Talk:Work ethic

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Work ethic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about work ethic. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about work ethic at the Reference desk.

Philosophy: Ethics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: RYparr2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I think we need to mention Max Webber in the section about the Protestant Work Ethic.

68.10.143.17 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Henry Adams[reply]

The page says only about Protestant work ethic, while there are also Catholic, Islam, Confucian (at least). CocaineTeddyBear —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need someone with a strong work ethic to make a lot of clarifications/contextualizations for this page!

I don't know what work ethic has to do with maintaining social skills. In my opinion, work ethic is the undeterred motivation that exists internally that drives an individual to complete his/her work expeditiously, thoroughly, and to the highest standards.

poofaloons are fun

Please don't put too much weight on what these two disgruntled individuals posted above. They are obviously either workaholics or slave-drivers themselves! Shanoman 21:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Life will be hard for anyone without work ethic OhWhyNot (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(poofaloons are fun)

Please don't put too much weight on what these two disgruntled individuals posted above. They are obviously either workaholics or slave-drivers themselves! Shanoman 21:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Life will be hard for anyone without work ethic OhWhyNot (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

The balance of this article could be improved by expanding the text concerning the positive aspects of the work ethic. Dogtooth 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

positive aspects of the work ethic? let me guess, you think hard work leads to success too?

I agree with Dogtooth. Regardless of one's point of view on the subject, there are actual benifits. Many Americans are often jaded and cynical when it comes to work ethic, but look at East Asian countries like Japan, who, by and large, have very strong work ethics, making a country with very limited natural resources one of the larges economies in the world. But thats just my $0.02.Davepetr 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the work ethic leads to success is POV.--Darrelljon 15:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course most of the current artical is also  POV. Like most wiki's you're arguing over which POV you want to support. Which is then declared NPOV.

Well, I came here to learn about work ethic, but because of the poor quality of this article I didn't really learn much. From the perspective of a consumer of Wikipedia this page needs improvement. --Keithg 10:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please sign your posts. One or more of you don't seem to be doing that. Second, you shouldn't delete others' comments simply because you disagree with them. I'm not an admin, nor do I want the job, but that seems a fairly obvious and reasonable thing to expect. I'm not sure what the official policy is, but I'm pretty sure they don't condone this behavior.

The section devoted to criticism is given far more weight than that given to the subject at hand. Furthermore, a lot of the criticism of "work ethic" is actually criticism of a certain perception of things which is in reality an abuse of the term, not the thing itself: Having a good work ethic does not translate into being a workaholic any more than trying to look good translates to being anorexic - both are not only taking things too far but are in fact against the very principles of their respective ethics/goals. The anti-work-ethic commentors here seem to completely misunderstand what a work ethic even is. In fact, looking at the history of just this discussion page, some comments have been deleted entirely in favor of mockery and snide remarks from those of the anti-work-ethic persuasion. At the very least, if you can't fit in more positive aspects into another section, a section with a response to the criticism is in order, if someone can find any authoritative sources. -- Glynth (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I reverted two edits by an anonymous user with the IP address: 98.124.17.172, and these were obvious cases of vandalism. Be advised you can be blocked for repeated episodes of vandalism. Ti-30X (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem to solve

Mr. Adan, a supermarket manager, asks Henry to submit a report which is to include a background analysis of some data, and recommendations based on the interpretation of that data. Mr. Adan asks Henry to get the report together within 2 weeks. Off Henry goes, He delegates the research, analysis and report writing to one of his subordinates, Rhoda, who completes the work in ten (10) days and gives the report to Henry. Henry takes Rhoda’s work, reads it, is satisfied with the content, retypes the cover page to show his name, not Rhoda and then submit it to Mr. Adan as if it were his own work. He accepts praise and gives no credit to Rhoda, who in fact did the research and wrote the report.

QUESTIONS:

1.What will you do if you will be in that situation?

(Answer here)

2.What is your reaction to not being given acknowledgement of work that you have done and then seeing someone else being praised for it?

(Answer here)

3.It is possible that you answered that question by saying that subordinates are supposed to do the dirty work, the grunt work. But is not representing someone else’s work as your own a form of theft. In the same way as using company property?

(Answer here)

4.Would you tell Mr. Adan, or just leave the situation as it is and let Henry have the praise and credit?

(Answer here)

Reaction and Recommendation: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.207.240 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I leave situation 105.112.63.216 (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

liberal bias(sic)

There's a pretty big liberal bias about the whole thing with work ethic and welfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.153.26 (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

welfare is mentioned in one paragraph. TEDickey (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two little ones

The statement "Franklin claims (...)" should IMHO be in the past tense.

The quote by Gorz should have a time reference. It is very different saying it in 2012 (where many people are indeed questioning the system without being Marxists) and saying same in 1955. elpincha (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism

There's a soviet poster saying that "Who doesn't work does not eat". I find pro-marxism bias in this article to be extensive... and ironic.. Sketches0993 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article for real?

The first section "factors of a good work ethic" seems to rely entirely on the point of view of an article by Forbes magazine, which last time I checked was neither an historical nor philosophical review, but a business magazine for wanabee millionaires. 83.250.104.75 (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant work ethic

Protestant work ethic is mentioned nowhere in this article, though protestant world view clearly have influenced the USA. This article seems to merely reflect "work ethic" in a positive light, instead of looking at reasons why it was historically seen to be morale, and how "ethic" is really a misnomer.

Originally it was called work morale, not ethics. Ethics is about how to treat others in a just way, not how to abide by a set of rules that are deemed to be good, like is done in morale. Societal rules are *not* ethical, they are norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.219.148.134 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This article is of incredibly low quality, which is ironic considering its subject. people contributing here have shown an abysmal work ethic. 69.216.101.196 (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Work immersion

There might be times your boss allows you to work from home having the permission to work from home (WFH), your just took some company office supplies and some folders home. But you came back after 2 weeks of WFH, you where given a letter of "notice to explain" the content was "attempted stealing" Base on you knowledge of the lesson Did you violate any ethics? Why yes and why no? 175.176.56.19 (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Office procedure

Office ethics 197.242.129.36 (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of AI on work ethic?

With the developments of job replacement or displacement or augmentation, considering the by now undeniable inevitable reality of a certain effect on work and therefore also work ethic(?) 2A02:A472:D5E:1:9414:887A:5EF4:57DF (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]