When we work, doing any kind of work, we tend to derive some satisfaction out of a job well done. But there lies the key, doesn’t it? Job well done. But what if the job is not done as ‘properly’ as it should be done? Is it still ok?
It shouldn’t be is what one would think.
What I think is that an organization has at any given point of time two kinds of workers. One set is a self motivated, performer, happy to be in the job. They are a kind of employee that is though not ideal, but are productive and tries to find solutions to problems and tries to grow with every step they take while keeping in line with the organizations’ goals and objectives.
Then there is a second set of employees that is also thriving in the same organization. They are not motivated to work, are full of constant cribbing, are not able to do the one job they are responsible for, have problem for every solution and yet want the best for themselves.
I think somewhere it is the question of realizing and perceiving the self worth. The sense of not contributing to the organization yet being a part of every gratification that the organization offers is a classic case of having a very high opinion on one’s contribution. There is also a point where the actual contributor who takes pride in the jobs that they do are left flabbergasted because the gratification for them them reduces.
If say ‘A’ employee is not serious about the work they do. ‘A’, when does something has to be re-done by say, ‘B’ and is probably done right if not better. The contribution of ‘B’ is larger than ‘A’ putting in longer hours wherein the output is near low. However, the recognition for the work done is near equal for both ‘A’ and ‘B’, where does this leave ‘B’???
It is not only the material gains that are on the line here. It is the quality of work being done and the satisfaction and happiness that is being derived from a job well done. A lot of management theories, especially Hertzberg two factor theory points that employees do not necessarily look at needs of lower order but also take cognizance of the recognition meted out, responsibilities given and so on.
What eludes me is that how can two different individuals be given similar appreciation when someone is clearly performing a role better than the other. In no way does it mean that the other person may not be a recipient of the appreciation they deserve, but then equality does not always mean justice. The key, I think would be ‘deserving’.
This may go on to make the organization unproductive as the inefficient carry on their ways because they know it does not matter or even if it does matter, they are not being told so and the efficient one’s to whom this indifference does matter may lose their will to perform because clearly inefficiency does not ‘not pay’.