
Happiness At Work Is Overrated: Why Happy Employees Aren't The Goal
The American Psychological Association (APA) defines happiness as "an emotion of joy, gladness, satisfaction, and well-being." In simpler terms, happiness is fleeting. It's a short-term emotion, not a long-term foundation. Many companies offer perks and financial incentives to boost short-term moods. These initiatives may create momentary spikes in satisfaction, but they don't build a strong, sustainable workplace culture. True happiness at work is born from culture, not surface-level perks.
There's no question that happiness is vital for people's well-being. In the workplace, it can lead to higher productivity, improved talent retention, and better mental health. But here's the paradox: pursuing happiness often makes people more unhappy. Research published in Emotion found that "valuing happiness could be self-defeating because the more people value happiness, the more likely they will feel disappointed."
Happiness is intangible. It's not a measurable target like quarterly revenue, miles run, or weight loss. When organizations fixate on happiness as a goal, they set themselves up for inevitable disappointment. When challenges arise, as they always do, employees may question their capabilities or the organization's leadership, ultimately fueling feelings of burnout, disengagement, and dissatisfaction.
Worse yet, overemphasizing happiness can create a performative culture where employees feel pressured to fake positive emotions. Research published in the British Medical Journal found that faking happiness at work increased stress levels and was associated with greater risks of depression and various cardiovascular issues. The desire for satisfied employees is commendable. Every CEO and high-level leader should care about the well-being of their people. However, the way many organizations chase happiness is imbalanced and unsustainable. Happiness at work is the byproduct of something deeper.
Happiness at work can't be bought. It must be cultivated, starting with building a culture of fulfillment and meaning. Think of fulfillment as the experience of growth, mastery, and contribution. Think of meaning as the belief that your work matters beyond yourself. Movements like the Great Resignation and Quiet Quitting weren't driven solely by financial factors. They were also responses to a lack of purpose and connection at work. Research shows that meaningful work improves mental health, resilience, engagement, and overall performance. Here's how leaders can start building cultures rooted in fulfillment and meaning:
Growth doesn't happen in comfort. In sports, nobody remembers the games that teams won easily. They remember the hard-fought victories against tough opponents that required every ounce of effort. In marathons, it's not the 26.2 miles themselves that matter most. It's the transformation needed to cross the finish line. The same principle applies at work. Challenging your people may create short-term discomfort, but overcoming obstacles creates lasting fulfillment and impact. Employees become more resilient and engaged when pushed to grow, not shielded and coddled from struggle. Raise your standards and set higher expectations. Your team will rise to meet them.
Investing in your people isn't just about compensation. It's about growth. In areas like artificial intelligence, leadership development, and career advancement, providing skill-building opportunities signals that you see your employees as long-term assets, not short-term expenses. Too often, organizations invest heavily in technology and infrastructure but neglect the development of those who use them. Shifting even a portion of that investment toward human development delivers a far greater payoff over time. After all, technology doesn't innovate—people do.
Recognition fuels meaning and fulfillment. Invite your employees to co-create initiatives, from wellness programs to cultural improvements. Acknowledge their contributions authentically and consistently. Too many employees feel invisible, like easily replaceable parts rather than valued pieces. According to a Gallup analysis, under recognized employees are twice as likely to say they'll leave their organization within a year.
Recognition doesn't have to be complicated: honest, specific, and individualized acknowledgment is what matters most. Recognition from leadership carries exceptional weight. The same Gallup analysis found that acknowledgment from an employee's direct manager or the CEO is among the most powerful retention drivers. Even a simple, handwritten note, as Chevron CEO Mike Wirth frequently does for team members, can impact loyalty and morale.
