i'm not going to lie i don't know what the purpose of the article was but if i had to guess i would say that i means that people should try to attempt to be at work regardless of what they get paid and if this was the meaning then yes, i agree. i think that if a person really loves their job and has passion for it then yea they will do a better job at what they are doing but, honestly for some people money can make them happier especially if they need it. not saying that im this kind of person but in many people's lives i feel like they would like to obtain both happiness and money but the thing with this is that they come hand in hand in a way and im not saying that if your poor your sad im saying that it just can lead to greater problems for yourself anywho, if my job in the future is anything like school, lord help us all... AM period 6
I believe that giving the employees the ability to create their own workplace in their own image makes sense, but it does not hurt to make it too personalized.
I mean, in some cases I agree with this article by Oliver Burke; when employers strive to be tryhards, they could annoy their employees rather than try to help their employees. However, I do believe some effort into producing a more lively working atmosphere is very positive; just see how productive places like Google and Facebook (with their pingpong tables and etc) are in their respective computer science fields. Also, if the workplace is known to be laid back and relax, more people would want to work in a Google or a Facebook. Though, sometimes this does go overboard and just lowers productivity. I also agree with the fact that people should not be reminded whether they like their jobs; if they have to remind or question themselves, chances are they are not enjoying their work. But I cannot blame the employers for trying their best; human beings are paranoid people, and sometimes they try to do extra when extra isn't necessary (or can actually be potentially self-inflicting). Overall, though, I agree with Burke to a good extent.
I personally think that there’s a fine line between fun and professionalism in the work place. On the surface, the idea of encouraging fun in the workplace seems to only have an upside, seeming beneficial. However, as the article notes, it may in fact be counter-intuitive. If employees are going to lose their sense of professionalism and no longer take work with the same dedicated mindset, I believe fun should not be as heavily stressed. The article also mentions that the “ability to experience negative emotions, rather than struggling to exclude them, is crucial for mental health.” I believe this is an equally important point that must be addressed within the workplace, in order to foster the most productive environment. Overall I agree with the overall point of the article that employees should be given as much autonomy as possible. If each employee is allowed to be independent, and is treated fairly, their productivity is then a function of their motivation. I believe then and only then will the best of an employee be shown.
I agree with Burkeman's opinion that forcing a fun workplace atmosphere can be self-sabotaging in a way that causes employees to reject the atmosphere. Instead, the work atmosphere should flourish with a variety of personality types so that workers can be prepared for any situation that might present itself in the future. In addition, if employees chose to work for their employer because they love their job and what they are doing, there is really no need to create a fun workplace when the employees are doing what they love. AB
To me work should be work. If I go to work to experience "Fun Officers or Happiness Engineers" I do believe that it does put an emotional toll on employees. It’s like forcing fun on someone 24/7 without having the ability to separate there real happiness from forceful happiness. I also agree that it does decrease productivity in the workplace. To me it kind of is telling your workers that as long as there having fun then they are doing work. Some people live in that mindset where they need to concentrate to get things done and accomplished but that's very hard to do when your boss is acting like a child. It takes away the atmosphere of responsibility along with work ethics. It doesn’t seem healthy as one of the most powerful countries to display our workplace as a place of fun and nonsense to others as well. You think other industries and countries are going to take you seriously and want to invest in you when you have to give prizes to your workers to actually work? It’s all about balance. For example the article said “the opposite effect, making people miserable and thus reaffirming one of the oldest observations about happiness: When you try too hard to obtain it, you’re almost guaranteed to fail.” meaning that you can’t expect people in your workplace as a whole to also catch onto having fun all the time. There’s a time and place for fun and a time and place for business. As long as you have a healthy atmosphere in the workplace people will find joy naturally working there and will also be productive. SRB PERIOD 6
Robert Lis-Pd9 I believe that work shouldn't be a place in which everyone dreads to go to on a daily basis. Work does not necessarily have to be fun, although the work place should be tolerable and comfortable for the employees. As studies have shown, trying to make work for fun has shows negative results such as a decrease in production. Different people perceive things differently, so making work more "fun" may not be so fun for some people. I think it is vital to be a fair boss and treat all employees equally and allow them to have comfortable working conditions. With this approach, I believe that production rates would increase and the employees would also be happier. Work is a place where you must get things done and you get paid for doing so. No one ever said it would be an easy or fun task, but you still must get the job done.
LP Pd 8 I definitely with Mr.Graeber that there are some jobs that are bs in a sense that these jobs entails so much less work, yet people are being paid 10x more than the jobs that are important and require more labor (CEOs, lobbyists, administrative jobs). However at the same time, I think you can't knock out all the jobs that Mr.Graeber thought were useless because then you leave a lot of people unemployed and you need people to be working so that they can sustain a lifestyle and buy more consumer goods which keeps the economy flowing. It is also based on opinion whether or not a job has worth or not because of course some jobs may not be necessarily seen as an imperative job, but every job does have some kind of use. It is however, unfortunate that the jobs that are necessary (nurses, teachers, garbage collectors, mechanics) are not as paid as well.
