Passion Not Required: It's OK to Only Program for a Paycheck(exceptionnotfound.net)
exceptionnotfound.net
Passion Not Required: It's OK to Only Program for a Paycheck
https://exceptionnotfound.net/passion-not-required-its-ok-to-only-program-for-a-paycheck/
87 comments
If a company wants a passionate programmer, one who has an active Github profile, then in return I want the freedom to maintain that profile and program what I want and post it, without the company saying they own every creative thought I have after they hire me. They can have me while I'm working my 9-5, they can have whatever I create in relation to assigned projects. But if I decide to create a cool game engine, or a programming language, or work on a framework, and especially if they aren't paying me for those specific activities, then I should be able to do that on the weekends if I so choose. Without having a constant fear that their lawyers are going to sue me for "giving away company secrets", when that code has absolutely nothing to do with my job at the company.
I don't think most "corporate" programmers would consider themselves passionate. The nature of the work isn't something that passionate people would find fulfilling. As such, I'd venture to say that the vast majority of programmers aren't passionate (or they used to be, but now see it as a job).
The passionate ones are those who work on their own stuff. Either by figuring out how to monetize their passion projects, or working for Big Tech where you can get paid to continue your research. The passionate ones who don't future out how to work on their own projects are probably poor hires, since clearly they are missing some critical component to success in the industry.
I would argue that this particular attitude is probably going to stagnate your career.
> You can still be a quality developer even if:
> You don't tweet, or read blogs, or spend your free time learning new frameworks and languages.
The march of technology never stops. Either you:
- get lucky and work in a sub-field that doesn't have much change year-to-year, so you can stay there indefinitely.
- get lucky and work a job that offers enough flexibility that upskilling at work is possible.
- don't get lucky and have to upskill in your free time.
- slowly lose employment prospects.
Those first and last points are kind of related. I've seen people work at a company for years, then those years turn to decades, and they realize that they have no marketable skills outside of their current role because they never needed to grow.
Plus, if you don't stay abreast of technology trends, then the people you work with who do keep up will be the ones deciding the future technology of your company and you won't be in a position to gauge how good of a fit it will be or what your personal opinions of it are.
I do as much upskilling at work as possible, but there's just not enough time in the day to do billable work, while staying relevant. Especially since products aren't simple anymore. Most new products you'll be introduced to as a dev are complicated enough to warrant some training time before using.
The passionate ones are those who work on their own stuff. Either by figuring out how to monetize their passion projects, or working for Big Tech where you can get paid to continue your research. The passionate ones who don't future out how to work on their own projects are probably poor hires, since clearly they are missing some critical component to success in the industry.
I would argue that this particular attitude is probably going to stagnate your career.
> You can still be a quality developer even if:
> You don't tweet, or read blogs, or spend your free time learning new frameworks and languages.
The march of technology never stops. Either you:
- get lucky and work in a sub-field that doesn't have much change year-to-year, so you can stay there indefinitely.
- get lucky and work a job that offers enough flexibility that upskilling at work is possible.
- don't get lucky and have to upskill in your free time.
- slowly lose employment prospects.
Those first and last points are kind of related. I've seen people work at a company for years, then those years turn to decades, and they realize that they have no marketable skills outside of their current role because they never needed to grow.
Plus, if you don't stay abreast of technology trends, then the people you work with who do keep up will be the ones deciding the future technology of your company and you won't be in a position to gauge how good of a fit it will be or what your personal opinions of it are.
I do as much upskilling at work as possible, but there's just not enough time in the day to do billable work, while staying relevant. Especially since products aren't simple anymore. Most new products you'll be introduced to as a dev are complicated enough to warrant some training time before using.
[deleted]
You don't need passion to be a good programmer, but even if you are passionate about it, in the long term you need some kind of a paycheck to sustain that passion. It's not sustainable to be passionate if you are destitute or starving.
However, it's hard to be a be a problem solver without some passion for the sort of problems you are facing. That doesn't mean that you must spend time outside of work on it, just care about it what you are doing while on the job. One can be very passionate about their job, but enforce limits on the job so it doesn't encroach on their other passions in life (like family).
However, it's hard to be a be a problem solver without some passion for the sort of problems you are facing. That doesn't mean that you must spend time outside of work on it, just care about it what you are doing while on the job. One can be very passionate about their job, but enforce limits on the job so it doesn't encroach on their other passions in life (like family).
That said, I would prefer to work with somebody who is invested in their craft. If you’re just showing up to cash a check it shows and I’m inclined to work with somebody else. Overly passionate individuals can be fanatics and irritating to work with. But people who are just in it for the money and aren’t invested in east they make are demotivating.
What if - you do need passion to be good at X. But you dont need those best at X for most companies. These companies are perhaps just conflating "best" with willingness to burn out?
When I used to go to interviews (some 20 years ago) I had absolutely refused to discuss any personal stuff. Any question trying to pry on me would be met with polite "I would prefer to concentrate on professional matters". Not that I remember personal questions asked too often. Now for some reason employers feel entitled. Well fuck it.
Will code for money.
passion is not required
but caching is:
https://archive.is/3A5ku
but caching is:
https://archive.is/3A5ku
Depends on how much time you have
As an engineering leader, I find it exceptionally refreshing when I ask someone what their plans are and they say 'retire'.
This lets me drop to a more effective conversation and focus on playbook and what needs to happen.
Once you can get past the need for inspiration, it becomes more real and honest about what people need to do.
This lets me drop to a more effective conversation and focus on playbook and what needs to happen.
Once you can get past the need for inspiration, it becomes more real and honest about what people need to do.
My 5 year plans? Continue doing what I'm doing, but just be better at it
My dad retired early and I have no plans to do the same.
I'm curious as to why? I mean, the whole FIRE movement is predicated on this.
Thanks for this insight. Totally curious, is it easier to hire someone who's mostly motivated by the paycheck since it's easier to compete (just pay them higher) than other factors?
I'm guessing the issues with someone who's saying they want better work environment, better team, more interesting work, etc is that it's going to hard to make them perfectly happy and there's no work or team that's ideal?
I'm guessing the issues with someone who's saying they want better work environment, better team, more interesting work, etc is that it's going to hard to make them perfectly happy and there's no work or team that's ideal?
