8 ms·

Optimizing your career for happiness

79 points by abhas9 2y ago

chrisdbanks 2y ago
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.
- appendix-rock 2y ago
  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.
- iamEAP 2y ago
  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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      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.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - e4325f 2y ago
    Add /s for the Americans, it'll go over their heads otherwise!
  - anon22981 2y ago
    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.
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    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).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- phreeza 2y ago
  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.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  > 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 2y ago
    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
    - jimbokun 2y ago
      I suspect there are far too few jobs meeting that description relative to the number of people needing employment.
      - KolenCh 2y ago
        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
- refurb 2y ago
  > 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.
purple-leafy 2y ago
work 4 days not 5 as money allows Then work 3 days not 4 as money allows Then work 2 days not 3 as money allows …. Then retire
- matthewsinclair 2y ago
  I’ve never really been a fan of the concept of “retirement”. It feels very much like a Silent Generation/ Boomer idea that has run its course (for reasons both good and bad). 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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
    >I watched grandparents on both sides retire and their mental decline tracked their decline in active engagement with meaningful activity. 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.
  - purple-leafy 2y ago
    I agree entirely, by retire I mean “from needing to work” but at that stage I will still be building stuff daily :) Already at 4 days, only 4 to go!
  - jjav 2y ago
    > 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. But this is exactly what retirement is!
entropyneur 2y ago
I'd rather work for a leader with a strong product vision. Their job is to know where we are going. How we get there is what I'm being paid for.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  The leader needs to have both vision and an understanding of the job separation you described. Many don't, in my opinion.
tayo42 2y ago
Easier said then done, which is weird because you would think everyone is on board with optimizing for happiness?
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  Most people think buying a new car or house will make them happy. It probably does for a short while but they soon get used to it and are back on the treadmill again.
  - tuna74 2y ago
    I bought a nice OLED TV a year ago and I am still happy every time I use it. Sometimes buying stuff actually improves your life.
- ramon156 2y ago
  Everyone wants to optimize happiness for themselves, with a priority for staying lazy and low-effort. Not giving a crap about your employees is pretty easy
npras1 2y ago
For me career happiness translates to these: 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.
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
known 2y ago
[dead]
notepad0x90 2y ago
Happiness and fulfillment are great, but I can't wrap my head around making those things a priority. If or when I manage to support myself fully and achieve financial stability, then I would need to be concerned about doing the same for those who helped me get there (including family and friends). For most people, these things are not within reach, yet we must pursue them as a priority. 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.
- stephenson 2y ago
  I think this is the most sad comment I have read on HN for years. Can I ask where in the world you live?
  - notepad0x90 2y ago
    America! :) 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?
    - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
      It might be the depression talking but my self happiness is way too low in a typical month / week to begin thinking of others
      - notepad0x90 2y ago
        I get that. But financial freedom, at least for me would go a long way in terms of not being depressed. Once you beat depression, then you can function well and take care of your health and security. then do the same for others. Not being happy all the time is not a mental illness or a problem, nor is it synonymous with depression.
mcook08 2y ago
> Studies indicate that hospitals led by doctors, sports teams by star players, and universities by researchers outperform those led by non-experts 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.
- abhas9 2y ago
  "Probably" this is the study being referred: > 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-proves-value-of-expert-leadership-in-raising-performance-of-healthcare-and-education https://www.city.ac.uk/research/impact/case-studies/evidence...
- n_ary 2y ago
  I would argue that it depends and varies on the person. I have had non-experts in management who did not often grasp the effort and difficulty and often made bad judgements. Then there were other non-experts who appreciated what was done on technical side a trusted that the reports will do a good job. 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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

79 points by abhas9 2y ago

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.

appendix-rock 2y ago
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.
iamEAP 2y ago
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 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- e4325f 2y ago
  Add /s for the Americans, it'll go over their heads otherwise!
- anon22981 2y ago
  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.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  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).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
phreeza 2y ago
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.
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> 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 2y ago
  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
  - jimbokun 2y ago
    I suspect there are far too few jobs meeting that description relative to the number of people needing employment.
    - KolenCh 2y ago
      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
refurb 2y ago
> 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.

purple-leafy 2y ago

work 4 days not 5 as money allows Then work 3 days not 4 as money allows Then work 2 days not 3 as money allows …. Then retire

matthewsinclair 2y ago
I’ve never really been a fan of the concept of “retirement”. It feels very much like a Silent Generation/ Boomer idea that has run its course (for reasons both good and bad). 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  >I watched grandparents on both sides retire and their mental decline tracked their decline in active engagement with meaningful activity. 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.
- purple-leafy 2y ago
  I agree entirely, by retire I mean “from needing to work” but at that stage I will still be building stuff daily :) Already at 4 days, only 4 to go!
- jjav 2y ago
  > 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. But this is exactly what retirement is!

entropyneur 2y ago

I'd rather work for a leader with a strong product vision. Their job is to know where we are going. How we get there is what I'm being paid for.

lucianbr 2y ago
The leader needs to have both vision and an understanding of the job separation you described. Many don't, in my opinion.

tayo42 2y ago

Easier said then done, which is weird because you would think everyone is on board with optimizing for happiness?

tonyedgecombe 2y ago
Most people think buying a new car or house will make them happy. It probably does for a short while but they soon get used to it and are back on the treadmill again.
- tuna74 2y ago
  I bought a nice OLED TV a year ago and I am still happy every time I use it. Sometimes buying stuff actually improves your life.
ramon156 2y ago
Everyone wants to optimize happiness for themselves, with a priority for staying lazy and low-effort. Not giving a crap about your employees is pretty easy

npras1 2y ago

For me career happiness translates to these: 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.

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

known 2y ago

[dead]

notepad0x90 2y ago

Happiness and fulfillment are great, but I can't wrap my head around making those things a priority. If or when I manage to support myself fully and achieve financial stability, then I would need to be concerned about doing the same for those who helped me get there (including family and friends). For most people, these things are not within reach, yet we must pursue them as a priority. 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.

stephenson 2y ago
I think this is the most sad comment I have read on HN for years. Can I ask where in the world you live?
- notepad0x90 2y ago
  America! :) 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?
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
    It might be the depression talking but my self happiness is way too low in a typical month / week to begin thinking of others
    - notepad0x90 2y ago
      I get that. But financial freedom, at least for me would go a long way in terms of not being depressed. Once you beat depression, then you can function well and take care of your health and security. then do the same for others. Not being happy all the time is not a mental illness or a problem, nor is it synonymous with depression.

mcook08 2y ago

> Studies indicate that hospitals led by doctors, sports teams by star players, and universities by researchers outperform those led by non-experts 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.

abhas9 2y ago
"Probably" this is the study being referred: > 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-proves-value-of-expert-leadership-in-raising-performance-of-healthcare-and-education https://www.city.ac.uk/research/impact/case-studies/evidence...
n_ary 2y ago
I would argue that it depends and varies on the person. I have had non-experts in management who did not often grasp the effort and difficulty and often made bad judgements. Then there were other non-experts who appreciated what was done on technical side a trusted that the reports will do a good job. 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.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]