Regarding the essay on The Economist, there is an argument made that the growing technology is lowering the input/output costs thus creating more wealth. However at the same time, the advanced technology is eliminating jobs which leaves people unemployed. That means less people will be able to use their money for any types of consumer goods which lowers the demand for a lot of items. So the use of technology is kind of a paradox because although the use of technology would essentially create more wealth, it will also leave more people to be poor. I think that either way technology will continue to grow and the real question is if we will decide to redistribute the income to even it out.
The idea that Tech and retail industries are trying to incorporate fun into their workdays is uplifting and optimistic. Although the idea of “Happiness Engineers” or the evaluation of the “Gross Happiness Index” seems a little foolish to me. Not everyone enjoys being prodded to smile while they are working. Thus, trying to impose happiness at the office may just further frustrate the employees who are only there for the sole purpose of receiving their paycheck. This fun atmosphere would be a burden to them rather than an uplifting experience. The bottom line is, happiness cannot be imposed on anyone. If someone is passionate about something and pursues a career in which they can live amongst that passionate, and imposition of happiness at the workplace will not be necessary. (Ariana Stefanidis)
I think that masking a negative situation with a positive one is only going to make the the situation worse. I agree with the author of this article. If companies were more aware of each emotional state and personalty of their employees, then they would have a better time assessing what they can do to make the work environment a positive environment for everyone, even the ones who the most unhappy of them all. paridhi v
I definitely agree with Oliver Burkeman on this topic of “Fun at Work.” I certainly believe that it’s important to have fun and not feel pressured all the time at work because that is what makes jobs enjoyable. In fact, in the future, I would love to have office holiday parties and have fun events all the time. However, constructing a Gross Happiness Index and employing Chief Fun Officers are certainly overstepping the bounds. The workers shouldn’t be forced to be happy all the time. Also, I do agree that this new concept of generating fun (fungineering) for the employees puts a lot of pressure on the managers as well. The workers should definitely be placed in an environment that promotes happiness and fun like maybe a separate room where they can go to play games like Google, however they shouldn’t be faced with ridiculous movie posters while working hard in their cubicles. Forcing the workers to laugh and be happy at all times can create overwhelming and stressful work environment because everyone has different opinions on what’s fun and what’s not. I agree with the author that managers should concentrate on creating conditions where different personality types can flourish.
I can't agree more with this article. Every time I read articles about "fun companies to work at", I cringe. I think such notion is impossible, similar to what this article suggests. In my opinion, a comparison to our school would be appropriate. School is fun for some people, while dreadful to others. But as a collective group, if the group as a whole tried to make school "fun", it would be more of a burden to the initial group of people who dreaded school as they now have to put on a facade. I also think that the term "fun" shouldn't be used to describe a workplace; the word "passion" is more appropriate in my opinion. Just like the article suggests, I don't think having fun at work will necessarily improve efficiency and productivity of the group, but passion would. Pretending like everything is going swell and work is "fun", in my opinion, is a terrible idea.
I am not sure if others who read this article feel the same way but I believe the writer is just a grumpy, cynical man who is quite pessimistic. He completely bashes on companies trying to fuse fun with work, a notion that I see no problem with. What is the problem with accomplishing work by means of a little game? In my opinion, a little incentive attached to a game here and there to add a little spice to a rather mundane job can be beneficial. As stated in the article, happier workers do entail greater production. However, I understand the point the writer is trying to make, that all employees are not the same and that what one employee might fight fun another might find it boring. Rather than focusing on trying to fuse activities with work to increase happiness, he proposes taking time to evaluate all workers to see what each worker likes. I understand this approach and it could definitely work well for some companies. However, I still believe that a little game or activity here and there to change up the normal work routine is a great idea. And for the select few who do not appreciate these such activities- deal with it, it’s part of your job.
Won Park Period 9 I have also heard about how worker satisfaction can increase productivity. However, it is very interesting that studies show that forced fun can actually be a nuisance to workers. With this information, it can be hard to try and make the workplace fun. When are you trying to hard? I am sure when I have my own job, I will try to have some kind of fun associated with it. It is pretty depressing that bosses can do nothing but keep the workplace boring. Even if they tried, they would most likely fail.
This is a very interesting concept because in America, a lot of people complain about how they have rather mundane tasks to do in the office, where most of them work. However, workers in Google do something similar to this. Unfortunately, it is not so ubiquitous, but I believe that if there is a time for breaks during work, people will be more motivated.
I agree with the writer in that attempting to deliberately enforce happiness will only result in what he calls, the "paradox of hedonism." In order to prevent these attempts at lightening the atmosphere to feel like burdens, I think that the employees themselves should brainstorm and decide on how the work environment could be improved. That way, companies won't have to hire any more "fungineers" and the work environment can evolve to fit the personalities and desires of its employees.
