Work ethic

[Anchor]

Concerns about the current work ethic and the future of work in this generation and how it affects the sphere of evangelicalism, and even our national fabric, has me noticing various references to work (particularly the management side) as I am reading through Scripture.  A short passage in Proverbs stuck out to me while I was reading through Proverbs over Christmas break.

        Prov. 29:21 ?He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become his son at the length.?  KJV

The first thing that ran through my mind was "Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"  So I did a little word study and compared various translations.  The main translations I routinely reference are as follows:

        ?Whoever pampers his servant from childhood will in the end find him his heir.?  ESV

      ?He who pampers his slave from childhood will in the end find him to be a son.?  NASB

        ?A servant pampered from youth will turn out to be insolent.?   NIV

      ?A servant pampered from childhood will become a rebel.? NLT

      ?Whoso is bringing up his servant delicately, from youth, [At] his latter end also he is continuator.? YLT

They all seem to agree that "delicately" is pampering, a practice that is generally negative in its outcome.  The New International, New Living, and Young's Literal present very negative results.  I am not sure how to take the King James, English Standard, or NASB translations of son/heir.

My question is this: Could this be presenting that which we are experientially observing in the current work climate, that the worker/servant/slave that is unduly, habitually coddled (pampered) will generally develop an entitled mentality regarding work/citizenship (such as we are seeing so much of) as opposed to becoming productive workers/citizens?

 

[LongGone]

Concerns about the current work ethic and the future of work in this generation and how it affects the sphere of evangelicalism, and even our national fabric, has me noticing various references to work (particularly the management side) as I am reading through Scripture.  A short passage in Proverbs stuck out to me while I was reading through Proverbs over Christmas break.

        Prov. 29:21 ?He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become his son at the length.?  KJV

The first thing that ran through my mind was "Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"  So I did a little word study and compared various translations.  The main translations I routinely reference are as follows:

        ?Whoever pampers his servant from childhood will in the end find him his heir.?  ESV

      ?He who pampers his slave from childhood will in the end find him to be a son.?  NASB

        ?A servant pampered from youth will turn out to be insolent.?   NIV

      ?A servant pampered from childhood will become a rebel.? NLT

      ?Whoso is bringing up his servant delicately, from youth, [At] his latter end also he is continuator.? YLT

They all seem to agree that "delicately" is pampering, a practice that is generally negative in its outcome.  The New International, New Living, and Young's Literal present very negative results.  I am not sure how to take the King James, English Standard, or NASB translations of son/heir.

My question is this: Could this be presenting that which we are experientially observing in the current work climate, that the worker/servant/slave that is unduly, habitually coddled (pampered) will generally develop an entitled mentality regarding work/citizenship (such as we are seeing so much of) as opposed to becoming productive workers/citizens?

I not sure I even agree with your premise. The current generation may not think the same as my generation but when I look at the five kids that are either my children or stepchildren they all have a great work ethic and so do the majority of their friends. I am 60 now and I remember some of my parents generation thinking the younger generation was lazy. Some were just as some are in every generation.

 

[ALAYMAN]

....

My question is this: Could this be presenting that which we are experientially observing in the current work climate, that the worker/servant/slave that is unduly, habitually coddled (pampered) will generally develop an entitled mentality regarding work/citizenship (such as we are seeing so much of) as opposed to becoming productive workers/citizens?

Yes, I believe that entitlement attitude we are seeing comes from a group of coddled brats that think that they should bypass the sweat equity that their parents embraced.  I've seen my mom wad money up and throw it back it people before (though it was playfully done, but "much truth is said in jest").  Handouts are not welcomed by the people of her generation, but many today not only feel no shame in being taken care of, but truly expect it.

 

[Anchor]

I not sure I even agree with your premise. The current generation may not think the same as my generation but when I look at the five kids that are either my children or stepchildren they all have a great work ethic and so do the majority of their friends. I am 60 now and I remember some of my parents generation thinking the younger generation was lazy. Some were just as some are in every generation.

We can agree to disagree on what you think my premise was.  What I'm more interested in is what is Solomon communicating under inspiration concerning the pampered servant/worker?  And then how does it apply to those of us who are in management/supervisory positions in today's marketplace?

 

[Ransom]

I am not sure how to take the King James, English Standard, or NASB translations of son/heir.

Seems clear enough. If the more negative translations are accurate, then it's saying that if you pamper a servant/slave, he will regard himself as a son, i.e. will believe himself entitled, as you put it. As Charles Bridges writes in his commentary on this verse:

It is a great exercise to preserve the true medium between distance and familiarity. A haughty menacing demeanour towards our servants forgets the respect justly due to them. An inconsiderate fondness takes them out of their place, greatly to their own injury.

 

[Bob H]

Concerns about the current work ethic and the future of work in this generation and how it affects the sphere of evangelicalism, and even our national fabric, has me noticing various references to work (particularly the management side) as I am reading through Scripture.  A short passage in Proverbs stuck out to me while I was reading through Proverbs over Christmas break.

        Prov. 29:21 ?He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become his son at the length.?  KJV

The first thing that ran through my mind was "Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"  So I did a little word study and compared various translations.  The main translations I routinely reference are as follows:

        ?Whoever pampers his servant from childhood will in the end find him his heir.?  ESV

      ?He who pampers his slave from childhood will in the end find him to be a son.?  NASB

        ?A servant pampered from youth will turn out to be insolent.?   NIV

      ?A servant pampered from childhood will become a rebel.? NLT

      ?Whoso is bringing up his servant delicately, from youth, [At] his latter end also he is continuator.? YLT

They all seem to agree that "delicately" is pampering, a practice that is generally negative in its outcome.  The New International, New Living, and Young's Literal present very negative results.  I am not sure how to take the King James, English Standard, or NASB translations of son/heir.

My question is this: Could this be presenting that which we are experientially observing in the current work climate, that the worker/servant/slave that is unduly, habitually coddled (pampered) will generally develop an entitled mentality regarding work/citizenship (such as we are seeing so much of) as opposed to becoming productive workers/citizens?

I not sure I even agree with your premise. The current generation may not think the same as my generation but when I look at the five kids that are either my children or stepchildren they all have a great work ethic and so do the majority of their friends. I am 60 now and I remember some of my parents generation thinking the younger generation was lazy. Some were just as some are in every generation.

Some yrs back our plant went to a continuous operation and we hired somewhere between 500 to 600 new employees to fill the new shift. As a general rule the majority of the "younger" generation we hired work ethic was lacking. {And I am being nice} The older ones who came in worked out fine {the general rule thing again}. The work was hard so maybe that had a affect, but.......The premise was right

 

[LongGone]

Concerns about the current work ethic and the future of work in this generation and how it affects the sphere of evangelicalism, and even our national fabric, has me noticing various references to work (particularly the management side) as I am reading through Scripture.  A short passage in Proverbs stuck out to me while I was reading through Proverbs over Christmas break.

        Prov. 29:21 ?He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become his son at the length.?  KJV

The first thing that ran through my mind was "Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"  So I did a little word study and compared various translations.  The main translations I routinely reference are as follows:

        ?Whoever pampers his servant from childhood will in the end find him his heir.?  ESV

      ?He who pampers his slave from childhood will in the end find him to be a son.?  NASB

        ?A servant pampered from youth will turn out to be insolent.?   NIV

      ?A servant pampered from childhood will become a rebel.? NLT

      ?Whoso is bringing up his servant delicately, from youth, [At] his latter end also he is continuator.? YLT

They all seem to agree that "delicately" is pampering, a practice that is generally negative in its outcome.  The New International, New Living, and Young's Literal present very negative results.  I am not sure how to take the King James, English Standard, or NASB translations of son/heir.

My question is this: Could this be presenting that which we are experientially observing in the current work climate, that the worker/servant/slave that is unduly, habitually coddled (pampered) will generally develop an entitled mentality regarding work/citizenship (such as we are seeing so much of) as opposed to becoming productive workers/citizens?

I not sure I even agree with your premise. The current generation may not think the same as my generation but when I look at the five kids that are either my children or stepchildren they all have a great work ethic and so do the majority of their friends. I am 60 now and I remember some of my parents generation thinking the younger generation was lazy. Some were just as some are in every generation.

Some yrs back our plant went to a continuous operation and we hired somewhere between 500 to 600 new employees to fill the new shift. As a general rule the majority of the "younger" generation we hired work ethic was lacking. {And I am being nice} The older ones who came in worked out fine {the general rule thing again}. The work was hard so maybe that had a affect, but.......The premise was right

I am not sure you can decide your premise is correct based on your one example. This is a difference is maturity level of younger people and older people. To be fair you can't compare 40 year olds to 20 years olds but would need to compare the 40 years olds when they were 20 year olds.

Aside from that my experience has been different than yours. I retired 3 years ago. The last position I held I managed over 6,000 employees. We had people with great work ethics in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60,s. We also had people with poor work ethics in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. Dealing with and sometime motivating people in their 20s can be different than people in their 50s. 

I will say that this is a topic where each of us most likely will be persuaded by our own experience.

 

[Anchor]

...

I am not sure you can decide your premise is correct based on your one example. This is a difference is maturity level of younger people and older people. To be fair you can't compare 40 year olds to 20 years olds but would need to compare the 40 years olds when they were 20 year olds.

Aside from that my experience has been different than yours. I retired 3 years ago. The last position I held I managed over 6,000 employees. We had people with great work ethics in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60,s. We also had people with poor work ethics in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. Dealing with and sometime motivating people in their 20s can be different than people in their 50s. 

I will say that this is a topic where each of us most likely will be persuaded by our own experience.

Then let's bypass experience and look at the text.  Is this text an instruction on how to manage, or not manage as the case may be, so that the the worker/servant will benefit and not trend toward insolence or whatever?

 

[LongGone]

...

I am not sure you can decide your premise is correct based on your one example. This is a difference is maturity level of younger people and older people. To be fair you can't compare 40 year olds to 20 years olds but would need to compare the 40 years olds when they were 20 year olds.

Aside from that my experience has been different than yours. I retired 3 years ago. The last position I held I managed over 6,000 employees. We had people with great work ethics in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60,s. We also had people with poor work ethics in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. Dealing with and sometime motivating people in their 20s can be different than people in their 50s. 

I will say that this is a topic where each of us most likely will be persuaded by our own experience.

Then let's bypass experience and look at the text.  Is this text an instruction on how to manage, or not manage as the case may be, so that the the worker/servant will benefit and not trend toward insolence or whatever?

I was responding to Bob H. I don't think I have anything to add to the conversation on the text.