Taking Happiness Seriously in Today's Business Environment
Hershey H. Friedman, Ph.D. Professor of Business Finance and Business Management Department Brooklyn College of the City University of New York E-mail:
[email protected]
Linda W. Friedman, Ph.D. Professor of Computer Information Systems and Statistics Department of Statistics and CIS Baruch College of the City University of New York E-mail:
[email protected]
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2426607
Abstract
The authors suggest that it is time to incorporate happiness into the business curriculum and into the corporate world. The business curriculum stresses maximization which has resulted in many problems including abuse of the environment and of workers, all in the name of profit. Understanding what makes people truly happy and the consequences of a happy workforce and a happy nation can provide new direction for the corporate world and move them away from a strategy that will ultimately lead to a tragic outcome. Keywords: Happiness, business curriculum, life satisfaction, hedonic treadmill, happiness of nations.
1
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2426607
There have been a huge number of articles decrying the breakdown of values in corporate America. Companies believe that anything goes in the name of free markets, capitalism, and corporate profit. It appears that all that matters is financial self-interest; unfortunately, relatively few firms are concerned about morality and virtue. Even the so-called watchmen and gatekeepers — accountants, auditors, corporate directors, investment bankers, mutual funds, regulators, etc.— fell into the self-interest trap and disregarded the needs of the public (Lorsch, Berlowitz, and Zellecke, 2005). The fact that as many as 29% of firms have been backdating options makes it appear that the public is correct in how it feels about the ethics of the business world (Burrows, 2007).
It should come as no surprise that only 2% of Americans feel that Fortune 500 CEOs are “very trustworthy” (Deutsch, 2005); the overwhelming majority (72%) believe that “wrongdoing” is widespread in the business world. Robert S. Miller, CEO of Delphi, admits that: “Society has come to believe that the term ‘crooked CEO’ is redundant” (Deutsch, 2005).
Business students have been taking courses in business ethics for many years. In fact, most accounting and business programs require such a course. The ethical lapses have occurred — even by individuals with MBA or CPA degrees— despite all of these mandatory courses in
2
ethics. What went wrong? Etzioni (2002) feels that students completing MBA programs are less ethical when they started. This has to do with what is actually taught in the MBA programs. What is stressed are concepts such as maximization of profit and maximization of shareholder wealth.
Mangan (2006) asserts that business schools are actually teaching students that “greed is good” by not focusing on improving society but on shareholder profits. John J. Fernandes, president of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), believes that schools of business have overemphasized the importance of profit maximization (Mangan, 2006). Price (2007) believes that because business schools encourage a kind of thinking that makes profit maximization the primary value. This value is so important tat ethics takes a back seat to it. Kolp and Rea (2006: 25) aver that the belief that the primary job of a CEO is to maximize shareholder wealth (or the wealth of the CEO) leads to a corporation that has lost its soul, a good example of which is Enron.
The virtual collapse of communism and the apparent success of capitalism in many countries has provided ammunition to those that believe that free markets can solve all of humankind’s problems. However, many scholars are not so sanguine about the beneficial power of free markets to improve the world and eliminate poverty. In fact, they are concerned about what capitalism has become. Many feel that capitalism has lost its way and become savage, soul-less, and uncaring; they avow that savage, immoral, predatory capitalism may have problems
3
surviving. Greider (2003) contends that because greed is the foundation of capitalism, it has caused capitalism to become dysfunctional. Wilson (1997) states: “Capitalism has won the economic battle around the world, but it is everywhere on the defensive with respect to the moral struggle for men’s souls…The lasting challenge to capitalism is moral.” Laura L. Nash, author of several books dealing with business and religion avers: “Capitalism looks like it has won the day, but if it suffers some kind of moral bankruptcy, it isn’t going to last” (Lagace, 2001). Bogle (2005: 5) claims that capitalism needs a soul if it is to thrive: “…capitalism requires a structure and a value system that people believe in and can depend on. We do not need a Pollyannaish faith in the goodwill of mankind, but we do need the confidence that promises and commitments, once made, will be kept. We also need assurances that the system as a whole does not unduly benefit some at the expense of others.”
