Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Measuring Workplace Happiness

IntroductionEdit

Modern perspectives on happiness tend towards defining "purpose" in one's life. The Japanese, for example, qualify happiness through their idea of Ikigai, "that which makes one's life worth living", focusing on four main areas of life.[1] (Note that "well-being" differs from happiness, which forms a part of overall well-being). This Wikibook chapter will explore the use of evidence in measuring workplace happiness, as well as the tensions arising between different disciplinary perspectives.

Quantifying Evidence – Disciplinary PerspectivesEdit

EconomicsEdit

 
Gross National Happiness and Macroeconomic Indicators in the Kingdom of Bhutan.

Economists place value on quantitative data, using surveys, self-assessment scales and measurement tools such as the Day Reconstructing Method and Bhutan's Gross National Happiness Index.[2][3] Tensions can arise with other disciplines as economists focus selectively on empirical data,[4] which lacks subjective context, treating happiness purely as a calculation.[5][6]

Previously unavailable, big datasets now provide empirical evidence that higher income correlates with higher happiness.[7] This is true cross-nationally, enabling "reassessment" of the Easterlin Paradox,[8][9] the idea that money doesn't buy happiness, and that more money to a poor person means more than it does a rich person. Company bosses use this evidence and implement pay increases tapered to benefit lower-incomes more than higher. The hope here is that happiness is "endogenous": engendering productivity and conscientiousness (Pinker, 2018),[10] partially fulfilling a need to feel valued to feel happier. The evidence also refutes the earlier idea that $75,000 is the optimal happiness and income level above which happiness growth slows.[11]

PsychologyEdit

 
Happiness pie chart with percentages, based on the Happiness formula of Lyubomirsky, Shkade, Sheldon and Seligman.

Modern Positive Psychologists established the Happiness Formula of H = C + V + S: C being conditions of your life; V being Volunteering that you do and daily choices you make; and S being your biological set point.[12] Meditation, under the “eightfold noble path” (Haidt, 2006) helps with the V because it reduces attachment and cultivates acceptance.[13] Happiness has been defined as “the form of pleasant moods and emotions, well‐being, and positive attitudes” (Fisher, 2010),[14] and being happy at work has been shown to be an important factor in workplace advancement. Fisher established the key variables in measuring workplace happiness as job satisfaction, engagement and organisational loyalty, all of which can be measured both subjectively and empirically across a timeframe, concerning a unitary or collective subject.[14][15]

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy works to rationalise and not catastrophise behaviours, asking questions like "what's the worst that could happen?" and "has it ever happened?" to change behaviours through changing thought patterns. This has been evidenced through Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) and implemented in workplace settings to reduce stress amongst employees.[16] A major method of evidence retrieval in psychology is self-reporting, consisting of single or multi-faceted questionnaires given to respondents through RCTs or on case-by-case bases, for example the Job Descriptive Index,[17] or the Utrecht Work Enthusiasm Scale.[18]

Psychology raises both intra- and inter-disciplinary tensions. Within psychology, twin studies have shown that genetic factors account for 35-50% of our happiness levels.[19] This disproved early Freudian theory , favouring quantitative genetic data over subjective and qualitative analysis methods, raising tensions between psychologists as quantitative data continues to be held in increasingly high regard.[20] Psychology emphasises reasons for behaviour rather than outcomes,[21] with data typically being more subjective.[22] However, evidence used in happiness economics is largely quantitative: mathematical models predict behaviour with happiness as the desired outcome.[22] These types of data are seen in stark contrast to one another,[22] ultimately leading to disharmony, perpetuating interdisciplinary tension further.

NeuroscienceEdit

Neuroscientific studies have been conducted into workplace happiness, demonstrating the interactions of neurotransmitters and the impact these have on happiness levels.[23]

Recent research by neuroeconomist Paul Zak found that an increased level of the hormone and neurotransmitter oxytocin leads to an increased level of trust, efficiency and workplace productivity, in turn resulting in higher levels of happiness.[24] This was proven with empirical evidence, as blood samples were used to quantify oxytocin levels in social interactions.[25]

The evidence shows dopamine, a neurotransmitter, is a strong contributor to workplace happiness.[26] Higher levels of dopamine in the brain have been correlated with higher levels of workplace motivation and happiness.[27] Lower levels of motivation are linked to psychiatric disorders like depression and increased risk of Alzheimer's and other neurological disorders.[28][29] The evidence used to quantify dopamine levels is empirical, using Positron Emission Tomography (PET scanning) to map, analyse and quantify neurotransmitter levels in different parts of the brain.[30]

