"Whenever there is a hard job to be done I assign it to a lazy man; he is sure to find an easy way of doing it."
-Attribution unknown because the interwebz say several people said it.
-Attribution unknown because the interwebz say several people said it.
Stupid/Lazy: harmless. Keep around doing whatever you can get them to do.
Stupid/Energetic: fire immediately before they do damage.
Smart/Energetic: useful, give them lots of middle-management work.
Smart/Lazy: put in high-ranking positions, they'll find efficiencies that will trickle down to everyone.
I'll ask him the source and post it later.
“I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!”
http://old-soldier-colonel.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/field-mars...
(The ribbonfarm guy likes 2x2 diagrams as well: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/04/20/how-to-draw-and-judge-q...)
His definition:
"The quality that makes you go to great effort to reduce overall energy expenditure. It makes you write labor-saving programs that other people will find useful, and document what you wrote so you don't have to answer so many questions about it." http://threevirtues.com/
Really, what I'm saying here is that you are just insisting that your definition of lazy is the only correct one.
When programmers say we want 'lazy' people, what we really want are 'efficient' people. People who can get more stuff done with less effort, not people who aren't even willing to put in that effort. Some would argue that lazy people will find ways to do more for less; I would argue that a smart, hardworking person will do the same.
In that sense, lazy people are like what woodchuck64 describes.
The meaning in keithwarren's comment is clear enough, right up until the point you over-parse it and quibble over the exact definition of lazy.