What is ironic about this is that the father of free market capitalism, Adam Smith, would be quite concerned about the kind of amoral, “survival of the fittest” capitalism we are seeing today. Adam Smith (1790) declared: "Man ought to regard himself, not as something separated and detached, but as a citizen of the world, a member of the vast commonwealth of nature and to the interest of this great community, he ought at all times to be willing that his own little interest should be sacrificed." He did not believe that self-interest alone should be the guiding force that rules business. Foley (2006) also feels that the pursuit of self-interest and the invisible hand of the marketplace does not necessarily lead to a socially beneficial outcome and can result in outcome that is morally problematic. The wealth may end up in the hands of a small percentage
4
of the population and the environment may be irreparably harmed. While it is probably true that capitalism is a very efficient system at creating wealth, it is an amoral system that can lead to many abuses. We have seen many of the abuses of unrestrained and unregulated capitalism ranging from child labor to pollution to selling dangerous products.
Howard (1997) assails the prevalent view in the social sciences and business that people are only concerned about maximizing their own utility and corporations should only care about maximizing profit. He feels that “the lie that human nature demands that individuals maximize their self-interest, is particularly problematic for biological ecosystems.” In fact, the “free market capitalist system, that encourages the current geometric rates of increase in population, production, consumption, and waste generation, represents a terrifying pyramid scheme. Eventually, we will overwhelm our ecosystems.” Howard wants us to reject this dangerous, consumption-oriented belief that is obsessed with maximization and materialism. Howard wants people to believe in simplicity, moderation, and nonmaterialistic values, and reject the idea of maximization.
It may be the right time for the academic and corporate worlds to examine happiness (some prefer to call this subjective well being) as an alternative to maximization of profits and maximization of shareholder wealth. In the past, professors have preferred to stay away from talking about happiness since it was believed that there was no good way to measure it. Moreover, happiness sounds too much like something discussed by New Age religions. This
5
paper will attempt to show that the research in happiness is serious and can have a major impact on numerous areas that directly affect the corporate world. In fact, happiness is not only an appropriate subject for the business curriculum; it is an interesting way to make values and ethics relevant to students.
The discipline of psychology was transformed by Martin Seligman in 1998 when, in his presidential address to the American Psychological Association, he urged researchers to focus on human strengths and virtues such as happiness. Mental health is about more than simply having “no mental disease”; positive psychology deals with mental health rather than mental illness (Lambert, 2007). Positive psychology examines positive emotions such as happiness, pleasure, and well being whereas traditional psychology is more concerned with negative emotions such as hostility, anger, and depression (Max, 2007). Diener and Seligman (2002) declare in one of their papers that studies of very happy do not exist in psychology; investigations of very unhappy people, on the other hand, are quite common. Since only about 50% of happiness is genetic, people can be taught to be happy (Seligman, 2004).
The field of education is also being transformed by the science of happiness and positive psychology. One prestigious school in Australia (Geelong Grammar School) wants to use the principles of positive psychology to reshape its curriculum so that it emphasizes positive emotions. The Government of Scotland is also working with Martin Seligman to see how positive psychology can help improve the life of its citizens (Max, 2007).
6
The same transformation has occurred in the area of economics. Happiness economics has become a serious area of research (Van Praag, 2007). Van Praag (2007) predicts that what is called “happiness economics” will eventually become a major tool of socio-economic policy decision making. Moreover, Van Praag avers that it can also be used in areas such as job satisfaction or consumer satisfaction by placing a dollar amount on the amount of happiness generate by change. Companies in the future may be able to measure in dollars the effect on satisfaction (and dissatisfaction) of, say, laying off 5,000 employees or extending a warranty on a product. Frey and Stutzer (2005) also feel that economic research on happiness can provide a new approach in solving all kinds of problems including communicable diseases, financial instability, a broken educational system, climate change, and more.
RESEARCH ON HAPPINESS
Money and Happiness There is a movement in economics that is studying happiness and moving away from the traditional view that rational man tries to maximize his or her wealth. The view that more money is always better than less money is being challenged by many scholars. Some economists are moving away from models that focus on maximizing wealth and, instead, are using the happiness
7
construct as part of a cost-benefit analysis (Frey and Stutzer, 2005). One Buddhist country, Bhutan, plans on using “gross national happiness” (GNH) as a key economic indicator rather than the traditional gross domestic product (GDP). Diener (2000) also advocates the use of a national indicator of happiness.
