A Convo Between "Creatives" vs "Suits"
Story time! If you've been reading your Linkedin feeds like I have, you may have been introduced to fascinating new paradigms like #thegreatresignation and #quietquitting.1 I've got a couple SMS group chats open that are from vastly different worlds - two in particular. In the attempt to keep labels loose, I will refer to two groups as "creatives" and "suits." I hope that's not too offensive.
Within these two groups, are several folks looking for new gigs. I presumed that their experiences were just like any other job hunt in the past, but I was wrong. What was also fascinating is that folks within the groups were aligned on their views on what work should be (this is weird because they never agree on anything). I then began to relay their views to the other group - it essentially became a short, hilarious, and insightful argument between creatives and suits on their job hunt and I wanted to share.
The prompt I proposed to both groups was something like this:
Me: What's more important in your search -- Exceeding your expectations in compensation vs exceeding your expectations in finding meaning in your work?
Then there was a lot of back-and-forth (this is heavily paraphrased):
Suits: All jobs suck. Finding meaning in your work is a myth. Compensation is the primary target - get paid for what you do.
Creatives: Of course they would say that. It's because they've never had the delight of having fun at work - like building amazing things with awesome people and winning.
Suits: Fun feels like money. (But it's not)
I should note that both groups are compensated similarly, are hard-working, similarly get burnt-out, and enjoy luxury privileges in their down-time.
The conversation was fairly longer - and they both had fascinating (and hilarious) biases against one another. Obviously, the best situation would be to have great compensation + great meaning, but I had never imagined such a topic would be so polarized across groups when forced to select only one.
Who do you agree with?
My diplomatic conclusion - they are both correct. Stress exists in every job - and everyone has their own palette of fears and strengths, so it manifest differently for everyone. Just as stress is unique, so is how folks see value. Some people also have the advantage of framing opportunities in a long-term lens. They can see potential. So while some may see a gig as a bad opportunity, high-form leadership assesses if the opportunity is ripe for change in subject matter areas that are relevant to them. Here's an example - SPOILER ALERT:
I just recently watched this Ron Howard film, 13 Lives.? The film is an accurate dramatization about the Tham Luang cave rescue in Thailand, circa 2018. One of the rescuers was a British civilian and cave diver, Dr Richard Harris (played by Joel Edgarton). A Thai boys' soccer team was stranded 2.4km deep in a flooding cave - which required a unique set of skills for a viable rescue. We know this to be true, as the Thai Navy Seals struggled in their first attempts. Those guys are really tough - but the skills required were too specific.
Just to establish how badass he is - its estimated there are only 75 professional cave divers in the world.2 Richard also happens to be an anesthesiologist, which was absolutely a key skill that was required for this specific rescue (watch the movie).3 What are the chances that a professional cave diver + practicing anesthesiologist exists? It must be microscopic. The rescue plan was extremely creative but risky, as there were no other viable options. However, it resulted in the successful rescue of the entire soccer team.
It sounds like destiny, but Dr Harris' story inspires me in a way that shows me how an individual can shine in specific problem areas. Chasing your unique "brand" of problems makes you undeniably valuable. The result of this can lead to reward - whether it be in the form of meaning or compensation.
Links