HR Frontiers with Senyo M Adjabeng: Are workers truly lazy and dishonest?

For the past decade, a bad myth has haunted the proverbial Ghanaian worker.  It is a myth raised in frustration by management, and occasionally voiced by political leaders or entrepreneurs seeking to explain stagnant productivity figures.   It is the damning characterization of the Ghanaian worker as fundamentally lazy and innately dishonest.  Some have even described the proverbial Ghanaian worker as thieves.

This accusation, levelled so casually yet with such damaging weight, has become a convenient alibi for institutional failure.  When a state-owned enterprise collapses, it is the “uncooperative attitude” of the staff that is cited.

When a multinational corporation fails to meet its West African targets, the narrative often shifts to the “local work ethic.”  When a private business owner finds his inventory shrinking, the immediate suspicion falls on the trusted employee who has been with him for a decade.

But as a labour consultant who has spent over two decades working with Ghanaian enterprises, from the conglomerates to the small and medium-scale entrepreneurs and State Organizations and Enterprises, I have come to understand that this narrative is not only empirically unsound but is, in itself, a primary obstacle to national economic progress.

To label a nation of over 30 million people, renowned for its entrepreneurial spirit, its diaspora’s remittance resilience, and its historical intellectual capital, as collectively “lazy” and “dishonest” is not an objective assessment – it is a form of intellectual laziness that masks deeper, systemic issues.

To answer the question fairly, we must dissect it.  We must move beyond anecdotal frustration and examine the historical context, the structural environment, the psychological contract between employer and employee, and the very real economic pressures that shape workplace behaviour in Ghana today.

The conclusion, as the evidence suggests, is that the Ghanaian worker is not the problem.  The problem is the architecture of the workplace we have built for them.

The Historical Roots of the Myth

The characterization of African labour as “lazy” is not a modern invention.  It is a colonial relic with a specific economic purpose.  During the colonial era, European administrators and mining company executives in the Gold Coast frequently complained about the “indolence” of the local workforce.

As the historian Walter Rodney detailed in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, these complaints were rarely about a genuine lack of productivity.  They were about the African worker’s refusal to submit to the brutal, alienating rhythms of wage labour that tore them from their own agricultural cycles and family structures.

The Ghanaian worker of the 19th and early 20th centuries was not lazy, he was rational.  He worked to meet a specific target, perhaps to pay his poll tax or to purchase a specific good, and then returned to his farm or his trade.  The colonial capitalist desired a complete commodification of labour, a total submission to the clock.  When that submission was resisted, the worker was pathologized.

This historical memory lingers.  It created a deep-seated, often unspoken, tension in the Ghanaian workplace,  the view that formal employment, particularly in Western-owned or Western-managed firms, is an extraction of one’s time and dignity.  This does not make workers lazy, it makes them skeptical.

And a skeptical worker, one who feels no sense of ownership or psychological safety, will rarely perform at their peak.  We have inherited a framework where the employer often expects docile submission, and the employee often expects exploitation.  In this environment of mutual suspicion, productivity is the first casualty.

This further explains and confirms the inherent suspicion and acrimony between Worker Groups, Unions and their Management in Ghana.

Deconstructing “Laziness” – A Matter of Environment, Not Character

Let us address the accusation of laziness directly.  In my consultancy practice, I have conducted organizational audits across many organisations.  What I have consistently found is that what managers label “laziness” is almost always a symptom of systemic dysfunction.

Consider the manufacturing sector in Accra and Tema.  I have consulted for a metal fabrication company that was hemorrhaging money due to “slow work” on the factory floor.  The expatriate general manager was convinced the local welders and fitters were inherently lethargic.  However, a two-week diagnostic revealed a different story.  The company’s machinery was obsolete, breaking down three times a week.  The supply chain for raw materials was so erratic that workers spent hours waiting for basic inputs.

The incentive structure was non-existent, a welder who produced 50 units earned the same daily wage as one who produced 100 units.  Moreover, the health and safety standards were so poor that workers moved cautiously, not out of laziness, but out of a rational fear of injury.

This particular factory was once shut down  by the Factories Inspectorate of the Labour Department.  When the company invested in reliable machinery, established a performance-based bonus system, and addressed safety concerns, the same “lazy” workforce increased output by 220% within six months.

This is not an isolated case. The “laziness” trope ignores the fundamental principles of Industrial-Organizational Psychology.  Frederick Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory suggests that while “hygiene factors” (salary, work conditions, job security) prevent dissatisfaction, “motivators” (recognition, responsibility, achievement) drive satisfaction and productivity.  In the Ghanaian context, many organizations fail on both counts.