There are several interesting findings regarding money and happiness. Increases in income do not do much to help increase happiness once a person’s basic needs are satisfied; what matters more than absolute wealth is relative wealth (Johnson and Krueger, 2006; Kahneman, et. al., 2006; McConvill, 2005; McGowan, 2005; Myers and Diener, 1995; Wallis, 2005). Layard (2005: 48-49) describes the “hedonic treadmill” that families find themselves on. Their income increases so they but a bigger and better house, a nicer car, go out more, and within a few months have adapted to the new lifestyle and are no happier than before the income increase. Firebaugh (2005) also concludes that Americans are on a hedonic treadmill: “working-age families must earn more and more over time to maintain a constant level of happiness.”
Individuals are very poor judges as to what will make them happy (Gilbert, 2006). They will therefore overestimate the joy that additional money will bring them and underestimate the joy they will receive from having more time to spend with family and friends. Long commutes to work are rough on happiness; yet people will change jobs to make more money and end up with reduced happiness. In most cases, a person with an easy commute and a job that is not demanding in terms of time will be much happier than the person who has no time to spend with
8
family and friends because of work.
Luttner (2005) and others have found that relative wealth is much more important than absolute wealth. People compare themselves with “similar others,” not the super rich. People compare their own income with those of neighbors and people similar to themselves. If a family’s income doubles but the income of friends and neighbors triples, the family will actually become less happy (Layard, 2006: 43-46). Thus, happiness is about relative wealth. H. L. Mencken’s joke that the happy person was the man who made $100 more than his wife’s sister’s husband was very close to the truth (Futrelle, 2006). In fact, one happiness researcher half jokingly stated that the secret of happiness is low expectations (Silverstein, 2006).
Myers (2000) summarizes the literature and concludes that “in affluent countries, where most can afford life’s necessities, affluence matters surprisingly little.” While it is true that the very indigent are less happy than the rest of the population, once people are financially comfortable, additional wealth does not bring happiness. Even the super rich are only slightly happier than the average American. Winning lotteries also does not do much in the long run to increase happiness (Seligman, 2004). Myers (2000) observes that inflation-adjusted income of Americans has more than doubled from 1957 to 1998, yet happiness has not increased. In the words of Myers, “We are twice as rich and no happier.” As McGowan (2005) asserts: if a person is indigent, money does matter; once you have $40,000, more money will not increase happiness.
9
One of the implications of the above, is that countries should not focus on economic growth. If the goal is to make its citizens happy, the money can be better spent on health care (especially mental health), the environment, job security, and things that will actually make people happier.
McConvill (2005) uses the research on happiness to come up with an interesting approach to corporate governance. He promotes the view that rather than focusing on the executives who have behaved in an unethical manner, government should embrace what he calls “positive corporate governance” which is based on the belief that most people are basically good and want to be happy and do what is right. McConvill claims that if corporate governance changed its focus away from “control and compliance” to be concerned with the positive objectives, there would be little need for government to pass numerous laws and rules (e.g., Sarbanes Oxley) that increases the burdens and costs of running a business. McConvill notes that positive corporate governance is rooted in the field of positive psychology. McConvill uses the positive corporate governance model to demonstrate that executive compensation based on money – even so called “pay for performance” – does not work. In fact the correlation between the two is probably nonexistent. This should not be surprising given that, as noted above, increases in wealth, especially when one is already quite affluent, have virtually no impact on happiness. The stress should not be placed on making executives super wealthy but on happiness. Happiness comes from doing good and altruism.
10
Importance of job security, control over one’s life, and meaningful work
Myers and Diener (1995) cite numerous studies that show that there is a strong relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction. In fact, people want to be engaged in productive, meaningful work. Meaningful work, Myers and Diener (1995)), note is more important than the size of the paycheck. The right kind of employment can influence happiness in several ways: (1) it defines individuals and provides them with an identity, (2) it provides individuals with social connections, a feeling of belonging, and friends, and (3) it offers people a sense of pride and feelings of accomplishment. In fact, people want challenging, fulfilling work that gives them a sense of accomplishment. Terkel (1974) interviewed a large number of men and women from all walks of life and found that work was a major source of pride for most of them. Thottam (2005) states that there are numerous studies showing relationships between meaningful work and happiness, job satisfaction, and physical health.
