Best career advice I have heard

[BWV]

Don't follow your passion

 

[berkeman]

Can you give the Cliffs Notes version? Thanks.

 

[.Scott]

I think this more nuanced than Galloway describes.
I started working with data processing equipment in my Sophomore year of High School (9th grade).
It was a talent match. My enthusiasm for data processing work climbed - but never to what I would call a "passion". In some ways it was, and still is, a consuming compulsion - not terribly different than my relationship to sleeping.

Certainly work preceded it. I remember many boring classes in the 4th to 6th grades where I explored arithmetic as a diversion. And I used the reference section in the library as a live-google.

It was a lot of work, but until I started getting paid for my effort, it never felt like work.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I have mixed feelings about the advice that this person Galloway is suggesting here.

I agree to an extent that "follow your passion" is not the best advice for a broad swathe of people, in part because what someone is passionate about isn't necessarily something that can be monetized easily, or is deemed "valuable enough" to be worth getting paid to pursue.

That being said, I think for someone to be successful at an endeavour, there has to be at least an interest in a given profession or career path, whatever that path may be. I find it very hard to believe that someone who is indifferent to or actively hates their particular job will ultimately end up being either the best at that given field, or will be able to maintain the commitment required to be highly skilled in that field (certainly not enough to overcome any "injustice" or "unfairness" that such individuals will face in the workplace). And passion is not something an individual necessarily starts out with, as passion grows the further along someone pursues an interest.

Aside #1: Could someone on PF tell me who this Galloway individual is?

Aside #2: Galloway is wrong that the billionnaires earned their billions smelting iron ore (I don't think smelting iron ore is all that profitable in the 21st century). These days, billionnaires are more likely to have earned their billions in the tech sector, or in starting up or managing hedge funds, or started out in real estate.

 

[Hornbein]

I programmed computers for the money. I never liked it. I was very good at it due to an abundance of natural talent combined with conscientious self improvement and a good work ethic. I hated doing it so much I wanted to get my projects finished as soon as I could. I was always under suspicion for obvious lack of enthusiasm but was able to produce quality product in good time.

After twenty years I couldn't stand it any more. During those twenty years I'd saved my money. No family, no dating, living in cheap rentals. I was able to retire overseas at age 48. That worked out very well.

This is not a course I would recommend but to this day I can't imagine having done anything better. I was an entrepreneur for a few years and lost a chunk of money, which is what happens 90% of the time. I went to graduate school, that didn't work out. So I went back to programming and ground it out. Nobody can say I didn't try other things.

My passion is music. I gave it a serious try in my youth but quickly realized I lacked talent. I still do it but strictly for fun. I'm glad I didn't have the ability to almost but not quite make it.

 

[CrysPhys]

Aside #1: Could someone on PF tell me who this Galloway individual is?

Prof. Scott Galloway. Prof. of Marketing at NYU Stern School of Business: https://www.stern.nyu.edu/faculty/bio/scott-galloway. Also social media guru: https://www.profgalloway.com/

Aside #2: Galloway is wrong that the billionnaires earned their billions smelting iron ore (I don't smelting iron ore is all that profitable in the 21st century). These days, billionnaires are more likely have earned their billions in the tech sector, or in starting up or managing hedge funds, or started out in real estate.

Or marketing opioids.

 

[CrysPhys]

That being said, I think for someone to be successful at an endeavour, there has to at least an interest in a given profession or career path, whatever that path may be. I find it very hard to believe that someone who is indifferent or actively hates their particular job will automatically end up being either the best at that given field, or will be able to maintain the commitment required to be highly skilled in that field (certainly not enough to overcome any "injustice" or "unfairness" that such individuals will face in the workplace). And passion is not something an individual necessarily starts out with, as passion grows the further along someone pursues an interest.

Ideally, you are passionate at what you do, you are good at what you do, and others are willing to pay well for what you do. To be successful at your job, however, you only need (1) to be good at what you do and (2) to have a good work ethic [assuming you don't get squashed politically or personally]. You don't need passion. Certainly, if you actively hate your job, you won't be good at it for long: it will make you physically or mentally ill. But being neutral on the passion scale is sufficient.