For CEOs and senior leaders, the temptation can be high to manufacture happiness. But happiness isn't something you can orchestrate from the top down. Your role is to create an environment where people can maximize their potential, contribute meaningfully, and grow. When that happens, happy employees follow—naturally and authentically. Happiness isn't given. It's built. As Viktor E. Frankl wrote in Man's Search for Meaning, 'It is the very pursuit of happiness that thwarts happiness.' Focus on building fulfillment and meaning. Happiness will take care of itself.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scientific American
4 hours ago
- Scientific American
Why ChatGPT Shouldn't Be Your Therapist
Artificial intelligence chatbots don't judge. Tell them the most private, vulnerable details of your life, and most of them will validate you and may even provide advice. This has resulted in many people turning to applications such as OpenAI's ChatGPT for life guidance. But AI 'therapy' comes with significant risks—in late July OpenAI CEO Sam Altman warned ChatGPT users against using the chatbot as a 'therapist' because of privacy concerns. The American Psychological Association (APA) has called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate 'deceptive practices' that the APA claims AI chatbot companies are using by 'passing themselves off as trained mental health providers,' citing two ongoing lawsuits in which parents have alleged harm brought to their children by a chatbot. 'What stands out to me is just how humanlike it sounds,' says C. Vaile Wright, a licensed psychologist and senior director of the APA's Office of Health Care Innovation, which focuses on the safe and effective use of technology in mental health care. 'The level of sophistication of the technology, even relative to six to 12 months ago, is pretty staggering. And I can appreciate how people kind of fall down a rabbit hole.' On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Scientific American spoke with Wright about how AI chatbots used for therapy could potentially be dangerous and whether it's possible to engineer one that is reliably both helpful and safe. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] What have you seen happening with AI in the mental health care world in the past few years? I think we've seen kind of two major trends. One is AI products geared toward providers, and those are primarily administrative tools to help you with your therapy notes and your claims. The other major trend is [people seeking help from] direct-to-consumer chatbots. And not all chatbots are the same, right? You have some chatbots that are developed specifically to provide emotional support to individuals, and that's how they're marketed. Then you have these more generalist chatbot offerings [such as ChatGPT] that were not designed for mental health purposes but that we know are being used for that purpose. What concerns do you have about this trend? We have a lot of concern when individuals use chatbots [as if they were a therapist]. Not only were these not designed to address mental health or emotional support; they're actually being coded in a way to keep you on the platform for as long as possible because that's the business model. And the way that they do that is by being unconditionally validating and reinforcing, almost to the point of sycophancy. The problem with that is that if you are a vulnerable person coming to these chatbots for help, and you're expressing harmful or unhealthy thoughts or behaviors, the chatbot's just going to reinforce you to continue to do that. Whereas, [as] a therapist, while I might be validating, it's my job to point out when you're engaging in unhealthy or harmful thoughts and behaviors and to help you to address that pattern by changing it. And in addition, what's even more troubling is when these chatbots actually refer to themselves as a therapist ora psychologist. It's pretty scary because they can sound very convincing and like they are legitimate—whenof course they're not. Some of these apps explicitly market themselves as 'AI therapy' even though they're not licensed therapy providers. Are they allowed to do that? A lot of these apps are really operating in a gray space. The rule is that if you make claims that you treat or cure any sort of mental disorder or mental illness, then you should be regulated by the FDA [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration]. But a lot of these apps will [essentially] say in their fine print, 'We do not treat or provide an intervention [for mental health conditions].' Because they're marketing themselves as a direct-to-consumer wellness app, they don't fall under FDA oversight, [where they'd have to] demonstrate at least a minimal level of safety and effectiveness. These wellness apps have no responsibility to do either. What are some of the main privacy risks? These chatbots have absolutely no legal obligation to protect your information at all. So not only could [your chat logs] be subpoenaed, but in the case of a data breach, do you really want these chats with a chatbot available for everybody? Do you want your boss, for example, to know that you are talking to a chatbot about your alcohol use? I don't think people are as aware that they're putting themselves at risk by putting [their information] out there. The difference with the therapist is: sure, I might get subpoenaed, but I do have to operate under HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] laws and other types of confidentiality laws as part of my ethics code. You mentioned that some people might be more vulnerable to harm than others. Who is most at risk? Certainly younger individuals, such as teenagers and children. That's in part because they just developmentally haven't matured as much as older adults. They may be less likely to trust their gut when something doesn't feel right. And there have been some data that suggest that not only are young people more comfortable with these technologies; they actually say they trust them more than people because they feel less judged by them. Also, anybody who is emotionally or physically isolated or has preexisting mental health challenges, I think they're certainly at greater risk as well. What do you think is driving more people to seek help from chatbots? I think it's very human to want to seek out answers to what's bothering us. In some ways, chatbots are just the next iteration of a tool for us to do that. Before it was Google and the Internet. Before that, it was self-help books. But it's complicated by the fact that we do have a broken system where, for a variety of reasons, it's very challenging to access mental health care. That's in part because there is a shortage of providers. We also hear from providers that they are disincentivized from taking insurance, which, again, reduces access. Technologies need to play a role in helping to address access to care. We just have to make sure it's safe and effective and responsible. What are some of the ways it could be made safe and responsible? In the absence of companies doing it on their own—which is not likely, although they have made some changes to be sure—[the APA's] preference would be legislation at the federal level. That regulation could include protection of confidential personal information, some restrictions on advertising, minimizing addictive coding tactics, and specific audit and disclosure requirements. For example, companies could be required to report the number of times suicidal ideation was detected and any known attempts or completions. And certainly we would want legislation that would prevent the misrepresentation of psychological services, so companies wouldn't be able to call a chatbot a psychologist or a therapist. How could an idealized, safe version of this technology help people? The two most common use cases that I think of is, one, let's say it's two in the morning, and you're on the verge of a panic attack. Even if you're in therapy, you're not going be able to reach your therapist. So what if there was a chatbot that could help remind you of the tools to help to calm you down and adjust your panic before it gets too bad? The other use that we hear a lot about is using chatbots as a way to practice social skills, particularly for younger individuals. So you want to approach new friends at school, but you don't know what to say. Can you practice on this chatbot? Then, ideally, you take that practice, and you use it in real life. It seems like there is a tension in trying to build a safe chatbot to provide mental help to someone: the more flexible and less scripted you make it, the less control you have over the output and the higher risk that it says something that causes harm. I agree. I think there absolutely is a tension there. I think part of what makes the [AI] chatbot the go-to choice for people over well-developed wellness apps to address mental health is that they are so engaging. They really do feel like this interactive back-and-forth, a kind of exchange, whereas some of these other apps' engagement is often very low. The majority of people that download [mental health apps] use them once and abandon them. We're clearly seeing much more engagement [with AI chatbots such as ChatGPT]. I look forward to a future where you have a mental health chatbot that is rooted in psychological science, has been rigorously tested, is co-created with experts. It would be built for the purpose of addressing mental health, and therefore it would be regulated, ideally by the FDA. For example, there's a chatbot called Therabot that was developed by researchers at Dartmouth [College]. It's not what's on the commercial market right now, but I think there is a future in that.