AP Econ Pd.8 Chirag Soni I feel that happiness and fun should not have to be forced in ones career. When someone picks a career they should pick something that will give them happiness. When there are a lot of superficial people around you trying to condone a super corny happy office atmosphere I can imagine how annoying work can get. I think that the productivity of the work place will increase if negativity is looked down upon but there is no need to advocate a fake jolliness. This relates to what duties the employee has. An employee should not be working for an employer they feel miserable under. An employer should make sure his/her employee’s are happy but he shouldn’t have to do anything over the top.
This article was interesting because it talked about fun at work. Work and fun seem juxtaposing forces but bosses try to make a fun environment with things such as Christmas parties. Studies at Penn State showed that productivity goes down with more "fun" at work. Not sure anything can make work fun, one has to really love what they do to have fun at work. -VG Prd. 6
I believe the article Who Goes to Work to Have Fun? by Oliver Burkeman is very informative and accurate. It is comical that companies have certain positions such as fun officers or happiness engineers to boost employee spirit and morale. I believe that having these positions is unnecessary and extreme. The boss should implement ways to make the workplace a more positive, productive, and pleasant environment, but they should not extremely overdo the fun factor. Bosses need to allow their employees to be themselves and feel negative sometimes, because it is not healthy to constantly feel the pressure to be happy everyday. Just like the article stated, employees will feel more anxiety and negative emotions if they are forced to be happy. So, if bosses encourage their employees to be themselves then they will be truly productive to their own ability. Also, I agree with the article that companies need pessimists to predict worst-case scenario situations for businesses. Overall, this article was very interesting and I learned a lot.
different people have their own specific feeling on the jobs. decent people like very serious working condition, oppositely, optimistic people are fond of a fun workplace. so enforcing a workplace to be full of fun can negatively affect decent workers. my opinion is that people should find their own significance and interest in this job so that they can work more sufficiently. in the other word, workplace is for job. it is supposed to be serious. firms pay people to do the job and make them money, they do not pay workers to have fun in the workplace. per 9 Yan
If i were in a work place i think i would be able to get a lot more done if i were able to act the way i wanted, not happy all the time. Personally when i'm sad or angry i get my work done faster because my mind can focus on the work better. But companies hiring people as Chief of fussiness would probably take my job less seriously and overall get less done. Trying to provide a environment where people want to go is the direction that companies should do like Google already has. Thomas F
In my opinion, Oliver Burkeman’s op-ed “Who Goes to Work to Have Fun?” was rather fascinating and prevalent, especially with regard to modern American society. After reading this piece, I instantly thought of the expression, “Money cannot buy one happiness.” Burkeman is therefore valid in his claim, “The attempt to impose happiness is self-sabotaging.” Simply put, happiness cannot be achieved, reached, or acquired through artificial means. For this reason, it is essential that the workplace is one that is autonomous, fair, and diverse, allowing people from all walks of life to flourish and prosper. Moreover, this article reminded me of the common saying, “If you do what you love, you will never work a day in your life.” I sincerely believe that one should solely pursue his/her interests in choosing a certain career path. He/she should be minimally influenced by alternative motives, such as wage, prestige/reputation, and other potential benefits. As Burkeman states, “There’s nothing wrong with happiness at work. Enjoyable jobs are surely preferable to boring or unpleasant ones.” In fact, happiness actually plays a substantial role in increasing efficiency and productivity within the workplace.
Who Goes to Work to Have fun? - As soon as I read the title of the article it immediately caught my attention. It made me think of all the times that I visited my father’s real estate office and thought about how lively it looked. It wasn’t how I imagined offices to be. There were “score boards” of who had the most sales or who had sold a house that week and a birthday board with the names of the people whose birthday was coming up. It made me wonder what cause all of this, and then I realized that nobody would be motivated to come into work on a daily basis in a boring unappealing work place. If offices were more lively and encouraged a little bit of friendly competition then employees would be motivated and want to come into work. After all “Enjoyable jobs are surely preferable to boring or unpleasant ones; moreover, studies suggest that happy employees are more productive ones.” I think that if a workplace goes a bit over board with revamping it and make it resemble a preschool classroom then productivity may not be as high as it once was.
I agree with this author because of his claim that even though it is good for employees to be happy, and that happier employees are more productive, it is incorrect for the managers to try to generate fun. I think that the fun should come out of the work that you're doing or through some automatic means rather than through the managers trying to create fun for the employees artificially, as even if this is actually fun, i do see how he can make the argument that this may damage the productivity of the workers or may cause them to work a little too leisurely. The author states, "Instead of striving to make work fun, managers should concentrate on creating the conditions in which a variety of personality types, from the excitable to the naturally downbeat, can flourish." I agree with this, as attempting to create fun and happiness may not work, but I think that allowing fun to happen on its own can definitely lead to it happening. Karan L. Period 8
The idea that some companies are going to such extremes as to employ "Chief Fun Officers" and "Happiness Engineers" or are wasting valuable time and resources simply to measure their "Gross Happiness Index" is ridiculous. Referring to the previous essay we read, "On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs", I think these "happy consultants" certainly qualify as some. I agree with the article that when happiness or fun is forced, it is usually never attained. It's like when someone starts a joke with "Okay, this one is really funny" as if to persuade the audience rather than letting the joke take its natural course in getting people to laugh. Furthermore, I feel like it is also silly to treat a group of working professionals as if they were back in kindergarten with small, not very rewarding, games and tasks. If a company is concerned about employee morale, perhaps directly spending no more than a set period of time to ask about thoughts and suggestions from the employees themselves would be more effective than merely assuming that fun and games is the single key to happiness.
