Phew. Long break on this blog. Let's put it down to the stresses of moving house (a long story that, if you know me, you already know) and various other things that I've been getting into or trying to get into lately.
This blog post comes courtesy of Quartz, where I recently read two interesting op-ed-type pieces about working in finance. The first "To save the world don't get a job at a charity, go work on Wall Street" is basically an ode to the notion that people who make piles of cash and then redistribute it in what they consider an "effective" manner are contributing more to society than they would if they scrambled after nonprofit jobs. The other piece, a response, goes, "Don't come to Wall Street for the money, even if you plan on giving it away."
These two articles both address a theme that's been kicking around for a long while now, and occasionally spills over into more public discourse: is the access to absurdly lucrative, "easy" (definition to come), prestigious work the worst thing ever, or what? Can bankers actually do anything good for the world?
The first author introduces the concept of "earning to give," which I find optimistic and a bit self-justifying. He claims that "The competition for finance jobs is even more fierce than for nonprofits, but if someone else gets the finance job instead of you, he or she would not likely donate as much to charity." This shouldn't be the assumption on which your career's social value depends. Also, the notion that people who compete for these jobs view the opportunity to give money to charity as a primary motivator is...almost impossible to believe. Seriously. If your primary goal in life is to benefit society in that particular way, find another job. Wall Street will likely not fulfill you.
The second author writes that instead of charity, "The real opportunity to do good on Wall Street is to reform it from within." This statement ignores the fact that reforming any institution from within is really only possible for those who already hold a significant amount of power within the institution. And those types of folks have already benefited so much from the system that reforming it - an ideal they might once have held - has become not only difficult but potentially impossible. Real reformers are willing to walk away from a system if it refuses to change. They're willing to build new and alternate systems. Assuming that you can reform an institution "from within" - at least in my experience - is a validation, a bet on a very uncertain outcome, and often a loser's game anyway.
In an incredibly rational rant "Telling people to leave Wall Street," Cathy O'Neil writes, "First, I want to say it’s frustrating how risk-averse the culture in finance is. I know, it’s strange to hear that, but compared to working in a start-up, I found the culture and people in finance to be way more risk-averse in the sense of personal risk, not in the sense of “putting other people’s money at risk”.
People in start-ups are optimistic about the future, ready for the big pay-out that may never come, whereas the people in finance are ready for the world to melt down and are trying to collect enough food before it happens. I don’t know which is more accurate but it’s definitely more fun to be around optimists. Young people get old quickly in finance."
O'Neil's observation cuts closer to the heart of the matter. I've met people who are happy and satisfied with the work they're doing in finance, and I'm not going to jump up in their faces about "social value" because seriously, who am I do decide the value of anyone's contributions to society? There a million ways to increase the wellbeing of others. But O'Neil's point about pessimists versus optimists is so, so true in my observation. The people I meet who run startups are crazy optimistic. They have an energy and enthusiasm for the future that is both addictive and unmatched.
Obviously, people who are drawn to guaranteed jobs will be more risk-averse. (Ok, promised definition: when I say "guaranteed" what I mean is: success depends on a predictable and formulaic type of hustle. Advancement is incremental and relatively assured.)
I will say that by and large people I know separate into two camps: 1) those whose personal and professional risks have been equivalent to their desire to create impact and pursue their passions and 2) those whose have not taken equivalent risks.
The first category of people are optimistic and happy. They do work that fulfills and inspires them. The second category are usually miserable.
Recently, I was chatting with one of the most high-achieving people I know, and we were talking about "happiness." There's a great little subplot at the end of "30 Rock" in which Jack, the hard-hitting GE executive, realizes that despite having achieved all the tangible goals he's set for himself, he's still not happy. The set up and execution are a little ridiculous, but I loved the plotline anyway. My friend, who runs a large multinational company, said that it took him decades to realize that happiness is a goal worth pursuing. "I have found that when you bring happiness into your life, achievement follows." I have discovered much the same thing, albeit more slowly. It's a shame that we are not taught these lessons in school, but then maybe that's not the job of school.
Another anecdotal observation: people who pursue happiness and fulfillment, and who take risks to achieve these things, are generally going to make more ethical choices. They will know when to fight and when to walk away. They will avoid telling lies. They won't be as misled by empty but glamorous promises. They will find and nurture relationships that inspire them. They will be better bosses, colleagues, friends, husbands/wives, brothers/sisters and parents. As Shakespeare famously quoted, "to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." And being a good husband/wife, a good friend and a good parent are some of the most valuable contributions to society that a person can make.
So here are two observations:
1. Happy, fulfilled people will make more ethical choices.
2. A lot of people in finance make unethical choices.
Ergo, it is believable - although not guaranteed - that some people in finance are probably unhappy and unfulfilled. But the problem is not finance. The problem is people who are too cowardly, or too risk-averse, to claim a life that will fulfill them (especially when it comes at a cost). So Steve Jobs' famous maxim "don't stop until you find what you love" is, it turns out, a moral dictate.