When I was working as an experimental solid-state physicist, I had passion for my job. When my data came out not as expected, I could hardly wait to go to the lab the next day to take more measurements. When I designed a new piece of apparatus and got it back from the shop, I was thrilled to fire it up; a new toy to play with.

When I was working as a patent agent, I had no passion for the job, either initially or later on. I didn't hate it; it was OK. I did not eagerly anticipate my next assignment. But I was damn good at my job; so much so that key clients kept asking for me specifically. And it paid well enough for me to retire in my early 60's. So now I pursue another passion, figure skating. I suck at it, but I don't need to make a living from it (on the contrary, I can afford to pay for private lessons from a coach who does need to make a living from it).

 

[gmax137]

So now I pursue another passion, figure skating.

I didn't see that coming . One of the things I really like about PF: aside from the amazing content, are the amazing "side-jobs" the members bring to the table.

 

[CrysPhys]

I didn't see that coming . One of the things I really like about PF: aside from the amazing content, are the amazing "side-jobs" the members bring to the table.

Just to clarify, it's not a side job. Strictly for fun. Although, if I needed extra cash, I could work at a rink in various jobs: the skating director asked me if I was interested. And my coach proudly boasts to other coaches that she has a PhD physicist as one of her skaters.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Ideally, you are passionate at what you do, you are good at what you do, and others are willing to pay well for what you do. To be successful at your job, however, you only need (1) to be good at what you do and (2) to have a good work ethic [assuming you don't get squashed politically or personally]. You don't need passion. Certainly, if you actively hate your job, you won't be good at it for long: it will make you physically or mentally ill. But being neutral on the passion scale is sufficient.

You raise a good point about the 2 prerequisites of success in the workplace, especially point #1 (being good at what you do). But this leads to the question - how does someone become good what they do?

With few exceptions, to get to that stage involve considerable effort, whether in the form of education, training, trial-and-error, practice, further training, etc. For people to commit themselves and spend resources to reach that stage of competence require a dedication, and would require at least minimal interest in the subject area of their work.

And I should add that I am making a clear distinction between "interest" and "passion". Passion, in my mind, involves an intense (possibly extreme) emotional state about a given subject matter. Such an emotional state, while helpful, is not necessary. Something much less than that - a mere minimal interest - is more than sufficient for success in a job.

 

[CrysPhys]

And I should add that I am making a clear distinction between "interest" and "passion". Passion, in my mind, involves an intense (possibly extreme) emotional state about a given subject matter. Such an emotional state, while helpful, is not necessary. Something much less than that - a mere minimal interest - is more than sufficient for success in a job.

This I agree with. And it's not worth arguing whether 0 interest is sufficient or whether some value epsilon > 0 interest is sufficient. My Reply #7 was mainly in response to this portion of your previous post:

And passion is not something an individual necessarily starts out with, as passion grows the further along someone pursues an interest.

I read that to mean that passion is required for success at a job.

You raise a good point about the 2 prerequisites of success in the workplace, especially point #1 (being good at what you do). But this leads to the question - how does someone become good what they do?

With few exceptions, to get to that stage involve considerable effort, whether in the form of education, training, trial-and-error, practice, further training, etc. For people to commit themselves and spend resources to reach that stage of competence require a dedication, and would require at least minimal interest in the subject area of their work.

<<Emphasis added.>>

I'll expand further on this.

(a) You need the ability to do the job. This includes physical capability, mental capability, and other factors such as innate skills and personality traits.
(b) You need to be willing to do the job.
(c) You need the proper training (this includes any prerequisite education) to do the job. You either have previous training prior to the job, or you have the opportunity to receive training (either on your own or from someone else) at the start of the job.
(d) You need a good work ethic: you want to do a good job, regardless of the job.

