Preface

There was a topic going around on twitter recently about the merits of putting a heavy emphasis on an individual's passion for their desired job. This is a highly nuanced topic that can take a while to unpack because there is no obvious answer.

The main idea was: If you are not working toward the job you are applying for every day in your free time, you are not suitable for the job. This was later clarified to only be applied to people new to their particular industry. I get where that's coming from. But it's a little misguided and doesn't change the primary idea being conveyed here. That not having a singular focus for the job somehow automatically invalidates your candidacy.

The Individual

On the surface, the concept tracks. As the Applicant: "I put all of myself into this. I should be more attractive than someone who didn't." As the Employer: "This person has put all of their time into this. That shows passion and dedication." Sounds reasonable. And it kind of is. It makes sense. But unfortunately, there is so much more to it than that. 

Full-disclosure, I was/am an individual who put their whole life into their job. I am self-taught. No formal schooling. I worked my ass off 24/7 to get a job, any job, in the art industry. If this topic had been brought up back when I was trying to start my career, I would have been 100% on board with the "Passion-First" mindset. But I've grown older and more experienced. I am now the person looking to hire the hopefuls. And here lies the plot twist: 

Passion-First is unfair. It is unfair to the company. It is unfair to your competition. It is unfair to your co-workers. It is unfair to your friends and family. And it is absolutely, unequivocally unfair to you, the passionate. You are robbing yourself of so much more. Not just your life, but of your career as well. Consider: An individual who has a singular focus on one area of expertise. When faced with a problem, how large of an experience set can they plausibly pull from?

Problem solving is not only about knowing a topic inside and out. It is about having a wide range of experiences that you can pull from to solve the problem creatively. Creativity is bred through varied experiences and as such, Creativity and Problem Solving work together in tandem. Can you be good at problem solving by being an expert in a field through constant self-training? Definitely. Can you then think outside of the box in ways that could amaze people? Possibly. But you will absolutely have a higher chance of that by doing more than simply your passion every day.

I did not become good at my job just because I worked my butt off all the time. I did so by creatively solving problems through seemingly unrelated experiences. My life is what defined my ability to do my job. Not the other way around. 

The Company

Now to the employer's point of view. As it happens this is also my point of view these days. By putting such a heavy emphasis on work outside of work you are doing a disservice to the applicants, but just as importantly, the company itself. Instead of looking for passion in individuals, you should be focusing on inspiring passion in people who show capacity and promise.

Does this mean we should be passing anyone over who shows signs of exceptional passion? Absolutely not. But they need to bring that to our attention. To explicitly ask during an interview if they do their job outside of their job is really only serving one purpose, intentional or not; To judge their willingness to work outside of core hours. 

As an interviewer, I could NOT in good conscience ask that and expect to have any positive long term results. If the interviewee says yes, I would be worried about their ability to adapt to unfamiliar situations. If they say no, you have just made them feel inadequate for no good reason, which doesn't help anybody. The risk of unintentionally belittling the applicant is not worth the answer of confirmation you're looking for. You are doing the applicant who doesn't get the job a disservice by making them think they screwed up, when they just did not meet your unreasonable standard. You are also doing the company a disservice by excluding those who could bring fresh perspectives to a problem. 

An acceptable question is to ask them if they have any hobbies. You can get a much better sense of what kind of person they are through an open-ended question. If they happen to offer up the information that they like to do programming or art in their spare time, then cool. You have now allowed to them to come to that point organically, and can consider it as a possible, but not primary, factor. It is simply just another aspect of their person.

Speaking of primary factors, this comes back to problem solving. I cannot stress enough how incredibly important problem solving is to any job. Your worth to yourself as an individual and to the company as a whole will go up by orders of magnitude if you are able to show you can problem solve intelligently and creatively. I could go on and on about the depths of problem solving, but will save that for another time.

The Other Side

At this point you might be thinking, "Wow, this guy sounds like he isn't looking for passionate people. Doesn't he want to hire people who love their work?" I do. I absolutely do. But there is a very stark difference between loving what you do and loving it so much that you don't do anything outside of that. I also understand that some people, including myself, feel like they need to work like their lives depend on it to be noticed, which means they need to put all that time into it. I really do understand that. Things haven't been (and still aren't) easy for me. I feel like I have to work 2-3x harder than the next guy to keep up.

Passion for what we do is a fantastic quality. It shows a drive to be better, to work through issues, and to stick with it when things don't go the way we want them to. It shows willpower and a strength of character that not everyone has. But there is a difference between straight up asking for it during interviews in not so subtle ways and finding it indirectly. One expects the hard work if hired, then when it doesn't happen, we wonder if we hired the same person. But if found, the dedication feels more rewarding for all parties involved (Psst, Fellow Managers: Make sure you recognize that and tell your reports how much you appreciate their hard work!).

Summary

Passion is not a constant. It ebbs and flows, and you can't force it. Not everyone has it all of the time, nor does it manifest itself in the same way for everyone. I learned too late that broadening my horizons would push my career farther, allow for more chances to show my worth, and lead to greater capacity to perform on top of also being able to live my life. You have your whole life ahead of you. Don't sacrifice your time doing only what you love. Do things you hate. Do things that scare you. Do things that make you laugh at yourself because that thing that you did was unbelievably stupid. You'd be amazed at how all of those things you do that aren't related to work can actually help you be more effective at your job.

Be wary of the leadership that puts more emphasis on the work than of your ability to live outside of the work. We shouldn't exclude people based on the passion they show, or put so much emphasis on it due to an ill-conceived idea of what makes a good employee. In closing, this is an opportunity for we as an industry to do better for ourselves and each other. It's time to focus on healthier ideas of what makes for a great employee, because passion is just one piece of the puzzle.