Milhouse (2006) examines the factors that boost or decrease the happiness of women in the workplace. A big problem that many women have to deal with is balancing their jobs and personal life which includes family, friends, community, and spirituality. If any of these areas are neglected, overall happiness will decrease and the woman may even leave the corporate world. There are three workplace conditions that are particularly important to women: job satisfaction, balance between personal life and job, and workplace spirituality. Workplace spirituality deals with creativity, serving others, and meaningful work.
11
Of course, work that is overwhelming can have a detrimental effect on happiness. Loss of a job can have a devastating impact on happiness; it takes years to recover from loss of a job and loss of a spouse (Wallis, 2005). Clark and Oswald (2002) also found that unemployment has a huge impact on happiness. Control over one’s life correlates very strongly with happiness (Johnson and Krueger, 2006). People who believe they have a strong sense of control over their lives will be happier than those who do not. Job security provides a person with a sense of control.
The Gallup Organization developed a questionnaire consisting of 12 statements that are designed to measure the overall happiness of employees at work which they refer to as “engagement.” Only 29% of American workers indicated that they were engaged in their jobs; 55% were not engaged and 16% were disengaged (Thottam, 2005). The percentage of engaged was more than double Germany’s jobs and triple that of Singapore. According to Gallup, there is a strong correlation between being engaged at work and profitability and connection with customers. The statement “I have a best friend at work” is a good predictor of engagement at work (Thottam, 2005).
Being engaged is somewhat similar to the concept of “flow” discussed by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2002). Flow is the state of being fully involved and immersed in doing something (work or hobby). It is a state of being exhilarated, full of joy, and totally absorbed in what one is doing. This occurs when a job is quite challenging but not so much that it is
12
overwhelming. Once an individual is in this mental state, he or she loses track of time and may even forget to eat meals. The person is at the peak of creativity and does not want to stop; the experience provides so much pleasure that nothing else is as good. Csikszentmihalyi discovered the concept of flow when he studied artists at work. He observed that they went into a trance-like state when painting. Time almost stood still for them and there was a merger between the person and the activity. In fact, the activity of painting was more important than the finished product.
Thus, a company is in a unique position to make people happy with their lives or miserable. A company that provides meaningful work, a pleasant social environment, and attempts to provide strong job security can help increase the subjective well being of its employees. Gavin and Mason (2004) assert that “economic productivity has been wrung out of the average worker, in large measure, at the cost of his or her health and happiness.” Americans work longer hours than their counterparts in other countries and have less leisure. According to a 2003 study by the Conference Board, less than 49% of American workers are happy with their jobs. Gavin and Mason (2004) feel that companies should be concerned with the happiness of their employees and provide two companies (The Container Store and TDIndustries) as exemplars of this philosophy. These two companies consistently rank among the top ten of Fortune’s “The 100 Best Companies to Work For.” Davidbizar and Hart (2006) feel very strongly that managers must take responsibility for the happiness of employees and provide suggestions on how to boost employee happiness. They suggest that managers make employees feel valued, make the
13
environment a fun place, and use humor.
Diener (2000) claims that people that are happy are more productive. One study found that “employee happiness could account for 10% to 25% of the variance in job performance (Thottam, 2005). Certainly, if a company’s survival is at stake, the right decision may be to close down factories or outsource to foreign countries despite the loss of many jobs. On the other hand, does it make sense to downsize when the resulting increase in profits is relatively small, perhaps smaller than the salary increase given to the CEO?
Government also has much to gain from understanding what makes people happy and unhappy. Unemployment is a huge destroyer of happiness. It takes a long time for an individual to recover from loss of a job. Inflation, on the other hand, causes unhappiness but not as much as unemployment. If there is a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation, governments should concentrate on keeping people employed (Silverstein, 2006). The argument can be made that governments concerned about the happiness of its citizens should use resources to provide job security, increased physical and mental health, and reduced crime rather than economic growth.
