Aggregates

Evidence: High: 0 Medium: 1 Low: 3 No Data: 27

Theme Radar

neonate 2019-07-30 21:31 UTC link

izzydata 2019-07-30 21:35 UTC link

Amazon seems to be doing alright regardless.

frobozz 2019-07-30 21:50 UTC link

Ursine genes and woodland defecation also seem to correlate.

robocat 2019-07-30 21:58 UTC link

They did look at causation: "the authors cite studies of changes within individual firms and organisations which seem to show that improvements in employee morale precede gains in productivity, rather than the other way round."

Many of us understand the other causation arrow (corporate unsuccess leads to unhappiness!)

ergothus 2019-07-30 22:52 UTC link

I've seen these arguments repeatedly, yet I only see this mattering to those companies where employees have a relative level of power and choice (e.g. non-game industry programmers, etc). Elsewhere, the attitude appears to have remained: "use them as much as possible". Consider assistant managers at your local chain store. Pick a chain! Outside of a handful of companies that are well noted for their bucking of the trend, regardless of market, these employees will be used and abused, year after year. If my anecdotal experience is representative, the more they actually care about the job, the more they'll be abused. Managers get the same, and by the time you get to district or regional managers, they are mostly the people that survived the lower levels...where "survived" means "did the abusing" not "got burnt out and quit for greener pastures".

ben_jones 2019-07-30 22:58 UTC link

People are joking in this thread but I think the REALLY BIG problem is that a lot of American workers are increasingly internalizing their compensation needs above other needs like health, happiness, or social well being. When we should be concentrating on a lot of our personal issues, we kick the ball down the road saying "oh when I have more money" or "oh when my career progresses" when we would be much better served by acting on them immediately and with highest priority.

randyrand 2019-07-30 23:27 UTC link

It's generally pretty clear that when a business is failing, the employees won't be very happy.

atian 2019-07-30 23:27 UTC link

Businesses are systems of people. Those that affect people nonetheless affect the business. You are then in the realm of which organs the people can survive without.

WheelsAtLarge 2019-07-31 00:26 UTC link

I worked for a company where management tried hard to keep employees happy when it came to benefits and yet, for the most part, they/we were a miserable bunch. It seemed that it was never enough. I'm not saying that the benefits were extravagant but they were very good.

I agree that a happy employee helps a company be better but you can't buy their happiness thru benefits. The way to do it complicated and it starts by hiring the right type of employee and defining the right company culture.

lettergram 2019-07-31 00:46 UTC link

My startup is working on identifying and maximizing happiness for this reason [1]. Largely the reason we believe this is the case, is because people tend to stay where they are happy.

“Tribal knowledge” is the single most important thing an employee can bring to the table. It’s also only obtained through time at a given (or related company). At the same time, hiring and training a new employee is the single most expensive cost to a company. So identifying and keeping experienced employees really improves productivity and reduces costs. Which makes it much easier for a business to succeed.

[1] https://metacortex.me/

achenatx 2019-07-31 02:24 UTC link

I use a book called "first break all the rules"

It is also based on gallup data. They determined that employee happiness was not correlated to company success. They did find that the following questions in order were highly correlated to company success.

1. Do I know what is expected of me at work?

2. Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?

3. At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?

4. In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?

5. Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?

6. Is there someone at work who encourages my development?

7. At work, do my opinions seem to count?

8. Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel my job is important?

9. Are my co-workers committed to doing quality work?

10. Do I have a best friend at work?

11. In the last six months, has someone at work talked to me about my progress?

12. This last year, have I had opportunities at work to learn and grow?

simonebrunozzi 2019-07-31 02:56 UTC link

lcuff 2019-07-31 04:53 UTC link

The fact that this idea is deemed worthy of an article in the Economist, and then hits the front page of HN is, IMHO, a sad statement on the current quality of thinking about how to run companies. It's hard for me to summon anything but 'duh' in response to the headline. For intelligent commentary, give me Peter Drucker's "The Effective Executive".

lightedman 2019-07-31 05:46 UTC link

It's a shame YC/HN can't find an article that doesn't require signing-up to read.

Given the huge amount of articles that require registration to read, and given HN's supposed freedom of information bend, this seems incomprehensible.

Why can't the mods find a more usable article? Are you that bereft of resources?

How about instead of whining about forcefully-conversant people like myself, you actually allow the conversation to happen with an article that we can all read? That's the point of this site, and if the mods can't allow that, they should step down in favor of someone that can step up to the job.

In before dang and stcb only highlight this comment as 'why people are toxic' while ignoring why they themselves are adding to the toxicity.

If either of you are actually REAL about your site rules, you'll e-mail me explaining why, or you'll talk here.

Only cowards try to hide behind rules without a solid and concise explanation of why they exist.

Double_a_92 2019-07-31 06:36 UTC link

Now the question is how they are linked. Does the business become successful because you make your employees happy, OR can you afford to make them happy by having a business that runs well?

beck03076 2019-07-31 07:15 UTC link

According to Gallup, highly experienced teams can experience a 20% lift in productivity.

If an employee’s output is X, you can take this to (X)*120% by focusing on employee happiness. To put this in perspective, if a 5 member team experienced a 20% increase in productivity, there will be enough additional output that a sixth employee might contribute, but without the additional pay.

In this scenario, an organisation’s savings can be connected to 1 employee’s salary in a 5 member team. Also, take into consideration the additional revenue generated.

If a 500 employee company saw a 20% boost in productivity, it will mean an output of 600 employees at the hiring cost of 500.

nabla9 2019-07-31 07:16 UTC link

The connection to profitability by industry is interesting:

    manufacturing 0.42
    finance       0.22
    retail        0.14
    services      0.10

Correlation coefficient < 0.20 is very weak correlation.

It would be interesting to see how it correlates with value added. I hypothesize that low in value added businesses like retail or manual assembly in manufacturing, you can't increase profits radically by increasing worker satisfaction. In higher value added sectors like like aircraft manufacturing cough Boeing cough the correlation is probably much higher than 0.42.

maehwasu 2019-07-31 07:31 UTC link

This seems intuitively obvious, and I say this as a former business owner. However, the causality is backwards (as I’d expect from economists).

If things are going well, it usually means you have a monopoly of some kind, which means high margins, which means that it’s easy and important to keep your people happy (including stimulating/challenging them with non-rote work).

It’s when things go south that it all starts to get ugly for everyone.

The causality likely goes the other direction: successful businesses can afford to create better employee environments. If your business sucks, you’ll likely run out of money if you try to first make employees happy and then let that happiness iterate you to success.

jpswade 2019-07-31 10:44 UTC link

How do you measure happiness anyway?

When I started in a management role, I set out to make sure my team members were happy. As time goes on, oddly enough, you realise that happiness is not chief among the qualities that make for a well functioning team.

I found it is more about an equilibrium or balance.

People don't always have to be happy, they have to be motivated.

umvi 2019-07-30 21:36 UTC link

I know a lot of engineers that work for Amazon that are happy. Warehouse workers on the other hand...

xtracto 2019-07-30 21:43 UTC link

xyzzyz 2019-07-30 21:57 UTC link

Yes, I am also shocked to learn that employees aren't happy in companies that aren't doing well. What's next, are you going to tell me that people who live in successful cities are happier than those in decaying ones?

Jazgot 2019-07-30 22:27 UTC link

In some cases corporate unsuccess leeds to happiness. I've seen this in my case once. And hope that I'll not need to see this again.

dooglius 2019-07-30 22:42 UTC link

Isn't that still confounded by new management or shift in thinking at the top? You need an RCT to tease everything out.

starpilot 2019-07-30 22:50 UTC link

And the entire gaming industry.

hanniabu 2019-07-30 22:53 UTC link

Seems obvious for anybody that's had a job. I'm more self-motivated than the average person. I'll go above and beyond on tasks and take pride in my work, which benefits the company. But if I work in a shitty workplace, even my work ethic and quality will drop and I might even start doing less than is required.