Shivani Sharma pd 9 I loved this article for many reasons. First of all, whenever I heard companies were moving towards this "fun atmosphere" idea, I always thought it would be so innovative and amazing and that there would be no repercussions. However, this article gives an in depth look about the pros and cons of having this fun work environment. My favorite line of the piece was, "the attempt to impose happiness is self-sabotaging". You can't force happiness because it is not a destination, it comes and goes throughout the journey of life. And the article does a nice job of mentioning on an economic level that happiness in a workplace doesn't necessarily correlate with an increase in productivity. Sometimes it can be detrimental if a person feels pressured to be so positive all the time just to fit in and a manager is enforcing this idea in the workplace. Fighting through struggles and unhappiness gives the body and mind the opportunity and satisfaction of happiness after problems have been dealt with. This applies outside of the workplace as well. Forcing too much of an emotion can counteract the intended emotion, leading to anxiety and depression. The honest answer to all of this is mentioned in the article. Autonomy, where it is appropriate, allows workers to flourish as people who work efficiently and become comfortable with who they are in the work community by being able to bring different personalities to the table.
This article brought up some very interesting thoughts. For one, I think it is an excellent idea to incorporate fun into the work environment but not the idea of "fun" that requires employees to report on a fun index which is absurd, and is somewhat a mandated action rather than a choice. I feel that the "fun" companies should be focused on is trying to create the conditions in which a variety of different types of people can flourish and enjoy doing their jobs. For starters, the companies can stop trying to impose rules for fun and actually have employees give their opinions on what they think should be regarded as fun and uplifting because what a company may think of as fun may be a huge turnoff for the employees. -Maresa Misir. Pd 8.
I have noticed that companies are trying to attract young workers with "fun" lately. They want higher educated people to stay with their company, and are aware that these workers can start their own business of switch more willingly than in past generations, and therefore, fun in the office is their solution to this dilemma. Personally, I think it's okay to have a few fun days here and there, just to lighten up the mood in the workplace, however, I don't think this should become a routine. Some fun would increase productivity, but after a while, it's actually a huge consumption of time. Therefore, the fun in the workplace should be kept in moderation. - Maisha Savani PD.8
It's hilarious that companies are hiring people whose main job is to try and make the work environment a fun place to be. It sort of reminds me of people laugh at everything. They try to make it seem like everything is funny, but you can tell that there faking it. The result is a very painful social situation. Tha fact that companies are hiring fungineers is also terrifying. It sort of remind me of 1984 and They Live. AA Per 9
I feel that while the author does provide some logical evidence, I do not think he takes into account that we are humans and not emotionless machines. While trying to optimize productivity is the obvious goal of businesses, they must not fail to consider the happiness of their workers. Aside from the job aspect, people need to enjoy themselves in order to work efficiently. I do not see a reason to take away the fun from jobs because that is where passion develops for people's jobs. Although the workplace cannot be extremely relaxed, it should be sufficiently pleasing for the workers. -Kevin Chao Period 8
I think this article gives an interesting point that happiness in the work field can be a positive and a negative. But I agree with the author's idea that managers should concentrate on creating the conditions in which a variety of personality types by giving employees as much autonomy. Although this idea does sound like a good plan, giving employees too much control can also be an issue because then it may be chaotic, but equal distribution of freedom is a good idea. But there also may not be an incentive of people to work harder because they are trying to gain the position that will give them more power. So I think the idea does have a good idea behind it, but I also think it won't be feasible. And in my opinion regarding happiness, I think the more happiness (rather than comfortability) will cause a higher production rate because then they are more willing to work since they genuinely enjoy their job.
I disagree with this article. I think it is important for managers to recognize the importance of encouraging fun in the workplace. Implementing specific programs in order to achieve an exciting environment is vital to creating a productive workplace. That is the case with companies like Google. Google is famed for its creative fun inducing tactics. It is also known for having the most productive workers. This should be the case in all work places.
I agree with the article. Work is work and there should be a difference between that and fun. Work can be fun, but trying to make boring work fun ends up seeming stupid, especially to those who don't want the work to be fun. At my job, for example, no one tries to make it fun. You can't make washing dishes and helping customers more fun than it is. If I got a prize after doing what I'm getting paid to do, I would get upset. My work can be fun when I'm around fun people, but there is no movie poster or office competition that could make my job anything that it isn't. I do what I do for the paycheck, and having that mentality with your job isn't necessarily bad, but trying to change my intentions can be very harmful.
