Is someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?

schopenhauer1

Let's say we have two people.. Larry and Bob.

Larry is a big piece of shit in how he treats people. He is mean, taunting, smug, unhelpful to others, makes fun of people ruthlessly, shows off, overly competitive about everything to the point of hubris, controlling, aggressive, backstabbing, and a whole lot of other negative character traits.

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.

Bob on the other hand is a really nice person. He is caring. Listens to others. Tries to console them. Is not braggadocios or smug, helps people when he can, never aggressive, tries never to control things more than he has to, and is all around just "nice guy". However, Bob can't do shit for shit. He can't produce anything worthwhile at work. He is pretty piss poor at his job.. He's just not a great "doer" as a "worker" and so isn't really useful to any industry or sector of society.

I know the tendency is to say the world is big enough for both these types in it, and that we need both these types.. But I'm just not going to let you get away with that. Too easy. You have to pick one. Which is more important, to have a good character or to be useful? You can define it in terms of ethics, utility, whatever you want. I feel that the way people answer is more revealing about them than it is about anything else, but I would like to see any creative responses and explanations.

Put another way:
Is the value of "being useful at the workplace" more important than having a good character? This is NOT meant as a comparison of different worker types, but in terms of generally what is a more important value.

Cuthbert

You have to pick one. — schopenhauer1

Both are already here with us in the world and we are all to some extent ineffectual and productive, pleasant and nasty. Perhaps I work hard enough already and should put more effort into being pleasant as well. It's a big ask, but I might have a go at both rather than just picking one. You're setting the bar too low.

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.

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.

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

How is that "to the contrary"? That is precisely what I said was easier to do.. (to pick both of them). Though I appreciate your response, you didn't follow the assignment. Let us also say Larry is just not going to be good at any job that he enters into for various reasons.. even ones you might think he should be good at.

180 Proof

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?

schopenhauer1

Pick one" who "is more important" how,? in what way? for what reason? — 180 Proof

Up to you, but you have to pick one. It's not only picking the person, but what it represents, right? So character, usefulness is the basic dichotomy, but you can elaborate all you want. Character can be ethically better. But then again, maybe the utility of usefulness is more important. An elevated Trolley Dilemma.

180 Proof

↪schopenhauer1

You posed the "dilemma" but framed it ambiguously enough not to be taken seriously. Try again, make it clear and compelling.

schopenhauer1

You posed the "dilemma" but framed it ambiguously enough not to be taken seriously. Try again, make it clear and compelling. — 180 Proof

I think it's compelling enough. You have a nice guy versus a useful guy and more elaboration on how. I also mentioned how the useful guy is really useful for his industry and the nice guy is inept at any job he will ever do. What else would you like to see?

180 Proof

↪schopenhauer1

Go back to my initial post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/751604

schopenhauer1

how,? in what way? for what reason? — 180 Proof

More important for X. You decide. Everything is open EXCEPT saying BOTH are important for X reason/ends. You can even pick whatever reason or ends you like. You just can't say BOTH. It's open axiology.. If I say "society" that already sways it.. If I say "community" that already sways it, etc.

schopenhauer1

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

Ok, so I was a bit hasty with your last response. I do appreciate you answered thoughtfully here. However, Bob, being inept at everything related to usefulness to output (work/laboring). Let's say that every job he ever takes, he will actually weaken the output it creates. Is it better if Bob were not around at all? In fact, if Bob were taken out of the labor pool, every industry he ever touched would rebound doubly to 200% output.

@180 Proof here's more meat for you perhaps.

Outlander

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

All philosophy aside, Larry is a few silver pieces away from being a full-blown Judas hence will never be little more than a liability and needs to be not around immediately. 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.

Tom Storm

↪schopenhauer1

It's a no win situation so the choices are 1) work with an arsehole, which in itself can take down an entire workplace or 2) tolerate someone who is lovely but incompetent because it is less painful to have them around.

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.

180 Proof

You just can't say BOTH. — 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.

schopenhauer1

work with an arsehole, which in itself can take down an entire workplace — Tom Storm

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.