CNBC
5 days ago
- CNBC
Wellness apps are popular and can be helpful, expert says, but they ‘don't have to prove they keep your data private': How to keep your info safe
There are many direct-to-consumer wellness apps out there: Meditation apps that guide you through mindfulness exercises and breath work or access to therapy right from your phone. Millions of people use apps like these every single day. And their growing popularity could point to a generally positive user experience. But experts warn of a few problematic aspects of these platforms. For one, many aren't regulated. "They don't have to prove that they work, they don't have to prove that they're safe," Vaile Wright, a psychologist and senior director at the American Psychological Association said on an episode of podcast "Speaking of Psychology." Another problem with these apps, she said, is that they "don't have to prove that they keep your data private." For example, "you might not want your boss to know that you're using an app to help you reduce your alcohol use," she said. If these tools aren't FDA cleared, they're not compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which protects sensitive health information. "There is no regulatory body or law that keeps your personal health information safe," Wright said. That means they can't guarantee that a data breach won't happen. This, of course, is not specific to wellness apps. These apps are also operating under a very specific business model that prioritizes their bottom line, she said. "But it's a challenging space to [prioritize profit] and so sometimes what happens with that tension is they make bad choices. In 2023, the federal trade commission issued a proposed order banning online therapy platform BetterHelp from sharing consumers' data for advertising. The company was charged with sharing sensitive customer data with Facebook and Snapchat. BetterHelp was required to pay consumers $7.8 million, which it began sending out in 2024. "It's not that these apps can't be helpful," Wright said. "I think they really can be. It's just consumers need to be aware of what are the benefits and what are the potential risks by using them." Before deciding to use one of these apps, read the terms of service and privacy policy. It's hard, Wright said, because you have to "get through it with all of the legalize." But it will at least keep you somewhat informed of their practices. You can also do your homework about the company at large. "You have to go to the website and really look at who's developing it," Wright said. "Do they have experts on there? Advisory boards? What are they saying that the app is built on? Is it built on some known psychological principle like cognitive behavioral therapy?" That kind of info can give you a sense of the company's internal policies. Ultimately, "you have to make your own informed decision about what you're comfortable with," she said. "It's about entering into it as informed as you can be."


Miami Herald
6 days ago
- Miami Herald
Dog attack left tiny kitten in peril. But she's ‘fighting with all her might'
A precious little kitten with an adorable name to match a cute face is on the mend thanks to the help of a Texas shelter that's been working overtime this summer. Lunchbox is a tiny kitten with a big appetite for life and a strong curiosity. According to Austin Pets Alive!, the little tot is currently recovering from a heinous attack during her first weeks of life. 'At barely 2 months old, little Lunchbox was the victim of a brutal dog attack. The injuries this baby kitten bore were severe—a broken leg, a swollen and injured eye, and a fully degloved tail. She could barely walk, and to make matters worse, her wounds were infected,' the shelter said in an Aug. 6 Facebook post. 'Lunchbox was fighting with all her might to stay alive when Austin Animal Center brought her to APA! for immediate medical attention. Our clinic team sprang into action, giving this kitten all we have to help her overcome her injuries.' The social media post included photos of the sweet sea salt gray girl with beige and black stripes along her coat, with her eye visually in distress. But they also posted a video of Lunchbox playing innocently with a house plant and a photo of herchowing down on a treat. 'Lunchbox is on the road to recovery, but her journey isn't over yet. This week, she'll have surgery to amputate her damaged tail and undergo an eye enucleation,' the shelter said. For more information on how to help Lunchbox, visit the shelter's website.