Friendship, Social Connections, and Leisure A factor that greatly boosts happiness is socializing and having friends (Futrelle, 2006; Lambert, 2007; Myers, 2000; Wallis, 2005). Myers (2000) cites several studies that confirm the correlation between social friendship and happiness. Individuals who have strong friendships are
14
also better able to cope with many kinds of stresses including rape, loss of job, death of a loved one, and illness. Myers (2000) also discusses the strong correlation between social connections and health. Myers cites a study which showed that those college alumni who preferred high income and a successful and prestigious job over having very close friends and a close marriage were less happy that those that preferred the latter. Myers concludes that people have a need to belong. This gives them their identity and support. The need to belong can be fulfilled by religion, work, family, or other support groups. Diener and Oishi (2005) conclude: “Although laypeople probably understand that close friends and family are correlated with happiness, they may not realize they are necessary for happiness, as well as for health and optimal cognitive functioning.” Diener and Seligman (2002) also found a strong relationship between being very happy and “having rich and satisfying social relationships.”
There is a correlation between marriage and happiness (Myers, 2000). People in a happy marriage are among the happiest people. People who are separated are among the most unhappy. Myers (2000) also found that those who are married are less likely to suffer from depression. What is especially interesting is that about 75% of Americans say that their spouse is their best friend; 80% say they would marry the same person again if they had the chance.
Blanchflower and Oswald (2004) found a strong, positive correlation between sexual activity and happiness, it appears to have very strong effects on happiness for those who are educated. This confirms the findings of Kahneman et al. (2003) regarding the importance of sexual activity in
15
happiness. This was true for young and old, male and female; however, there was no correlation between happiness and homosexuality but there was one between homosexuality and amount of sex. Those with one sexual partner exhibited more happiness than those with multiple partners. Individuals who had sex outside their marriage had lower happiness scores than those who did not.
Faith/Religion
The relationship between religion (or spirituality) and happiness is not so clear. Francis, Ziebertz, and Lewis (2003) found no relationship between religiosity and happiness among German students. They review the literature and mention that other studies conducted in the UK and the USA did find a relationship. Several studies have found a relationship between religion (or spirituality) and happiness; individuals who are more religious are happier (Myers, 2000; Myers and Diener, 1995). Also, people who have faith are less likely to take illegal drugs, commit suicide, or to divorce; they also tend to live longer and are physically healthier than those who are not religious. Ferriss (2002) also mentions that demographers have found a strong relationship between religion and longevity. Dr. Harold G. Koenig, Director of the Center for the Study of Religion, Spirituality, and Health at Duke University has compiled a great deal of evidence demonstrating the relationship between religious faith and a healthy life (DukeHealth.Org, 2006). He cites one study that was conducted in Israel that found that individuals with faith had a 20% higher survival rate from canceer and heart disease than those
16
without any faith.
French and Joseph (1999) found a positive relationship between religiosity and happiness. However, they conclude that the relationship is due to purpose in life and when this is controlled for, the relationship between religiosity and happiness disappears. They feel that religious people have a greater sense of life having a purpose and being meaningful and this explains the relationship; happiness is not about religion but about purpose in life. Layard (2005: 22) states unequivocally that “people who achieve a sense of meaning in their lives are happier than those who live from one pleasure to another.” Faith often provides a sense of purpose and meaning to life.
Ferriss (2002) cites numerous studies that indicate a strong relationship between religious belief, religious participation, and life satisfaction among the elderly. Apparently, the church provides senior citizens with a sense of belonging and community. Ferriss (2002) found a positive relationship between frequency of attending religious services and happiness; his conclusion is that “attendance at religious services is important for happiness, but obviously other influences are operating.” One influence discussed by Ferriss is denominational preference. There are differences in happiness among those of different denominations. Those with a religious preference such as Catholic, Jewish, or Protestant are happier than those with no preference. Doctrinal differences are also important in happiness according to Ferriss: Evangelicals and fundamentalists are happier than those who are liberal or follow no religious doctrine.
17
Volunteering and Charity Work Post and Neimark (2007) cite numerous studies that demonstrate the correlation between generosity and health, happiness, and longevity. They conclude (2007: 283) that the only kind of life that makes sense for humans is one filled with love, compassion, and giving to others. Individuals who are giving will live a life that is physically and mentally healthier than those who are self-centered. Positive psychologists find that doing five acts of kindness a week can increase one’s happiness (Wallis, 2005). Moreland and Issler (2006) assert that the happiness that results from seeking pleasurable satisfaction is not true happiness and leads to what the authors refer to as the “empty self.” People who are narcissistic, self-absorbed, and only concerned with their own pleasures will discover that this kind of happiness is not long-lasting.