To add from previous post:

In fact, if Bob were taken out of the labor pool, every industry he ever touched would rebound doubly to 200% output. — schopenhauer1

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

Ha, I like the picture you paint. However, indeed Larry's output/abilities/capacities cannot be replaced in any foreseeable future, and in fact create jobs for the industry and creates a tremendous amount of outputs.. What then?

schopenhauer1

Why? — 180 Proof

Why can't I have whatever I want when I want it? Same.

If I say "important as sentient life forms", then both are equally important specimens. — 180 Proof

The question was about importance. So it's weighing importance here, and the nature of what is being weighed was also laid out (and is in the OP's title).

however, which implies a restriction on what "important" can mean in your OP. — 180 Proof

No, I really am not restricting what is deemed as important. That is up to you. Create a story around it if you like.. Larry is creating jobs and useful things so is better. Nice doesn't cut it.. and if Bob offed himself today, besides feelings being hurt by a few people, no output is affected. Larry is creating a tremendous amount of X important things for Y industry..

Tom Storm

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.

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.

creativesoul

Larry cannot do everything by himself and promotes a hostile work environment as well as lower the general morale. Attitudes like his are cancerous in the workplace. He needs to be trained on how to be a better employee.

Bob cannot do anything. He needs to be trained on how to be a better employee. I do not buy the idea that Bob cannot do anything. Everyone I've ever been around is capable of doing something well enough.

If given a choice, I choose neither as they are. I train them to be what I want. If it's all about profit, and not about a pleasant work environment, and it's possible to completely isolate the employee to prevent the unwelcome spread of hostility, aggression, and inferiority complex... I choose Larry, but I look for a replacement in the meantime.

schopenhauer1

↪creativesoul

Thank you for thoughtful response, but same reply as Tom...

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

creativesoul

↪schopenhauer1

Well you gave no choice, really. You stipulated one very efficient worker and one useless worker. In the background is the risk of failing as a company if production is low.

So...

Outlander

What is more "valuable" in a more general sense. — schopenhauer1

Subjective opinion or absolute if you were some sort of psychic.with the desired measurable item (profit made in USD, influence in number of Markets Reached, etc).

Potential including risks vs. concrete value. I'd take a handgun over a machine gun that's liable to blow up or otherwise cause harm to me or whatever my goals are. Value that can become useless or a detriment vs. a lower consistent value, basically. Unexplored potential?

@creativesoul made a good point. If Bob literally "cannot do anything" he's basically handicapped. This becomes 'is a handicapped person (or someone with no skills in the particular industry) more valuable than someone who is not handicapped or has skills a particular industry.' The question of attitude comes second to such a stark request and becomes irrelevant with that considered. I think so at least.

L'éléphant

I think the question should be rephrased:

If we're in apocalypse, which would you choose to be with -- Larry or Bob? I think the answer is obvious.

Outlander

I think the answer is obvious. — L'éléphant

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.

L'éléphant

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

What's your point?

Outlander

What's your point? — L'éléphant

That's up to the reader, friend.

180 Proof

I really am not restricting what is deemed as important. That is up to you — schopenhauer1

Well okay, then you have my answer:

If I say "important as sentient life forms", then both are equally important specimens. — 180 Proof

schopenhauer1

Ok, so I think my OP was sufficiently unclear, and that is my fault. I may go back and change it. So this is not about "which worker would you pick if you had to pick between the two and you were a manager at company X". Rather, this is about, in general, do you value the usefulness of Larry or Bob's good character? I don't want to say something like, "As it relates to the greater society.. or for being a friend" or something more specific because that would sway the reasoning. Rather, it is about what is more valuable in an axiological/ethical sense in general. So for example.. consequentialists that only care about outputs, might pick Larry. Virtue theorists might choose Bob. That's really simplistic, and I'm not asking you to bring in those theories, but that's just an example of how to build an argument around one or the other.

180 Proof

Ok, so I think my OP was sufficiently unclear, and that is my fault. — schopenhauer1

:up:

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

Is sentience the most important value for you? That isn't even a value. Do you value emotional awareness? Loving-kindness? Technological efficiency? Greater tangible goods? etc. Sentience seems to be not a value but simply a state of affairs.

180 Proof

Is sentience the most important value for you? — schopenhauer1

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 someone's usefulness to work more important than their character or vice versa?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions