Which would you rather work with...

[SckizoBoy]

Simple question, but I won't dignify it with a poll...

Which type of colleague or employee is worse, whether for company cohesion, productivity or the wellbeing of their fellow workers:

1. The sort that constantly complains about their workload, tries to dump stuff on their colleagues' pile of things to do, but doesn't do any work if they can help it anyway. (i.e. while they're there, it's shit, but when they leave or are on leave, there's little by way of change)

Or

2. The sort that considers their colleagues inept and does all their work for them, does little to educate and basically refuses help offered. (i.e. while they're there, it's great, but when they leave or are on leave, the department can potentially fall to pieces)

 

[Frission]

If you're leading a team the first guy is the worst. You can always fire him however.

The second guy is probably unpleasant but he does his job and unless it's his function to educate his colleagues, he's not required to train them. However, it would help if there were perhaps some exercises to help him get along better with their colleagues if he's being particularly disruptive. Try to find the reason why they aren't getting along with their colleagues. Why do they consider their co-workers inept for example? Are the other members of the team truly in need of additional training?

If you're just a co-worker however either of those is a toss up. I would prefer to be with someone competent, if rude, but that's my personal preference.

OT: If you don't mind me asking, what brought up this question?

 

[shootthebandit]

No.2 is by far the worst person. These are the type of people who dont show anyone how to do anything so they look impressive. These people will happily stab you in the back on their way up the ladder

People like this arent the best people to work with in an engineering environment where you need to trust your colleagues or something could go wrong

No.1 is a better option. Sure they give you more work but at least they wont stab you in the back

 

[Frission]

No.2 is by far the worst person. These are the type of people who dont show anyone how to do anything so they look impressive. These people will happily stab you in the back on their way up the ladder

People like this arent the best people to work with in an engineering environment where you need to trust your colleagues or something could go wrong

No.1 is a better option. Sure they give you more work but at least they wont stab you in the back

I don't know. It sounds a bit like crabs in a bucket. Then again, this is a different department.

 

[MysticSlayer]

If it is retail work, I would much rather have the person who tries doing too much. Retail work is reasonably simple, so I doubt I'd need them to train me or others to do well when they're gone, and not having as much of a workload as I would with a lazy person would be nice.

However, in a more standard business environment, I'd probably want the lazy guy, as he at least makes me look good in comparison and will likely get fired soon anyways. I probably wouldn't be able to trust the guy who looks down on everyone, as he's probably not the type to remain loyal when things get too difficult or when he starts getting his inevitable promotion. I wouldn't mind a person who works a lot but still does their best to work with the team and shows some faith in them. They just have a lot of initiative. People who do it because they think they're the only ones who can do it, and furthermore ensure they're the only ones who can do it, will make work a hassle and possibly make you lose that work within a year or two.

 

[shootthebandit]

No.2 is by far the worst person. These are the type of people who dont show anyone how to do anything so they look impressive. These people will happily stab you in the back on their way up the ladder

People like this arent the best people to work with in an engineering environment where you need to trust your colleagues or something could go wrong

No.1 is a better option. Sure they give you more work but at least they wont stab you in the back

I don't know. It sounds a bit like crabs in a bucket. Then again, this is a different department.

If I was in an office environment it would probably be different. I would hate someone tossing a pile of their paperwork on my desk

In an engineering environment I would much rather someone I could trust and wont sell me down the river if something goes wrong. In most jobs if someone stabs you in the back or betrays your trust you will at the very worst get sacked in my job I could be in front of a judge if something goes wrong. So id rather take on a bit of someone elses work and carry their ass rather than working with someone who might tell me how to do something wrong and then look good for reporting it

 

[SckizoBoy]

If you don't mind me asking, what brought up this question?

Don't mind at all...

Eh... a couple guys at work are starting to resemble the two 'colleagues' so detailed in the OP...

 

[AdagioBoognish]

I always try to communicate my problem with the coworker. It doesn't always solve the problem, but in some cases people don't realize how their work ethic is affecting other people.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Number 1 is by far the worst option. Being able to do your job comes first and if the person has a likable personality then that's a bonus. I just can't stand slackers or people who constantly complain about problems that aren't even problems or people who try to pass work onto others.

 

[Aramis Night]

I tend to be the 2nd co-worker you described. Despite the notion that people seem to have here, disloyalty is far from a part of that package. Sadly so is promotion largely because people seemed to have also thrown in assumptions that the same person described in the OP is the same person who toots their own horn. If anything my competency does much to distract from the incompetency of those around me, including my bosses. People that are that competent while surrounded by those less competent often take the position that our job performance should speak for us. Sadly it doesn't and we tend to be taken for granted which tends to reinforce our contempt towards co-workers.

In my experience it will most likely be the 1st co-worker example in the OP that will be the one stabbing you in the back for promotions and taking credit for things they had little to do with. They are the ones that tend to prioritize doing as little work as possible for maximum benefit. It is much easier to take credit for the work of others then it is to do said work.

If supervisors were themselves more competent and less lazy, these circumstances that create these 2 types of workers would arise much less. But it all comes back to a feedback loop again where the lazy yet self-aggrandizing get promoted which means the supervisor will be lazy and too busy self-aggrandizing to their own higher up's to really care too much about doing more than the bare minimum in terms of overseeing their dept. since that would be more work for them.