I find this article interesting for many reasons. I feel like the idea/topic of happiness at work is one that's been long discussed. We all want to feel happy and content with our jobs. But more often than not, people don't feel this way. Instead millions of people hate their jobs, hate their bosses, hate going to work every day. And I don't think that's right. But I do believe there's a difference between enjoying the career you're in and being happy on the job. Firstly, you can't be happy all the time, and the article talks about this. We can't always be expected to be happy; we shouldn't feel as if we MUST be happy. If you're forced to be happy, you're not actually happy. Instead, you should pursue your passions and do what you love. You won't be happy all the time. But you can find satisfaction in your work, and you'll feel content with what you're doing. This doesn't mean work should or shouldn't be fun. You should have a good time. Hopefully, you get along with people in the office or at least have a few friends at work. Hopefully you're not stuck at a desk all day. But you shouldn't be forced to have fun. Fun means different things for different people, first of all. And the fact that people are hired to make people have fun at work is even worse! It's unnecessary and may actually backfire, as the article briefly explains. Yes, I want to one day work in a place that I enjoy being in. Yes, I hope to enjoy my job. But no, I won't expect myself to be happy at work every day. I won't expect myself to have fun every day; it is work after all. And no one should tell me that I need to be happy and that I need to have fun.
I thought this article was amusing, and its argument was cogent. I initially thought the author came off as a curmudgeon, but he backs up his points with oft-cited psychological research. Especially compelling, in my opinion, was the reaffirmation of the old adage about happiness: “When you try too hard to obtain it, you’re almost guaranteed to fail.” I think this is something we intuitively know, but when I was reading this, I thought of my own attempts to obtain happiness by reading Dan Gilbert’s Stumbling on Happiness. It’s an interesting idea nonetheless, and one that pins the rest of the points made in the article, from “emotional labor” to the dangers of putting “fungineering” in practice in light of administrators’ possible ulterior motives.
I was always taught that, the happier the workers of a company are, the more productive they are. This makes sense; no one wants to work if what they do is a drag and uninteresting. However, I was surprised to read that some efforts towards making the work environment a more fun one can be detrimental towards productivity. If happy employees are productive employees, how could a fun environment decrease their productivity? However, the article explained well how a "happy facade" is no substitution for actual enjoyment at the workplace. It brought up a good point that, if you have to force something, the results usually won't be very good. If you have to force happiness, you most likely won't actually be happy. I think the key to actual productivity in the work place is to find something you actually enjoy doing instead of settling for something that isn't what you want to do. Whether this is possible for most or not is another question. -KH8
The article One Last Thought on Labor has some very valid points and its overall argument is full of evidence and facts from studies which add to its ethos and logos. The thought that trying to hard to make work fun can make it even less fun is a very interesting concept. I know that if i worked in an environment that was shaped around this fake facade and these corny ways to try and boost moral and work ethic i would seriously consider a new career. In my opinion you have to love what you do in order to be successful and when you are successful at what you love that is when you will be able to have fun doing it. Until you meet that set of criteria the article is correct that trying to make work more fun just doesn't work. To make work more enjoyable there must be a bigger focus on equal employee treatment and equal promotion opportunity, workers need to have goals to strive toward. Stephen F. period 6
I feel like it's weird to think of work as fun. In every movie or book I've ever watched or read, the working parents dread their jobs because it's boring. But I feel that if a job was "fun" it wouldn't be taken as seriously. Instead, I agree that instead of striving to make work fun, managers should concentrate on creating the conditions in which a variety of personality types, from the excitable to the naturally downbeat, can flourish. This would be a far more effective way to insure a stable workplace.
In the labor force, happiness is a compensation everyone is looking for. Companies know that it is a key ingredient in order for a healthy workplace. Studies show that employees who are happy in their jobs are more productive, making the company as a whole more successful. This article explains how they are trying to generate fun in order to make their employees happier. I agree that instead of wasting money on “fungineers,” companies should concentrate on creating working conditions in which all employees can flourish. Google is an example of a company who molded their workplace to create an environment in which all employees could enjoy. By doing so, it increased the demand for a position and added value to it. AB pd. 9
This article definitely causes me to view the workplace differently because i always assumed that work was no fun but some companies according to this article promote it. I think its possible to be able to be productive while having fun but its hard to find that proper mix.
