Do we need to be passionate to be successful?

Do We Actually Need to Be Passionate About Our Career Path to Succeed Though?

Some say yes, most say no.

51
views

I feel like this question is very straightforward when we take it in the first glance: Yes!

Why would anyone disagree? Having interest and passion for what you are trying to achieve will make you do it more with greater success and enthusiasm.

Up to 87.7 percent of America's workforce is not able to contribute to their full potential because they don't have passion for their work. Less than 12.3 percent of America's workforce possesses the attributes of worker passion. That is a staggering amount of non-passionate individuals who just go to work every day and come back and don't feel fulfilled with their jobs but the real question is does this matter?

Is it truly a problem that work is monotonous and boring? There is more to work in our lives and it may not be super exciting but it pays the bills and a lot of people are content with that. "Follow your passion" implies that work has a greater value than just being a means to an end–in other words, living to work as opposed to working to live. But it's totally okay if this is not your approach to work.

Moreover, the talk around work-life balance and work-life integration deal primarily on figuring out where you are on this spectrum. You first need to realize and choose what sort of life you want and what role work will play in it.

One of my main idols Richard Branson said that "There is no greater thing you can do with your life and your work than follow your passions in a way that serves the world and you."

Seems reasonable if you want that for yourself. Not everybody is super into their work, even if they like what they plan to do. It is definitely common to find people who are more fulfilled doing other activities like maintaining friendships or hobbies instead of integrating everything you like with your career path.

But also, frankly, it would be a dumb move to not take advantage of the money flowing in by your interests if you can by integrating it. Then again, the line blurs depending on what you want to do and where you want to be in your life in regards to your passion.

I went to a recruiting event for an investment banking firm recently and one of the presenters talked about how being passionate is something that is developed by doing the work over and over again.

I don't think I agree but also at the same time, her advice seems important enough to reconsider my stance. Yes, you can develop an interest for things by doing it repeatedly because people tend to like things that they are good at (and practice does make you good at things) but I would argue that passion is something you love to do and while doing it, it doesn't feel like work.

It's like what Confucius said, "choose a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life." But maybe that's what's wrong about it.

Unfortunately, not only do many companies not recognize the value of worker passion, they view it with suspicion. Many work environments are actually hostile to it.

Passionate workers in search of new challenges and learning opportunities are viewed as unpredictable, and thus risky. Most work in any field, when you start off at least, is about keeping your head down and doing the tasks assigned to you. Being passionate about what work you do is amazing but it could lead to dissatisfaction when you feel like you could be handling more responsibilities.

Not to be confused with a healthy regard for one's job, "obsessive passion" for one's work (basically, caring extensively about your job) can lead to an increase in "conflict between work and other life activities because the person cannot let go of the work activity," which then causes an overall sense of unhappiness and an increase in "burnout" at work.

On another note, even if we identify our passion, we might not know how to go about pursuing it. Some people (a lot of people, actually) are just simply not that good in what they are passionate about and how do they incorporate passion into their careers?

There is so much emphasis on feeling fulfilled in this generation's career path that it is hard to think about the detriments of passion.

Make no mistake, I am firmly in the tent of being passionate about what you do career-wise, but it is intriguing that we need to be careful while creating a healthy work-life balance with what we want to do.

Popular Right Now

As A Female Christian Millennial, I Fully Support Alabama's Abortion Ban Because I Know God Would, Too

A life always has worth, no matter the circumstances.

12159
views

Alabama's state legislature passed a bill on May 14, 2019 that makes it illegal for abortions to be performed past six weeks of pregnancy. Doctors who are caught violating the law could be sentenced up to 99 years in prison. The bill is the strictest anti-abortion bill to date this year as states try to pass laws to challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

While the law does allow an exception to women whose lives are at risks, it does not allow for abortions in the event of rape or incest. I support Alabama's new law, and I applaud them for their efforts to protect the rights of unborn children.

As a Christian, I believe that life is a precious gift from God and should be treated with care.

The sixth commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill," and Jesus said the second greatest rule was to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39-40). I believe this applies to every person born and unborn. But, even from a secular perspective, there are reasons that support an unborn child's right to life. Let's break down two of the most important components of the bill: abortion itself and the case of rape and incest.