How can we call a teacher lazy when they teach a class of 60 students with no textbooks, a cracked chalkboard, and a salary that arrives four months late?  How can we call a nurse in a district hospital lazy when they work 48-hour shifts without adequate supplies, facing the constant risk of infection with no incentive for such hazard?   How can we call a software developer in a startup lazy when they are expected to be on call 24/7 with no equity or clear career progression while they work with an eratic internet connectivity?

The “lazy” label is a top-down diagnosis that absolves leadership of accountability.  It ignores the reality that Ghanaian workers are among the most resilient and adaptive in the world.  The informal sector, which employs over 80% of the country’s workforce, is a testament to this.

The market woman in Makola who wakes at 3:00 AM to travel to the farming communities to buy tomatoes, the spare parts dealer in Abossey Okai who has built a global supply chain network from a tiny kiosk, the “trotro” mate who manages complex logistics, cash flow, and customer relations in a moving vehicle, all these are not the behaviours of a lazy people.  They are the behaviours of a people who have learned that formal systems often fail them, so they must create their own systems to survive and thrive.

Dishonesty Vs. Trust

The second leg of the accusation, dishonesty, is even more fraught.  To label Ghanaian workers as dishonest is to ignore the crisis of trust that permeates the Ghanaian employer-employee relationship.  Dishonesty in the workplace, whether petty theft, time theft, or corruption, is undeniably a problem in Ghana.  But to frame it as an inherent cultural trait is to misunderstand its root causes.

In my work with small and medium enterprises (SMEs), the number one complaint I hear from owners is about staff stealing goods or money.  However, when I sit down with the employees, often young, educated, and ambitious, I hear a different narrative.  I hear about salaries that have not been increased in five years despite inflation averaging 15-20% annually at the time.  I hear about the absence of statutory benefits like Social Security and Health Insurance Scheme contributions, which employers often deduct from salaries but fail to remit.  I hear about a system where loyalty is exploited, not rewarded.

When an employee is paid a salary that cannot cover their rent, transport, and feeding, let alone hospital bills and school fees for their children, while watching their employer drive a new Mercedes-Benz every year, the psychological contract is broken.  The sociologist Émile Durkheim’s concept of anomie, a state of ‘normlessness’ where social and ethical standards break down due to a lack of regulation, is useful here. When the formal structures of fairness collapse, individuals create their own moral frameworks to restore a sense of equity.

When they (workers) enter a workplace that is rigidly hierarchical, technologically backward, and devoid of mentorship, they disengage.  This disengagement is often misinterpreted as laziness.  In reality, it is a form of silent quitting, a global phenomenon where employees do the bare minimum because they feel their potential is unrecognized.

If an employer routinely violates the labour law by refusing to pay overtime, if they dismiss workers arbitrarily without severance, if they treat their staff as disposable commodities, should they be surprised when those staff members feel no moral obligation to protect the employer’s property?

I am not condoning theft, and yes all over the world there are theft cases recorded in the workplace, and it is a destructive act that harms the collective trust of society.  But I am insisting that we see it as a symptom of a broken social contract.  Dishonesty is often a form of grassroots economic resistance to perceived exploitation.  It is a desperate attempt to achieve what the employee sees as a “just” wage when the employer refuses to provide one.

Furthermore, the structure of Ghanaian society itself complicates the concept of workplace honesty.  We are a communal society built on extended family networks and obligations.  A worker is rarely an individual; they are the economic engine for a network of relatives.  When that worker’s salary is insufficient to meet the demands of this network, for funerals, for school fees, for healthcare, the pressure to supplement their income through unofficial means becomes immense.  This is not a moral failing unique to Ghanaians, it is a human response to systemic poverty and inadequate compensation.

The Generational Shift and the Skills Mismatch

We must also consider the generational dynamics at play.  The Ghanaian workforce is incredibly young, with a median age of just 21 years.  We are dealing with Generation Z and Millennials who have grown up in a digital, hyper-connected world.  Their expectations of work are fundamentally different from those of their predecessors.  This generation does not want to simply be a cog in a machine.  They seek purpose, flexibility, and growth.  When they enter a workplace that is rigidly hierarchical, technologically backward, and devoid of mentorship, they disengage.  This disengagement is often misinterpreted as laziness.  In reality, it is a form of silent quitting—a global phenomenon where employees do the bare minimum because they feel their potential is unrecognized.

Simultaneously, there is a profound skills mismatch in the Ghanaian labour market.  Our educational institutions, from the basic to the tertiary level, often fail to equip graduates with the critical thinking, problem-solving, and technical skills demanded by modern industry.  A university graduate may possess a degree but lack the practical skills to operate modern accounting software, manage a digital supply chain, or communicate effectively in a corporate setting.