 

[Username Redacted]

I don't recall ever having met a Type #2 person whereas in my least pleasant occupations (retail followed closely by temping) Type #1 persons are incredibly abundant. Basically a task needs to get done by a certain time and management don't give no fucks how it gets done or by whom. So more often than not your Type #1 people will try to do as little as possible which unsurprisingly results in more work for everyone else. It's even worse if everyone is getting paid the same.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Definitely number 2 since the previous manager had a couple of those traits!

One time I said I had finish labelling the new food prices but it turned out I had missed several which she had a go at me about (yes I did missed out alot but it's quite normal thing to happened at worked) after that incident she pretty much started to babysit when it come to labelling the new prices which it got on my nerve (I mean COME ON! It was only one time)!

Another time she was busy upstair and she gave me the task on putting out the new stock on a empty bay. Since I knew she was going to complain the layout, I went upstair for her suggestive which she got annoyed about (she definitely does not hold the past managers wisdom "if you get stuck, ask me"). Sure she did told me how to lay it out but she didn't educate me the general layout that the store should aim for.

Seriosuly she is bad all over at the other store she got transfered over to. She is bad around and it is still worse without her!

As with number 1, one of my co worker is like that well for the lazy part and leave it for the others to do. I can pretty much tolerate that since she does it to everybody at work and we do complain about it behind her back. By all means we have take it to the manage and she does get a warmning sometime.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

No.1 since they won't be doing much work by the sounds of things, so it probably won't be long until they get sacked.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I'll take the latter. At least they keep their mouth shut and I'm generally good enough at my job to manage when they take their vacations while the people who don't carry their weight at work panic.

 

[VoidWanderer]

Simple question, but I won't dignify it with a poll...

Which type of colleague or employee is worse, whether for company cohesion, productivity or the wellbeing of their fellow workers:

1. The sort that constantly complains about their workload, tries to dump stuff on their colleagues' pile of things to do, but doesn't do any work if they can help it anyway. (i.e. while they're there, it's shit, but when they leave or are on leave, there's little by way of change)

Or

2. The sort that considers their colleagues inept and does all their work for them, does little to educate and basically refuses help offered. (i.e. while they're there, it's great, but when they leave or are on leave, the department can potentially fall to pieces)

So carry or get carried?

Seems like a MOBA game didn't go well.

Personally, I'd rather carry someone than get carried.

 

[shootthebandit]

Ive just realised if you prefer no.1 you are probably a no.2 and vice versa. Ideally these two people together is what you want. They are the ying to each others yang. Just let them balance each other out and do your own shit

 

[L. Declis]

I don't know why people are so against No. 2.

It isn't the job of some random employee to train you unless they are specifically asked to do so. In today's job market, you've probably got enough of your own work that you can't start babying your co-workers. If they've been hired, it is assumed they have the skills to do the job, or else they shouldn't have been hired in the first place.

Also, No. 2 probably won't backstab you, they don't need to. They actually have a list of things that they do and have done, and so can show their worth with the truth. It's No. 1 who lies and takes credits and backstabs, using charm rather than hard work.

Finally, making yourself good at one particular aspect of the job that no one else is good at is a good piece of advice for workers; corner that part of the market, and then demand a pay rise or promotion to reflect this skill once you've proven yourself good enough and no one else competent.

 

[shootthebandit]

I don't know why people are so against No. 2.

It isn't the job of some random employee to train you unless they are specifically asked to do so. In today's job market, you've probably got enough of your own work that you can't start babying your co-workers. If they've been hired, it is assumed they have the skills to do the job, or else they shouldn't have been hired in the first place.

Whilst you need the skills to be hired you may be doing a specific task you havent done before so you ask someone who has. If they downright refuse to spare 1 minute to give you a few pointers they are a dick. Its not good for the company either. Yes their work gets done but everyone else grinds to a halt.

if said employee makes it so they are the only one who can do something it wont get them a raise (not in my work anyway) they will just be the one who has to do it all the time. Its also a bad business mentality because when that employee is on sick or leave that specific task cannot be done

I have a lack of trust for people like this. When your job is safety critical and you cant have a basic level of trust with a fellow employee to give you some advice on a task then yes they are a dick. If your job isnt safety critical eg and office or retail then I could see why no.2 would be better but when someone doesnt tell you how to do something that if done wrong could potentially kill someone and the only reason they wont tell is so they look good in front of management they are a dick to the highest order

 

[BlackBark]

I guess I would personally prefer to work with number 1, since I am normally the type who is happy to help. Also, as you say, if that person is only trying to work as little as possible, it might be better to do some of theirs since they may not put that much effort in.

However, with both of these personality types, there is a limit to what is acceptable and what exact type of person they are. There is a big difference between a number 1 who still puts in effort while they're at work but just doesn't want to do more than 9-5 and the type that just makes no effort at all and just wants to get by doing as little as possible.

 

[Auron225]

I'd much sooner work with the 2nd option. They may be annoying as hell but at least shit still gets done. I'd be more pissed at colleagues trying to dump their work on me.