So, a TC chaser is easier to get to do hard work. These are the people that you can have take on big meaty things, take honest criticism, put their ego aside, and focus on the entire effort.
What we often forget about 'passion' is that it can also manifest as toxic ego. I have to work exceptionally hard to control the toxic ego within myself, and money is the focusing thing.
Do I want to manifest as a creative artist now, OR do I want to retire early?
I have biased for retiring early and gaining perspective such that my future art is at the next level. For instance, my future art is finishing my silly language: http://www.adama-lang.org/
Instead of chasing down donations and trying to build a sustainable open source company, I'll just collect my 3.5% from my portfolio and have fun. I'll dance in the field.
What we often forget about 'passion' is that it can also manifest as toxic ego. I have to work exceptionally hard to control the toxic ego within myself, and money is the focusing thing.
Do I want to manifest as a creative artist now, OR do I want to retire early?
I have biased for retiring early and gaining perspective such that my future art is at the next level. For instance, my future art is finishing my silly language: http://www.adama-lang.org/
Instead of chasing down donations and trying to build a sustainable open source company, I'll just collect my 3.5% from my portfolio and have fun. I'll dance in the field.
I agree with this. As someone who is disabled and can't work beyond 40 hours, it is unrealistic to ask me to work more outside of work as a job requirement. (Including hanging out with coworkers.)
My passion is writing but it's not something I can do full time. Having a day job pays the bills and provides the structure I need to be productive outside of work.
I'm still excellent at my job and helpful to my coworkers but they aren't my life. Jobs, and the relationships with them, end.
My passion is writing but it's not something I can do full time. Having a day job pays the bills and provides the structure I need to be productive outside of work.
I'm still excellent at my job and helpful to my coworkers but they aren't my life. Jobs, and the relationships with them, end.
Totally agree with you there. I have a medical condition where it's a really bad idea for me to compromise on sleep or exercise, I'm also caffeine-sensitive, still have a shitton of chores to do, have hobbies that are central to keeping me in a positive mental health state, and I'm tired of people taking pride in staying up all night and drinking energy drinks for work because "passion".
edit: To be clear, I actually do have passion for my work, but that does not mean I want to be doing it for 60 or 80 hours a week. In fact overworking and turning the rest of my life upside down is a good way to lose that passion.
edit: To be clear, I actually do have passion for my work, but that does not mean I want to be doing it for 60 or 80 hours a week. In fact overworking and turning the rest of my life upside down is a good way to lose that passion.
There's a way to approach this topic with a bit more nuance:
It's okay to treat your job as a job. Save your passion for your personal interests.
If you're passionate about programming that's awesome, but use it for code you can do yourself. Nobody can cancel your personal project because business priorities change.
It makes it so much easier if you can internalize that your coding at work does not represent your worth as a person. In many cases the coding you do at work is going to be significantly different than the code you do for yourself.
It's okay to treat your job as a job. Save your passion for your personal interests.
If you're passionate about programming that's awesome, but use it for code you can do yourself. Nobody can cancel your personal project because business priorities change.
It makes it so much easier if you can internalize that your coding at work does not represent your worth as a person. In many cases the coding you do at work is going to be significantly different than the code you do for yourself.
Slightly off topic but keep an eye on your work contract: in some cases the company owns whatever you produce while employed, even hobby projects that turn out to make money.
Well said. It is also why a lot of people struggle with retirement. They don't feel any other self-worth. Find a hobby (keep learning new things until you find something) and you will always have something to look forward to.
Most of these essays about "passion not required" are missing the point.
Yes, of course passion isn't required for a paycheck. You're preaching to the choir who are already receptive to that message and nod in agreement.
The issue is that some of the others in the industry who you don't control such as founders, hiring managers, co-workers, etc do care about passion and use it as a important factor to hire you.
To answer the inevitable "pharmacists don't dispense medicine on the weekends as a fun hobby so why are programmers who don't have side-projects being discriminated against?!?" ... it's because programming (unlike pharamacy) is an activity that many genuinely enjoy doing for fun on personal time. For those, programming is similar to expressing a creative outlet like playing guitar. It's inevitable that some people prefer these types of programmers.
Hiring preferences for those with passion are not unique to computer programmers. Here's engineer Ben Krasnow (of popular channel Applied Science) explaining how a "personal portfolio" helps him stand out and get good non-programming jobs:
- deep link and watch for ~30 seconds: https://youtu.be/ihbYtxaEDSk?t=248
Another Ben K video covering the same topic but mentioning Valve & GoogleX and choosing between prospective candidates:
- deep link: https://youtu.be/4RuT2TlhbU8?t=112
So, if you're an electrical engineer getting angry at the world because employers shouldn't "expect" you to design circuits for fun on the weekend, don't be surprised if they hire Ben instead of you.
Yes, of course passion isn't required for a paycheck. You're preaching to the choir who are already receptive to that message and nod in agreement.
The issue is that some of the others in the industry who you don't control such as founders, hiring managers, co-workers, etc do care about passion and use it as a important factor to hire you.
To answer the inevitable "pharmacists don't dispense medicine on the weekends as a fun hobby so why are programmers who don't have side-projects being discriminated against?!?" ... it's because programming (unlike pharamacy) is an activity that many genuinely enjoy doing for fun on personal time. For those, programming is similar to expressing a creative outlet like playing guitar. It's inevitable that some people prefer these types of programmers.
Hiring preferences for those with passion are not unique to computer programmers. Here's engineer Ben Krasnow (of popular channel Applied Science) explaining how a "personal portfolio" helps him stand out and get good non-programming jobs:
- deep link and watch for ~30 seconds: https://youtu.be/ihbYtxaEDSk?t=248
Another Ben K video covering the same topic but mentioning Valve & GoogleX and choosing between prospective candidates:
- deep link: https://youtu.be/4RuT2TlhbU8?t=112
So, if you're an electrical engineer getting angry at the world because employers shouldn't "expect" you to design circuits for fun on the weekend, don't be surprised if they hire Ben instead of you.
100% of people with side projects are passionate. That's why folks put a lot of emphasis on side-projects because it predicts passion almost perfectly.
