During her doctoral research into the development of behavior and emotional problems in children, Meike Bartels noticed that many people are actually doing very well. This prompted her logical follow-up question: why does nobody research that? Since then, she has been investigating the causes of differences in well-being. In this session of Good Morning Legal People, Meike, Professor of Genetics and Wellbeing, takes us into the world of happiness. Anne Hustinx, Executive Director of External and Legal Affairs at VodafoneZiggo, reflects from her own (work) experience.
Happiness
Aristotle already sought an answer to the question ‘what is happiness?’, as did Epicurus. One talked about the ‘feeling of happiness’ and the other about ‘meaning’ or ‘flourishing’. Today, research shows that these two approaches are closely related. Ultimately, it’s about how someone feels, and one person may feel very happy with a very meaningful life, while another may not need that. The term for the combination of the feeling of happiness and flourishing is well-being.
In Western society, there is the idea of a continual pursuit of happiness. One must first do everything to ultimately achieve happiness. It would be better to take well-being as the starting point. How do you feel, what are you busy with, and what will you do based on that? In our society, that would make a difference.
Unequal Happiness
The easiest way to research whether people are happy is to ask them to rate their happiness on a scale. Based on this, the population can be divided into three groups: people with mental problems, people with mild problems, and people who feel good. The first group gives themselves a low score, the last group a high score. Not only are the differences between the groups interesting, but also the differences within the groups themselves.
Why does one person give themselves a 7 and another a 9? Research into differences in happiness is often done based on differences between people. Are men happier than women? Are people in the countryside happier than those in the city? Because averages per group are looked at, no real answers to such questions are provided. The real answer is that one person likes living in the city and another in the countryside. The same principle applies to comparisons between lots of exercise or little, healthy or unhealthy eating, etc. The questions are nonsensical because the differences between people in those groups are too great. A personal approach is needed.
Nature and nurture
Employers often have the good idea to work on the well-being of their employees. In execution, it goes wrong because it is assumed that people are the same. One size fits all projects are therefore a waste of investment. The crux lies in the realization that people differ, think differently, and find different things important. And become happy from different things. When it comes to differences between people, it’s no longer about whether it’s nature or nurture. It’s always about a combination of genetic predisposition and environment, even with differences in feelings of happiness. Thinking about and dealing with people in this way can even make the lowest-scoring group happier.
Personal Quest
Anne Hustinx, Executive Director of External and Legal Affairs at VodafoneZiggo, notices that it is becoming more and more accepted to examine how you feel in a work setting, to admit to it, and to do something about it. That is the realization with which more happiness at work begins. For her, that meant a switch to a new field. Working on major societal themes and collaborating with a team are the drivers for her work happiness, but everything starts with taking control over one’s own feelings. Despite employers’ good intentions to help employees in their quest for happiness, there are flaws in their approach, and in that of society. Topics such as happiness and feeling, for example, play too small a role in important conversations and decisions. But also, people are trained to meet a standard, rather than looking at their own talents and shortcomings. Both individuals and organizations have a responsibility to smooth these out.
Finally: Not Only Standard Programs and Training, But Also Social Innovation
Well-being programs with the accompanying instructions and training are a step in the right direction, but just as important – and less costly – is having the real conversation. This is not easy, but the step towards more happiness begins with understanding where someone comes from, what motivates someone, why someone reacts in a certain way, and how you can respond to that together. Within the large programs, Meike Bartels therefore works as an independent advisor with ‘social innovation’. This gives her the opportunity to pay attention and space to personal questions and needs. An organization can build an infrastructure within which people themselves can formulate their own help question. This creates an intrinsic drive in people to get started with their well-being, where they can choose from the tools that the organization offers. Ideally, social innovation is structured from an external party so that independence is created between what the collective wants to achieve and what the individual needs. The return is that people who feel good in all respects function much better.
Curious about our next Good Morning Legal People? Sign up here for our next online session.