Creative jobs have a passion trap problem

If you had to name the most essential qualities for being successful with a creative career, chances are “passion” would be on or near the top of the list. Creatives like architects, graphic designers, advertisers, artists, musicians etc., are presumed to be motivated by the inherent joy and meaning of their work, rather than a paycheck or some other concrete reward.

And it’s true—many creatives love what they do. However, our research suggests that the heavy emphasis placed on passion in the so-called “glamour” professions helps foster questionable, even exploitive working cultures.

While creatives feel compelled to prove their “authenticity” through performances of passion, industries often have rigid and stereotypical ideas about what passion looks like. Ironically, this can make it harder to spot genuinely passionate individuals, while rewarding other qualities easily mistaken for passion, such as confidence, arrogance, or the privilege that allows certain creatives to consistently put work before other responsibilities.

We conducted a total of 116 interviews with 55 employees at two major U.S.-based architecture firms. We also reviewed academic publications, practitioner books, articles in industry journals, etc., to gain additional insights.

The architects we interviewed confirmed that passion was indeed a top industry priority. As one participant noted, “I think the more passionate people are here, the more they are recognized.” The interviewees also personally believed in the importance of passion. They saw passionate architects as valued colleagues who improved collaborations within the workplace. They also believed that passion was contagious, spreading from architect to architect through a kind of osmosis. By contrast, colleagues not perceived to be passionate were “a problem,” “not great for the ecosystem,” and less likely to be listened to.

Despite the fact that passion is a psychological state and cannot be objectively measured, the architects believed they could identify passion, or the lack thereof, based on a number of commonly cited cues.

One such cue was body language. One architect spoke of being able to discern “the passion in their eyes . . . when they’re talking about their own project or portfolio work.” The notion of passion being reflected in the eyes was echoed by another interviewee, who claimed they could detect the telltale gaze, even on Zoom calls.

Another  cue was the willingness to go above and beyond basic work responsibilities, either by working long hours or through deep engagement with creative questions unrelated to any specific project. One architect said he could tell if a colleague was passionate by whether they “came over to me and said, ‘Hey, I found this thing, why don’t we talk about it, or why don’t we engage together, and look at things, and discuss things, and design.’”

The architects also said they could gauge passion based on the quality of someone’s work. “I’d like to think that you could look at a building and say, ‘Wow. This stuff feels really cohesive and thought-out.’ Clearly there was some passion there,” one claimed. In general, they believed only passionate people could produce high-quality work.

For some interviewees, the intense pressure to project their passion gave rise to imposter syndrome. Unfavorably comparing himself to a fictional character on a television show about holistic dentists, one architect said “She was looking for a passion and loves going to work every day. How many people can say that in reality? Not too many people. But it would be nice to.” He also admitted to some uncertainty about what passion was: “What’s the Webster’s definition of passion? . . . If I had confidence in what I was doing, that might make a difference. I think passion has to do with confidence.”