So Good They Can't Ignore You: Why Skills Trump Passion in the Quest for Work You Love
Link to Downlload ⇒ Downlload Now!
Link to Read ⇒ Reaad Now!
Review : In this eye-opening account, Cal Newport debunks the long-held belief that "follow your passion" is good advice. Not only is the cliché flawed-preexisting passions are rare and have little to do with how most people end up loving their work-but it can also be dangerous, leading to anxiety and chronic job hopping. After making his case against passion, Newport sets out on a quest to discover the reality of how people end up loving what they do. Spending time with organic farmers, venture capitalists, screenwriters, freelance computer programmers, and others who admitted to deriving great satisfaction from their work, Newport uncovers the strategies they used and the pitfalls they avoided in developing their compelling careers. Matching your job to a preexisting passion does not matter, he reveals. Passion comes after you put in the hard work to become excellent at something valuable, not before. In other words, what you do for a living is much less important than how you do it. With a title taken from the comedian Steve Martin, who once said his advice for aspiring entertainers was to "be so good they can't ignore you," Cal Newport's clearly written manifesto is mandatory reading for anyone fretting about what to do with their life, or frustrated by their current job situation and eager to find a fresh new way to take control of their livelihood. He provides an evidence-based blueprint for creating work you love. SO GOOD THEY CAN'T IGNORE YOU will change the way we think about our careers, happiness, and the crafting of a remarkable life. Read more
Review : Although my comments below are mostly critical, let me first say that I enjoyed the read. I give the author credit for proposing a different take on how to achieve job satisfaction than has appeared in so many books in recent decades. 1. "Um... and for those of us who aren't Leonardo de Vinci?" a.) Who is the target audience: Ivy League grads (well, Stanford is in there too), music prodigies, people whose standardized test results put them in the top 1%, United States top-ranked debaters who use law school as a back-up plan for trying out Hollywood?!! In fairness, there are also studies cited. But is this really a guideline meant to be representative for a generalized population? Yes, these remarkable people worked hard, excelled, and appear to be content. It makes sense to look at that. But what about the rest of us? b.) An underlying assumption seems to be that career "success" is the same as career "satisfaction." (I'm not sure I would choose someone like Steve Jobs to illustrate how to be happy.) If the book were entitled, "How to be successful," I would probably quibble less. Snapshot assessments are provided of talented people who are for the moment extremely successful, and who appear content. How do we measure that these people are really happy in their jobs, or that they will be 30 years from now? Does one have to be "successful" to be happy? How many examples exist of people who have been successful who have lied (to themselves and others) about their happiness--only to later implode. c.) How do these examples support causality relative to the book's premise? There was no mention of the possibility that others might try the recommended approach and fail anyway. d.) The author's work with computers perhaps betrays him. This comes across as an intellectual construct based on the premise that job satisfaction is a deterministic puzzle. I don't agree: our lives are not linear, and this is NOT a science. There are just too many variables. Some write songs in 5 minutes, others labor for weeks or months. Some write books prolifically, some struggle for years. The template is not fixed. 2. "The Craftsman Mindset (Mastery)" a.) Of all the places to look for evidence that job satisfaction is the result of the merit of one's efforts, the decision to highlight people in the music and television industries as illustrative models is just stunning. These venues represent the most subjective examples of achievement I can imagine. Countless instances can be found to illustrate a lack of mastery, talent, and quality. How many contemporary singers sing off pitch, how many hit television shows are increasingly... garbage? Perhaps "the tape doesn't lie", but in too many cases it just doesn't matter. b.) The celebration of mastery, hard, smart work, craftsmanship, and excellence is valid, wonderful, and useful. But history is replete with examples of people who were masters at what they did, and yet they WERE ignored--or even vilified. The response based on the line of reasoning presented would likely be that these people failed to adequately handle their "career capital." Should they have assessed their marketability at the expense of their mission or their integrity? Would this have made them happy? On the other hand, maybe it's possible they were already happy--despite their lack of tangible success. c.) I find it difficult to believe that people who have the tenacity to pursue the