FEATURE ARTICLE
Work Ethic and
the Filipino
By Lolita Villa
What is a work ethic
and why has the lack of it been infused in the Filipino
stereotype? We are familiar with such national archetypes
as Juan Tamad, the benign but lazy individual, with common
perceptions that government employees are corrupt and
self-serving, or that Filipinos will generally remain
lazy and inefficient unless you find them working overseas.
Where are these perceptions
coming from and do they hold water? In any case, what
should we do about it?
But first of all, what
is a work ethic? In the Random House unabridged dictionary,
it is defined as a belief in the moral benefit and importance
of work and its inherent ability to strengthen character.
S. M. Lipset, in his book "Public Interest,"
defined it as the cultural norm placing a positive moral
value on doing a good job because work has intrinsic value
for its own sake. Lipset even goes on to point out that
this philosophy was a relatively recent development.
In the "Historical
Context of the Work Ethic," a paper written by Roger
B. Hill, Ph.D., the writer states that work, for much
of ancient history, has been hard and degrading. According
to Hill, "Working hard--in the absence of compulsion--was
not the norm for Hebrew, classical, or medieval cultures."
It was not until the time of the Protestant Reformation,
all the way to the beginnings of the New World, that physical
labor became culturally acceptable for all persons.
Much has changed since
the times of the Romans and the Greeks wherein manual
labor and hard work were equated with shame and non-productivity,
since slaves generally could spend their whole lives working
without hope of uplifting their social status. Now, after
historical developments on the social and economic landscape,
and widespread acceptance that hard work and labor usually
leads to profit and self-reliance, these changes and other
trends have paved the way for shaping the philosophy of
the work ethic.
Two types of
management models
To date, we have two types of management models in the
workplace: Theory "X", which refers to the authoritarian
management style characteristic of scientific management;
and Theory "Y", which supports a participatory
style of management. Theory X was based on the premise
that the average worker was basically lazy and was only
motivated by money and neither wants or is capable of
self-directed work. This kind of model led to the specialization
and division of jobs into simple tasks, with the aim of
increasing worker production and consequently, increased
pay. Meanwhile, B. Jaggi, in "Management Under Differing
Labour Market and Employment Systems," defined participatory
management as "a cooperative process in which management
and workers work together to accomplish a common goal."
This second model was
different from the first in that instead of top-down,
directive control over workers who were perceived to be
unproductive without close supervision, the new model
stressed that giving the worker decision-making powers
provided valuable input and enhanced employee satisfaction
and morale. This second model came as a result of alternative
theories that found workers not to be intrinsically lazy,
but who were instead adaptive to their environment. Where
a workplace lacks challenge, professional growth and other
motivators, workers became lazy. When the situation was
reversed, the proponents of this theory found workers
to be creative and motivated.
Contemporary
work ethic
Today, thanks to the age of IT, most white collar jobs
are now best suited to a participatory style of management,
which has proven to be more effective in encouraging a
healthier work ethic among workers. Today's jobs in the
information age now have high-discretion characteristics
and require considerable thinking and decision-making
on workers. This way, giving employees enough authority
to make decisions on their own will facilitate greater
efficiency in meeting the needs of customers and that
of the organization.
Such jobs, as are available
to us today, now afford greater self-expression and produce
more self-fulfillment among workers. It's not surprising
to find that today's young professionals, compared to
their parents' or grandparents' generation, now perceive
work as good and rewarding in itself. This is the ideal
situation that lets a healthy work ethic breed in the
organization.
In fact, most young
people entering the workforce today anticipate talent
and hard work as the basis for success rather than luck.
In essence, information age workers expect application
of a positive work ethic to result in rewards. The consequence
is that this breeds impatience if progress is not experienced
in a relatively short period of time.
Work Ethic
and the Filipino
Where does that leave us now and the Filipino phenomenon?
Suffice it is to say that, along with such global and
western developments in workplace cultures, the Filipino
has also managed to imbibe that into his psyche. The world's
high demand for Filipino nurses, caregivers, IT workers,
and other employment opportunities overseas attests to
the fact that the Filipino is not intrinsically lazy,
and does in fact exhibit exceptional hard-working characteristics.
On the other hand,
what is the reason for sub-standard worker performance
among Filipinos in their own country? The principles elaborated
earlier in this article should answer this question. The
country, most infamous for its penchant for cheap labor,
perhaps also due to its own economic imbalance have trained
most Filipino workers into thinking that working hard
in the country leads to little progress, as opposed to
working abroad, wherein the same kind of effort here,
can be rewarded 3 or 4 times more overseas.
I also think that this
situation leads its own vicious cycle. Employers who generally
perceive their workers to be intrinsically lazy are more
bound to employ the Theory X type of management. As occupational
theorists have already indicated, such authoritarian type
of management fails to maximize the full growth and potential
of the worker, and consequently, that of the company.
Perhaps a deeper insight
into this situation will enable both employers and employees
to reorganize and pattern themselves against more effective
management models for the good of the organization and
the people.
|