This is great. I think you (kind of) missed a couple things:
- People also really like to do what they are good at. That typically lines up with our interests but not necessarily. I'm really interested in psychology but I think I'd be a terrible therapist. On the other hand, my (undiagnosed) ADHD perfectly dovetailed with trading. Often the best form of compensation (and motivation) is just telling someone they did a good job.
- Similar to a foxhole, people often do what they are doing for the persons sitting next to them. Any job, no matter how passionate you are about it, has periods where the work feels particularly tedious and/or not worth the effort. Relationships, working on a team, feeling like you have a purpose on the other hand, have a much longer shelf life. Even in industries that are notoriously transactional, like finance and law, there are some firms that are much better at developing culture.
The essay got long enough and was super off-the-cuff tbh (like a take that basically grew) but my fuller view is that only some people get to start with a passion (my archetype for this is pilots and vets -- i've never met one of these people who didn't want that when they were a kid) but most of us discover a passion thru competence. our responsibility ot ourselves and children is to expose to a range of activities, see what clicks, abstract what it is we like about the activity and then look at the menu of careers that harness that skill/attraction while saitisficing for your other needs/desires
I’ve been reading and learning from your posts for several years. I nearly always come away improved, though as often as not, feeling like I still have so much to learn.
This line, “The truth is a dumb 20-year old chooses our lives for us and it takes creativity and courage to make a graceful exit from an expensive choice.” echoes Thoreau’s statement about the “mass of men living lives of quiet desperation.”
“Successful” people often work themselves into higher paying roles that they enjoy less than the roles they started in. The money keeps them there, it becomes the “expensive choice” and can lead to “quiet desperation.”
It strikes me, seeing it set out that way, that if the answer to why people choose the (BigLaw) legal profession is “money, prestige,” then the way to motivate would be by finding ways to reward performance with “money, prestige.” Performance bonuses, new/more job titles, etc.
That said, I’d say fear used to be a prime motivation in BigLaw—which could be interpreted as fear of losing the “money, prestige”—and that the kinder, gentler version of BigLaw that exists today (combined with generational/cultural issues) has removed that threat as a motivational tool.
When I was a BigLaw associate many years ago, I was terrified of making a mistake and losing my job, or at least my status within the firm. I was a first-generation lawyer and college grad, with a young family and mortgage, and had nothing to fall back on.
Very interesting account. I have not worked in BigLaw, but from observation and secondhand accounts, some enter with the goal of having a broader impact, though most seem to become absorbed by the demands and office politics. That pattern likely extends to many professions.
Greed and fear are persistent motivators in human systems. A culture driven by fear is inherently unstable; it concentrates power at the top and eventually collapses when those below lose any stake in the outcome. Superficial incentives (“brownie button” rewards) are patronizing and ineffective. Rewards without corresponding responsibility encourage risk-taking without accountability. This parallels many political structures, where incentives, personal freedom, and recognition of contributions must be balanced to maintain engagement and stability.
Society cycles through periods of prioritizing prestige, but, in the end, prestige is a byproduct of real value creation...but that is another matter entirely.
I started on the options floor (1993) because I believed it was the best place to test myself. I wasn’t there to make friends, but I left (in 1999) with respect for everyone who managed to stick it out. The floor was a sorting mechanism—the ones who couldn’t handle it didn’t last. Moving off the floor was a different challenge, usually for those who struggled to translate what they’d done into something others could understand. I remember a friend, frustrated about his prospects, joking, “How do I market myself? ‘Fast on quotes,’ ‘can yell loud’?” I told him to reframe it: Portfolio Manager, Trade Ops, Execution, Strategist, Business Owner. The substance matters more than the packaging.
Prestige is fine if it shows up, but if you chase it for its own sake, you’re missing the point.
If you want people to do good work, give them equity—real ownership with real risk, not just upside. A linear payout structure forces people to own the outcome. If you shelter them from the downside, you’re not building anything durable, and you probably won’t be in business long.
...ask me how to motivate a teenager with all of the distractions that are out there (combined with a developing mind, with emotional kurtosis that is off the charts), and I am at a loss. And this is the needle I am trying to thread at the moment. Taming the developing child is truly the final frontier...(but being a parent is an exercise in learning just how capable for love one can be).
I resonate with so many of your posts on topics like this.
In my 20s I ended up in a high status profession (vc) but at a newer firm that nobody had heard of (low status, in SF at least). Many people are drawn into this field because they want to be perceived as a certain archetype of person (a highly networked rising star with great discernment about the future). I'm sure I wasn't immune to this desire. Over time though, the people who are in it for prestige points & the people who are in it for the love of the game end up being sorted into different camps. And there is a surprisingly low amount of overlap between these camps because they are essentially speaking two different languages.
I like this article but I want to point out that the frame here is that people choose what to do based on their personal simple desires - happiness, status, and in some rare cases power. But there's no check here as to whether what they want to do should be done at all. You said all you wanted to do was make money. So if you could make money that would lead to others becoming injured, dead or poor, you would still do it? What if we applied to becoming a vet or making a self driving car? There seems to be no nth-order thinking here. In fact there's no mention of wisdom here at all. It's all personal maximization.
You don't, whoever wrote that is so far up the cloistered universe he might as well not exist. The true answer is you hire good people understanding you will abuse them while they carry 90% the load while the other 90% of employees simply do good enough work to not get fired or slow down the actually producers, i.e. someone has to do a bad job cleaning the toilets or write TPS reports.
