January 16, 2012
The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), has today released a report containing research which, they claim, shows that the leading indicator of happiness is wealth. The conclusion that the IEA, the free market think-tank, draws is that the government should forget their investment in, and promotion of, ‘general wellbeing’ and concentrate on boosting growing the UK economy.
At the heart of the argument is a disagreement with the so-called ‘Easterlin’ school of thought which holds that after a certain point our wealth no longer drives our happiness. Amongst other things, the new report contends that 20% more wealth has the same affect whether you earn $500 a year or $50,000 a year.
As a psychologist it’s not my place to enter into an argument about the economics that sit behind the assertions made by the two sides in this debate. I’m sure that it’s possible to use the data to construct arguments to support both positions. However, what concerns me about the new research is the implication that focusing on happiness, well-being and mental health is a waste of time…and that we should just get back to making money!
Research of this kind is based on pulling together macroscopic financial data from many countries and connecting it with very general ‘life satisfaction’ scores. It has its place, but it doesn’t necessarily tell the story about what is happening on the ground. Money is important to all of us – of course – but it is only one of the many things that influence how we feel and how happy we are with our lives. The data in any given year may nudge us in one direction or the other, but how can we forget recent examples of footballers grappling with depression and mental illness? Or the many stories of lottery winners who fail to find happiness? Or our own experiences of what really makes us happy on a day-to-day basis? How much evidence do we need before we accept that money alone is never enough to bring true happiness? For the vast majority of people it’s about finding the right blend of relationships, health, social support, achievement, community, family, love, work, money and a whole host of other things. In short, it’s about living a balanced life.
I don’t think this new finding should in any way put off David Cameron and the government in their attempts to measure and develop the happiness of the nation. The current effort is partly about encouraging those who have enough money, or are within touching distance of that ‘saturation point’, to consider more deeply what they want; to think about whether they need more money or whether it would benefit them and their community if they knew how to live a happy life, whatever their financial status.
Yes, in our economy wealthy people at the top need to continue to create wealth so there is a trickle-down effect – but if we leave it at that we are setting a dangerous precedent for the aspiring middle classes who will assume (as many do now) that the goal is to get rich, rather than to live a good life and contribute to the happiness of others. The current government’s efforts are as much a response to massive increases in mental ill-health, as they are to the sense that we are focusing on the wrong things. In this sense, I agree with the assertion that we can no longer afford to focus on growth at all costs and to the detriment of our health.
I do think, though, that the government is in for a tough fight in the face of challenges such as those issued by the IEA report. On the one hand the coalition is promoting happiness as an ultimate goal that will bring us a sustainable economy and better lives – ones that don’t rely unrealistically on credit and spending on things we don’t need. Yet, right now we are trapped inside an economy that is based on, and demands, growth. Every headline bemoans the lack of it and over Christmas we were again encouraged to get out there and spend to help the ailing high street. All that talk of ‘make do and mend’ that we heard a few years back has faded and we’ve been encouraged to revert to our former spending patterns. So the government has a dilemma: does it want us to genuinely change the goal of the whole enterprise to be about achieving happiness or does it want us to focus on growth? If the only way to get happy is growth then we are, as the new research would have it, back to square one!
In reality, this points to an awkward transition period where we need old levels of growth to support the nation’s economy (which will, in turn, support our old habits!) while we try to make a shift to a new way of living and working based on different values. Maybe we need some signposts for how this will be achieved – this could be about moderating our growth targets slightly in favour of changing the way we do business – taking the hit now for the long-term strategic benefits this will bring. It will be a massive challenge, but no one ever said this would be easy and we now need to decide whether we’re up for it or not!
1 Comment | 
economy, Happiness, prime minister, Uncategorized | Tagged: David Cameron, economy, government, happiness, IEA, Institute of economic affairs, mental health, wealth, Well-being | 
Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
June 10, 2011
Earlier this week I participated in the Work Foundation Annual Debate on whether measuring national happiness is a worthwhile exercise for government. As you all know by now, the Office for National Statistics have incorporated around four well-being questions in their national citizen’s survey. The issue is, will publishing the results actually have an impact, or is this just a political exercise? The debate had five people with very differing views, some saying it was political PR attempt to change the image of the Conservative Party, others said it was irrelevant against the problems of unemployment, the changes needed in the health service, the problems of the economy and the drop in living standards as a result of the recession.
I can understand all of these concerns, but I think in a civilized society, it is important to enhance our gross national well-being as well as our GDP. The measuring of happiness or well-being at least raises the profile of how we feel about the quality of our lives. Yes, it won’t solve our problems per se, but it will force government to unpack ‘what’ is depleting our well-being. We already know much about what causes people stress at work, in their family lives and in their communities, so know it is about actioning interventions and policies to tackle this. And a national happiness index will at least hold the government to task if it is very low and continues to decline. As the Prime Minister said at the launch of this index in the Treasury, a government should be about the well-being of its families, communities, relationships, quality of working life, employment and health as well as about GDP alone.
1 Comment | Community, prime minister, Well-being | Tagged: Conservative party, GDP, happiness index, Health Service, living standards, national happiness, national well-being, political, PR, Prime Minister, recession, unemployment, Work Foundation | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
March 30, 2011
Yesterday David Cameron gave his backing to the new Employee Engagement Taskforce. This group is to be chaired by David Macleod, and will build on his joint report with Nita Clarke, ‘Engaging for Success: enhancing performance through employee engagement’. At the launch Cameron commented: “I am delighted that the Employment Engagement Taskforce has come together to develop practical ways to help all employers learn from the best, to break down barriers to engagement and to raise the profile of this whole agenda.” – a sentiment with which I wholly agree.
The Taskforce will seek to ensure all organisations can access information and support about the benefits of employee engagement, as well as providing best practice examples. Following consultation with a number of stakeholders it is due to report in 2012 on recommended strategies for organisations to adopt in this area.
The group is also going to examine three areas requiring attention, as identified in the MacLeod and Clarke report: barriers to the broad adoption of engagement principles, how to harness engagement for innovation, and how to maintain morale through difficult challenges such as downsizing. If the latter is something you’re struggling with advice is available in Robertson Cooper’s free download ‘Building morale and resilience – the key to surviving difficult times’.
It’s great to see evidence that these subjects are being supported at the highest levels, and along with the introduction of the national well-being measures this certainly seems to be the case. I look forward to following the activity of the group closely and sharing the news!
1 Comment | employee engagement, Engagement, prime minister, Well-being | Tagged: best practice, David Cameron, David Macleod, Employee Engagement Taskforce, Engagement, innovation, morale, Well-being | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
March 9, 2011
I’ve written about the value of community and ‘civic virtues’ before in my blog ‘Finding meaning in the community’ and since David Cameron recently ‘re-launched’ his Big Society campaign (amid much scepticism) it seems to be a good time to come back to this issue.
Many commentators have taken the opportunity to identify problems with the idea – focusing on the fact that it’s a cover-up for the severe cuts in public spending or that the idea is “unclear” or “incomprehensible.” The journalist Johann Hari, for example, has drawn attention to relevant research by sociologist Amitai Etzioni. Etzioni conducted an international study of ‘volunteerism’ which found that volunteering is highest where state funding is highest, and lowest where state funding is lowest. You may be wondering why this would be the case – the answer: volunteers need to be recruited and trained – you can’t just set them to work on complex tasks. When funding is available this becomes possible and when it’s not volunteering rates wane. Add to this that in difficult times workers are more likely to put time into working extra hours to earn more money or ensure they keep their job than give their time away as a volunteer.
‘Civic virtues,’ are thought to promote group and social harmony – so the idea of the Big Society is certainly aligned. The proposal may yet turn out to be a good one, but people are struggling to visualise the process we need to follow to get there and while the values at the heart of the society work in principle, they are proving hard to promote in practice. Several commentators have been debating whether we can ‘nudge’ these behaviours – the approach adopted by the Cabinet Office’s Behavioural Insight Team (e.g. http://blog.mindapples.org/2011/01/31/nudge-vs-bigsociety/) – however, it’s clear that such a fundamental shift in societal culture and values will take an awful lot of small ‘nudges’….or a few very, very big ones!
You won’t be surprised to hear that I subscribe to the values that sit behind the idea of the Big Society: individuals becoming more community focused, involved, free from constraints and responsible. It could have a very positive impact but we’re now getting to the point where we need a plan for how we’re going to implement this new way of being. This could be a huge challenge in a volatile political and economic environment – priorities are constantly shifting and there isn’t much money to make it happen. For me the big question is just how much do Mr Cameron and his government want it to work? What would they be willing to sacrifice to make it work? I’d love to hear what you think.
Leave a Comment » | Community, economy, prime minister | Tagged: Amitai Etzioni, Big Society, Cabinet Office, civic virtues, Community, culture, cuts, David Cameron, economic environment, government, Johann Hari, values, volunteerism, volunteers | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
June 9, 2010
We have had a number of political storms over the past month; the BP oil leak, the BA strike, David Laws’ resignation, the Pru & AIA merger and then the Israeli blockade on ships going to Gaza. In these, and most political situations (with a small p), we get the inevitable anger; accusations, and defensive posturing in response and then counter-aggressive responses – with the vicious circle continuing on and on until another media storm grabs our attention.
I suspect that when such stories hit the headlines people who have been accused of making mistakes have a strong need to defend themselves – this is often their first reaction and takes precedence over acknowledging their errors of judgement or culpability for making the wrong or inappropriate decision. On the other hand, there definitely do seem to be some people/groups who feel the need to establish blame; to name and shame and to point the finger at the culprit. But let’s face facts, in these times where a coalition government is making difficult decisions that will affect every citizen it’s time for industrial relations to move to the next stage – a less adversarial stage that involves more adult behaviour. This means working together and, like the Conservative party, making previously unimaginable concessions – rather than harbouring class allegiances. As the emergency budget is likely to shout at us – it’s time to get real!
In politics, in business, and indeed, in most walks of life people make mistakes. Even when decisions are made with the best intentions things don’t always go to plan. It would be much more healthy and stand us in much better stead if we were able to admit this without feeling there is going to be major retribution. In business and politics, we need to create a really open culture where people can take calculated risks, knowing that if they fail the proverbial sky will not fall on their heads. We’ve heard David Cameron and Nick Clegg promise this change in politics – the signs are promising but it’s too early to tell whether this will really happen. Nevertheless, in the world of business we must start to aspire to these values and follow suit. A climate of accountability is an antidote to a blame culture – if we combine that with open, honest communications and supportive behaviour we can expect to enter a new era of working life in the UK.
Leave a Comment » | citizenship, Community, economy, prime minister | Tagged: accountability, AIA, BA, blame, blame culture, BP, business, citizen, class, coalition, Conservative party, culpability, David Cameron, David Law, defend, emergency budget, Gaza, government, headlines, honest communications, industrial relations, intentions, Israeli blockade, judgement, media storm, mistakes, name and shame, Nick Clegg, oil leak, open culture, political, Pru, resignation, retribution, risk, strike, UK, values | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
May 14, 2010
We have had a momentous change in government over the last 48 hours, with the Conservatives and Lib-Dems forming a consensus that they can lead together. The body language between David Cameron and Nick Clegg could not have been more positive, as both leaders confirmed this is going to be a five year coalition government, with collective Cabinet responsibility. We’ll see whether this is how things turn out, but after decades of combative politics we now have a chance of experiencing collaborative government and new behaviour that inevitably goes with it.
Yes, this was partly driven by the result of the election – but also by political leaders realising that the economic situation we find ourselves in requires consensus and movement towards common objectives for the greater good. It is a tribute to both leaders that they have seen this and that the rhetoric of ‘it’s in the national interest’ has been actualised. The Conservatives could have agreed to form a minority government in an effort to win another election in a year or 18 months; but they did not. They took the brave and courageous decision to work in partnership for the good of the country, even though it is likely to cause them political problems with some of their backbenchers down the line.
Now, what can business learn from this? Why can’t BA, the rail industry, the Royal Mail, and many other management teams, as well as trade unions, behave in a similar way? Rather than engaging in the “same ol’’ industrial relations battles of a bygone era, organisations need to focus on working towards common goals that will benefit both employers and employees. Does the country need, at this time of economic crisis, a return to 1970s class warfare and the ‘them and us’ mentality?! If political leaders with fundamentally different values can come to some kind of collaborative arrangement for the common good, business (and the public sector) can do the same! Ironically this kind of behaviour started in the private sector, but I think it sometimes gets forgotten – we called it ‘co-opetition’. Nick and Dave have given us a timely reminder that, now more than ever, businesses need to work together for mutual benefit and for the good of their staff.
1 Comment | economy, election, Leadership, Management, prime minister, Private Sector, Public Sector | Tagged: 1970s, BA, backbenchers, business, Cabinet, class warfare, co-opetition, collaborative, combative, Conservatives, David Cameron, economic, election, government, Lib-Dems, management teams, national interest, Nick Clegg, partnership, political leaders, politics, Public Sector, rail, Royal Mail | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
May 10, 2010
This is a very stressful time for both David Cameron and Nick Clegg, as they attempt to juggle the multiple demands on them both to come to some understanding about how they are going to work together to govern. Over the last month, they have not had much sleep, have been travelling and away from their families constantly – now they are expected to come up with a coherent plan for government!
Admittedly, they are not alone in this process – they both have advisors and support from senior civil servants. But ultimately they have to make the tough decisions, with the added stress of disappointing a number of their respective followers and party colleagues no matter which decision they reach. It has to be stressful trying to juggle the concerns of the ordinary citizens, the economy, the markets, their party activists, the media and the wider financial community. This is not an easy balancing act for either, and we should all understand the intolerable pressures they are under. If the first few days are a sign of things to come it shouldn’t come as a surprise when, two years from now, we look at a PM or senior politician and say “hasn’t he aged”!
These high expectations are a reality for most people in senior roles in society. These people are expected to perfom as supermen/women – who we assume (given that they are paid handsomely!) should be able to deliver all that we and the wider community expect of them. We should all remember that they are only human, they also have families and important relationships outside of work. They have no more hours in the day than the rest of us, and sometimes events and situations will intervene and prevent them from achieving their goals.
The lively debates of the election have engendered strong emotional reactions to all three leaders, but a little bit of tolerance would not go astray right now. Leaders will not always deliver all that we want – it’s impossible to please everyone – but if they are committed, successful on the things that matter and give it their all, we should all lend them our support.
Leave a Comment » | economy, election, Leadership, Personal Resilience, pressure, prime minister, Stress, Uncategorized | Tagged: achieving goals, balancing act, citizens, civil servants, Community, David Cameron, debates, decisions, demands, economy, elections, emotional, families, financial community, govern, government, high expectations, leaders, markets, media, Nick Clegg, party activists, PM, politician, pressure, senior roles, sleep, society, successful, support, tolerance | Permalink
Posted by Cary Cooper
