This doesn't seem like a very useful question, since a lot of people if answering completely honestly would probably name things in other fields they're specifically not doing for money or other logistical reasons ("writer", "dolphin trainer", "skydiving instructor", or whatever).
No it isn't. Everyone has pipe dreams about things they imagine they'd like to do, it's human nature to fantasise this way. All it tells you is that they have a basic level of imagination. These ideas appeal to us precisely because they're unrealistic, and outside of our experience and day-to-day life, and probably not achievable. That lets them retain a haziness that obscures the difficulties, compromises and risk that actually pursuing them would inevitably entail.
If somebody volunteers that they'd rather be a professional surfer than a software developer, then spends the whole interview bringing it up, then that's a red flag. If you explicitly ask them to spin a flight of fancy then judge them for not having pursued it, then you're an extraordinarily unfair interviewer.
You are assuming the interviewer is looking at it in a black and white fashion. I was more pointing towards the more mundane goals.
For instance in game development there are lots of roles including designing and developing. If I am hiring a developer and you say you want to design that is a very valuable piece of feedback that doesn't exclude you from the position. For instance it could mean that of the two positions one may be a better fit because it involves more architectural work.
In your example that isn't nearly as useful, wanting to focus on your hobby is not a negative at all.
An example of a problem would be hiring for a legacy system and having someone say they want to work with the latest and greatest tools. The reality is that isn't going to happen and the fact that you are going to be looking out for another job quickly means it would be better for both of us to avoid the hire (again all things being equal).
Really? How so? I have lots of dreams but there is only one reality. I have to choose which of my dreams to follow.
If we posit a dream world, with a different set of constraints, then why shouldn't you expect the answers to be different?
If you ask for one dream job, and I have 9 dream jobs, including software developer, dance instructor, and grad student, how do I provide the example you're looking for? If I choose wrong, how does that affect my job chances?
No Hire. As a software developer, 110% of your passion should be for code, followed by a couple of harmless, minor interests like bicycling or craft beer.
Nice sarcasm, combining the mathematically impossible language of a mid-rank manager with the conformity a capitalist factory owner wants. Long-haired freaky people need not apply! No union organizers!
> So we devise terms to describe our heroes an heroines and place them on pedestals so they may act as models. We develop a whole new jock vocabulary that incorporates all of the cultural models. Our winning athletes ... give 110%, they never say die, play with pain, or give till it hurts.
Then in the 1980s, the sports term started to get used in business. One of the earliest matches for "110%" I found used in this context is an ad in the Rotarian, a publication of the Rotary service club. In 1986 you could by a computer that was "110% IBM" - https://books.google.com/books?id=EDYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA62&dq=11... . Within the next few years, the phrase became much more widespread. I think this 1989 ad for Mennen brand deodorant https://books.google.com/books?id=dmuI3YaWtAIC&lpg=PA7&dq=11... makes a clear connection between sports and the managerial class.
Then by 1991 there was the business book 'The 110% Solution: Using Good Old American Know-How to Manage Your Time, Talent, and Ideas'.
Sports, boosterism, and business school, all wrapped up in one conveniently impossible phrase. The language of jocks now fully repurposed to maximize production.
I never said there was a right and wrong answer, I said some answers could bring to light that it isn't as a good a fit as everyone (you included) would like.
Simplest example is tech stack. If it is COBOL job and you say you want to work in Haskell that isn't a no-go thing, but depending on how passionate you are about it, it does point towards you not lasting long due to discontent.
When I was at Nortel, they sent everyone on the "Seven Habits" course. The instructors led everyone through an analysis of what was truly important to them.
They also bragged that something like 25% of attendees changed careers within the year. :)
Life's too short to not be doing something you really want to do.
>Life's too short to not be doing something you really want to do.
By that metric, a vast majority of the world is wasting their lives doing things they don't love. Unfortunately, they are not in a position to quit their day jobs and pursue that dream.
Right, and this kind of platitude is an oversimplification. There are a lot of things to consider when it comes to fulfillment in life. For example, do you have children? Perhaps it's more important to you to be a good father and provide for them, even if your job is somewhat mediocre.
How well does living in a cabin in the woods, chopping wood, and hunting and gardening for food pay?
Edit: To clarify, a lot of people in the professional world just take it as a given that everyone wants to be in the professional world for the rest of their lives. I'm trying to make the point that a lot of us are only here because it's the best option out of a number of crappy alternatives.
To even ask "What would your ideal position be?" implies that the interviewee wants to work professional jobs for the rest of their lives. On the contrary, most of us don't. If we had an out that allowed us to leave the office for the last time we would take it in a heartbeat. That doesn't make us bad workers, but it's worth considering the fundamental assumptions behind your interview questions before you ask them.
A lot of people have professional lives that are an endless series of compromises where they have to choose the least-worst option repeatedly. You rapidly lose your enthusiasm for a life like that.
No, it's not. The answer is to stop defining yourself by how you earn a living. Pretty good basketball players, pretty good singers, pretty good poets (hell, even the best poets) can't make a living what they love. That doesn't mean they should stop writing poetry or singing or playing basketball. It means they should find a job they like, and continue to do what they love on their own time.
"A well-ordered society advances the good of each and all of its members, so that there is no one from whose gaze or plight we have to avert our eyes, no one whose complaints can be met only with lies or pious nonsense about following one’s dream."