The opposite, that people without side projects aren't passionate, simply doesn't hold true. I've met and worked with engineers that were extremely passionate about programming but who had better things to do on the weekend than code (outdoors, sports, spending time with their kids). Their passion showed in continuously learning, often about things that were related to what they were working on, and an interest in computing. They'll make out time to learn or better use any time you set aside for that at work to improve their skills or mentor. They exclusively code from 9-5 but it's a completely different mindset than the folks who only treat is as a job or worst that actively try to stop coding.
The later are probably the people that you really want to filter out of any hiring pipeline, and I've met my share. Learning a new codebase is to be avoided, reading code is a waste of time and so on. A lot of them try to get in management as soon as they can, and you can imagine the results.
The opposite, that people without side projects aren't passionate, simply doesn't hold true. I've met and worked with engineers that were extremely passionate about programming but who had better things to do on the weekend than code (outdoors, sports, spending time with their kids). Their passion showed in continuously learning, often about things that were related to what they were working on, and an interest in computing. They'll make out time to learn or better use any time you set aside for that at work to improve their skills or mentor. They exclusively code from 9-5 but it's a completely different mindset than the folks who only treat is as a job or worst that actively try to stop coding.
The later are probably the people that you really want to filter out of any hiring pipeline, and I've met my share. Learning a new codebase is to be avoided, reading code is a waste of time and so on. A lot of them try to get in management as soon as they can, and you can imagine the results.
I fully agree with you, and I'd like to add one more argument, which is culture fit.
The original article says "Programming is not a calling. It is not a way of life." and I'm willing to believe that to be true for most people.
But for me, building cool stuff IS my way of life. And for most of my friends, too. If I ask in our group chat "what did you do on the weekend", I'll get replies like "I wrote for my book", "I tailored XY", "I built VFX in Unity", "I did an online game jam", "I 3d-printed Z".
Every one of my friends and everyone in my close programming group has his/her own stories about the time when they could only barely finish a really cool hobby project. In line with that, cool stuff that people built is one of our Slack channels at work. If we would ever hire someone who's not passionate about coding or engineering, I'm not sure they would be able to fit in.
Plus, being genuinely interested in the engineering work that other people are doing can open a lot of doors for you.
The original article says "Programming is not a calling. It is not a way of life." and I'm willing to believe that to be true for most people.
But for me, building cool stuff IS my way of life. And for most of my friends, too. If I ask in our group chat "what did you do on the weekend", I'll get replies like "I wrote for my book", "I tailored XY", "I built VFX in Unity", "I did an online game jam", "I 3d-printed Z".
Every one of my friends and everyone in my close programming group has his/her own stories about the time when they could only barely finish a really cool hobby project. In line with that, cool stuff that people built is one of our Slack channels at work. If we would ever hire someone who's not passionate about coding or engineering, I'm not sure they would be able to fit in.
Plus, being genuinely interested in the engineering work that other people are doing can open a lot of doors for you.
There are plenty of jobs where passion is necessary because some practical aspect of the job sucks -- low base pay, crunch times and long hours in startups and the video game and movie/special effects industries, for example. Some folks make a career of this; others will switch specializations and have fun war stories to share with their coworkers at their new 9-to-5.
Passion also matters if you don't demonstrate the skills required for the role but get hired anyway. Being hired as a PFY, or unpaid high school/college internships, or "boss's son/daughter cleans the office" type jobs, especially since some of these roles aren't standing hires, but are "created" for the right candidate.
I think that the value a "paychecks are ok" sort of piece is two-fold. (1) For people who think that they have to pretend to be passionate because their employer cares, we want you to know that other kinds of jobs exist. There are trade-offs; maybe you'll be working in ad-tech, or some other boring cog of business logic, but they exist. (2) For young people (especially minorities) who think that "programming is not for them" because they're not thinking about it 24/7, we say, "there are places here where you can belong".
The folks I've met who are most passionate about designing circuits for fun on the weekend are the 9-to-5, spend-time-with-the-kids types. You don't have time to design circuits on the weekend if you're doing 80-hour work weeks. Don't believe recruiting sites that say "we hire people with passion" when they really mean "we want unpaid overtime", ugh.
Passion also matters if you don't demonstrate the skills required for the role but get hired anyway. Being hired as a PFY, or unpaid high school/college internships, or "boss's son/daughter cleans the office" type jobs, especially since some of these roles aren't standing hires, but are "created" for the right candidate.
I think that the value a "paychecks are ok" sort of piece is two-fold. (1) For people who think that they have to pretend to be passionate because their employer cares, we want you to know that other kinds of jobs exist. There are trade-offs; maybe you'll be working in ad-tech, or some other boring cog of business logic, but they exist. (2) For young people (especially minorities) who think that "programming is not for them" because they're not thinking about it 24/7, we say, "there are places here where you can belong".
The folks I've met who are most passionate about designing circuits for fun on the weekend are the 9-to-5, spend-time-with-the-kids types. You don't have time to design circuits on the weekend if you're doing 80-hour work weeks. Don't believe recruiting sites that say "we hire people with passion" when they really mean "we want unpaid overtime", ugh.
> Most of these essays about "passion not required" are missing the point.
I'd argue that they're aiming for the idiots who are selectively hiring for someone's passion for software development.
So long as these people exist, these essays have value. If only one person is convinced that maybe, just maybe, selecting for passion is a bad idea when hiring, the essay has done its job admirably.
I'd argue that they're aiming for the idiots who are selectively hiring for someone's passion for software development.
So long as these people exist, these essays have value. If only one person is convinced that maybe, just maybe, selecting for passion is a bad idea when hiring, the essay has done its job admirably.
I agree, in hospitality you see a lot of passionate chefs, most burn out due to working insane hours as they are passionate about: that dish, that prep, that service, that function, covering and ensuring that service runs when the shift is short.
I left for teaching English, and I see the same thing. Every advert wants someone passionate, and then once they are in oh we need this covered, this extra work 'think of the children' style, and the same burn out occurs.
I'm passionate about one particular sub-sect of software, but I've learnt my lesson. I most certainly won't get a job doing it. I'll continue to tinker in my free time, and keep it for myself.
