productive person on his team, and creates great value for the company, even being a direct reason for its growth in terms of output. Jobs are created from Larry's output actually, and the products are quite useful to certain sectors of society in terms of satisfying the needs of that industry. — schopenhauer1
Why? If I say "important as sentient life forms", then both are equally important specimens. You categorically rule out "both" as an option, however, which implies a restriction on what "important" can mean in your OP. So state clearly what is meant by "important" as I put it to yo in my initial post because, schop1, you can't have it both ways.You just can't say BOTH. — schopenhauer1
work with an arsehole, which in itself can take down an entire workplace — Tom Storm
I would probably keep Bob and put him on a performance improvement plan with a timeline of 8 weeks. If he did not improve, I would remove him and advertise the role.
If this were a real situation, it would heavily depend on what country, industry, culture you are referring to here as these factors can greatly influence how HR issue play out. — Tom Storm
In fact, if Bob were taken out of the labor pool, every industry he ever touched would rebound doubly to 200% output. — schopenhauer1
The only 'great value' Larry creates that can't be outsourced for a few dollars or replaced with a machine using the methodologies that never belonged to Larry nor have anything to do with him intrinsically but were simply adopted by him can be sufficiently replicated with a poster of a clown. — Outlander
Why? — 180 Proof
If I say "important as sentient life forms", then both are equally important specimens. — 180 Proof
however, which implies a restriction on what "important" can mean in your OP. — 180 Proof
Let's say that even though he's an arsehole, everyone else is indifferent to it because they have become used to it. Everyone is humming along nicely and just shrug their shoulders at Larry's propensities. He's good at what he does, so maybe they simply take that as a good enough reason to tolerate it. They even are quite amused by his asshole antics because sometimes it appeals to their base humor as well.
I would probably keep Bob and put him on a performance improvement plan with a timeline of 8 weeks. If he did not improve, I would remove him and advertise the role.
If this were a real situation, it would heavily depend on what country, industry, culture you are referring to here as these factors can greatly influence how HR issue play out.
— Tom Storm
Bob is bad at every job he did/does/ever will do. He's a great friend though, good at lifting people's spirits, and a bunch of intangibles that can't be monetized or even be used for workplace productivity. He's kind, agreeable, and some other innocuous, amenable, "nice" traits. — schopenhauer1
I guess then I would probably retain Larry on the basis that he is meeting the organization's priorities and its strategic plan, which is what a manager is supposed to serve. — Tom Storm
Granted. But an answer to a slightly different question. Most people would choose Larry if it was a matter of retaining worker. No one really cares about character if the output is outputting and money is coming in.. Excepting externalities (Larry's assholeness gets the best of himself).. Larry is the sure choice if the choice was who to keep as employee if you had to choose between the two. However, the question is about importance in general. And though abstract/vague/broad.. I'd like to see how you/people would answer that question. What is more "valuable" in a more general sense. — schopenhauer1
What is more "valuable" in a more general sense. — schopenhauer1
I think the answer is obvious. — L'éléphant
What's your point?That's because you think you can control Larry or expect anything he can throw at you. I'm sure Larry would choose you too. — Outlander
:up:Ok, so I think my OP was sufficiently unclear, and that is my fault. — schopenhauer1
Well okay, then you have my answer:
If I say "important as sentient life forms", then both are equally important specimens.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof
That's a different question, independent of – not related to – the one raised by the OP. Why don't ask plainly and clearly what you're trying to get at?Is sentience the most important value for you? — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.