Addressing this topic generally, the immortal Dagwood Bumstead once claimed: “You can’t teach people to be lazy—either they have it, or they don’t.” So what is laziness anyway? Is it about being slow to do something (what we typically call procrastination)? . . . Or about doing something slowly? . . . Or about not doing it at all? . . . Or, finally, is it about not sufficiently wanting to do something? And if this last alternative is true, when we label someone lazy are we really talking about that person’s being indolent, sluggish, or slothful? Or is there something else going on that hasn’t yet been appreciated?
What I'm going to be discussing here is my own, somewhat unorthodox view on laziness. For I believe (apologies to Dagwood, who would otherwise seem to be one of the world's foremost authorities on the subject) that the whole idea of anyone's being inherently lazy--or having a "lazy personality"--is basically a myth.
My experience, both as an individual and therapist, has led me to conclude that laziness as an explanation of human behavior is practically useless. Referring to--or rather, disparaging, or even dismissing--a person as lazy seems to me a glib and overly simplistic way of accounting for a person's apparent disinterest or inertia. And resorting to this term to categorize a person's inactivity suggests to me a laziness more on the part of the describer than the person described. In short, I view this pejorative designation as employed mostly as a "default" when the person talked about is not particularly well understood.
What I'd like to consider here is a more useful--and psychologically accurate--way of understanding people who don't do what we believe they ought to do. And my thesis is simply that what we commonly think of as laziness is not really about a lack of mobility as such but a lack of motivation.
What Interferes with Motivation
In reflecting on laziness and its various ramifications, I'll explore some of the factors I believe diminish or undermine the motivation required to embark upon--and follow through on--life's various challenges and difficulties. So far at least, here's what I've come up with to help clarify the various reasons all of us, at some time or another, fail to start or complete a task.
• Lacking a sense of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the conviction that if we put our mind to something, we'll be effective with it. Without adequate self-confidence, however, we may not believe we're capable of doing something successfully, so we end up not attempting it. Without a "can do" attitude, we unfortunately restrict ourself to doing only what's already within our comfort zone. And, going forward, we are limited precisely because we have such a limiting view of ourself. Another possibility here is that even after we've successfully undertaken something, because we still harbor doubts about our self-efficacy, we continue to delay, procrastinate, vacillate, etc.
• Lacking sufficient emotional support. It may be that we require some sort of "cheering section" to handle what otherwise might overwhelm us. Without enough encouragement from without, we simply may not be able to motivate ourselves enough from within. As adults, we should be beyond needing "attaboys!" or "attagirls!" to stay resolved to complete a task. But many of us still depend on others for the motivation--or inspiration--to do what, technically, we should be able to do independently (without being "cheered on" by others).
• Needing--but not expecting--that others will give us recognition. When we apply ourselves to something, it's usually done with some expectation of reward--whether material or emotional, internal or external. If, developmentally, we're still at a place where we must anticipate "strokes" from others to feel sufficiently motivated to begin a task, then lacking any hope that we will get such acknowledgment may leave us without the motivation to undertake it. If in the past, our application and diligence hadn't gotten us the positive feedback we craved, then how realistic is it to think we could yet maintain such diligence going forward?
• Lacking self-discipline. It may be true that we can do almost anything we set our mind to. But if our mind is our worst enemy, we simply may not be able to believe this otherwise inspiring (and motivating!) maxim. That is, whatever anxieties we may have about failing, as well as our poor sense of self-efficacy, may either keep us from starting a task or prevent us from completing it. And even if we do end up finishing it--because, say, it's a job requirement and we absolutely must--our pattern of delay will still persist. Unresolved self-doubts (deeply programmed within us) aren't automatically erased by an expedient action and will reaffirm themselves (through some sort of procrastination) the very next time we're obliged to do something.
In my experience, people who lack self-discipline also lack fundamental self-esteem. And here the latter deficiency seems to feed directly into the former. That is, significant defects in our self-image undermine our confidence in our abilities, and this lack of self-confidence negatively affects the development of self-discipline--which of course is necessary to accomplish just those things that would enhance our self-esteem. Psychologically speaking, this has got to be one of the most vicious of vicious cycles.
• Lacking interest in the endeavor itself. If the task or project feels tedious to us (i.e., not appropriately challenging), we're likely to want to avoid it altogether. If it's essential we do it, we probably will--but in one way or another we'll "act out" our displeasure by hesitating, or by doing a halfhearted, mediocre job with it. When we denigrate someone as lazy, frequently what we're really referring to is a task that the person finds so dull or boring that they just can't get themselves to tackle it. After all, it's only human nature to avoid those things seen as a nuisance or burden.
What induces us generally to evade work is not really laziness but the fact that the work isn't sufficiently compelling to us. Think of it in terms of "working" on a jigsaw puzzle. If absorbing ourself in the puzzle is experienced as fun, we'll readily engage in it. But if, frankly, we're not much attracted to jigsaw puzzles--that is, such pursuits don't represent an interesting challenge for us--we'll consider such "play" to be work and (unless we feel we have to participate) try to get out of it. All of which is to say that what motivates some people won't motivate others; and in neither case does doing, or not doing, something say anything about a person's "laziness." After all, what might be a task for one person might be an absolute delight for another.
• Ambivalence--or lacking faith that the action will be worth the effort. If certain of our priorities or values are in doubt, we may lack the clarity to move forward. Our contradictory motives--to approach or to avoid--may be weighted equally and so cancel each other out, leading to a kind of behavioral torpor. We may not be convinced that the action we're considering--or that's been suggested to us--will be all that useful, or valuable, or satisfying to us. And so we're unable to commit to performing it. Without the belief that a particular act or enterprise will somehow improve the quality of our life, it's hard (if not impossible) to cultivate the initiative necessary for undertaking it.
• Fear of failure. This explanation for not doing something overlaps with the lack of self-efficacy already discussed. But whereas an inadequate sense of self-efficacy reduces our motivation because we don't believe we can complete something successfully, the fear of failure focuses much more on our lacking the emotional resources to cope with the possibly negative outcome of our efforts. There's an old expression--"Nothing ventured, nothing gained"--that cogently makes the point that if we're ever to succeed we must at least be willing to try. But if our self-esteem is so tenuous, so weak, so vulnerable that the very risk of failing easily trumps any other consideration, we'll be stymied.
