<p>The terms of art here for laziness like concepts are "shirking" and "effort", particularly  "endogenous effort" or "variable effort". You should also look into "<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1816355?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents" rel="nofollow">efficiency wages</a>". "Free riding" sometimes appears in this literature but because it is used heavily in the public goods literature it will have more false positives. </p>

<p>This paper may also be of interest:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Using a sample of male and female workers from the 1992 Employment in
  Britain survey we estimate a model of employees’ self-reported effort
  levels. Effort is modelled as a function of wages, the perceived
  monitoring and supervision environment in the individual's workplace,
  labour-leisure preferences, local unemployment rates and unionisation.
  Using a two-step estimation strategy to account for the endogeneity of
  the wage, we find that effort levels are increasing in wages and in
  preferences for work over leisure. While the extent of monitoring
  seems not to affect workers’ effort levels the ease with which they
  can be dismissed is a motivating factor. Unionisation reduces
  self-reported effort levels which may reflect the outcome of an
  effort-bargain and, in contrast to the efficiency wage shirking story,
  local unemployment rates do not affect effort. Finally, in spite of
  being paid more than women, men report exerting less effort at work.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Determinants of Work Effort: Evidence from the Employment in Britain Survey
(<a href="http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7358822.pdf" rel="nofollow">Clark and Tomlinson (2001)</a>)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-08T19:18:16.370Z
2015-07-08T19:18:16.370Z
BKay
<p>In this interesting paper, <a href="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/bsmb2.doc" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Caplan, 2001</a> talks about <em><strong>Conscientiousness</strong></em>, which is a measure of motivation and diligence.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Those low in Conscientiousness are typically seen as <em><strong>lazy</strong></em>, careless,
unambitious, and spontaneous; those who score high, on the other hand,
as hard-working, careful, ambitious, and cautious. (Hogan and Ones
1997)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Then, he links job performance to this personality trait.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In a wide-ranging meta-analysis, Barrick and Mount (1991) conclude
that such a link exists.  For every occupational category that they
consider, <strong>Conscientiousness</strong> invariably predicts better job
performance: It &quot;appears to tap traits which are important to the
accomplishment of work tasks in all jobs.&quot; (Barrick and Mount 1991,
p.18)  Conscientiousness correlated .17 with productivity data, .23
with subjective job performance ratings, and .17 with salary. (Barrick
and Mount 1991, p.16)  Costa's (1996) survey article confirms Barrick
and Mount's results, noting further that Conscientiousness predicted
better job performance for both genders, and remained significant
controlling for age, sex, and years of education.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>All references are in <a href="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/bsmb2.doc" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Caplan, 2001</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-24T21:12:03.877Z
2017-09-24T21:12:03.877Z
2020-06-17T09:40:54.643Z
emeryville
<p>If I would like to say, in a technical way, that the problem of a place is its lazy people, then I could say that its workforce productivity is low. However, "workforce productivity" is composed by these elements:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Physical-organic, location, and technological factors;</p></li>
<li><p>Cultural belief-value and individual attitudinal, motivational
and behavioural factors;</p></li>
<li><p>International influences – e.g. levels of innovativeness and
efficiency on the part of the owners and managers of inward
investing foreign companies;</p></li>
<li><p>Managerial-organizational and wider economic and political-legal
environments;</p></li>
<li><p>Levels of flexibility in internal labour markets and the
organization of work activities – e.g. the presence or absence of
traditional craft demarcation lines and barriers to occupational
entry; and</p></li>
<li><p>Individual rewards and payment systems, and the effectiveness of
personnel managers and others in recruiting, training, communicating
with, and performance-motivating employees on the basis of pay and
other incentives.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>In that sense, saying that the problem of a place is lazyness, some advocates would ask: How do you measure it? The answer would be: With workforce productivity. However, those advocates of lazy people could argue that workforce productivity is low because it is affected by any components from 1 to 6.</p>

