Optimizing your career for happiness
praachi.work
praachi.work
time freedom: as an employed guy I know I'm exchanging time for value. But I also get time during the weekends and a few hours outside work. These allow me to think about things outside work, like dabble in learning new things, work on side projects, read a book, do non-career related stuff etc. This is the most basic, and I'd do everything in my power to avoid getting in a situation where I absolutely have no/minimal time freedom. Got bitten by this in the recent past: I simply said yes to people close to me; committing to doing certain things ("I'll build you a shopify store") and then realizing I'd put myself into a hole. Never again family person.
maximizing every chance to be useful to others at work: It's a great feeling when I could help someone and them thanking me for the help. It's silly, I don't need validation to do the work for which I get paid. But when a big part of the work you do goes unnoticed, your ears perk up when the occasional praise comes your way. So that's why I try to teach my juniors some coding trivia at least once a day.
close the week without any debt: Even if there's enough time for a task next week, if I could find the time to do the core work needed for the task this week, then I'd do it. Even if it meant spending an hour or so on the weekend. I just don't like work piling up for the next week.
extract more out of the transaction: yes I get paid for the work I do at my job. But if I choose to, I can get more out of the work. Things I learned at the project, access to specific tech/hardware that'd be difficult to get all by myself etc. Translate these bits into things that can help you. Make them as blog/linkedin posts, learn some new tech with your laptop etc.
Aligning your personal goals with your company's mission can be a game-changer in achieving both professional success and personal fulfillment. When your values and objectives resonate with those of your employer, every project becomes more meaningful, and motivation naturally increases.
Your personal goals become much easier to achieve, and you have more fun achieving the company goals because they're also helping you.
That’s a fairly dangerous way of doing thing in my experience. Unless it’s your company, you have very little say in what the company actually does.
Generally speaking, I advocate keeping a sane distance between what you do for a living and the rest of your life. You are not defined by the company that pays you.
Find a job which helps you achieve what you want to achieve, work honestly and leave work at work.
“Harsh as this sounds, if you’re not in the right job—a job that is moving you toward where you want to be in life—then you’re wasting almost all the time you’re spending at work.” “First, “you should do what you love” means finding work that “matches well with your expertise, your creative thinking skills, and your strongest intrinsic motivations.” Intrinsic motivation means liking the substance of the work for its own sake. The second part, “you should love what you do,” means “finding a work environment that will allow you to retain that intrinsic motivational focus, while supporting your exploration of new ideas.”
Excerpt From 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think Laura Vanderkam
I personally very much enjoy what my salary allows me to do despite actively disagreeing with most (but not all) of what the company I work for does. My role has an overall positive but fairly minute impact on this trajectory and I’m fine with that. I’m not defined by my work.
I have plenty of space outside of my job to actually actively advocate for things I genuinely care about without mingling the two.
I agree with you but it is not what Laura said or mean. She said,
> “Harsh as this sounds, if you’re not in the right job—a job that is moving you toward where you want to be in life—then you’re wasting almost all the time you’re spending at work.”
I'd like to point out 2 things:
- Perhaps it is understood without saying: there's no "the right way" here, as different people have different utility function. The corollary is that the alternative of what Laura is proposing can be equally fulfilling or more.
- Sticking to Laura's proposition then, is that you only have 168 hours a week. Work constitute to 30-50 or more hours, a significant chunk of your total amount. So, that's what "you’re wasting almost all the time you’re spending at work" means. Note that she's not saying this defines the meaning of your life. She's saying plainly that majority of your quota (hours) is spent towards work, if those amount of time is not spent towards "moving you toward where you want to be", then those time is counted as wasted, in terms of "moving you toward where you want to be". In order words, you need to be moving faster in the remaining amount of time you have elsewhere to compensate, which is harder. (Compare to another hypothetical you that can "moving you toward where you want to be" in both portions of your time, which would almost surely make more progress.)