Tensions also exist between psychology and neuroscience. Psychology was historically the more sociological discipline, with neuroscience relying on biological principles.[31] Neuroscience is based on the concept of 'eliminative reductionism', meaning many neuroscientists believe that neural analysis could replace psychological analysis. Psychologists label humans as complex systems, and believe that brain function can't simply be reduced to neural functions, but rather is influenced by a whole range of biological, social and cultural factors.[31] Here lies an obvious tension, due to two opposing fundamental principals (reductionism vs holism), and the consequent effect on research methodology and formation of evidence.[32]

AnthropologyEdit

 
Ikigai And Dimensions For A Balanced Life

Cultural, societal and geographical constructs of happiness hold the same communalities, what the Japanese call 'Ikigai',[33] the Danish 'Hygge',[34] for example. Humans are happier when they are fit, healthy, loved, safe, comfortable and socially connected (not lonely),[35] which are critical considerations for workplace happiness. These factors can be measured by anthropologists through qualitative data, helping to understand the role of meaning and value in happiness,[36] which are variables often excluded when just focusing on quantitative measures.

Smaller societies feel happier if they have cultural autonomy within an advancing, modern world. Many young, single, white, males have experienced high levels of unhappiness during lockdown[37][38] and look forward to going to work for interpersonal contact, upon which mental health is dependent. Happiness differs between the generations: happiness at twenty is different to that at forty and at sixty as vested interests evolve and sociocentric orientations are challenged by globalisation.[39] Anthropology has been a cultural critique of disciplines and what's best for humans and what's best for the State.[40]

Anthropology almost keeps a restraining hand on quantitative happiness measurements.[41] Sustainable emotional well-being of employees is a crucial contributing factor to workplace happiness; its positive effects can lead to increased productivity, resilience and engagement.[36] Economic measures alone cannot quantify happiness, so applying an anthropological perspective could provide an overview of what makes humans happy, combining all the interdisciplinary evidence available and applying those conditions to the workplace. While the sciences, including economics, value empirical evidence, anthropology values qualitative ethnographic evidence. These differences can be overcome by combining cross-cultural statistics,[42] which offer more nuanced understandings of local differences.

ConclusionEdit

Disciplines approach the epistemology and ontology of evidence in different ways, creating incongruity in what constitutes evidence and how evidence is defined, leading to interdisciplinary tensions.

These contrasting beliefs pose challenges when it comes to measuring workplace happiness. While individual disciplines can provide unique perspectives, the search for clearer common ground continues. Taking a more comprehensive approach to measuring happiness, combining the subjective nature of qualitative data with quantitative data would be the ideal interdisciplinary solution. Evidence needs to be integrated holistically, but perspectivism between the disciplines slows the process of collaboration.