<p>Is there any technical term to refer lazyness?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-08T18:56:02.160Z
Is your 2. point not it?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-08T18:59:08.240Z
Yes. Problem is how do you measure it?
Delmonte
<productivity>
Workforce productivity
Delmonte
# Workforce productivity

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-07-08)

If I would like to say, in a technical way, that the problem of a place is its lazy people, then I could say that its workforce productivity is low. However, "workforce productivity" is composed by these elements:

1. Physical-organic, location, and technological factors;
2. Cultural belief-value and individual attitudinal, motivational
   and behavioural factors;
3. International influences – e.g. levels of innovativeness and
   efficiency on the part of the owners and managers of inward
   investing foreign companies;
4. Managerial-organizational and wider economic and political-legal
   environments;
5. Levels of flexibility in internal labour markets and the
   organization of work activities – e.g. the presence or absence of
   traditional craft demarcation lines and barriers to occupational
   entry; and
6. Individual rewards and payment systems, and the effectiveness of
   personnel managers and others in recruiting, training, communicating
   with, and performance-motivating employees on the basis of pay and
   other incentives.

In that sense, saying that the problem of a place is lazyness, some advocates would ask: How do you measure it? The answer would be: With workforce productivity. However, those advocates of lazy people could argue that workforce productivity is low because it is affected by any components from 1 to 6.

Is there any technical term to refer lazyness?

**Tags:** productivity
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Is your 2. point not it?  
> **username_0**: Yes. Problem is how do you measure it?  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-07-08. Score: 2

The terms of art here for laziness like concepts are "shirking" and "effort", particularly "endogenous effort" or "variable effort". You should also look into "[efficiency wages](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1816355?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)". "Free riding" sometimes appears in this literature but because it is used heavily in the public goods literature it will have more false positives.

This paper may also be of interest:

> Using a sample of male and female workers from the 1992 Employment in
> Britain survey we estimate a model of employees’ self-reported effort
> levels. Effort is modelled as a function of wages, the perceived
> monitoring and supervision environment in the individual's workplace,
> labour-leisure preferences, local unemployment rates and unionisation.
> Using a two-step estimation strategy to account for the endogeneity of
> the wage, we find that effort levels are increasing in wages and in
> preferences for work over leisure. While the extent of monitoring
> seems not to affect workers’ effort levels the ease with which they
> can be dismissed is a motivating factor. Unionisation reduces
> self-reported effort levels which may reflect the outcome of an
> effort-bargain and, in contrast to the efficiency wage shirking story,
> local unemployment rates do not affect effort. Finally, in spite of
> being paid more than women, men report exerting less effort at work.

The Determinants of Work Effort: Evidence from the Employment in Britain Survey
([Clark and Tomlinson (2001)](http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7358822.pdf))


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-09-24. Score: 1

In this interesting paper, [Caplan, 2001](http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/bsmb2.doc) talks about ***Conscientiousness***, which is a measure of motivation and diligence.

> Those low in Conscientiousness are typically seen as ***lazy***, careless,
> unambitious, and spontaneous; those who score high, on the other hand,
> as hard-working, careful, ambitious, and cautious. (Hogan and Ones
> 1997)

Then, he links job performance to this personality trait.

> In a wide-ranging meta-analysis, Barrick and Mount (1991) conclude
> that such a link exists. For every occupational category that they
> consider, **Conscientiousness** invariably predicts better job
> performance: It "appears to tap traits which are important to the
> accomplishment of work tasks in all jobs." (Barrick and Mount 1991,
> p.18) Conscientiousness correlated .17 with productivity data, .23
> with subjective job performance ratings, and .17 with salary. (Barrick
> and Mount 1991, p.16) Costa's (1996) survey article confirms Barrick
> and Mount's results, noting further that Conscientiousness predicted
> better job performance for both genders, and remained significant
> controlling for age, sex, and years of education.

All references are in [Caplan, 2001](http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/bsmb2.doc).


---