In your case, you mentioned "actively disagreeing with most (but not all) of what the company I work for does". Having read Laura's book, I don't think in her definition yours must be "wasting almost all the time you’re spending at work". Because as far as I understand her book, if what you're spending time doing at work is, for example, building up a skill you want to build, or solving problems you like to solve, then this constitute towards "moving you toward where you want to be".
The more dangerous situation Laura warned against is something like the majority of the time spent at work, say 20+ hours, are spent towards meaningless things that don't advances you, such as attending many meetings you are not needed there, performing a duty that is not your duty and not something you want to develop a skill in, etc. I.e. what "advances you" is defined by you, but the author is actively guiding the readers to seek these out and defines it clearly.
Well, yes, that’s the bourgeois part.
The fact is, most people work to survive because they have to. That’s perfectly fine and respectable and it doesn’t need a large amount of self-realisation guilt tripping thrown on top by people who want to sell self-help books.
People don’t need to strategically tackle their career and its progression to live meaningful life. They can if they want to and have the luxury of being able to do so but I will always oppose anyone describing work as wasted time on principle.
(Somewhere they did mention not all people have the luxury to practice this, but she did documented examples where people in less-than-ideal situation have it turned around and do what they love.)
Regarding self-help, she said
“There are other ways in which 168 Hours does not aim to be like many self-help or time-management books. I approach this not as a productivity guru, but as a journalist who is interested in how successful, happy people build their lives. I am particularly interested in how people who are not household names achieve the lives they want, and what we can learn from their best practices. There are plenty of books out there on Fortune 500 CEOs’ or celebrities’ tips for success. I’m more interested in the woman down the street who—without benefit of fame, outsized fortune, or a slew of personal assistants—is running a successful small business, marathons, and a large and happy household.”
Excerpt From 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think Laura Vanderkam
“Ferriss downplays the idea of dream jobs. As he writes, “For most people . . . the perfect job is the one that takes the least time. The vast majority of people will never find a job that can be an unending source of fulfillment, so that is not the goal here; to free time and automate income is.”
And then she further elaborate from there, discussing how to create the right job, bridging the gap between the ideal and the reality. Here's the 3 levels of changes to do that:
“... If the answer is “no” to any of these four questions, what can I change? In the next week? In the next year? Can I create the right job within my organization? Another organization? Or will I need to go out on my own?”
I know we're not in a book club, and I, even the author, does not have to ultimate answer. But as she argued, there are things we can have more meaningful/fulfilling life from our 168 hours a week and it is not as pessimistic as it seems. I invite you to give the book a chance.
Excerpt From 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think Laura Vanderkam
I am genuinely _fascinated_ with RDBMS. I tinker with them in my free time. I watch syscalls during reads and writes to better understand what’s happening. I test theories when someone asserts “Postgres is better at X than MySQL” to see if they’re correct.
The fact that I get paid quite well to run DBs is an absolute dream.
Maybe it's my own experience, but I've never worked for a company whose mission didn't funnel down to "make money".
They might play lip service to "changing the world", "make products customers love" or "engineering excellence", but they were all done for the purpose of making money and would often be dropped without discussion if it impacted the bottom line.
I could see how industry selection could align with personal value (e.g. weapons versus healthcare), or if a company invests a lot in technical skill (because they think it makes them more money) and provide you with an environment to gain skills you personally want to gain, but in the end it all comes down to money.
Not to be overly cynical, I'm just sharing my own experience.
My personal approach is to go in eyes wide open (it's all about money), figure out what I want to get out of the job, and take advantage when the two overlap. But the entire time knowing it's likely temporary and to be prepared to jump ship if things change.
I believe that great leaders facilitate this, whether by setting a meaningful mission in the first place, or by aligning company needs with the personal beliefs and needs of individuals in a team.
That being said! I think the likelihood that you land at a company with a mission that truly aligns with your own is approximately the same as the likelihood your equity ends up being worth a damn at the end of the day.