This is great. I think you (kind of) missed a couple things:
- People also really like to do what they are good at. That typically lines up with our interests but not necessarily. I'm really interested in psychology but I think I'd be a terrible therapist. On the other hand, my (undiagnosed) ADHD perfectly dovetailed with trading. Often the best form of compensation (and motivation) is just telling someone they did a good job.
- Similar to a foxhole, people often do what they are doing for the persons sitting next to them. Any job, no matter how passionate you are about it, has periods where the work feels particularly tedious and/or not worth the effort. Relationships, working on a team, feeling like you have a purpose on the other hand, have a much longer shelf life. Even in industries that are notoriously transactional, like finance and law, there are some firms that are much better at developing culture.
Totally agree with both ideas
The essay got long enough and was super off-the-cuff tbh (like a take that basically grew) but my fuller view is that only some people get to start with a passion (my archetype for this is pilots and vets -- i've never met one of these people who didn't want that when they were a kid) but most of us discover a passion thru competence. our responsibility ot ourselves and children is to expose to a range of activities, see what clicks, abstract what it is we like about the activity and then look at the menu of careers that harness that skill/attraction while saitisficing for your other needs/desires
I’ve been reading and learning from your posts for several years. I nearly always come away improved, though as often as not, feeling like I still have so much to learn.
This line, “The truth is a dumb 20-year old chooses our lives for us and it takes creativity and courage to make a graceful exit from an expensive choice.” echoes Thoreau’s statement about the “mass of men living lives of quiet desperation.”
“Successful” people often work themselves into higher paying roles that they enjoy less than the roles they started in. The money keeps them there, it becomes the “expensive choice” and can lead to “quiet desperation.”
Possibly speaking from experience.
Thanks for the thoughtful essay.
It strikes me, seeing it set out that way, that if the answer to why people choose the (BigLaw) legal profession is “money, prestige,” then the way to motivate would be by finding ways to reward performance with “money, prestige.” Performance bonuses, new/more job titles, etc.
That said, I’d say fear used to be a prime motivation in BigLaw—which could be interpreted as fear of losing the “money, prestige”—and that the kinder, gentler version of BigLaw that exists today (combined with generational/cultural issues) has removed that threat as a motivational tool.
When I was a BigLaw associate many years ago, I was terrified of making a mistake and losing my job, or at least my status within the firm. I was a first-generation lawyer and college grad, with a young family and mortgage, and had nothing to fall back on.
Very interesting account. I have not worked in BigLaw, but from observation and secondhand accounts, some enter with the goal of having a broader impact, though most seem to become absorbed by the demands and office politics. That pattern likely extends to many professions.
Greed and fear are persistent motivators in human systems. A culture driven by fear is inherently unstable; it concentrates power at the top and eventually collapses when those below lose any stake in the outcome. Superficial incentives (“brownie button” rewards) are patronizing and ineffective. Rewards without corresponding responsibility encourage risk-taking without accountability. This parallels many political structures, where incentives, personal freedom, and recognition of contributions must be balanced to maintain engagement and stability.
Society cycles through periods of prioritizing prestige, but, in the end, prestige is a byproduct of real value creation...but that is another matter entirely.
I like this reflection and it is pertinent.
I started on the options floor (1993) because I believed it was the best place to test myself. I wasn’t there to make friends, but I left (in 1999) with respect for everyone who managed to stick it out. The floor was a sorting mechanism—the ones who couldn’t handle it didn’t last. Moving off the floor was a different challenge, usually for those who struggled to translate what they’d done into something others could understand. I remember a friend, frustrated about his prospects, joking, “How do I market myself? ‘Fast on quotes,’ ‘can yell loud’?” I told him to reframe it: Portfolio Manager, Trade Ops, Execution, Strategist, Business Owner. The substance matters more than the packaging.
Prestige is fine if it shows up, but if you chase it for its own sake, you’re missing the point.
If you want people to do good work, give them equity—real ownership with real risk, not just upside. A linear payout structure forces people to own the outcome. If you shelter them from the downside, you’re not building anything durable, and you probably won’t be in business long.
...ask me how to motivate a teenager with all of the distractions that are out there (combined with a developing mind, with emotional kurtosis that is off the charts), and I am at a loss. And this is the needle I am trying to thread at the moment. Taming the developing child is truly the final frontier...(but being a parent is an exercise in learning just how capable for love one can be).
I resonate with so many of your posts on topics like this.
In my 20s I ended up in a high status profession (vc) but at a newer firm that nobody had heard of (low status, in SF at least). Many people are drawn into this field because they want to be perceived as a certain archetype of person (a highly networked rising star with great discernment about the future). I'm sure I wasn't immune to this desire. Over time though, the people who are in it for prestige points & the people who are in it for the love of the game end up being sorted into different camps. And there is a surprisingly low amount of overlap between these camps because they are essentially speaking two different languages.
Really good
I like this article but I want to point out that the frame here is that people choose what to do based on their personal simple desires - happiness, status, and in some rare cases power. But there's no check here as to whether what they want to do should be done at all. You said all you wanted to do was make money. So if you could make money that would lead to others becoming injured, dead or poor, you would still do it? What if we applied to becoming a vet or making a self driving car? There seems to be no nth-order thinking here. In fact there's no mention of wisdom here at all. It's all personal maximization.
You don't, whoever wrote that is so far up the cloistered universe he might as well not exist. The true answer is you hire good people understanding you will abuse them while they carry 90% the load while the other 90% of employees simply do good enough work to not get fired or slow down the actually producers, i.e. someone has to do a bad job cleaning the toilets or write TPS reports.