I left for teaching English, and I see the same thing. Every advert wants someone passionate, and then once they are in oh we need this covered, this extra work 'think of the children' style, and the same burn out occurs.
I'm passionate about one particular sub-sect of software, but I've learnt my lesson. I most certainly won't get a job doing it. I'll continue to tinker in my free time, and keep it for myself.
And just because you don't program outside of work hours, doesn't mean you're not passionate.
You're allowed to be passionate about something during work hours, and then different things after work.
You're allowed to be passionate about something during work hours, and then different things after work.
Engineers like Ben are unicorns, one out of Billions of people.
For most engineers, competition are non existent. Just simply keeping up with tech stack and delivering solutions is enough to place in top 1% of engineers.
Yes, 1x engineers are just as valuable and rare as 10x or 100x engineers. Because vast majority of engineers, including engineers in FAANG companies, are negative producers.
Simply being in it for paycheck and being 1x engineers will have long lucrative career.
For most engineers, competition are non existent. Just simply keeping up with tech stack and delivering solutions is enough to place in top 1% of engineers.
Yes, 1x engineers are just as valuable and rare as 10x or 100x engineers. Because vast majority of engineers, including engineers in FAANG companies, are negative producers.
Simply being in it for paycheck and being 1x engineers will have long lucrative career.
> Because vast majority of engineers, including engineers in FAANG companies, are negative producers.
Can confirm from 2 decades of experience as a dev. It's not rare to find negative ROI devs. I used to be one even.
As a matter of fact, current team is still fixing tech debt left by 2 previous devs.
It's infuriating because most of the tech debt is related to lazyness, not lack of competence. They had all the time in the world, all attention whenever necessary, PRs reviews from senior devs and still decided to cut corners most of the times. Some got past Pull Request reviews and we are left to deal with the mess.
On the other hand some devs that are not very technically experienced but are proactive and have positive personality makes great additions despite not knowing much.
Can confirm from 2 decades of experience as a dev. It's not rare to find negative ROI devs. I used to be one even.
As a matter of fact, current team is still fixing tech debt left by 2 previous devs.
It's infuriating because most of the tech debt is related to lazyness, not lack of competence. They had all the time in the world, all attention whenever necessary, PRs reviews from senior devs and still decided to cut corners most of the times. Some got past Pull Request reviews and we are left to deal with the mess.
On the other hand some devs that are not very technically experienced but are proactive and have positive personality makes great additions despite not knowing much.
I feel like anyone who gets popular just suddenly leaves behind the world where you're having to apply via resumes. Github profiles were that personal portfolio for programmers but some people never get theirs looked at. So why is Ben's portfolio better than someone's Github? The answer is likely because people are lazily proxying their assessment of someone through popularity (a successful youtube channel). There is some safety in this (the internet is often a harsher critic than our employers). Popular Github repos have a similar effect though. Plus Valve and Google can afford the time to assess candidates more in depth by actually watching videos or reading code. Other companies cannot, and yet they're asking for passion from you. This is mostly what the author wants to stop.
I appreciate the parent commenter's post and agree with his conclusions. However, I feel like your point is often overlooked. I'm not as passionate about software development as I would like to be. I enjoy it, but I find other hobbies and interests take up too much of my time outside work to devote the time I would like to programming.
I'm semi-passionate, but probably not passionate enough to get a job at somewhere like Valve. That's fine. However, if the local software shop wants a passionate developer but isn't willing to provide the pay and benefits commensurate with their demands, that's a problem. Employers can't expect to hire passionate, experienced developers when they pay well under market rates and only want to offer 15 days of PTO starting out.
I'm semi-passionate, but probably not passionate enough to get a job at somewhere like Valve. That's fine. However, if the local software shop wants a passionate developer but isn't willing to provide the pay and benefits commensurate with their demands, that's a problem. Employers can't expect to hire passionate, experienced developers when they pay well under market rates and only want to offer 15 days of PTO starting out.
Agreed. If I were hiring pharmacists and had two candidates, I'd hire the one who read up on their field outside of work and participated in industry organizations, etc. Passion is not required in any field, but in every field you are a better employee if you love your craft (and I'd venture, as long as with proper work/life balance, a happier individual for yourself and others).
I would add, a contrario, that being too passionate is a serious risk for burn out.
Strongly agree. I programmed for a living and as my almost exclusive hobby for years. Then crashed and hated both. I forced myself to stop programming at home and re-invigorated my musical hobbies and I've been so much happier. I can now program for fun in moderate amounts too but I took about 6 months - a year hiatus.
The problem isn't that we don't care at all. A lot of us were drawn to software engineering for some reason or other, maybe we can call it "passion." But I resent that my "passion" is only being exploited to make other people more money. If I do something over the weekend, it's not because of any sort of financial motivation. But when it's framed in the employment perspective, obviously, people would prefer to hire those who are going to do more work for less money, and those who spend time studying in their off hours. Why wouldn't they? Now your passion has been taken over and corrupted as a means for somebody else's profit (and chances are you aren't even going to get a cut of the spoils). If you're not spending your weekend learning the latest framework, who even are you? Of course people are going to become cynical when this kind of perversion happens - it's usually only those straight out of college who haven't realized they're being taken advantage of yet.
It's actually sad because once you've been around the block a few times with these kinds of managers, your passion starts to feel like a dimming light bulb until it's totally put out. And at that point you're only in it for the paycheck while you're mentally checked out. Just look at the videogame industry and its famous burnout stories to see what happens when you hire a bunch of passionate programmers.
It's actually sad because once you've been around the block a few times with these kinds of managers, your passion starts to feel like a dimming light bulb until it's totally put out. And at that point you're only in it for the paycheck while you're mentally checked out. Just look at the videogame industry and its famous burnout stories to see what happens when you hire a bunch of passionate programmers.
Speaking as someone who has had similar types of burnout type reactions happen (apologies if that is not the case here, I'm reading between the lines) - you don't need to participate in this.
It takes more risk, but you could do your own thing, or join a company that has different types of leadership that won't exploit you this way (or in a way that is mutually beneficial in it's exploitation, as it were). These have tradeoffs.