Cherish it id you’ve got it.
If you are applying for a junior role, I don't know much about Europe, but in India the defence and security sector often have internship programmes for university students.
Alternatively, same as all other jobs, keep your eye open and make sure your CV and cover letter is catered towards the job.
You don't need to be a misanthrope to work in defence and security. Despite the bad PR, it's comforting knowing that your work is making the world a safer place.
Its supremely dumb to blame manufacturers in any way of course, they are just (pretty efficient) tools.
But you will find very little misanthropy there. The salaries are not that great so most of the engineers are either genuinely interested in the complexity of what they build (aerospace and naval is often like that) or invested in the mission (serving the nation).
This is a bold point with only a vague reference to studies. I’m more familiar with sports teams than the other domains but star players who manage successful teams is an exception, not a rule. A few famous examples are Michael Jordan and Derek Jeter - both were legends playing their sports and have yet to participate in building successful teams at the management level.
> Hospitals led by doctors outperform those run by non-medical managers. Universities, business schools and academic departments led by good scholars outperform those that are not. The best sports teams – using data from 15,000 basketball games and 60 years of Formula 1 racing – are led by great former players or run by racing specialists.
https://www.city.ac.uk/research/impact/case-studies/evidence...
Then I had experts in management who always poked into everything and thought they knew better or often get swayed by sweet talks from other experts(even in cases when it didn’t make sense). Then I had experts who rose among the ranks and then despite being untouchable, still supported the reports and put immense trust and acquired all resources requested and let people do their best work.
In the end, I think, expert or non-experts bring different tradeoffs, but trust and a good relation with the people in trenches always gave the best results.
Many don't, in my opinion.
Fulfillment and happiness should be added benefits or side effects. That is, if one is fortunate enough.
I, personally, I don't work for the sake of happiness but for the paycheck. Not to imply that I am unhappy or joyless in my work, it just isn't the goal. I'd rather be unhappy and well paid so I can take care of myself and others.
Money can't make you happy directly but it can buy you time and space to pursue happiness if you so desire. Jobs and careers are means to gain such money. We should work to obtain those things money can buy.
I didn't mean for it to be sad. I just don't get why the "self" is so important. Isn't it natural for a person to at least attempt to be about others?
Not being happy all the time is not a mental illness or a problem, nor is it synonymous with depression.
Then work 3 days not 4 as money allows
Then work 2 days not 3 as money allows
….
Then retire
Now I couldn't care less about having half a day off once a week (even 4 days work week ain't something spectacular to me), but instead I will work 5 days a week as always till now, but reaping cca 25-26 paid days of vacation on top of current 25. If done smartly and combined with public holidays, it can net 12 weeks per year, while sporting pretty decent corporate career. For cca 7% drop in net income, thats a massive benefit to me.
As a parent of young kids and also a keen adventurer this may be a massive improvement in QOL and happiness, we'll see.
I won’t list the problems because it would get political quickly, but some people like me are easy to adapt to logic, but difficult to adapt to the illogical requirements of the social world.
I am deeply unhappy, have had several psychologists for a few years each, it barely helps… because the social world is still illogical.
I’m the kind of boss you may have ;) but honestly my employees are happy, as I strive to make people shine around me. But me… I’m deeply envious of people who can have 3 days off per week and not want to commit atrocities.
I watched grandparents on both sides retire and their mental decline tracked their decline in active engagement with meaningful activity.
The way I have always looked at it is that want to “retire from _having_ to work” and promote myself to working on things that I _want_ to work on.
Having said that, I like your “5, 4, 3, …” approach. I’d just be switching out “have to work” days with “want to work” days.
It's difficult to know which way the causality goes in those situations.
Anyway you don't need to disengage from meaningful activity just because you retired from work.
Already at 4 days, only 4 to go!
But this is exactly what retirement is!