Computerworld magazine columnist Paul Glen posted an article about how passionate employees aren't a good thing ("Hip-hip hooray for the Passionless", Aug. 10, 2009). In it, he states that employees who are passionate about their jobs can be bad: they wax and wane and that makes their productivity inconsistent and their passion unpredictable. He also suggests that talk of "Passionate employees" is usually the work of managers trying to brag about their leadership skills.

It's easy to peg "passion" as bipolar when you're using a sliding scale. Humans have good and bad days, productive and not-so-productive ones. That doesn't make them dispassionate.
If you define passion as, "Enjoying what you do," it's a lot easier to recognize that passion in the workplace is not about going above and beyond: it's about enjoying what you do, just enough to care about what you do.

The last thing you're going to want in the technology game is passionless drones. They seem to accomplish consistently, but the truth is they barely get by. In IT, it's dangerous for your shop to have people who would be no more excited creating code or helping others than they would be throwing newspapers or mopping floors. I'm seeing that problem now, and morale and productivity are in the tank because of it.

The Computerworld article:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/341344/Two_Cheers_for_the_Passionless