Being resentful of it (especially in a hiring context) comes across about as well as someone who goes on a date and rants about how much their ex sucks. It isn't about the company you're interviewing with (though if you see the same things you would like to avoid, then please avoid it and feel free to tell them why respectfully! In my experience it's just pissing in the wind though.) - it's more about frustration and pent up unresolved emotional baggage.
No one's perfect. Employers/employees are trying to find a match and work out a deal they can both agree with. An employer looking for 'passion' who is abusing it isn't any different than someone dating who is looking for someone to enable their alcoholism or whatever.
It sucks, but you're not going to change the alcoholic by ranting at them on your first date. You will almost certainly never change the alcoholic - and in fact, not your job. Even going as far as a public shaming tirade MIGHT help, but most people are just going to wonder why you care so much and discount you, until it's an army of folks like you.
It's about finding something that works for you. And that means taking care of yourself too.
It takes more risk, but you could do your own thing, or join a company that has different types of leadership that won't exploit you this way (or in a way that is mutually beneficial in it's exploitation, as it were). These have tradeoffs.
Being resentful of it (especially in a hiring context) comes across about as well as someone who goes on a date and rants about how much their ex sucks. It isn't about the company you're interviewing with (though if you see the same things you would like to avoid, then please avoid it and feel free to tell them why respectfully! In my experience it's just pissing in the wind though.) - it's more about frustration and pent up unresolved emotional baggage.
No one's perfect. Employers/employees are trying to find a match and work out a deal they can both agree with. An employer looking for 'passion' who is abusing it isn't any different than someone dating who is looking for someone to enable their alcoholism or whatever.
It sucks, but you're not going to change the alcoholic by ranting at them on your first date. You will almost certainly never change the alcoholic - and in fact, not your job. Even going as far as a public shaming tirade MIGHT help, but most people are just going to wonder why you care so much and discount you, until it's an army of folks like you.
It's about finding something that works for you. And that means taking care of yourself too.
I do appreciate the looking out. Fortunately I have already left my own personal toxic situation, and went somewhere that respects my boundaries much better - and life is indeed much better. I'm not particularly resentful of it either, I learned a valuable lesson (and sometimes you need to touch the hot stove to realize that it'll burn you).
What my prior experiences with this have done is hardened my resolve that my own personal time is indeed 100% my own time. How I choose to spend it is none of the companies' business. Though it does seem like I'm still somewhat triggered by the word "passion" - it just seems like a nice way to beat around the bush for exploitation, especially when coming from those who stand to gain the most from your passion. My attitude now is a bit more cynical in that "what's in it for me" is front and center, and if I'm not satisfied with the answer I will move on.
What my prior experiences with this have done is hardened my resolve that my own personal time is indeed 100% my own time. How I choose to spend it is none of the companies' business. Though it does seem like I'm still somewhat triggered by the word "passion" - it just seems like a nice way to beat around the bush for exploitation, especially when coming from those who stand to gain the most from your passion. My attitude now is a bit more cynical in that "what's in it for me" is front and center, and if I'm not satisfied with the answer I will move on.
Passionate people are emotionally fickle. They dont make as good hires as you think. The ups and downs in productivity, engagement and team cooperation make them unreliable over the long term. 90%+ of passionate people cant see through long term projects due to burn out or boredom. I prefer people who come in to do a job, get paid, then go out to their families or party or whatever they do that's not work. They keep themselves in check, enjoy stability and take nothing personal. Honestly, they're adults compared to the passionate kids you have to babysit. Passionate people are easy to hire because they're cheap. Dangle a carrot and they'll jump as high as you want. Adults demand stacks of money to build a tower to reach the carrot.
Source: I've subcontracted and hired folks in both tech and infrastructure.
Source: I've subcontracted and hired folks in both tech and infrastructure.
> Adults demand stacks of money to build a tower to reach the carrot.
To be fair, everything I just wrote is merely a crass characterization-- just like everything you wrote.
You really need both kinds of people to make an organization run smoothly. You need people who enjoy the nose-to-the-grindstone stuff and you need people that are dreamers.
>> Passionate people are emotionally fickle. They dont make as good hires as you think. The ups and downs in productivity, engagement and team cooperation make them unreliable over the long term.
This is prejudice, nothing more. In the literal sense of the word "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience". You simply can't say what people are like in advance.
EDIT: a more appropriate definition: preconceived judgment or opinion.
This is prejudice, nothing more. In the literal sense of the word "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience". You simply can't say what people are like in advance.
EDIT: a more appropriate definition: preconceived judgment or opinion.
What part of I've hired both kinds of people didnt you get? That's considered actual experience.
Edit: Not preconceived either. This developed after almost 7 years of hiring people directly for me. People I had to then work with everyday. I dont have a hiring manager.
Edit: Not preconceived either. This developed after almost 7 years of hiring people directly for me. People I had to then work with everyday. I dont have a hiring manager.
That would apply if you were thinking of rehiring those same people, but not if you were to hire someone new you had no exposure to right?
Otherwise, it is pretty much the textbook definition?
Otherwise, it is pretty much the textbook definition?
People use proxies for latent variables all the time. And you can absolutely get better results over uninformative priors.
[deleted]
It's OK to do it for a paycheck, but to become really good at something you need to be passionate about it.
Passion is not necessary to become really good at something, only a desire to improve.
The "desire to improve" is synonymous with passion, as far as I am concerned. Otherwise, it would be called "begrudgingly required to improve".
Your definition helped me understand my predicament.
I have been passionate about programming for about a 15 years. Unfortunately, my love of programming has been largely unrequited; I still genuinely suck at it. I know people who has been programming for half this time, who tell me that they don't particularly enjoy it, but are light years ahead of me.
And yet I keep at it because other things I tried aren't nearly as fun.
I have been passionate about programming for about a 15 years. Unfortunately, my love of programming has been largely unrequited; I still genuinely suck at it. I know people who has been programming for half this time, who tell me that they don't particularly enjoy it, but are light years ahead of me.
And yet I keep at it because other things I tried aren't nearly as fun.
There are a lot of self-improvement type tasks that fall between a passion and a requirement to improve.
