There are three systems of work ethics where I live.
For simplicity, let's say that the first system is quite Nordic. Think of how the Germans or the Dutch work, and you'll understand it. It's very goal-orientated. Each person has their own responsibilities and duties. If they fail, it is their fault and nobody else's. If the job isn't done properly, it might as well not be done at all. You take pride in your work.
The second system is very community-orientated. It presupposes that a project and all that it involves, is everyone's responsibility, and also that everyone is everyone else's responsibility. If someone is slacking off or not coping, the whole project stops in order for that one person to be assisted. If someone is late, the entire project will wait on them; and when they do finally arrive, there will first be niceties. If someone fails, it is because the team failed. (And, unfortunately, the downside: If the job isn't done properly... oh well.

The third system is what I think of as the monkey system. Think of, for example, American multinationals that don't care about their employees, so those employees have no reason to care about the company, and everybody is slacking off or shifting the blame, and you'll understand what it is I mean by "monkey system": most of the jobs, monkeys could do. It requires no initiative or imagination.
I most prefer the first system. The second system is perfect for societies which instill self-discipline and "honour" in their people; but most (Western) societies are no longer such societies, so what the second model ends up achieving in most (Western) societies is this: it offers an easy way to slack off and not be personally responsible. I hate that, with the fire of a million suns -- even more than I hate the third system.