b_tterc_p 2019-07-30 22:56 UTC link

Anything customer oriented tends to benefit

chrisweekly 2019-07-30 23:02 UTC link

Yes, this! "Be happy first", per "The Happiness Equation" by Paschra.

bsanr2 2019-07-30 23:14 UTC link

Perhaps because so many Americans are financially insecure, and long-term health, happiness, and social concerns take a backseat to simply surviving the next month?

rhizome 2019-07-30 23:16 UTC link

It is a LONG standing dominant philosophy in US business that "morale" is pretty much the last thing to be concerned with. Someone not working well? Get rid of them and replace them with someone better. This has been going on for generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's taught all day long, every day, in every business school in the nation.

nine_k 2019-07-30 23:18 UTC link

Why, this makes sense.

In every industry, there are employees whose influence on the company success is outsized, and who are hard to hire or train. In software industry, they are experienced engineers and product managers. In a fashionable restaurant, they are experienced cooks. In an airforce, they are experienced pilots and repairmen. Etc.

When these people are happy with their work, they achieve great results. When they are unhappy, they look for ways to conveniently jump ship, because they have a number of opportunities elsewhere waiting for them to become available. They are in short supply. Every boss has an incentive to keep these people content and loyal.

OTOH every industry has positions for which supply is plentiful, compared to demand. Aspiring game developers without experience, dish washers, burger flippers, etc, can be readily hired, paid little, and easily fired, too. There is no incentive for their bosses to walk an extra mile to keep them happ, especially when pressing them a bit more yields an extra bit of performance, so they mostly aren't happy about their jobs.

Sonnol53 2019-07-30 23:23 UTC link

Compensation is easily measurable and comparable than something like 'happiness' and wellness. I'm definitely not on the company's side for neglecting company happiness, but it so so subjective and it's probably easier for them to set this standard and have people find happiness and balance in their lives.

brailsafe 2019-07-30 23:25 UTC link

At my last case, the company doing really well put a lot of stress on me to maintain. Overworked and undercompensated, I developed a terrible case of Ursine dementia in combination with Grizzly depression.

mr_crankypants 2019-07-30 23:26 UTC link

A preceding B does not imply that A causes B, it only implies that B doesn't cause A. Which doesn't really reduce the world of possible causal relationships by all that much, since there may be any number of other factors that weren't considered.

For example, it could just as easily be the case that adjustments to dysfunctional aspects of the company's internal politics improve both morale and productivity, but the morale change becomes apparent more quickly.

klyrs 2019-07-30 23:32 UTC link

It's not just workers. I've repeatedly asked for reduced hours, or more vacation, in lieu of a raise. Every time, my employer's response has been some form of "we can't do that for unspecified technical reasons" or "if you get that, everybody would want it." Honestly I don't get it. The big irony is that several people in the upper strata who are ostensibly making these decisions only work part-time and have at least 2 C-suite jobs

JJMcJ 2019-07-30 23:36 UTC link

Remember the analysis of Losers/Clueless/Sociopaths in corporate life.

The Losers are low level people who know they have lost the battle to be a big shot.

Clueless are the strivers, the first level or two of management, who think they have a chance to be a big shot.

The Sociopaths actually do have a chance. Not all of them are evil but they all know 100 hour weeks won't do it for them.

Lumbergh in Office Space is classic Clueless. He has surrendered any chance of human contact in his job, but he will never get any higher than he is.

CobrastanJorji 2019-07-30 23:39 UTC link

I agree that there are many companies that ignore this correlation, but I'm not convinced those companies are making the most rational choice.

If Burger King significantly increased the salary of their workers or otherwise found ways to improve their morale, would it benefit Burger King in the long run? I tend to suspect so, but it would be hard to prove.

The burger joints known for taking care of their people are also usually seen as being pretty good burger places, and that may be causal, but it also may be that they're just slightly "upscale" of the other burger places and also spend more on the ingredients.

erikpukinskis 2019-07-31 01:11 UTC link

This is true even within tech companies, but for hourly workers. Hourly folks are treated like trash. I’m talking people who live in the bay, and work side by side with other professionals in SF.