Veerhoven (undated) also found that there is a relationship between volunteering and happiness. Correlation doe s not enable the researcher to determine which is the cause and which is the effect. With volunteering, however, Veerhoven believes that it is very likely both a cause and effect. Happy people like to help others and helping others makes one happy.
Gratitude Showing gratitude has been shown to help increase happiness (Wallis, 2005; Post and Neimark, 2007: 27-44). Writing a gratitude journal, i.e., writing down things for which one is grateful, can
18
boost one’s happiness. Seligman (2004) makes showing gratitude and a gratitude visit a key part of his seminar on positive psychology. The reason for this is that Seligman believes that showing gratitude “amplifies satisfaction about the past.”
The Happiness of Nations A number of researchers in the disciplines of psychology and economics are demanding that a nation’s success should be measured using happiness/subjective well being/life satisfaction rather than per capita gross domestic product and economic growth. Moreover, they are also asking that these measures be used for government policy purposes. Adrian White (2006), of the University of Leicester, developed the first “world map of happiness.” White did a meta analysis of 100 happiness studies involving 80,000 respondents worldwide. The countries that had the highest ratings on happiness were: Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, and the Bahamas. The three countries that were rated the lowest were: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe, and Burundi.
White (2006) found that a nation’s happiness correlated most strongly with health (.62), wealth (.52), and education (.51). As noted above, poverty is associated with unhappiness. Wealth brings happiness, when it raises people from severe poverty to the point where basic needs are met. Meeting the essential needs of people for food, clothing, shelter, education, and health are very important for happiness. What was also surprising was that Asian countries scored so low; China was ranked 82nd, Japan 90, and India 125. White stated that population size plays a role
19
in happiness; smaller countries with higher levels of social cohesion scored higher than countries with large populations. Ruut Veerhoven (2007) has developed a World Database of Happiness website at http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/index.html. Layard (2005: 70-71) found six factors that explain 80% of the variation in differences in happiness among nations. They are: divorce rate, unemployment rate, level of trust, membership in non-religious organizations, quality of government, fraction believing in God. A GfK NOP Worldwide survey on happiness found that respondents felt the following gives them the most pleasure: good health (84%), owning a home (60%0, children (48%), and an interesting job (46%) (PR Newswire, 2006). In this study, Australia was the happiest country in the world (46% claimed to be “very happy”).
DISCUSSION
This paper has attempted to demonstrate the importance of happiness both as a subject to be covered in the business curriculum and as something that the corporate world should be concerned about. The happiness this paper has been talking about is the happiness that comes from accomplishing something and virtue. As far as the happiness that comes from pleasure and fun, that is short term and produces what some have referred to as an “empty self” (Moreland and Issler, 2006). People want meaning and purpose; receiving manna from heaven and having all their needs taken care of was not enough for the Israelites wandering the wilderness.
20
Seligman (2004) also makes a distinction between pleasure and gratification. Eating a tasty piece of cake provides one with a conscious sensation and feeling of pleasure. On the other hand, saving the lives of people, say, during a hurricane, does not produce the same kind of conscious pleasure. In fact, the person saving the lives will probably be totally absorbed in this activity and (i.e., “flow”) unaware of the passage of time. This is “gratification” according to Seligman. Rarely, will a person talk about a great piece of cake he had 15 years earlier. The “gratification” that results from having written a great novel, saving the lives of many people, or finding the cure for cancer is different from the “pleasure” one gets from, say, a good steak, a mink coat, or a good massage.
Seligman (2004) feels that the fact that the English language does not make distinctions between the two very different kinds of contentment is unfortunate since people confuse them and feel they can be had in similar ways. According to Seligman, one must understand the difference between “pleasure” and “gratification” in order to comprehend the difference between the “Good Life” and the “Pleasant Life.” The “Good Life” is based on gratifications and is similar to Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is usually translated as happiness and flourishing. The way to achieve this, according to Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics, was through virtue. Aristotle felt that the person who lives a life that is in accord with both the intellectual and moral virtues will achieve eudaimonia. The intellectual virtues allow the rational part of a person’s soul to function and include knowledge, intuitive reason, and wisdom; the
21
moral virtues, which include courage, truthfulness, humility, friendliness, generosity, justice, and moderation, permit the emotional part of a person’s soul to function.
