I've found (prior to knowing the words found in his book) that if you ask the question: "What is your passion?", you will get a different answer (A) than if you discuss what the person thinks their top contribution could/should be (B).
That said, people do seem to become quite passionate about following their contribution, once an A/B list is put in front of them.
So, I guess I'm saying that: 1) I agree they can be quite well aligned, but 2) People sometimes need help getting there because the framing is different enough that it doesn't occur to them to think it through this way.
I believe Aristoteles said something on those lines a long time ago. I don't see this flipping anything on its head. The conventional function-driven thought of the human being, as if everyone had to perform a duty, and to make the world better - and, even if they had to, what exactly makes the world better? For the sheep, a world without eagles would be better - but the eagles aren't bad, they just have to eat.
Or, maybe, I just didn't understand what he meant =]
"He’s known for being both straightforward and kind — an uncommon cocktail of no-bullshit and no-asshole."
Really succinctly explains why I'm such a huge fan of his. He says what needs to be said, and he does it in a kind way.