[meric]

>> If I have kids, I'm not going to tell them to "follow their dreams" or "do what you love, and everything else will take care of itself". We don't live in a good enough world for that. It's just not practical advice.

There's more to it than that.

If you're going to do something, do it as best as you can, otherwise don't do it so you don't waste your time.

To do something as best as you can,... "you have to get it. You have to really grok what it’s all about. It takes a passionate commitment to really thoroughly understand something, chew it up, not just quickly swallow it. Most people don’t take the time to do that."

"When you're a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you're not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You'll know it's there, so you're going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through."

So how is this practical?

Let's say you're studying a econometrics major in university like I was doing. You know the introductory course's exams will be easy so you skip classes and just cram in the final week. You score 89/100 in the exam. Well good on you, but you didn't really grok what it's all about. You repeat this for the next semester and you score 78/100. Still a good mark, considering you didn't take the time to thoroughly understand it. However, this tactic will stop working once you get into higher level courses, where it depends on your total mastery of the fundamentals. You cannot just "cram" in the final week anymore.

I've only recently been able to understand why I was so good in the Engineering part of my "Double Degree in Software Engineering & Commerce", and so bad at the other. I don't spend much time on either's classes and cram only in the final weeks before the exam, but because I spend the time I saved self-learning the bits of engineering that interests me - even though it doesn't match the courses I'm studying, a few semesters down the road all the dots comes together. I didn't self learn anything econometrics related (besides stock trading, some might call it gambling, though) in my time saved from not concentrating on my econometrics classes. I did well at first, but now I am experiencing serious headwind and am not sleeping well at night.

This is why I am switching to another commerce major, so I can get another chance to really understand the fundamentals. If I'm going to complete a degree, I am going to (from now on) do it as best as I can. It means I will spend a lot more effort per mark that I will get. But I know I spent the time to throughly understand it. For me to sleep well at night, the quality has to be carried all the way through.

I'm sorry if you had to cringe at some of what I wrote, but I felt I had to write it.

[michaelochurch]

If you're going to do something, do it as best as you can, otherwise don't do it so you don't waste your time.

This sounds good and I like the work ethic, but it's not the most strategic approach.

There's something immensely rewarding about doing a really great job at something, about building something that's truly great. Aesthetic completion, perhaps? I would personally much rather work in that way as well: always able to take the time to write great code, never having to do deal with legacy bullshit or ill-considered external demands that compromise the quality. But is that practical? Not for most people. Steve Jobs could pull it off. He was rich and didn't need to keep his job at Apple (one that he'd already lost in '85) so he could actually do great work, and insist on the same from others.

The strategic approach is to pretty much stop at "good enough" and move on to something else. That's what most people do at work, and I don't like it but I understand why people work that way. Doing one really great thing is much more rewarding, but it doesn't build a CV, and it only makes a career if a person has a lot more creative control than most of us get. CVs and reputations are built by sticking as many fingers in as many pies as possible.

School doesn't prepare people for this. I've worked at a number of companies that consider a 3.9+ GPA a negative in hiring because people with excellent grades tend to be those who insist on doing great work, not the mediocre work (in more quantity per unit time) that most jobs actually require.

[meric]

Of course you can't apply anyone's personal philosophy 100% to your own life.

>> But is that practical? Not for most people.

But I think that particular part can be practical for many. E.g. when studying.

Here's the particular situation you were talking about:

You're in debt & working in a large company with lots of legacy stuff, you feel you could do better.

What to do: In a large company, what you really want to do isn't to make a great product, create very compatible software or anything. It is to do what your manager or what your manager's manager wants you to do. Listen to what they want and fulfil it as well as possible. If you are going to be a cog in a machine, then you strive to be the best cog in the machine you're going to be! If not, then read below.

This isn't a job you like. You're in debt so you need the job. First thing you do would then be remove the debt! In a mortgage? Move out and lease the house or sell it and rent, which ever saves more money. Don't go out every week, go out every month. Delay that macbook pro upgrade for another year. See a big discount on shoes? Buy a couple, but don't wear them yet. Eat the generic brand cereal. Cook yourself, don't eat out. If you don't have time, eat only fruit, vegetables and rice. They are cheap and easy to prepare. If you're going to save money, you do it the best you can. Once you get out of debt and getting some savings, you can refocus on getting another job. If many companies deal with legacy shit, then focus on getting a job at Apple. :)

So you don't really want to start another career at 45. Plus you have kids to take care of. You're a father/mother after all. Ahh, so you're a parent, and you rather spend time with your kids. Then spend your time with your kids! Be the best parent you can be!

