Article 1 MOTIVATING PEOPLE; HAPPINESS AT WORK The research “Motivating People; Happiness at Work” was written by Andre Sicer and Carl Cederstrom in 2015.throughout my reading of this article, it became clear that it focuses on how there is a misconception the relationship of happiness and productivity. The authors tried to state that some wisdoms about what happiness can bring in the work place are mere myths. In this article the authors tried to point out that how companies spend money on happiness coaches, tea building exercises, gameplays, funsultants, and chief happiness officers, since they are make-believed that happiness is a way to boost productivity in any work place. Even though there are evidences which shows that how happiness at work place is always good or how happy employees are less likely to leave, more likely to satisfy customers, the authors challenged its importance based on different evidences, books and researches. The authors started their findings by stating that “We don’t really know what happiness is, or how to measure it”. In this finding the authors tried to specify that definition of definition of happiness differs from person to person and how hard it is to measure it. In this finding the authors also tried to indicate that even more advanced technologies and techniques for measuring emotion and predicting behaviours, are adopting increasingly simplified motions of what it means to be human, let alone, what it means to pursue happiness based on Will Davies’s book “The happiness industry”. The next finding stated in this article is “Happiness doesn’t necessary lead to increased productivity”. In this finding the authors challenged the idea of belief that there is a relationship between job satisfaction and productivity. They based their ideas on researches to show how being miserable can also they bring a better profit in a work place. The other finding in this article is that, “Happiness can be exhausting”. Focusing on happiness, the responsibility that can never be perfectly fulfilled, and the heavy burden needed to bring happiness are the reason which leads the authors to finding. They strengthen their ideas by a psychological experiment studies that shows, when happiness become a duty, it can make people feel worse if they fail to accomplish it. “Happiness won’t get you through the work day” is another finding in this article. This finding more works for workers of front customer services. Other studies the authors reviewed suggested that being happy all the time may not be good for all aspects of work, or jobs that rely on certain abilities. The other finding is that “Happiness could damage your relationship with your boss”. In this finding of this article, the authors tried to reflect how people who expected work to make them happy would often become emotionally needy based on Susanne Ekenann’s study of a media company. The article stated that that this kind of people needs to hear recognition and emotional reassurance from their boss. And when they don’t get that, they will lose their good relationship with their boss since they feel neglected. Also “it could hurt your relationship with friends and family” is also one finding of this article. The authors also included “Happiness could make losing your job that much more devastating” as another finding. If a workplace is expected to bring happiness, the workers would be dependent on it. So being fired from their job would be devastating for them. “Happiness could make you selfish and lonely” are the final findings of this article. Depending on psychologist studies focusing too much on the pursuit of happiness can make feel more disconnected from other people. The authors concluded that trying a work always to make us happy can be exhausting and make us drain our personal life meaning and make us selfish and lonely. So if a job feels depressing and meaningless, it might be because it is depressing and meaningless. Trying to make it otherwise can just make it worse. This article has a lot of strengths. Having many sources and evidences is the main strength of the article. They related and based each and every idea of the article with some studies, researches and books. Every finding of the article are also backed with a relevant sources. Each finding was also explained and briefed clearly with examples which are more helpful to understand. The other strength of this article is that the idea was started after attending some seminars and it shows that it is an idea that has been thought in depth. Finally, the other main strength of this article is that it was studied, sampled and analyzed simply, in which a reader can understand it simply. The weakness on this article or the idea I don’t support in this article is that, the sources which the authors reviewed for this study are all in favor of their ideas. It could have been better if the positive part of happiness was stated as well and compared and contrast was made with the negative one in the finding rather than emphasizing just the negative part. In general, the article studies how work makes us feel a wide range of emotions. And it states that, how happiness is a great thing to experience, but nothing can be willed in to existence. So, maybe the less we seek to actively pursue happiness through our jobs, the more likely we will be able to experience a sense of joy in them. Article 2 IF YOU WANT TO BE THE BOSS, SAY “WE” NOT “I” The article “If you want to be the Boss, say “We” not “I”, was written by David Burkus in 2015. This article is about pronoun usage in leadership, what kind of meaning it gives and what researches showed how pronoun helps to signify speakers of attention (inward and outward). It also states that what meaning using “we” gives and using “I” gives in leadership. It also has a review of studies related to the use of pronoun. This article mainly focuses on theories that are related to how pronoun usages (first, second, or third person and singular versus plural) could provide clues to an individual status inside a group or a hierarchy. The author specifies how pronouns help to signify a speaker’s focus of attention. It is stated that when people feel insecure, self-aware, or diminished, they are more likely to focus their thoughts, feelings and behaviours inward. Other studies suggest that people manipulated to focus inward increase the rate of first-person singular pronoun (“I”, “My”, or “Me”) used in their speech. On the other hand, the study shows that individuals using first-person plural and secondperson (“we”, “Us”, or “You”) ought to demonstrate an outward focus, considering the thoughts, feeling and behaviours of others. The author reviewed a team of researchers’ – Ewa Kacewicz, James W. Pennebaker, Mathew Davis, Moorgee Jeon, and Arthur C. Greasser- study to test the assumption. The researchers designed five separate studies in which language was used in a variety of context, but all in situations with status differences between the people communicating. The analysis of all five separate studies shows that, individuals with lower status overwhelming tended to use first-person singular pronoun (“I”) compared to individuals with higher status. On the other hand higher status individuals used more first-person plural (“We”) pronouns. Even though, the effect was weaker than “we”, space-person pronouns (“You”, “Your”) also appeared more frequently in the language of high status participants. This article shows that, the study’s result imply that higher-status individuals do demonstrate an “others-orientation” significantly more than lower status individuals. And lower status individuals appear more self-oriented. This article is important in creating the idea of working in a team rather than as an individual. The author has contributed in the creation of awareness in this pronoun usage and the idea and the meaning behind it. The presented ideas being cleared and the study being done based on relevant sources/research is one of the strength of this article. The other strength of this article is that there is a comparison argument between the two main ideas of the study, which is the inward and the outward focus of attention. The stated comparison created a clear difference between them for the reader to understand it clearly. The weakness and the idea I don’t support on this article is that, the source the author used for his argument is only one source. It would have been better if there were different kinds of sources/researches to compare and contrast ideas from. The other idea I don’t support is that, there is no clear evidence in the analysis on why the high status individual used first-person plural (“We”) and why the low status individuals used first-person singular (“I”). Generally, the article implies that switching our pronoun usage from singular “I” to the plural “We”, helps us to shift our perspective from self-focused to others-focused, make us more aware of the needs, it might make us a better leader.
