[chrisdbanks]

I would also add to this.

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.

[RandomThoughts3]

> Aligning your personal goals with your company's mission can be a game-changer in achieving both professional success and personal fulfillment.

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.

[KolenCh]

Not an expert here, so I'll quote one from the highlights I have reading the following book:

“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

[RandomThoughts3]

Don’t take it wrongly but "you should do what you love or your life is meaningless" is a very bourgeois idea.

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.

[KolenCh]

> Don’t take it wrongly but "you should do what you love or your life is meaningless" is a very bourgeois idea.

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.

[RandomThoughts3]

> 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

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.

[KolenCh]

Books/articles like this is presenting a world view. I don’t think they think this is the only way we should view the world. But I guess they are preaching a way to view the world, and as any preacher does they try to convince you why this is a better way.

(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

[jimbokun]

I suspect there are far too few jobs meeting that description relative to the number of people needing employment.

[KolenCh]

Laura anticipated that response:

“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

[sgarland]

> 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.

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.

[Bagged2347]

This is what I aspire to. Work will always be work, but if my interests could align at least somewhat with my day job, then acknowledging that I have to spend so much of my time working would be so much more tolerable. Happy to hear it's achievable.

[sgarland]

ADHD and/or autism helps quite a bit. Devastating in other areas of life, of course, but hey, trade-offs.

[freilanzer]

I wish I had this kind of fascination in my life.

[foobarchu]

My interpretation of this was that it's really nice to believe in the companies mission, and even nicer if your own goals happen to match it. This probably isn't possible at most generic "tech" companies, but for a lot of more domain-specific company it totally is without making your a stooge.

[refurb]

> Aligning your personal goals with your company's mission can be a game-changer

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.

[phreeza]

It's a two edged sword though in my experience, because it can lead to self-exploitation. I found it much easier to separate work from private life in jobs where I didn't personally identify with the outcomes.

[iamEAP]

This is a great perspective.

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.

[Traubenfuchs]

This makes me wonder, as a misanthropic European software engineer, what would be the best way to get into the weapons or (governmental) surveillance industry?

[PradeetPatel]

It really depends on the level of seniority.

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.

[jajko]

That 'making safer place' is 50:50 at best, every single arms/bombs/rocket/ammunition manufacturer has seen its products used for smaller or bigger genocides of civilian population across whole age spectrum, with obviously the biggest being US and Russia/CCCP.

Its supremely dumb to blame manufacturers in any way of course, they are just (pretty efficient) tools.

[e4325f]

Add /s for the Americans, it'll go over their heads otherwise!

[RandomThoughts3]

The same way than any other companies: they advertise the positions they are looking for.

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).

[anon22981]

I’m not sure what kind of an answer you are looking for, but a simple one is to apply for jobs in the fields you are interested in.

[appendix-rock]

Amen to that. I work for an organisation that operates in a sector that I care about deeply. I am a high performer, but ‘doing well at work’ is more a byproduct of me following my passion.