Robert Nozick (1974: 42-45), a renowned philosopher, asked whether people would choose to live their lives attached to an “experience machine” that stimulated the brain in a way that provided extremely pleasurable experiences. The person who desired to write the greatest novel ever or win the Nobel Prize would now be able to sense the joy of this “experience.” Of course, the person would not be aware that she was floating in a tank hooked up to a machine with wires protruding from her brain. The experiences would seem real. The question is whether one would choose this kind of life? The answer for most of us is “no” because we want more than pleasure. Seligman (2004) provides a formula for the “good life”: “identifying one’s signature strengths (e.g., love of learning, kindness, optimism, capacity to love and be loved, humor, spirituality, etc.) and virtues and using them in work, love, play, and parenting to produce abundant and authentic gratification.”
Astin (2004) has suggested that the time is right to begin including spirituality in the liberal arts curriculum and for academics to no longer be afraid of teaching spirituality. The authors of this paper feel that the same can be said of happiness. A corporation can easily make the lives of its employees and other stakeholders happy. In fact, the benefit of doing so may far outweigh the costs. A significant number of corporations are doing things to increase the happiness of employees without realizing it. Allowing employees to work from home several days a week, encouraging management to make the workplace a fun place, doing everything possible to make 22
work meaningful, creating a learning organization which making it easy for employees to have close friends at work, providing good health insurance, encouraging volunteerism during the workweek, are some ways to accomplish this.
Those firms that have happy employees will find
that their workforce is more loyal, productive, and innovative than those at other companies where the labor force is unhappy. As far as the business curriculum, students can easily relate to the view that work should be meaningful and employees should be happy sin lieu of the belief that rational man is interested only in maximizing his own utility. We know that students are very idealistic – if the world is ever going to be a better place, the subject of happiness should not be ignored.
23
REFERENCES Astin, Alexander W. (2004). Why spirituality deserves a central place in liberal education. Liberal Education, 90(2), Spring, 34-41. Blanchflower, David G. and Oswald, A. J. (2004). Money, sex, and happiness: An empirical study. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 393-415. Bogle, John C. (2005). The battle for the soul of capitalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Burrows, Peter (2007, January 15). He’s making hay as CEOs squirm. Business Week, 64-65. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (2002). Flow: The classic work on how to achieve happiness. London: Rider. Clark, Andrew E., Georgellis, Y., and Sanfey, P. (2001). Scarring: The psychological impact of past unemployment. Economica, 68(270), 221-241. Clark, Andrew E., Oswald, A. J. (2002). A simple statistical method for measuring how life events affect happiness. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 1139-1144. Davidbizar, Ruth and Hart, A.(2006). Are you bon a happy person or do you have to make it happen? The Health Care Manager, 25(1), 64 -69. Deutsch, Claudia H. (2005, December 9). Take your best shot: New surveys show that big business has a P.R. problem. New York Times, C1. Diener, Ed (2000). Subjective well being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34 -43. Diener, Ed and Oishi, S. (2005). The nonobvious social psychology of happiness. Psychological Inquiry, 16(4), 162-167. Diener, Ed and Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81-84. DukeHealth.Org (2006, October 17). Friends in high places. Health Library. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from
24
http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/HealthArticles/friends_in_high_places?search_ highlight=koenig Etzioni, Amitai (2002, August 4). When it comes to ethics, b-schools get an ‘F.’ Washington Post. B4. Retrieved June 24, 2007 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wpdyn/A38323-2002Aug2 Ferris, Abbot L. (2002). Religion and the quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 199215. Firebaugh, Glenn and Tach, L. (2005). Relative income and happiness: Are Americans on a hedonic treadmill? Working paper. Retrieved June 27, 2007 from http://www.sociology.psu.edu/faculty/documents/hedonictreadmill-latest_000.pdf Foley, Duncan K. (2006). Adam’s fallacy: A guide to economic theology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Francis, Leslie J., Ziebertz, H., and Lewis, C. A. (2003). The relation between religion and happiness among German students. Pastoral Psychology, 51 (4), 273-281. French, Sarah. and Joseph, S. (1999). Religiosity and its association with happiness, purpose in life, and self-actualization. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 2(2), 117-120. Frey, Bruno S. and Stutzer, A. (2005). Happiness research: state and prospects. Review of Social Economy, 62 (2), 207-228. Futrelle, David (2006, August 1). Can money buy happiness? Money 35(8), 127. Gavin, Joanne H. and Mason, R. O. (2004). The virtuous organization: The value of happiness in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics. 33(4), 379-392. Gilbert, Daniel (2006). Stumbling on happiness.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Greider, William (2003). The soul of capitalism: Opening a path to a moral economy. New York: Simon and Schuster. Howard, George S. (1997). The tragedy of maximization. Ecopsychology Online. October, Retrieved June 25, 2007 from http://ecopsychology.athabascau.ca/1097/index.htm#politics Johnson, Wendy & Krueger, R. F. (2006). How money buys happiness: Genetic and environmental processes linking finances and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 680-691. 25
Kahneman, Daniel, Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., and Stone, A. (2003). Measuring the quality of experience. Working paper, Princeton University. Kahneman, Daniel, Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., and Stone, A. (2006). Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science, 312 (5782), 1908-1910. Layard, Richard (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. New York: Penguin Press. Lagace, Martha (2001, November 12). Can religion and business learn from each other? HBS Working Knowledge. Retrieved June 24, 2007 from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/3511.html Lambert, Craig (2007). The science of happiness. Harvard Magazine, January-February. Retrieved June 26, 2007 from http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/010783.html Luttmer, Erzo F. P. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: relative earnings and well being. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 963-1002. Mangan, Katherine (2006, June 23). Agents of fortune. Chronicle of Higher Education, A14 A16. Max, D. T. (2007, Jan. 7). Happiness 101. New York Times Magazine, 46-51. McGowan, Kathleen (2005, January-February). The pleasure paradox: Money doesn’t bring happiness. Psychology Today, 38(1), 52-54. McConvill, James (2005). Positive corporate governance and its implications for executive compensation. German Law Journal, 6(12). Retrieved June 24, 2007 from http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=677 Milhouse, Virginia H. (2006). Women, organizational development, and the new science of happiness. Advancing Women in LeadershipOnline Journal, 21, Summer, Retrieved June 27, 2007 from http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/summer2006/Milhouse.html Moreland, J. P. and Issler, K. (2006). Lost virtue of happiness. Navpress.
Colorado Springs, CO:
Myers, David G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people American Psychologist, 55(1), 56-67. Myers, David G. and Diener, Ed (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10-19. Nozick, Robert (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books. 26
Post, Stephen and Neimark, J. (2007). Why good things happen to good people. Broadway Books.
New York:
Price, Terry L. (2007, June 4). How to teach business ethics. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved July 4, 2007 from http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/06/04/price PR Newswire (2006, Feb. 7). GfK NOP identifies most and least happy countries across the globe; Australians most happy, Hungarians least according to happiness study. Retrieved July 3, 2007 from http://www.prnewswire.com/cgibin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-07-2006/0004276823&EDATE= Seligman, Martin E. P. (2004). Can happiness be taught? Daedalus. 133 (2), 80-87. Silverstein, Stuart (2006, July 3). Happy? Let’s sum it up. Los Angeles Times, 1. Smith. Adam (1759). The theory of the moral sentiments. Retrieved June 21, 2007 from http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/tms/tms-p3-c3a.htm Terkel, Studs (1974). Working: People talk about what they do all day & how they feel about what they do. New York: Pantheon Books. Thottam, Jyoti (2005, January 9). Thank God it’s Monday. Time, A58-A61. Van Praag, Bernard M. S. (2007). Perspectives from the happiness literature and the role of new instruments for policy analysis. CESifo Economic Studies, 53(1), 42-68. Retrieved June 27, 2007 from http://cesifo.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/53/1/42 Veenhoven, Ruut, (2007). World Database of Happiness, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Retrieved June 29, 2007 from http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl Veerhoven, Ruut (undated) What is happiness? Happiness Foundation. Retrieved June 29, 2007 from http://www.happiness.org/Resources/Happiness_Studies/What_is_Happiness.aspx Wallis, Claudia (2005, January 17). The new science of happiness. Time, 165(3), A2-A9. White, Adrian (2006). A global projection of subjective well-being: A challenge to positive psychology. School of Psychology. Retrieved June 29, 2007 from http://www.le.ac.uk/pc/aw57/world/sample.html Wilson, James Q. (1997). The morality of capitalism. Fourteenth annual John Bonython lecture. Sydney, October 15. Retrieved May 7, 2006 from http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL97.htm 27
28
