Comments on: Being Happy Makes You Less Productive. Sometimes. http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/2009/11/09/being-happy-makes-you-less-productive-sometimes/ Because the killer app is us. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:16:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Forrest Christian http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/2009/11/09/being-happy-makes-you-less-productive-sometimes/#comment-29627 Forrest Christian Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:41:46 +0000 http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/?p=1127#comment-29627 Even when they do have sufficient capacity. Some of this is the problem of work domains; but it's also simply a problem of exposure. Many people who have been very successful in a silo have a hard time abandoning methods that are successful there but don't work in other activity disciplines. The fact that their bosses do not see the problem and the system does not help prepare them for the role, which is fundamentally different, doesn't help. I liked Mark Van Clieaf's ideas about helicoptering high-capacity but lower capability people into several different silos over a couple of years, so that they see how the entire operation is done. Then again, since the biggest problem is that managers don't fit, your comment is more relevant than mine. See my future post on how incompetence makes bosses bullying. On which produces which: the research created sad affect in workers and they did better in accuracy tasks. They created happiness and they did better in creative tasks. And vice-versa. You're also right that there is probably a lot of feedback amplification going on -- creative tasks induce more giddiness, accuracy tasks induce more clear-headedness. The starting point in the research was affective state, at least in those studies that I have read. You've gotten me wondering about how long you need Happy in creative tasks. There's a point where you stop ideation and start the hard tasks of craftwork. Even when they do have sufficient capacity. Some of this is the problem of work domains; but it’s also simply a problem of exposure. Many people who have been very successful in a silo have a hard time abandoning methods that are successful there but don’t work in other activity disciplines. The fact that their bosses do not see the problem and the system does not help prepare them for the role, which is fundamentally different, doesn’t help.

I liked Mark Van Clieaf’s ideas about helicoptering high-capacity but lower capability people into several different silos over a couple of years, so that they see how the entire operation is done.

Then again, since the biggest problem is that managers don’t fit, your comment is more relevant than mine. See my future post on how incompetence makes bosses bullying.

On which produces which: the research created sad affect in workers and they did better in accuracy tasks. They created happiness and they did better in creative tasks. And vice-versa. You’re also right that there is probably a lot of feedback amplification going on — creative tasks induce more giddiness, accuracy tasks induce more clear-headedness. The starting point in the research was affective state, at least in those studies that I have read.

You’ve gotten me wondering about how long you need Happy in creative tasks. There’s a point where you stop ideation and start the hard tasks of craftwork.

]]> By: Alicia Parr http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/2009/11/09/being-happy-makes-you-less-productive-sometimes/#comment-29626 Alicia Parr Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:05:26 +0000 http://www.manasclerk.com/blog/?p=1127#comment-29626 Regarding the theory of how happy/sad affect driving creative/risk-avoidant task success, it does seem to have some face validity. However, I tend to think that doing creative work could result in increased positive affect while looking for problems could result in increased negative affect. Assuming that a causal relationship does exist, is the starting point the affective state or the type of task? "This is why people who come from just one particular silo make such horrible cross-functional managers: they haven’t learned that their default affective style is inappropriate and ineffective for some types of work." Really? You don't think the more likely culprit is a 3 trying to do 4 work? Regarding the theory of how happy/sad affect driving creative/risk-avoidant task success, it does seem to have some face validity. However, I tend to think that doing creative work could result in increased positive affect while looking for problems could result in increased negative affect. Assuming that a causal relationship does exist, is the starting point the affective state or the type of task?

“This is why people who come from just one particular silo make such horrible cross-functional managers: they haven’t learned that their default affective style is inappropriate and ineffective for some types of work.”

Really? You don’t think the more likely culprit is a 3 trying to do 4 work?

]]>