It’s almost humorous the lengths people go to in order to prove to others they aren’t what we know them to be. A case in point is laziness. No one likes to be seen or thought of as lazy, but the reality is some people exude that quality. Because they don’t want to be judged or viewed as lazy, lazy people sometimes work really hard in spurts or in key moments. This all-out effort for a short duration can appear very impressive. Yet, observant leaders aren’t fooled. Team members who exemplify real dedication, commitment, and effort don’t show up some of the time. They show up
I take great issue with conflating engagement and commitment (complex states dependent, in many ways, on context) and laziness (a question of character). Also, behavior that suggests dynamic priorities may appear to be, but is not the same as being, "inconsistent" (another loaded word suggesting moral virtue).
An employee, including truly exceptional employees, may engage and deliver in ebbs and flows for a variety of legitimate reasons from personal circumstances or, more importantly to the leader, organizational dysfunctions or challenges. *Assuming* "laziness" invites even the most observant leader (who is still not omniscient) to bypass their responsibility to be curious about the "why" and the "what" behind the pattern and to partner with the employee to ensure they have what they need to be successful.
It also puts the leader in the very dangerous territory of making moral judgments about their employees. The leader does not wear the cassock, and it's beyond their purview and capability, except in clearly egregious situations, to determine the moral character of their employees. Playing this role risks introducing and reifying destructive biases that can determine how a leader shows up with and enables their team.
If an observant leader sees an employee is showing up inconsistently or "working hard only some of the time," they'd do well to start with curiosity and themselves, ensuring the employee is empowered with the context, access, and authority they need to work in the way the leader expects.
“We are what we do the most often”. Good thoughts.
Now I am questioning my entire life simply because I’m reading this while laying on the couch.
I take great issue with conflating engagement and commitment (complex states dependent, in many ways, on context) and laziness (a question of character). Also, behavior that suggests dynamic priorities may appear to be, but is not the same as being, "inconsistent" (another loaded word suggesting moral virtue).
An employee, including truly exceptional employees, may engage and deliver in ebbs and flows for a variety of legitimate reasons from personal circumstances or, more importantly to the leader, organizational dysfunctions or challenges. *Assuming* "laziness" invites even the most observant leader (who is still not omniscient) to bypass their responsibility to be curious about the "why" and the "what" behind the pattern and to partner with the employee to ensure they have what they need to be successful.
It also puts the leader in the very dangerous territory of making moral judgments about their employees. The leader does not wear the cassock, and it's beyond their purview and capability, except in clearly egregious situations, to determine the moral character of their employees. Playing this role risks introducing and reifying destructive biases that can determine how a leader shows up with and enables their team.
If an observant leader sees an employee is showing up inconsistently or "working hard only some of the time," they'd do well to start with curiosity and themselves, ensuring the employee is empowered with the context, access, and authority they need to work in the way the leader expects.