When such a graduate is hired and then branded “lazy” or “incompetent” for failing to perform tasks they were never trained to do, the fault lies not with the worker but with the ecosystem, the educational system and the organization’s failure to invest in onboarding and training.  A study by the African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET) consistently highlights that the lack of employer investment in human capital development is a critical bottleneck to productivity in Ghana.  We cannot import a skillset, refuse to train locally, and then blame local workers for not possessing it.

Rethinking the Ghanaian Workplace

If we accept that the narrative of the lazy and dishonest Ghanaian worker is a myth sustained by poor management, historical baggage, and systemic failures, then the question becomes, how do we fix it?  The onus, I argue, falls squarely on leadership, both public and private.

First, we must re-engineer the psychological contract.  Employers must move from a transactional relationship (time for money) to a relational one (contribution for shared success).  This begins with fair, timely, and transparent compensation.  In a volatile inflation economy like Ghana’s, salary reviews cannot be an annual negotiation that leaves workers anxious and angry.  They must be proactive, tied to performance, and benchmarked against the cost of living.  When a worker knows that their employer is fighting for their financial well-being, loyalty shifts from an obligation to a natural outcome.

Then, investment in training and career development must be non-negotiable. Indeed it is a requirement by law for employers to train and retrain their workers.  The most successful organizations I have consulted for in Ghana are those that have established in-house training academies, mentorship programs, and clear career pathways.  When a worker sees that their job is a career, not just a paycheck, they begin to think like an owner.  They take pride in their work because they see a future in it.  The cost of training is far less than the cost of high turnover, low productivity, and institutional knowledge loss that plagues companies that refuse to develop their talent.

Further, we must embrace accountability at the top.  The culture of a workplace is set by its leaders.  If a CEO routinely arrives at work at 10:00 AM and leaves at 3:00 PM, they cannot demand punctuality from their staff.  If a manager embezzles company funds, they cannot preach honesty to their team.  Integrity is a top-down phenomenon.

Ghanaian workers are incredibly perceptive, they know when they are being led by people of character and when they are being led by hypocrites.  They will mirror the behaviour they see in their leadership.

Then, we must leverage technology to build trust, not surveillance.  Many Ghanaian employers, in an attempt to combat the “dishonesty” they fear, have resorted to draconian surveillance, CCTV cameras in every corner, biometric clocks that trap workers in, and strict micromanagement.

This approach creates a prison-like atmosphere that destroys intrinsic motivation.  Instead, technology should be used to provide transparency, shared dashboards showing company performance, digital systems that allow for real-time feedback, and flexible work arrangements that respect the worker’s autonomy.  A worker who is trusted is a worker who is trustworthy.

Finally, we must strengthen institutional frameworks.  The Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) provides a solid foundation for fair labour practices, but its enforcement is weak.  The Labour Commission is under-resourced, and many workers, fearing retribution, do not report violations.

When the state fails to enforce contracts, it creates a ‘Wild West’ environment where employers can exploit with impunity and workers can only respond with passive resistance or survivalist dishonesty.  Strengthening labour inspection, streamlining dispute resolution, and ensuring that the laws of the land are respected would go a long way in professionalizing the workplace culture.

To ask whether Ghanaian workers are truly lazy and dishonest is to ask the wrong question.  It is a question that projects blame downward, toward those with the least power to change their circumstances.  The right question should be, are Ghanaian workplaces, institutions, and leadership structures structured to unlock the immense potential of the Ghanaian people?

Indeed there are some thieves and dishonest people in every soceity and no doubt the workplace.  However, a structured system built on accountability and transparency will overcome any such overtures.   And in case the structures are circumvented, disciplinary penalties must be in place to remove such persons from the workplace.  The responsibility for change lies with us, the business owners, the managers, the policymakers, and the consultants.

We must build systems that foster productivity rather than punish perceived indolence.  We must cultivate environments of trust rather than assume dishonesty.  We must invest in our people with the same vigour we invest in machinery and infrastructure.  When we do this, we will no longer need to ask if Ghanaian workers are lazy or dishonest.

Further Reading:

1. Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications.
2. Herzberg, F. (1959). The Motivation to Work. John Wiley and Sons.
3. African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET). (2021). Ghana Transformation Report: Skills for Jobs.
4. International Labour Organization (ILO). (2020). Decent Work and the Informal Economy in Ghana.
5. Aryee, S., & Ofori, G. (2017). Human Resource Management in Ghana: Challenges and Opportunities. In Handbook of Human Resource Management in Emerging Markets. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Post Views: 6