Quality of Work vs. Ease of Task

[Lagmonster]

After an inconclusive debate on the issue, here's a new topic that we've been fighting over between my peers.

Is the following statement true, false, mostly true or mostly false (with provisions): "The jobs which require the highest levels of training and skill are most often performed to the highest standards for safety and quality of work, whereas the jobs which require the least skills or training are more often performed to the lowest standards of same."

My argument is that it is entirely true; workers in high-skill positions, such as doctors, have fewer mishaps, have better quality services/products in the end, and make fewer errors than workers in low-skill positions, such as business janitorial companies and burger flippers.

One peer argues that it is true, but a deceptive truth: that workers in high-skill positions are bound by stringent rules for public safety and professionalism that don't appear in low-skill jobs, and that both low and high skill jobs suffer similar variations in quality and performance, except that fewer high-skill employees stay on to make mistakes more than once, whereas low-skill employees might be allowed to perform merely adequately or poorly again and again.

And another peer argues that it is false, but admits she lacks evidence to prove it - she supposes that since there are fewer high-skill jobs than low-skill jobs, poor performance among low-skill employees is simply more obvious to every-day examination, but that overall the percentage of good vs. lousy workers in either extreme are likely roughly similar.

[Darth Wong]

I haven't seen numbers on mistakes made by professionals vs low-skill workers, but I would submit that it is difficult to do a direct comparison because low-skill workers often do such menial tasks that their job performance is measured not in terms of judgment but in terms of productivity.

For example, how does a janitor make a mistake? By sweeping the floor the wrong way? The only "mistake" he can realistically make is to not do his job at all, or do it really shoddily. There is no room for judgment in his job, hence the determination of his rate of errors is almost meaningless. There is very little (if any) realistic possibility of a janitor putting in a genuinely good effort but making an error due to human fallibility.

[Alferd Packer]

I would also consider the economic factors. If you work a job where you pull in $100K annually, are you more likely to go good work than if you made $12K? Or, let's consider the burger flipper making $12K a year. If he suddenly gets paid $100K a year for doing same job (along with the lack of job security--unlike an engineer or computer programmer, anyone can do his job), does his quality of work suddenly and drastically improve?

Now let's take the computer programmer making $100K a year. Suddenly he's making just $12K. Does his work quality take a nosedive, or does his sense of professionalism override economics that and he continues to churn out quality stuff.? Assume for sake of argument that he finds himself in a situation where he cannot simply find new, better-paying work, and is more or less stuck at this job. The only thing he can control is how he does his job.

[Darth Servo]

For example, how does a janitor make a mistake?

By emptying the trash can on the floor instead of the dumpster?

By filling the soap dispensers with toilet cleaner?

[Broomstick]

Doctors make an alarming number of mistakes, as do other medical personnel.

There are other high-skill positions that are subject to error as well.

An additional problem are the consequences of error. If a janitor spills a full trash can on the floor well, not much harm done. He cleans it up and goes on. If a surgeon amputates the wrong limb, though....

For certain areas of human endeavor it's not enough to simply reduce the error rate because any error could have catastrophic consequences. So such areas typically (and should!) incorporate techniques to check decision-making and catch errors before they become disasters. This can make the error rate appear lower, but in reality it's not - it's just that a system is in place to accomodate a certain about of mistake and correct it in a timely manner.

[Lord Zentei]

There is also the issue of quality control in the application process; the only people to become doctors for instance are those who have completed years of training and survived an intensive weeding-out process. People who are (other things being equal) naturally less attentive and professional-minded would not be able to pass through that selection process.

[R. U. Serious]

"The jobs which require the highest levels of training and skill are most often performed to the highest standards for safety and quality of work, whereas the jobs which require the least skills or training are more often performed to the lowest standards of same."

This does not seem to be a question that can be answered by logical thinking. You could make a guess, sure, but to see whether that statement is true, you'd have to the hard route of agreeing on certain quantifiable metrics and threshholds and then going out and making a field study. I don't see why you you think that either one or the other should be inherently the correct answer (which you imply by asking whether the statement is "true or false").

My guess would be, that both of the outcomes of such a field-study are possible and would likely be decided by how and what you measure and what the threshholds will be.

My argument is that it is entirely true; workers in high-skill positions, such as doctors, have fewer mishaps, have better quality services/products in the end, and make fewer errors than workers in low-skill positions, such as business janitorial companies and burger flippers.

That's more of an assertion, than an argument.

And another peer argues that it is false, but admits she lacks evidence to prove it

Actiually all three of you lack any evidence.

And the question is phrased too ambigiously, to be answered with a simple yes or no.

[R. U. Serious]

There is also the issue of quality control in the application process; the only people to become doctors for instance are those who have completed years of training and survived an intensive weeding-out process.

And it is totally open whether this is (over-)compensated by the higher difficulty of the work.

The question also states:

are most often performed to the highest standards for safety and quality of work

it is not clear to me, whether this is more about intention or ability or a mixture of both. If it is intention, then it seems to somewhat step inside the ethical realm: Do people try to achieve a "high quality of work", and that is of course dependent on lots of variables, to the point even where I think that the level of skill required is neglible. More likely to have a larger effect is quetions like:
- is the quality of work bein controlled?
- if it is, what are consequences of bad results?

These may or may not correlate (in some/most cases?) with the skill-level, but there is no inherent causal relationship between the intention or ability to do quality/safe work and the skill/training-level. It all depends on the specifics. (Shouldn't be surprising, given that it's an apples and oranges comparison.)

[CarsonPalmer]

I think in the higher levels of work, a mistake is irreversible, while at lower levels, it can be tried again. A janitor, as Broomstick said, can pick up a spilled trash can. A carpenter can try a new cutting technique in his backyard, but would never do so on a house, because it is irreversible. A football coach might try a double reverse pass in practice, to see how it looks, but would never do so in a game where it can't be taken back. A surgeon would never experiment on a live patient, but might on a cadaver.

[Lord Zentei]

There is also the issue of quality control in the application process; the only people to become doctors for instance are those who have completed years of training and survived an intensive weeding-out process.

And it is totally open whether this is (over-)compensated by the higher difficulty of the work.

The question also states:

are most often performed to the highest standards for safety and quality of work

it is not clear to me, whether this is more about intention or ability or a mixture of both. If it is intention, then it seems to somewhat step inside the ethical realm: Do people try to achieve a "high quality of work", and that is of course dependent on lots of variables, to the point even where I think that the level of skill required is neglible. More likely to have a larger effect is quetions like:
- is the quality of work bein controlled?
- if it is, what are consequences of bad results?

These may or may not correlate (in some/most cases?) with the skill-level, but there is no inherent causal relationship between the intention or ability to do quality/safe work and the skill/training-level. It all depends on the specifics. (Shouldn't be surprising, given that it's an apples and oranges comparison.)

As I understood the question, there was both the issue of intent as well as ability; though higher diffuculty of the task may make the point I raised moot in the latter case, it does not do so in the former, particularly as personality and attitude are important there. But focusing exclusively on the latter, the question as stated is essentially meaningless.