Work ethic is key. Some jobs are mundane and have minimal requirements. But once you accept a job in exchange for pay, it's critical to want to do a good job, regardless of how mundane the job may be, and regardless of whether it stirs your interest or not (as long as you're not repelled by it); that is, you need to be interested in doing a good job, even if you're not interested in the job per se. So you need a strong work ethic to become good at your job in the first place. And once you become good at your job, you need a strong work ethic to maintain success in your job.

 

[russ_watters]

(d) You need a good work ethic: you want to do a good job, regardless of the job.

Work ethic is key.

I do agree this is key, but will add that to the other basics of being a good worker: communications skills, interpersonal skills, leadership (even worker bees need it), integrity, team orientation, focus, etc. You can be mediocre technically and still be very successful if you are a "good worker".

 

[StatGuy2000]

I read that to mean that passion is required for success at a job.

That was not what I meant. I was merely pointing out that passion for one's job is not necessarily always present when someone starts out at a role, but could potentially grow the further along someone is in a particular career. And I emphasize "potentially" -- this may not always occur, and growing passion is not necessarily required for success at a job (although may be helpful).

<<Emphasis added.>>

I'll expand further on this.

(a) You need the ability to do the job. This includes physical capability, mental capability, and other factors such as innate skills and personality traits.
(b) You need to be willing to do the job.
(c) You need the proper training (this includes any prerequisite education) to do the job. You either have previous training prior to the job, or you have the opportunity to receive training (either on your own or from someone else) at the start of the job.
(d) You need a good work ethic: you want to do a good job, regardless of the job.

Work ethic is key. Some jobs are mundane and have minimal requirements. But once you accept a job in exchange for pay, it's critical to want to do a good job, regardless of how mundane the job may be, and regardless of whether it stirs your interest or not (as long as you're not repelled by it); that is, you need to be interested in doing a good job, even if you're not interested in the job per se. So you need a strong work ethic to become good at your job in the first place. And once you become good at your job, you need a strong work ethic to maintain success in your job.

I agree with pretty much points (a)-(d) above. I would only add that (b) willingness to do the job, and (d) maintaining the good work ethic would be helped if there is at least a minimal interest in the job, especially over the long-term, or at the very minimum not actively repelled by it. And I emphasize "helped", not "required".

 

[CrysPhys]

That was not what I meant. I was merely pointing out that passion for one's job is not necessarily always present when someone starts out at a role, but could potentially grow the further along someone is in a particular career. And I emphasize "potentially" -- this may not always occur, and growing passion is not necessarily required for success at a job (although may be helpful).

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree with pretty much points (a)-(d) above. I would only add that (b) willingness to do the job, and (d) maintaining the good work ethic would be helped if there is at least a minimal interest in the job, especially over the long-term, or at the very minimum not actively repelled by it. And I emphasize "helped", not "required".

With the qualification that interest is helpful but not required, I'm in full agreement here. I'll even add that passion (as long as it's not overly extreme to the point of being disruptive) can be even more helpful.

 

[Swamp Thing]

As a student I had a passion for radio and electronics, and engineering in general. Ham radio was a big hobby of mine in my college days.

Once I got a job designing microwave amplifiers, my passion cooled in a few years and I totally gave up electronics as a hobby. My feeling for the job content varied from slightly negative, to occasional peaks of enthusiasm. But when I did have a peak of enthusiasm, I usually got obsessed with some narrow aspect of the project at the expense of the big picture and deliverable goals. Or even obsessed with some concept or personal project that was quite tangential to my assignment. Over a couple of decades, I learned to tame this tendency.

Since it was a government job, I never got fired; and my bursts of activity produced enough results for management to let me percolate to project management stage and middle leadership stage (which I found even more uncomfortable).

On the whole, looking back, it worked out pretty ok. It could have turned out a lot worse.

 

[Hornbein]

But when I did have a peak of enthusiasm, I usually got obsessed with some narrow aspect of the project at the expense of the big picture and deliverable goals.

Among software engineers I have seen a lot of this. I'd ask myself frequently, "what am I really trying to do here?"

Many engineers should focus less on the answer and more on the question.