Going to college is an expensive investment in your future. Choosing the right major is important because you want to gain a profit from your investment. Some people, like Gardner from the article, know exactly what they want to be after college and know they will be happy in that profession no matter what the wage. Others, like myself, want to choose a major they can live comfortably on. If you view college as an investment, you want to choose a major that is demanded with a limited supply, like engineering. The article gives the comparison between the engineer and the pyschologist because unlike the engineer, there is an excess supply of psychology majors and a little demand for them, making it more difficult to obtain a job in that area. The longer you don’t have a job after college, the harder it is to get a profit from the money invested in college. AB pd. 9
"ONE of our core values is to inject fun and quirkiness into everything we do." This is so true. At first i was questioning why the author was so opposed to fun in the workplace until i saw the words Chief Fun Officers and Happiness Engineers. From that point on i knew that business owners, who have heard that a happy worker is a productive worker, would try some ploys to increase productivity by injecting artificial fun into the workplace. In the first line it said it; we create fun and we can create it out of nothing, its part of the reason we enjoy it. When businesses try to set fun up with motives like increasing productivity and distraction from low wages it defeats the purpose and has a negative effect. This was funny to read
I agree with what the author of the article said. I think employees have very little faith in managers making the workplace "fun. In my opinion, and as the author said, managers should focus on removing, or alleviating the negative aspects of work. If I were an employee, I would appreciate being able to leave work an hour hourly much more than I would appreciate a 30 minute "team-building" exercise which is supposed to be fun. So because of this, managers can make the workplace fun by just giving more freedom to their employees, then let the employees do what they like and have fun in the way they like. E.S. per 8
I think this article is interesting because it shows the dynamic between work and play. It shows that having fun at work does not always result in a "fun" environment for everyone and it certainly doesn't help with productivity. It also shows that there's a difference between loving what you do and having fun at work.
There is a theory in physics I believe that says that the mere observation of something can change its outcome. That, I think, is a main point of the article, or rather it is a main argument the author uses to make his point. The author says basically that if people consciously try to attain happiness, then it will always allude you, which makes sense. If someone tries to become happy, they'll make themselves miserable constantly trying. They'll never actually get to experience the happiness because they'll always be trying to become more happy. I also think its kind of ridiculous that "fungineers" actually exist. It seems like bosses are trying to hard. If they try too hard then that only enforces the idea that if you try to be happy, you'll never achieve true happiness. One shouldn't have to try to make ones job a fun experience, rather they should naturally feel that way. -Period 8/ TM
Jugal Pd. 8 I laughed out loud when the author of this article mentioned the word "fungineering." I think many people would agree with the author, myself included, that, on average, a happier employee means a more productive employee. I do not, however, support a totally transformed workplace with the primary purpose of exuding as a ploy to increase productivity. If a employer really wanted to help their employees' attitudes and productivity in that manner, he/she knows that an increase in wage/salary would do just the trick. Even though many times this is not possible, spending a smaller amount of money on someone who will 'funify' (my own word) a workplace may make employees wonder why that money isn't going to a better resource such as their own wages. I agree that a more fitting way to run the workplace would be to give employees more autonomy over their work. A worker whose wishes are being heard will come into work with a more positive attitude than a worker who despises the idea of "Funtastic Fridays", something he never signed up for when he took his job.
It is important for a person to enjoy their work. Sure they are working to make money, but they need to enjoy it since a majority of their life will be spent working.
From grades 7 to 9, I had a paid job as a volunteer instructor in a place that teaches abacus math. I didn't really like that job, so I welcomed fun activities hosted by the bosses as an opportunity to procrastinate from my work. As an employee, I liked fun activities, but for the wrong reasons. I think that fostering a light-hearted and easy-going environment in the work place has both pros and cons. The pros include that people are more likely to be creative and take initiatives. For instance, Google employees are given one day a week to collaborate with others. Some of the results of this include G-Mail and G-chat. However, I can also see how emphasizing "play" at work could lead to decreased productivity (the most notable example of this is The Office - the employees often had to stay late to finish their work because of the follies of their boss). Ultimately, I think that hosting fun activities at work is beneficial only if the employees actually enjoy their job and have an inner desire to contribute to improving their place of employment.
There's no harm in creating a fun work environment, the way companies like Google have, but it sounds like what the author is describing is a forced atmosphere of Stepford Smilers. The environment that some companies have been successful with is a more relaxed environment with employees that don't try to game the system, not a quantified fun scale generating a contrived happy exterior just for the sake of turnover rates. I'd say it's a valid article, but specifically for that sort of attempted plan concocted by a hopelessly out-of-touch and desperate management; a fun workplace can easily still be just as productive and efficient.
I think that it is definitely okay to have fun in the workplace. But it should be a free-willed fun, not forced or induced by a higher power. Nobody likes those people who come in early on a Monday morning, full of energy, singing holiday songs. And when the management forces people to smile and have fun, it’s like a scene from a dictatorial communist country. Everywhere you look, there’s propaganda showing happy civilians who live there, when in reality, everyone is miserable. Anytime anything is forced, it usually has the opposite affect. But I think if the employees have the freedom to do what they want, then they will be the happiest. -ArjunL Pd. 8
Its true when they say having a fun and enjoyable job is rare. And those who have one aren’t always earning tons or underachieving. Having happiness is hard in a persons job is hard and the company make it bored. They have to force the happiness on them and thats not real happiness. To force someone to be happy at the business isn’t right and will make someone miserable but keep it up long enough and force happiness/ real happiness will blend into one… That isn’t good if the lines are blended together. The working atmosphere should be a place of openness, not restrictions to ones ability to express themselves. Things need to change because all of this causes bad stress and that is terrible to everyones health. - Period 9, NG
I don't really know where I stand on this topic. I do know that work should be an enjoyable place where people love to wake up in the morning to but I don't like the idea of forced fun in the workplace. Fun is very subjective so this new environment may not be fun for all. On the other hand, this positive atmosphere may be very lively but it would probably reduce productivity and lose professionalism. I also don't like the idea of incentives on working adults. The article talked about "turning work tasks into games" which is so childish depending on your workplace. This would definetely reduce productivity and job satisfaction in this new and immature environment. -Lauren Thomas per 6
I don’t agree with this article. I believe that every job was made because there is a demand. If an office is so bleak that it is hurting the company there is a demand for someone to fix that. I wouldn’t think the title would be as ridiculous as a “fungineer” but something along the lines. Its not dumb if it works and if the company works more efficiently with it I don’t think there is a problem. Big companies like Google and Microsoft see this and make their facilities less like an office cubical but a lounge. Better benefits drives people to work more creatively because benefits allows more room for comfort.
