I've always thought that a job worth doing was a job worth doing well. It's put me through a lot of pain and stress because almost no-one else feels the same way.
I'm coming to terms with the realisation that for most people, a job is just a job. To others, a job is a ladder to climb in the pursuit of wealth. Neither of those are me, but I need to find a way to be content in an environment full of people like that. It's a struggle, but I'll work it out.
It seems a shame to spend the majority of one's life doing a job that's just a job, and being too tired to apply oneself to other endeavours. But that's what it appears at least I am faced with. And contentedness lies in the acceptance of it.
> I've always thought that a job worth doing was a job worth doing well.
Kind of off topic but this made me laugh because I once saw the phrase "anything worth doing is worth doing poorly" and I have found massive inspiration in that, as it has helped me overcome my perfectionism and just get more things done.
> Chesterton consistently defended the amateur against the professional, or the “generalist” against the specialist, especially when it came to “the things worth doing.” There are things like playing the organ or discovering the North Pole, or being Astronomer Royal, which we do not want a person to do at all unless he does them well. But those are not the most important things in life. When it comes to writing one’s own love letters and blowing one’s own nose, “these things we want a man to do for himself, even if he does them badly.” This, argues Chesterton (in Orthodoxy) is “the democratic faith: that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves – the mating of the sexes, the rearing of the young, the laws of the state.”
[…]
> In What’s Wrong with the World, Chesterton foresaw the dilemma of daycare and the working mother, that children would end up being raised by “professionals” rather than by “amateurs.” And here we must understand “amateur” in its truest and most literal meaning. An amateur is someone who does something out of love, not for money. She does what she does not because she is going to be paid for her services and not because she is the most highly skilled, but because she wants to do it. And she does “the things worth doing,” which are the things closest and most sacred to all of humanity – nurturing a baby, teaching a child the first things, and, in fact, all things.
> The line, “if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly,” is not an excuse for poor efforts. It is perhaps an excuse for poor results. But our society is plagued by wanting good results with no efforts (or rather, with someone else’s efforts). We hire someone else to work for us, to play for us (that is, to entertain us), to think for us, and to raise our children for us. We have left “the things worth doing” to others, on the poor excuse that others might be able to do them better.
> Finally, and less heavily, we should also point out that the phrase is a defense of hobbies. […]
I agree with you about doing a job well. I just don't put the job at the top of my list in terms of where to focus my efforts.
Mind you, I'm not FAANG material nor the entrepreneurial sort. The feeling is mutual: I'm not interested in devoting my time to reach those heights in the workplace. They are not interested in hiring people like me. I don't apply for those jobs, and they don't try to recruit me. I'm sure the work is fine there but I can't see myself getting excited about it.
Now, let's talk about my FTP or VO2max and what I'm doing to increase my numbers. I'm really interested in my HRV and what factors affect it. I'm presently also interested in building an analog compressor - electronics are cool - and not at all interested in Tensorflow, deep learning, or spending my free time taking Coursera classes. Why would I spend time learning Rust when I can be improving my flexibility with some yoga? But that's just me.
And finally, I do get what I "deserve" on the job front: I'll always be a middle-of-the-pack guy and not a hot shot. I'm not lazy, but my ambitions are not in career advancement. So I get paid accordingly. But to me, a real hot shot is a 52 year old guy nailing a sub-20 5K.
I think you're way overestimating "FAANG material" FWIW. At least at Goog there are a huge number of people that just do what they need to do and nothing more, don't respond to anyone or anything outside of normal hours and spend their time doing stuff with their kids / family / friends etc. Obviously these are not the people you hear about from outside Google, but if you work there then you work with many of them.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. A lot of folks work continuously to 'find the middle ground' of doing their job in a thoughtful, efficient, effective manner, whilst still defending their boundaries of work vs life. Finding that balance is probably what gives rise to so much discussion around 'not doing every last work task' that you possibly can, but rather prioritizing work tasks by impact/importance and letting some drop (with appropriate comms to your leadership/team etc etc etc).
> I've always thought that a job worth doing was a job worth doing well.
I think you were right, and I am learning that it doesn't have to be painful if you consider "your job" to be the best you can in the moment and given the circumstances (including co-workers that don't feel the same way).
As Lao-Tzu put it: "Do your job, then step back. The only path to serenity."
I'm coming to terms with the realisation that for most people, a job is just a job. To others, a job is a ladder to climb in the pursuit of wealth. Neither of those are me, but I need to find a way to be content in an environment full of people like that. It's a struggle, but I'll work it out.
It seems a shame to spend the majority of one's life doing a job that's just a job, and being too tired to apply oneself to other endeavours. But that's what it appears at least I am faced with. And contentedness lies in the acceptance of it.