A big argument in the debate is whether a baby is alive before it is born or only after it is born.

I believe can be explained and answered with simple medical science. In the medical profession, a person is pronounced dead when there is no more activity in the brain, known as brain-dead.

At that point, they consider there to be no more life in the body.

The opposite of death is life, so if you have electrical signals still coursing through your brain, then you are alive. A fetus begins to have electrical activity in its brain at six weeks. Most women do not find out they are pregnant until around that time, so by the time they decide to have an abortion, the baby, by all medical accounts, is alive.

Another indicator of whether a person is dead or dying is their pulse.

The pulse is how many times a person's heart beats per minute. If a person does not have a pulse, they will more than likely die if their heart cannot be resuscitated because no oxygen is getting to their brain.

Medical personnel does everything they can to start a person's heart back because they know that the heart is key to life.

A baby's heart begins to beat at five weeks old, again before the mother knows she is pregnant and can choose to have an abortion. Since the United States' justice system upholds that killing a person is wrong, then shouldn't killing a baby, who is alive, be wrong too? I think this is plenty of proof that aborting a baby is killing a living person and is therefore wrong.

Rape and incest are two horrible acts that should be punished. It is never the victim's or conceived a child's fault in the situation.

Given the reasons above for why abortion is wrong, I also believe, while both crimes are horrendous, that abortion is still not the answer to this problem. I do understand, however, that women, because of the traumatic experience or other reasons, may not be able to care for the child.

As such, I am an advocate for adoption.

There are many couples out there who cannot have children on their own who would love to adopt. In order, for this to be a viable option, though, Congress needs to make amendments to adoption laws.

Adoption is outrageously expensive, much more costly than an abortion, and is a long and tedious process.

Though the laws are in place so that not just anybody can adopt a child, the government still could stand to relax laws a little. Another option could be to offer aid to those who wish to adopt specifically to cover adoption expenses or to only those who meet certain requirements. If we want to protect unborn children, we must give women and families more viable options.

I know that my views are not popular, but God did not call us to be popular, He called us to be His disciples.

I will not compromise my convictions because I am in the minority. I support the women who have to face this dilemma, and I pray that they and our government officials make the right decisions and aid these women and families in need of help.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

We're All Thinking It, I'm Saying It: Too Many People Are Running For President

I'm all for options, but man, do we really need 24? I mean, I can barely pick a flavor of ice cream at Baskin Robbins let alone a potential President.

73
views

There are, currently, 23 Democrats running for President. On the Republican side, there's, of course, Trump, but only one other candidate, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld. Democrats have a whole range of people running, from senators to congressmen, a former vice-president, and even a spiritual advisor. We can now say that there are DOZENS of people running for President in 2020.

Joe Biden has been leading the pack for quite some time now. He was even leading polls before he announced his campaign. Although he is the frontrunner, there really is no big favorite to win the nomination. Biden has been hovering around the mid-30s in most polls, with Bernie Sanders coming in second. Other minor candidates in the hunt are Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris.

After the surprising defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, Democrats have become electrified and have a mission to take back the White House after winning back the House of Representatives in 2018. There are so many people running in 2020, it seems that it will be hard to focus on who is saying what and why someone believes in something, but in the end, there can only be one candidate. This is the most diverse group of candidates ever, several women are running, people of color, the first out gay candidate, and several more.

There could be a problem when it comes to debate time. I mean, the first debate is next month. Having around 20-plus people on stage at the same time, debating each other kinda sounds like a nightmare. How can someone get their point across in the right amount of time when someone else is going to cut them off? Debates are usually around an hour and a half. So, if you divide it up, each candidate would get just under five minutes to speak. That would be in a perfect world of course.

Democrats seriously believe that they can beat Trump in 2020. They say they have learned from the mistakes of 2016, and have the guts and the momentum to storm back into the White House. By July of next year, there will be only one candidate left. Will they be able to reconcile the divide during the primaries? We will see. It will surely be a fun election cycle, so make sure to have your popcorn ready and your ballot at hand to pick your favorite candidate, no matter what party you lean towards.

Related Content

Facebook Comments