ReferencesEdit

  1. García, Héctor (2017). Ikigai : the Japanese secret to a long and happy life. London: Hutchinson. ISBN 978-1-78633-089-5. 
  2. Kahneman, Daniel; Krueger, Alan B.; Schkade, David A.; Schwarz, Norbert; Stone, Arthur A. (3 December 2004). "A Survey Method for Characterizing Daily Life Experience: The Day Reconstruction Method". Science 306 (5702): 1776–1780. doi:10.1126/science.1103572. 
  3. "Bhutan's gross National Happiness Index". University of Oxford. https://ophi.org.uk/policy/gross-national-happiness-index/. 
  4. Rose, Deidre (2017). A Modern History of Happiness as Economic Policy. doi:10.13140%2FRG.2.2.15459.76324. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316093530_A_Modern_History_of_Happiness_as_Economic_Policy. Retrieved 9 December 2020. 
  5. McCloskey, Deirdre N. (8 June 2012). "Happyism". https://newrepublic.com/article/103952/happyism-deirdre-mccloskey-economics-happiness. 
  6. Weimann, Joachim; Knabe, Andreas; Schöb, Ronnie. Measuring Happiness: The Economics of Well-Being. The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-02844-8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt17kk7zf. Retrieved 10 December 2020. 
  7. Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban; Roser, Max (14 May 2013). "Happiness and Life Satisfaction". https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction. 
  8. Stevenson, B., and J. Wolfers (2008). "Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox.". Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1: 1–87. doi:10.1353/eca.0.0001. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14282.pdf. 
  9. Sacks, D. W., B. Stevenson, and J. Wolfers (2012). "Subjective Well-Being, Income, Economic Development, and Growth." In …and the Pursuit of Happiness: Well-Being and the Role of Government.. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. p. 59–97. http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/IEA%20Pursuit%20of%20Happiness%20web.pdf. 
  10. Pinker, Steven (2018). Enlightenment now : the case for reason, science, humanism, and progress (1 ed.). New York, New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-525-42757-5. 
  11. Kahneman, Daniel; Deaton, Angus (21 September 2010). "High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (38): 16489–16493. doi:10.1073/pnas.1011492107. 
  12. Frankel, Mark. "The Happiness Formula H=S+C+V – Brevedy". https://www.brevedy.com/2013/12/18/the-happiness-formula-h-s-c-v/. Retrieved 20 November 2020. 
  13. Haidt, Jonathan (2006). The happiness hypothesis : putting ancient wisdom and philosophy to the test of modern science. London: Arrow Books. ISBN 978-0-09-947889-8. 
  14. a b Fisher, Cynthia D. (December 2010). "Happiness at Work: Happiness at Work". International Journal of Management Reviews 12 (4): 384–412. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00270.x. 
  15. Kanungo, Rabindra N. (June 1982). "Measurement of job and work involvement.". Journal of Applied Psychology 67 (3): 341–349. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341. 
  16. Dalgaard, Vita Ligaya; Andersen, Lars Peter Sønderbo; Andersen, Johan Hviid; Willert, Morten Vejs; Carstensen, Ole; Glasscock, David John (22 August 2017). "Work-focused cognitive behavioral intervention for psychological complaints in patients on sick leave due to work-related stress: Results from a randomized controlled trial". Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine 16. doi:10.1186/s12952-017-0078-z. ISSN 1477-5751. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5567478/. Retrieved 9 December 2020. 
  17. Stanton, Jeffrey M.; Sinar, Evan F.; Balzer, William K.; Julian, Amanda L.; Thoresen, Paul; Aziz, Shahnaz; Fisher, Gwenith G.; Smith, Patricia C. (1 February 2002). "Development of a Compact Measure of Job Satisfaction: The Abridged Job Descriptive Index" (in en). Educational and Psychological Measurement 62 (1): 173–191. doi:10.1177/001316440206200112. ISSN 0013-1644. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001316440206200112?journalCode=epma. Retrieved 6 December 2020. 
  18. Schaufeli, Wilmar B.; Bakker, Arnold B.; Salanova, Marisa (August 2006). "The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study". Educational and Psychological Measurement 66 (4): 701–716. doi:10.1177/0013164405282471. 
  19. Bartels, Meike; Saviouk, Viatcheslav; de Moor, Marleen H. M.; Willemsen, Gonneke; van Beijsterveldt, Toos C. E. M.; Hottenga, Jouke-Jan; de Geus, Eco J. C.; Boomsma, Dorret I. (April 2010). "Heritability and genome-wide linkage scan of subjective happiness". Twin Research and Human Genetics: The Official Journal of the International Society for Twin Studies 13 (2): 135–142. doi:10.1375/twin.13.2.135. ISSN 1832-4274. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20397744/. Retrieved 21 November 2020. 
  20. Rich, Grant J. (4 May 2017). "The promise of qualitative inquiry for positive psychology: Diversifying methods". The Journal of Positive Psychology 12 (3): 220–231. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1225119. 
  21. "How Do Economics and Psychology Experiments Differ?" (in en-us). The Pennsylvania State University. https://www.smeal.psu.edu/lema/mission/psychexp.html. 
