[pictureofabear]

The author is describing two cases of poor management. The first are self-interested managers. The second are laissez-faire (in a bad way) leaders who have all but abdicated their position. Both are bad.

There is no "healthy laziness." This is a cynical term that does a disservice to leaders who skillfully practice with a light touch.

[fhd2]

I always thought laziness was a good thing, at least in our field. I'm pretty sure I'm lazy. When push comes to shove, I will do boring work very diligently, but if there's a better way, I'll look for it.

Contrast this with someone just happily diligently working away no matter what, for the sake of keeping on moving. It's very easy to get stuck on a local maximum if you don't stop and think (i.e. do nothing) on a regular basis.

I think the author's point is that the latter can be quite harmful, which is evidently unintuitive for many people.

Granted, calling an effective servant leader "lazy" is possibly not great, and the word does have a negative connotation whether I like it or not.

[Aeolun]

> I will do boring work very diligently

That’s amazing. I can’t bring myself to. If the work is boring or pointless it just wont happen, or at a glacial pace.

[nottorp]

Somebody has to do the boring work for the whole to be functional, and pointless work may be only pointless to some (ok, not always).

Let's just say you're not interested in the thing you work on overall. Because you aren't or because you're disincentivized to think of the whole picture by the system you're in.