I agree with the author of this because his points make total sense. The happier the employes are the better they work because they have the incentive to keep working. I will be honest with you If I were happy to go to work everyday I would try to do the best that I can because I will feel like I need to do do something that is productive and makes me a happier person. You also have to understand that the employers have to also make whatever they are doing practical and efficient.
I do think that a workplace should be a happy place and do what it can to make sure that employees are having the best experience possible. But, with that being said, this seems like a lot of work to keep people happy. I do think more work could get done in a happier more positive environment, but with that being said I also think there is another side to this. I think that happiness is obviously linked to fun, which could potentially lead to fun being valued over work. I almost feel like the fun officers and actual positions to make jobs more fun are childish. I feel like we learn growing up that there are certain things we have to do that we don’t always want to, and work with people that aren’t always easy. For the mission to be have fun I think it makes it a bit artificial and forced, and overall I think will hinder more than help. -Tara O'Shea
Workplace quirkiness is beneficial in improving the overall productivity and morale of employees in a workplace, but this article highlights the more negative effects that I believe are only prevalent when the workplace quirkiness is taken to an extreme and counteracts productivity. This focuses more on the motives behind "fungineering", at times used by managers to stray from a particular topic or ulterior motives. There is going to be something wrong with the administration if there is forced workplace quirkiness, but I would not eliminate the relaxed setting from workplaces as, a small diversion from a stressful workplace environment will overall increase job satisfaction. It is only when employees feel they are not working to the best of their potential because of intrusive workplace quirkiness. D.M, 8
i'm not going to lie i don't know what the purpose of the article was but if i had to guess i would say that i means that people should try to attempt to be at work regardless of what they get paid and if this was the meaning then yes, i agree. i think that if a person really loves their job and has passion for it then yea they will do a better job at what they are doing but, honestly for some people money can make them happier especially if they need it. not saying that im this kind of person but in many people's lives i feel like they would like to obtain both happiness and money but the thing with this is that they come hand in hand in a way and im not saying that if your poor your sad im saying that it just can lead to greater problems for yourself anywho, if my job in the future is anything like school, lord help us all...
ReplyDeleteAM period 6
I believe that giving the employees the ability to create their own workplace in their own image makes sense, but it does not hurt to make it too personalized.
ReplyDeleteI mean, in some cases I agree with this article by Oliver Burke; when employers strive to be tryhards, they could annoy their employees rather than try to help their employees. However, I do believe some effort into producing a more lively working atmosphere is very positive; just see how productive places like Google and Facebook (with their pingpong tables and etc) are in their respective computer science fields. Also, if the workplace is known to be laid back and relax, more people would want to work in a Google or a Facebook. Though, sometimes this does go overboard and just lowers productivity. I also agree with the fact that people should not be reminded whether they like their jobs; if they have to remind or question themselves, chances are they are not enjoying their work. But I cannot blame the employers for trying their best; human beings are paranoid people, and sometimes they try to do extra when extra isn't necessary (or can actually be potentially self-inflicting). Overall, though, I agree with Burke to a good extent.
ReplyDelete-J Tse
I personally think that there’s a fine line between fun and professionalism in the work place. On the surface, the idea of encouraging fun in the workplace seems to only have an upside, seeming beneficial. However, as the article notes, it may in fact be counter-intuitive. If employees are going to lose their sense of professionalism and no longer take work with the same dedicated mindset, I believe fun should not be as heavily stressed. The article also mentions that the “ability to experience negative emotions, rather than struggling to exclude them, is crucial for mental health.” I believe this is an equally important point that must be addressed within the workplace, in order to foster the most productive environment. Overall I agree with the overall point of the article that employees should be given as much autonomy as possible. If each employee is allowed to be independent, and is treated fairly, their productivity is then a function of their motivation. I believe then and only then will the best of an employee be shown.
ReplyDelete-TB Period 9 AP Econ
I agree with Burkeman's opinion that forcing a fun workplace atmosphere can be self-sabotaging in a way that causes employees to reject the atmosphere. Instead, the work atmosphere should flourish with a variety of personality types so that workers can be prepared for any situation that might present itself in the future. In addition, if employees chose to work for their employer because they love their job and what they are doing, there is really no need to create a fun workplace when the employees are doing what they love.