Disclaimer: I'm still in university.

[michaelochurch]

Disclaimer: I'm still in university.

I can tell. I would have written what you did at that age. Now I'm older and jaded I don't know if that makes me wiser or stupider.

In school, you can actually ace every course. In fact, it's structured so that if you have a good work ethic, above-average talent, and a little bit of luck, getting a 4.00 GPA is possible. It's not easy (I didn't) but certainly within striking distance.

In the "real world" of work, you can't actually ace everything and please everyone while developing your career at the same time. It's not humanly possible to do everything that you "should" do. If you're trying to do five different things, you're probably doing none of them well. If you're trying to "be the best cog you can be", you won't have any energy left for the side projects that might lead to liberation from your boring corporate job. That might be the right approach; maybe your boring corporate job is one rung below a very interesting job in the same company. (Not all corporate jobs suck.) It might not be. But you have to pick and choose. What are you going to do a great job of, what are you going to get by on "good enough", and what can you cut (perhaps an unfruitful side project) for the time being?

Being "the best cog in the machine" doesn't provide much reward over being a marginally acceptable cog. You might get a 8% raise instead of 5%. Big whoop; not worth the extra hours and sweat. On the other hand, if someone in the company (possibly your manager, possibly someone else) decides to take you on in a mentor/protege role and look out for your career, then it makes sense for you to put your all into that work.

In school, you can get the sense that hard work is always rewarding and virtuous. In real life, sometimes hard work is just wasted effort. You have to discriminate.

What is very unpleasant is dealing with the aftermath of people who took "working strategically" too far and edged into the unethical: people who wrote garbage code fast, were promoted away from maintenance, and left an albatross for their juniors. That happens a lot in software. It sucks.

[meric]

My perceptions might change in the future, but I think we still agree on these points:

>> But you have to pick and choose.

1. The less time you spend doing things you won't do great at, the more you have to focus on doing great things.

2. If you want to do something great, you have to spend effort. You must try to understand all aspects of it.

What we are disagreeing on is:

1. I am saying you should only do great things.

2. You are saying we have too many things to do, and have not enough time to do all of them great.

>> You might get a 8% raise instead of 5%.

Being pedantic here, but 5% is 0% and 8% is 3%, after inflation.

[michaelochurch]

1. I am saying you should only do great things.

I disagree. Most of the things you'll be expected to do are not great and to attempt to do great work will actually get you in trouble. You'll get into personality conflicts with people who don't care as much as you do, and your pace of work will be considered slow.

It usually demands 3 times as much time and 10 times as much energy to do a great job of something than a passable job. Sometimes, a passable job is enough and more is wasted effort. People who have to do a great job of everything they are asked to do end up getting asked to do a lot of things, some unrewarding, and eventually burn out because they just can't do everything that people want done.

Example of minimal effort being ideal: your boss says you need to be in at work at 9:00 am, even though there's no hard reason (it's just a demonstration of power). Let's say your commute is under 40 minutes 98% of the time. A passable job would be to leave at 8:20 and be on time almost every day, and average 8:40-8:50. You won't get yelled at for being a few minutes late once every couple of months. The "great job" would be to leave for work at 7:30 and arrive at 7:50-8:10, when no one is in the office, thereby ensuring that (unless something very unusual happens) you'll never be late. Does this extra effort really win you anything? Is it more rewarded to be an hour early than on time? In most cases, no.

You need 3 "buckets" for your projects. A: things where you'll do a great job. B: things you'll do just well enough to satisfy the minimum demands. C: things you won't do. If your A bucket is empty, you'll probably get bored and start itching for a side project, but you do not have the time to put everything in your A bucket and will burn out if you try. Generally, you end up splitting the things you have to do (your paid job) between A and B and your personal side projects between A and C (i.e. either doing a great job, or not doing them).

[meric]

>> I disagree. I already said that. :) I was summarising our discussion.

You make good points, but I'll need to experience it myself when I get out of university before I'll be convinced.