  22. a b c Manski, Charles F. (20 March 2017). "Collaboration, conflict, and disconnect between psychologists and economists" (in en). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (13): 3286–3288. doi:10.1073/pnas.1702309114. ISSN 0027-8424. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/13/3286. Retrieved 27 November 2020. 
  23. Ghosh, Sambit Kumar (1 October 2018). "Happy Hormones at Work: Applying the Learnings from Neuroscience to Improve and Sustain Workplace Happiness" (in en). NHRD Network Journal 11 (4): 83–92. doi:10.1177/2631454118806139. ISSN 2631-4541. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2631454118806139#articleCitationDownloadContainer. Retrieved 24 November 2020. 
  24. Zak, Paul (2018). "The Neuroscience of High Trust Organisations". Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 70 (1): 45-58. doi:10.1037/cpb0000076. 
  25. Lefevre, Arthur; Mottolese, Raphaëlle; Dirheimer, Manon (December 2017). "A comparison of methods to measure central and peripheral oxytocin concentrations in human and non-human primates". Scientific Reports 7 (1): 17222. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-17674-7. 
  26. "Be happy at work: dopamine and the science behind success" (in en-CA). viGlobal. 14 December 2018. https://www.viglobal.com/2018/12/14/be-happy-at-work-dopamine-and-the-science-behind-success/. 
  27. De Marco, Matteo; Venneri, Annalena (1 January 2018). "Volume and Connectivity of the Ventral Tegmental Area are Linked to Neurocognitive Signatures of Alzheimer’s Disease in Humans" (in en). Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 63 (1): 167–180. doi:10.3233/JAD-171018. ISSN 1387-2877. https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad171018. Retrieved 29 November 2020. 
  28. Salisbury, David. "Dopamine impacts your willingness to work" (in en). https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2012/05/01/dopamine-impacts-your-willingness-to-work/. 
  29. De Marco, Matteo; Venneri, Annalena (1 January 2018). "Volume and Connectivity of the Ventral Tegmental Area are Linked to Neurocognitive Signatures of Alzheimer’s Disease in Humans" (in en). Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 63 (1): 167–180. doi:10.3233/JAD-171018. ISSN 1387-2877. https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad171018. Retrieved 29 November 2020. 
  30. Placzek, Michael S.; Zhao, Wenjun; Wey, Hsiao-Ying; Morin, Thomas M.; Hooker, Jacob M. (1 January 2016). "PET Neurochemical Imaging Modes" (in en). Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 46 (1): 20–27. doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2015.09.001. ISSN 0001-2998. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001299815001026?via%3Dihub. Retrieved 26 November 2020. 
  31. a b Schwartz, Seth J.; Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Meca, Alan; Sauvigné, Katheryn C. (January 2016). "The role of neuroscience within psychology: A call for inclusiveness over exclusiveness.". American Psychologist 71 (1): 52–70. doi:10.1037/a0039678. 
  32. Schaal, David W (November 2005). "Naming Our Concerns about Neuroscience: A Review of Bennett and Hacker's Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience". Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 84 (3): 683–692. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.83-05. ISSN 0022-5002. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1389787/. Retrieved 28 November 2020. 
  33. Oppong, Thomas (22 June 2020). "Ikigai: The Japanese Secret to a Long and Happy Life Might Just Help You Live a More Fulfilling…" (in en). https://medium.com/thrive-global/ikigai-the-japanese-secret-to-a-long-and-happy-life-might-just-help-you-live-a-more-fulfilling-9871d01992b7. 
  34. "What is 'Hygge'?" (in en). https://www.visitdenmark.com/denmark/highlights/hygge/what-hygge. 
  35. Berry, Jenifer (6 February 2018). "Endorphins: Effects and how to boost them" (in en). https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320839. 
  36. a b Walker, Harry; Kavedžija, Iza (December 2015). "Values of happiness". HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 5 (3): 1–23. doi:10.14318/hau5.3.002. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64837/1/Walker_Value%20of%20Happiness.pdf. Retrieved 10 December 2020. 
  37. "Men are more likely to struggle with mental health in lockdown" (in en). 22 May 2020. https://happiful.com/men-struggle-mental-health-lockdown/. 
  38. "Real People, Real Stories launches with new research on men's mental health during lockdown". https://www.samaritans.org/news/real-people-real-stories-launches-new-research-mens-mental-health-during-lockdown/. 
  39. Mathews, Gordon; Izquierdo, Carolina (2010). Pursuits of happiness : well-being in anthropological perspective (First paperback ed.). New York: Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-84545-708-2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qd4gh. Retrieved 30 November 2020. 
  40. Uchida, Yukiko; Oishi, Shigehiro (January 2016). "The Happiness of Individuals and the Collective: The happiness of individuals and the collective". Japanese Psychological Research 58 (1): 125–141. doi:10.1111/jpr.12103. 
  41. Bernard, H. Russell (2006). Research methods in anthropology : qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. pp. 1-27; 451-462. ISBN 0-7591-0868-4. 
  42. Colby, Benjamin N. (December 1987). "Well-Being: A Theoretical Program". American Anthropologist 89 (4): 879–895. doi:10.1525/aa.1987.89.4.02a00080.