craftsman mindset do so not from passion but because it's what the "industry requires", or because it's what they can "offer the world." The former rationale is too cynical (a la "Stepford" employees). The latter is too Pollyanna-ish. I doubt either covers the general case. d.) Ira Glass is quoted as asserting that "you have to force the skills to come." I can attest from decades of experience in diverse environments that some of the most capable people I have met were the biggest goof-offs... and when it came time to get down to brass tacks, it wasn't because they "forced it". (I suspect this is partially because their minds were relaxed enough to learn.) Would they fit the book's criteria to be considered masters? I don't know, but that's not the point: the question was whether they were happy in their work. 3. "Passion" a.) I think the book makes some good points regarding passion. It is sometimes difficult to understand passion in the absence of experience. But people have done amazing things because of passion--passion allows people to get beyond horrible circumstances through dedication to something they love. And while the book ridicules the passion mindset, Craftsman Mindset Disqualifier #2 allows for avoiding work that one considers "useless." Why? Probably because it's hard for anyone to have ANY passion for something they consider useless. (And later the development of a sense of mission is lauded to answer the related question "what should I do with my life.") b.) The argument that prior to deciding on a mission, one must first "get to the cutting edge" is just not realistic. How many people are ever able to attain that status? But even if they can, at what price? The opportunity cost of "10,000 hours" (particularly to find out one was mistaken) is enormous. Is this really a prescription for job satisfaction for the average person? c.) Perhaps the most poignant counter-examples to the premise that passion lacks value are provided by many who do excel at music as a profession. Accomplished musicians invariably note that they selected music as a career, because they in effect "had no choice," it is "part of who they are." As far as Jordan Tice, I cannot see how he would have practiced so much without passion. And to compare someone with average or even above-average musical skills to someone who is a musical "prodigy", and assert that the difference between the two can simply be attributed to how they practiced, seems to be pushing it a bit. For myself at least, I can tell you that I harbor no such illusions. :-) d.) The assertion is made that Steve Jobs wasted time during his younger days on the idea of passion. But how does one know that his "messy path" wasn't a prerequisite for his later success and happiness? How would he know he shouldn't become a Zen master, if he hadn't taken the time to explore the possibility? More to the point, maybe he would have never accomplished what he did if he hadn't attempted that path first. Indeed, the knowledge that our passions may not be clear cut may be the very reason for their pursuit. How will people obtain clarity, if they never investigate what they believe to be true? Passions may at times be illusory, and they may change, but that doesn't negate their validity--or their pursuit. 4. "The American Dream" a.) This book can be viewed as optimistic, in that it suggests that anyone can do anything. Implicit in the analysis is the cliché that if one just tries hard enough and in the right way, they'll make it, and they'll be happy. But it can also be viewed as convenient and elitist to argue from success, e.g. "I succeeded, I'm happy, why aren't you... just do what I did." Though not mentioned as such, this idea fits in well with of the longstanding concept of the American dream. The narrow and exclusive nature of the supplied anecdotes does not lead one to be persuaded regarding the general premise. The author suggests that passion is rare, but how rare are the exceptional stories that were described? How many follow the rules and aren't happy; how many don't follow the rules but are? I would be curious as to how Malcolm Gladwell might view this book. Some of the points made in "Outliers" are cited, but in my opinion this book misses some of the heart that comes through in Gladwell's book. But perhaps I'm mistaken. b.) The book notes the particularly low satisfaction level of young workers. Increasingly, Americans' expectations are too high, we have grown up believing that we deserve to be entertained. In some ways this feeds our obsession with passion--I agree. But beyond this, we live in a culture where money, power, winning, and success--not craftsmanship or mastery--are the holy grail. Are we really surprised that people feel empty? c.) If one Googles "resume tips", they'll come upon the recommendation for people to leave their personal information off their resume. This is practical advice that is understandable, but consider the rationale that is provided: "We don't care what kind of person you are." That, I suggest, may be closer to the root of why rank and file people are often miserable in the jobs.
0 comments:
Post a Comment