I'm trying to eat better and improve the quality of my sleep. I'm exercising regularly. I've recently started practicing guitar again because I want to be a better player.
If you had similar goals, would you describe yourself as passionate about your diet? About your sleep? Passionate about working out or playing guitar?
I'm trying to eat better and improve the quality of my sleep. I'm exercising regularly. I've recently started practicing guitar again because I want to be a better player.
If you had similar goals, would you describe yourself as passionate about your diet? About your sleep? Passionate about working out or playing guitar?
Yes, if they are things you actively invest time and energy into when you are not forced to, I would consider that a form a passion. It's not black and white, there is plenty of gray area between "I hate this thing" and "I really like this thing".
Many people mistake passion for other qualities, perseverance, determination, drive, etc.
Successful people do things because they need to get it done to move forward. It’s part of process and must be accomplished.
Fleeting emotions like passion doesn’t lead to success.
Determination, drive, perseverance, and any process that make one work towards achievement usually leads to success.
Successful people do things because they need to get it done to move forward. It’s part of process and must be accomplished.
Fleeting emotions like passion doesn’t lead to success.
Determination, drive, perseverance, and any process that make one work towards achievement usually leads to success.
Passion doesn’t pay out for most people. Companies pay you to come in and do things everyone else didn’t want to do or couldn’t do.
How much salary would you give up for passion?
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-07-20
There are lots of amazing, passionate YouTube, tik tok performers. Only very few make any money.
How much salary would you give up for passion?
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-07-20
There are lots of amazing, passionate YouTube, tik tok performers. Only very few make any money.
I mean I've given up $150k/yr+ in opportunity cost for years to work on stuff I'm passionate about. But over time that has paid off in many more ways than the money would have. But that's a privilege only accessible to people with their base needs met, so it shouldn't be used as a sole filter for candidates without other ways for people to prove competence.
Passion seems to be an effect judged as a cause. If you work with pure pointless tedium for boxchecking, are micromanaged, have your inputs ignored and are 'not paid to think', or have to print and physically file a TPS report with a cover page for every Git revision the pointlessness grates which leads to not expressing passion. Cynical exploitation aside employers prefer peo
Someone offering a salary reduction for passion clearly isn't going to provide motivation any more than a suitor who just asks about how much money you or your parents make and how much is willed to you would love you.
But "work on a small team without the bueracracy on something neat but we can't pay AAA salary" does pull experienced employees from the big guys who want a change of pace.
Someone offering a salary reduction for passion clearly isn't going to provide motivation any more than a suitor who just asks about how much money you or your parents make and how much is willed to you would love you.
But "work on a small team without the bueracracy on something neat but we can't pay AAA salary" does pull experienced employees from the big guys who want a change of pace.
We don't require candidates to be passionate about programming but we do want them to be passionate about something. We don't care if that something is gardening, playing in a heavy metal band, or code.
I would rather work alongside someone who has some enthusiasm for something in life than someone who has none. In fact it would make me not want to go to work if no one there has any excitement for anything. Hiring decisions are not purely company-profit driven, how much people enjoy their work environment directly affects burnout, work/life satisfaction, and desire to improve/grow.
I would rather work alongside someone who has some enthusiasm for something in life than someone who has none. In fact it would make me not want to go to work if no one there has any excitement for anything. Hiring decisions are not purely company-profit driven, how much people enjoy their work environment directly affects burnout, work/life satisfaction, and desire to improve/grow.
Why on earth would a passion for gardening make them any more of a better hire for you? You pay them (presumably) in return for their time and skills as a programmer, not a gardener. Would I get a job as a professional gardener with zero experience but a passion for programming?
You're missing the point entirely: it's better to hire someone who shows some creativity, can follow through with their goals, and can bring new perspectives on top of their work-related experience, instead of a robot with the same exact work-related experience. Being passionate about something is a good indicator for these qualities.
Is it, really? Or is it more often than not just a facade for the same old hiring practices. Faced with someone who "loves gardening!!" vs. someone who has a ton of OSS contributions, who are they really going to hire?
The person with OSS contributions has a lower bar to prove their competency for job-related tasks, because they happen to already have a body of work to show that competence.
However if we get a more competent candidate who likes gardening more than programming, we'll absolutely choose them over the pure passion person because they'll do the job better. They just have to show that competence in some other way, e.g. via the interviews or past job accomplishments.
However if we get a more competent candidate who likes gardening more than programming, we'll absolutely choose them over the pure passion person because they'll do the job better. They just have to show that competence in some other way, e.g. via the interviews or past job accomplishments.
I think it depends on how the interview goes? If the candidate is "passionate" about watering their solo house plant, maybe not as much.
On the other hand, I can't imagine someone with tons of OSS contributions who _isn't_ passionate about programming at some level.
On the other hand, I can't imagine someone with tons of OSS contributions who _isn't_ passionate about programming at some level.
It would be reasonable to think that the candidate with a ton of OSS contributions has a passion for something, which luckily for the company it happens to be coding.
Because hiring decisions are not only made to increase a company's revenue, you also want to not hate showing up to work everyday.
Because excitement in any form is contagious, and I'd rather work alongside someone who is excited about something than someone who is not.
As an employee, I will burn out much faster in an environment where no one wants to be there than an environment where people share their curiosities and passions, even if they are not immediately work related.
Because excitement in any form is contagious, and I'd rather work alongside someone who is excited about something than someone who is not.
As an employee, I will burn out much faster in an environment where no one wants to be there than an environment where people share their curiosities and passions, even if they are not immediately work related.
It’s a very American thing IME. There’s a big emphasis on having interesting fulfilling lives here and people openly probe about it more too. Not necessarily a bad thing, just different.
It's just a way to filter out people that "don't fit in" or whatever. Cultural fit type stuff.
I think that's fine as long as you don't require them to actually demonstrate that with something they invested time in. It's sad but many people are in a position they cannot pursue their passions. Though they probably can talk about it in some detail.
Absolutely, the only test is "can you talk my ear off about something you care about", not "can you demonstrate you've sunk time and money into a thing".
Those are often correlated but they don't have to be.
Those are often correlated but they don't have to be.
As senior engineer, I always advise people to avoid companies that put any emphasis on intangible things like passion as hiring criteria.
