I also think that your career is one of the best ways to contribute, but I don't think this has to be absolute.
The fact that for Steve both forms are aligned, doesn't *necessarily* means that it has to be in *every* case.
Using a posted example: maybe a great boxer earns millions boxing, but it has a particular like or synchronicity for a special cause, a very different cause (it may be helping some relative [uncle, parent, ...], helping blind people, or helping education). Yes, it may be argued that trough boxing he is creating value for others, he is entertaining them/me, inspiring them and creating adjacent jobs; but he *likes* these other causes in which he has no "competency".
What can he do? Resign himself to no help his loved cause just because it is not aligned with his competency for making money?
I think no. Maybe he wouldn't be as "efficient" making money or contributing teaching to read to a classroom full of people, than donating a substantial amount of money to people that do have the competency. I think this *would* be a form of positive alignment.
In the case of Steve, and in many others, the form of contribution is aligned or the same as the way of earning money. That's great, I a thank the post as a means of making me think if what I'm doing is the best I can do.
|