This blog post comes courtesy of Quartz, where I recently read two interesting op-ed-type pieces about working in finance. The first "To save the world don't get a job at a charity, go work on Wall Street" is basically an ode to the notion that people who make piles of cash and then redistribute it in what they consider an "effective" manner are contributing more to society than they would if they scrambled after nonprofit jobs. The other piece, a response, goes, "Don't come to Wall Street for the money, even if you plan on giving it away."
These two articles both address a theme that's been kicking around for a long while now, and occasionally spills over into more public discourse: is the access to absurdly lucrative, "easy" (definition to come), prestigious work the worst thing ever, or what? Can bankers actually do anything good for the world?
The first author introduces the concept of "earning to give," which I find optimistic and a bit self-justifying. He claims that "The competition for finance jobs is even more fierce than for nonprofits, but if someone else gets the finance job instead of you, he or she would not likely donate as much to charity." This shouldn't be the assumption on which your career's social value depends. Also, the notion that people who compete for these jobs view the opportunity to give money to charity as a primary motivator is...almost impossible to believe. Seriously. If your primary goal in life is to benefit society in that particular way, find another job. Wall Street will likely not fulfill you.
The second author writes that instead of charity, "The real opportunity to do good on Wall Street is to reform it from within." This statement ignores the fact that reforming any institution from within is really only possible for those who already hold a significant amount of power within the institution. And those types of folks have already benefited so much from the system that reforming it - an ideal they might once have held - has become not only difficult but potentially impossible. Real reformers are willing to walk away from a system if it refuses to change. They're willing to build new and alternate systems. Assuming that you can reform an institution "from within" - at least in my experience - is a validation, a bet on a very uncertain outcome, and often a loser's game anyway.
In an incredibly rational rant "Telling people to leave Wall Street," Cathy O'Neil writes, "First, I want to say it’s frustrating how risk-averse the culture in finance is. I know, it’s strange to hear that, but compared to working in a start-up, I found the culture and people in finance to be way more risk-averse in the sense of personal risk, not in the sense of “putting other people’s money at risk”.
People in start-ups are optimistic about the future, ready for the big pay-out that may never come, whereas the people in finance are ready for the world to melt down and are trying to collect enough food before it happens. I don’t know which is more accurate but it’s definitely more fun to be around optimists. Young people get old quickly in finance."
O'Neil's observation cuts closer to the heart of the matter. I've met people who are happy and satisfied with the work they're doing in finance, and I'm not going to jump up in their faces about "social value" because seriously, who am I do decide the value of anyone's contributions to society? There a million ways to increase the wellbeing of others. But O'Neil's point about pessimists versus optimists is so, so true in my observation. The people I meet who run startups are crazy optimistic. They have an energy and enthusiasm for the future that is both addictive and unmatched.
Obviously, people who are drawn to guaranteed jobs will be more risk-averse. (Ok, promised definition: when I say "guaranteed" what I mean is: success depends on a predictable and formulaic type of hustle. Advancement is incremental and relatively assured.)
I will say that by and large people I know separate into two camps: 1) those whose personal and professional risks have been equivalent to their desire to create impact and pursue their passions and 2) those whose have not taken equivalent risks.
The first category of people are optimistic and happy. They do work that fulfills and inspires them. The second category are usually miserable.
Recently, I was chatting with one of the most high-achieving people I know, and we were talking about "happiness." There's a great little subplot at the end of "30 Rock" in which Jack, the hard-hitting GE executive, realizes that despite having achieved all the tangible goals he's set for himself, he's still not happy. The set up and execution are a little ridiculous, but I loved the plotline anyway. My friend, who runs a large multinational company, said that it took him decades to realize that happiness is a goal worth pursuing. "I have found that when you bring happiness into your life, achievement follows." I have discovered much the same thing, albeit more slowly. It's a shame that we are not taught these lessons in school, but then maybe that's not the job of school.
Another anecdotal observation: people who pursue happiness and fulfillment, and who take risks to achieve these things, are generally going to make more ethical choices. They will know when to fight and when to walk away. They will avoid telling lies. They won't be as misled by empty but glamorous promises. They will find and nurture relationships that inspire them. They will be better bosses, colleagues, friends, husbands/wives, brothers/sisters and parents. As Shakespeare famously quoted, "to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." And being a good husband/wife, a good friend and a good parent are some of the most valuable contributions to society that a person can make.
So here are two observations:
1. Happy, fulfilled people will make more ethical choices.
2. A lot of people in finance make unethical choices.
Ergo, it is believable - although not guaranteed - that some people in finance are probably unhappy and unfulfilled. But the problem is not finance. The problem is people who are too cowardly, or too risk-averse, to claim a life that will fulfill them (especially when it comes at a cost). So Steve Jobs' famous maxim "don't stop until you find what you love" is, it turns out, a moral dictate.
No comments:
Post a Comment