It’s highly subjective and leads to in group thinking and monoculture dependencies. Passion is usually fleeting.
My advice is to demonstrate perseverance. Show the drive for professional solutions, analytics on metrics to discern what works and doesn’t work.
It’s highly subjective and leads to in group thinking and monoculture dependencies. Passion is usually fleeting.
My advice is to demonstrate perseverance. Show the drive for professional solutions, analytics on metrics to discern what works and doesn’t work.
We don't necessarily hire for passion, but what we do care about is "will we enjoy working alongside this person for 6+ hours a day for years".
I would rather work alongside someone who comes to work gushing about a new succulent they potted over the weekend, and who is ready to work to earn more to buy more plants but doesn't necessarily love coding, than someone who shows up grumpy and has no enthusiasm of any kind to share.
Certainly hiring a only "passionate 10x coders" will ruin your business because they'll spend the whole time reimplementing databases for fun instead of doing the work. But excitement of any kind is contagious, and it helps everyone's mental health to work in an environment where there is excitement/curiosity of some kind, even (especially) non-work-related.
I would rather work alongside someone who comes to work gushing about a new succulent they potted over the weekend, and who is ready to work to earn more to buy more plants but doesn't necessarily love coding, than someone who shows up grumpy and has no enthusiasm of any kind to share.
Certainly hiring a only "passionate 10x coders" will ruin your business because they'll spend the whole time reimplementing databases for fun instead of doing the work. But excitement of any kind is contagious, and it helps everyone's mental health to work in an environment where there is excitement/curiosity of some kind, even (especially) non-work-related.
It’s your company and you’ll learn the same lessons every other companies have learned in the past.
People are usually passionate about fun, interesting things. People are not passionate about boring, tedious things. Customers pay big bucks to have people do the boring, tedious things correctly.
Who is going to sanitize inputs to prevent basic sql injection hacks? Who is going to write basic unit tests to get at least 50% code coverage? Who is going to code review for basic functionality and quality standards?
Most companies ignore all the tech debt, and hope they exit before the debt comes due. Most companies fail.
Good luck.
People are usually passionate about fun, interesting things. People are not passionate about boring, tedious things. Customers pay big bucks to have people do the boring, tedious things correctly.
Who is going to sanitize inputs to prevent basic sql injection hacks? Who is going to write basic unit tests to get at least 50% code coverage? Who is going to code review for basic functionality and quality standards?
Most companies ignore all the tech debt, and hope they exit before the debt comes due. Most companies fail.
Good luck.
Oh I'd say in that regard we've already failed, we're not really massively profitable and not planning on getting any kind of "hockey stick" or exit. We're a slow growth services/consulting company that cares more about working on interesting fun stuff with our friends than pure profit.
I love doing the tedious devopsy/documentation/maintenance stuff that other people don't enjoy, so a lot of that stuff falls on my shoulders or gets spread around evenly so the people who don't enjoy it aren't stuck with it full-time.
When I leave, that stuff will get passed on to others, but we've built a culture around caring about tech debt and long-term health, and splitting that workload between interesting fun things and not-so-fun things, so I have faith that it won't collapse.
I love doing the tedious devopsy/documentation/maintenance stuff that other people don't enjoy, so a lot of that stuff falls on my shoulders or gets spread around evenly so the people who don't enjoy it aren't stuck with it full-time.
When I leave, that stuff will get passed on to others, but we've built a culture around caring about tech debt and long-term health, and splitting that workload between interesting fun things and not-so-fun things, so I have faith that it won't collapse.
Out of curiosity, what so intriguing about devopsy/documentation/maintenance stuff?
I don't know but I love it! I started as a sysadmin and I like organizing and categorizing things, setting up config, writing docs, managing CI/CD systems, setting up git processes, etc. all that stuff is my jam even now that I spend most of my time managing or doing full-stack dev stuff.
I could probably learn a lot from you.
I appreciate the point of this article, but I think it oversimplifies both the thing it's criticizing and the solution.
Maybe others have heard "you must be willing to put your work family first" or "you can use your vacation time, but do you really need to?" I have not heard either of these in my career. No where (large company, small company, private company, publicly trade company, company founded the previous year or a company founded 125 years previously) had anyone said or implied expectations other than my actual family should come first. Every where I worked, ensuring that we took sufficient vacation time was encouraged (although I have worked with people that misunderstand that vacation time means that you don't work, and that checking email is working).
More subtly, However, is how companies handle "crunch time," (again, this has been a thing in pretty much every company I've worked at regardless of size, age, or industry). No one is saying "this is more important than your family," but they will say "we need to get this done by X date." The managers I have respected understand that there are sacrifices to do this and do something to make it up (e.g., give bonus vacation days). But on our end, we have a paycheck because our company takes in revenue - our job is to do the things that ensure we continue to ensure revenue, we can't just say "I wrote the program, I'm out."
However, there is something to keeping your management accountable that this is a career for us, not a charity. If you want us to stick around, you have to pay us. If you want to build a team that people want to work on, we need passionate people but we also need people representing a diversity of skills, interests, race, gender, ways of thinking, etc. Many of the people I've enjoyed working with are certainly passionate about programming, but they had passions outside of work and coding. They have hobbies that include reading fiction, running, building stuff with Arduinos, or doing community service. They spend time with their families and friends.
I also agree with the article as it rejects the "this is how to be a real programmer" mentality. It's easy for that to introduce bias about who a group hires, promotes and works to retain (or the people we as a software engineering community tend to attract). There are lots of ways to be a "real" programmer (whatever that's supposed to mean).
Maybe others have heard "you must be willing to put your work family first" or "you can use your vacation time, but do you really need to?" I have not heard either of these in my career. No where (large company, small company, private company, publicly trade company, company founded the previous year or a company founded 125 years previously) had anyone said or implied expectations other than my actual family should come first. Every where I worked, ensuring that we took sufficient vacation time was encouraged (although I have worked with people that misunderstand that vacation time means that you don't work, and that checking email is working).