In a position like that you almost have to take a “durrr, I dunno!” attitude to everything, because if you try to talk to salaried people about what you need to do your job, you are looked at like a dog who just started reciting poetry.

Every now and then a salaried person will try to engage, take you seriously, but once it bounces up the chain of command that an hourly person is acting like they have something to contribute, it will be quietly shut down.

Seems like the business model requires hourly people stay out of the “brain space” entirely. Otherwise you’d have to pay them a living wage.

Really despicable way to treat people IMO. I don’t see why you wouldn’t want people to be proactive about solving problems.

The again, I’ve seen similar attitudes from engineering managers towards their direct reports.

danielvinson 2019-07-31 01:21 UTC link

Happiness isn’t just a factor of compensation, it’s also if people enjoy what they are working on, how they work, and the people around them.

adfm 2019-07-31 01:51 UTC link

Take a look at the SMR/Glassdoor Culture 500 if you're interested in measuring company culture. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/culture500

sandmansandine 2019-07-31 03:45 UTC link

These questions are also rephrased versions of questions mentioned in most management books I've read that are focused on employee development. The more I dig into employee development and management the more I realize a lot of startups, claiming they're data-driven, just skip over all data related to actually managing people, managing work spaces, etc.

tdsamardzhiev 2019-07-31 05:37 UTC link

What do you mean when you say employee happiness? Because this list is pretty much what I'd reckon constitutes employee happiness.

avian 2019-07-31 05:56 UTC link

I agree this is a pretty good list. However I feel like a lot if this should be a side effect of the general culture in the company.

I've seen several times people going to management seminars where they teach this kind of stuff and it can come of as extremely off-putting when just boxes like that try to be checked.

Faking personal interest or friendship is worse than showing no interest. People previously telling me to fuck off now addressing me by first name and giving praise with a smile (but still telling me to fuck off between the lines) I quit at least one job because of things like that.

visarga 2019-07-31 05:58 UTC link

I think it's essential to put a moderate load and leave some space for creativity and new ideas to be tried out. I for one get tired of executing, sometimes I want to play out my own ideas.

BoredomHeights 2019-07-31 06:39 UTC link

I answered no to a lot of these... not exactly an eye-opener, as I'm looking for a new job. Still, I'm not super unhappy with my current role, but this does help put into perspective why I want a change.

The ones that stand out most to me are 6 and 11. My old manager definitely encouraged development and would talk about progress. Company's shuffled around a lot and now it just seems like everyone's kind of going through the motions, just trying not to screw up or get let go. No one's discussed advancement, opportunities, growth, etc. for a while now, and that coincided with my decision to leave.

beck03076 2019-07-31 07:25 UTC link

You are right. These sectors have higher impacts on profitability by increasing employee engagement. Computer Software, Internet, Information Technology and Services, Marketing and Advertising, Health, Wellness and Fitness

goatinaboat 2019-07-31 10:44 UTC link

A former employer got Gallup in, intending it as a self-congratulatory exercise for management. Imagine their surprise when Gallup reported we were in the bottom 6%...

Nevertheless at the time and for a few years after, that company dominated its sector.

mrfredward 2019-07-31 14:29 UTC link

I notice the correlation coefficients there are lowest for retail and services, industries I tend to think of as crappy to work in. That makes me wonder...are companies behaving rationally and only optimizing for happiness where it matters, or is there a statistical artifact here where they can't find a correlation in industries where every company's workers are miserable.

mighty_bander 2019-07-31 16:53 UTC link

Amen to that. It's easy to trade away free time and benefits when you're 25. Once that means not seeing your kids as much, money doesn't seem so important. As my ex's dad used to say: "Not a lot of people lie on their deathbed wishing they had spent more time in the office."

Epistemic Quality

Propaganda Flags

0 techniques detected

Solution Orientation

Emotional Tone

Stakeholder Voice

Temporal Framing

Geographic Scope

Complexity

Transparency