More subtly, However, is how companies handle "crunch time," (again, this has been a thing in pretty much every company I've worked at regardless of size, age, or industry). No one is saying "this is more important than your family," but they will say "we need to get this done by X date." The managers I have respected understand that there are sacrifices to do this and do something to make it up (e.g., give bonus vacation days). But on our end, we have a paycheck because our company takes in revenue - our job is to do the things that ensure we continue to ensure revenue, we can't just say "I wrote the program, I'm out."
However, there is something to keeping your management accountable that this is a career for us, not a charity. If you want us to stick around, you have to pay us. If you want to build a team that people want to work on, we need passionate people but we also need people representing a diversity of skills, interests, race, gender, ways of thinking, etc. Many of the people I've enjoyed working with are certainly passionate about programming, but they had passions outside of work and coding. They have hobbies that include reading fiction, running, building stuff with Arduinos, or doing community service. They spend time with their families and friends.
I also agree with the article as it rejects the "this is how to be a real programmer" mentality. It's easy for that to introduce bias about who a group hires, promotes and works to retain (or the people we as a software engineering community tend to attract). There are lots of ways to be a "real" programmer (whatever that's supposed to mean).
I appreciate a lot of what you say here, especially the bit about "real" programmers.
>(although I have worked with people that misunderstand that vacation time means that you don't work, and that checking email is working) I may be misunderstanding you here. Seems like checking your email (presumably for emergency situations needing attention) is work. It should not be a requirement while on vacation (like a multi-day type, not one day/half day off). And if the person taking vacation is so vital that they need to check email that should be an explicit conversation with team/leadership. It's not something we all implicitly expect a person to do.
>(although I have worked with people that misunderstand that vacation time means that you don't work, and that checking email is working) I may be misunderstanding you here. Seems like checking your email (presumably for emergency situations needing attention) is work. It should not be a requirement while on vacation (like a multi-day type, not one day/half day off). And if the person taking vacation is so vital that they need to check email that should be an explicit conversation with team/leadership. It's not something we all implicitly expect a person to do.
Agreed, that's what I mean. A lot of people still check email on vacation. I set an example by not doing that. I also (gently, half-jokingly) give people grief when they check email when they are supposed to not do that.
The thing I really want from my heart surgeon is not so much surgical experience, but tons of positive energy in meetings, a penchant for creative woodworking in their spare time, and a real go-get-em attitude!
passion != positive energy, I know plenty of grumpy passionate people.
Also you're thinking from the perspective of the customer, not from the perspective of the people who have to work with that surgeon every day. As a colleague of that surgeon, you'll probably enjoy working with someone who shows up to work enthusiastic about being there more than someone who shows up to work grumpy every day.
Also you're thinking from the perspective of the customer, not from the perspective of the people who have to work with that surgeon every day. As a colleague of that surgeon, you'll probably enjoy working with someone who shows up to work enthusiastic about being there more than someone who shows up to work grumpy every day.
When it comes to co-workers all I care about is can I trust them to complete the tasks assigned them correctly, on time, and without inhibiting others from doing the same. I have worked with happy and grumpy people who could and couldn't meet those simple requirements, so I generally could careless about regarding happy vs grumpy.
Then we are very different people. I would struggle to stay motivated in an environment where everyone is grumpy.
Well, while the article is generalizing the issue a bit,I have to agree. I've been the passionate worker and all I got was a small paycheck, 28 kilograms of extra weight, and the worst two years of my life.
Provided that I was fresh out of college back then, it took me a more than a year to realize that I was being exploited. Now I'm not a passionate worker but I'm not lazy as well. I show up, do the best I can do, and when my shift is over I'm out.
I make almost 6 times what I made 3 years ago, my new employer is extremely content with me and I have all the time energy to do what I'm really passionate about.
Provided that I was fresh out of college back then, it took me a more than a year to realize that I was being exploited. Now I'm not a passionate worker but I'm not lazy as well. I show up, do the best I can do, and when my shift is over I'm out.
I make almost 6 times what I made 3 years ago, my new employer is extremely content with me and I have all the time energy to do what I'm really passionate about.
I am not a professional programmer and I don’t see any issue with not being passionate about coding with one important caveat. If you are just collecting a paycheck and creating code that you aren’t passionate about, and that code happens to also be ruining society, you should probably take a hard look in the mirror. It’s one thing to accidentally cause harm while trying to do good and it’s another to just look the other way while “just doing your job”.
This. There's consequences to bad software.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/30/22257950/go-read-this-sof...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/30/22257950/go-read-this-sof...
The concern is not exactly passion but what qualities it takes to maintain that passion.
Is it realistic to expect a parent in their 40s have the same level of passion as a single engineer in their 20s? If not, passion can become a shorthand for age-discrimination.
Does passion, as mentioned below, mean late nights fueled by monster drinks? If so, does it become a shorthand for 'people with disabilities need not apply'? ( I have a condition where "lack of sleep" means "more likely to have a seizure" )
Does passion preclude people with religious obligations?
If the only people with passion are young health atheists with no family or time commitments then passion is discriminatory, and it valuable to have a discussion about what effect that has on our industry and our society.
Is it realistic to expect a parent in their 40s have the same level of passion as a single engineer in their 20s? If not, passion can become a shorthand for age-discrimination.
Does passion, as mentioned below, mean late nights fueled by monster drinks? If so, does it become a shorthand for 'people with disabilities need not apply'? ( I have a condition where "lack of sleep" means "more likely to have a seizure" )
Does passion preclude people with religious obligations?
If the only people with passion are young health atheists with no family or time commitments then passion is discriminatory, and it valuable to have a discussion about what effect that has on our industry and our society.
Most hiring managers seem to be looking for candidates that can take a feature, ticket, or idea and just make it happen. Which often requires someone with decently mature experience and a variety of skills. They then use Passion as a strong indicator for this kind of success.
Passion can also be used as an indicator for people who are willing to work more than what they are paid for or a way to ask do you have responsibilities, limitations, disabilities that prevent you from writing code on the weekends and/or evenings?
I think it's safe to say, that if passion is being used as a gating question or primary metric for hiring decisions it's likely that it won't work to meet a company’s hiring needs.
If Passion is used as part of a constellation of data to help inform and build out a broader understanding of a potential candidate, it's likely to have minimal negative consequences and might even be helpful.