ReplyDeleteAB
To me work should be work. If I go to work to experience "Fun Officers or Happiness Engineers" I do believe that it does put an emotional toll on employees. It’s like forcing fun on someone 24/7 without having the ability to separate there real happiness from forceful happiness. I also agree that it does decrease productivity in the workplace. To me it kind of is telling your workers that as long as there having fun then they are doing work. Some people live in that mindset where they need to concentrate to get things done and accomplished but that's very hard to do when your boss is acting like a child. It takes away the atmosphere of responsibility along with work ethics. It doesn’t seem healthy as one of the most powerful countries to display our workplace as a place of fun and nonsense to others as well. You think other industries and countries are going to take you seriously and want to invest in you when you have to give prizes to your workers to actually work? It’s all about balance. For example the article said “the opposite effect, making people miserable and thus reaffirming one of the oldest observations about happiness: When you try too hard to obtain it, you’re almost guaranteed to fail.” meaning that you can’t expect people in your workplace as a whole to also catch onto having fun all the time. There’s a time and place for fun and a time and place for business. As long as you have a healthy atmosphere in the workplace people will find joy naturally working there and will also be productive.
ReplyDeleteSRB PERIOD 6
Robert Lis-Pd9
ReplyDeleteI believe that work shouldn't be a place in which everyone dreads to go to on a daily basis. Work does not necessarily have to be fun, although the work place should be tolerable and comfortable for the employees. As studies have shown, trying to make work for fun has shows negative results such as a decrease in production. Different people perceive things differently, so making work more "fun" may not be so fun for some people. I think it is vital to be a fair boss and treat all employees equally and allow them to have comfortable working conditions. With this approach, I believe that production rates would increase and the employees would also be happier. Work is a place where you must get things done and you get paid for doing so. No one ever said it would be an easy or fun task, but you still must get the job done.
LP Pd 8
ReplyDeleteI definitely with Mr.Graeber that there are some jobs that are bs in a sense that these jobs entails so much less work, yet people are being paid 10x more than the jobs that are important and require more labor (CEOs, lobbyists, administrative jobs). However at the same time, I think you can't knock out all the jobs that Mr.Graeber thought were useless because then you leave a lot of people unemployed and you need people to be working so that they can sustain a lifestyle and buy more consumer goods which keeps the economy flowing. It is also based on opinion whether or not a job has worth or not because of course some jobs may not be necessarily seen as an imperative job, but every job does have some kind of use. It is however, unfortunate that the jobs that are necessary (nurses, teachers, garbage collectors, mechanics) are not as paid as well.
Regarding the essay on The Economist, there is an argument made that the growing technology is lowering the input/output costs thus creating more wealth. However at the same time, the advanced technology is eliminating jobs which leaves people unemployed. That means less people will be able to use their money for any types of consumer goods which lowers the demand for a lot of items. So the use of technology is kind of a paradox because although the use of technology would essentially create more wealth, it will also leave more people to be poor. I think that either way technology will continue to grow and the real question is if we will decide to redistribute the income to even it out.
The idea that Tech and retail industries are trying to incorporate fun into their workdays is uplifting and optimistic. Although the idea of “Happiness Engineers” or the evaluation of the “Gross Happiness Index” seems a little foolish to me. Not everyone enjoys being prodded to smile while they are working. Thus, trying to impose happiness at the office may just further frustrate the employees who are only there for the sole purpose of receiving their paycheck. This fun atmosphere would be a burden to them rather than an uplifting experience. The bottom line is, happiness cannot be imposed on anyone. If someone is passionate about something and pursues a career in which they can live amongst that passionate, and imposition of happiness at the workplace will not be necessary. (Ariana Stefanidis)
ReplyDeleteI think that masking a negative situation with a positive one is only going to make the the situation worse. I agree with the author of this article. If companies were more aware of each emotional state and personalty of their employees, then they would have a better time assessing what they can do to make the work environment a positive environment for everyone, even the ones who the most unhappy of them all. paridhi v
ReplyDeleteR.L. Per. 8
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Oliver Burkeman on this topic of “Fun at Work.” I certainly believe that it’s important to have fun and not feel pressured all the time at work because that is what makes jobs enjoyable. In fact, in the future, I would love to have office holiday parties and have fun events all the time. However, constructing a Gross Happiness Index and employing Chief Fun Officers are certainly overstepping the bounds. The workers shouldn’t be forced to be happy all the time. Also, I do agree that this new concept of generating fun (fungineering) for the employees puts a lot of pressure on the managers as well. The workers should definitely be placed in an environment that promotes happiness and fun like maybe a separate room where they can go to play games like Google, however they shouldn’t be faced with ridiculous movie posters while working hard in their cubicles. Forcing the workers to laugh and be happy at all times can create overwhelming and stressful work environment because everyone has different opinions on what’s fun and what’s not. I agree with the author that managers should concentrate on creating conditions where different personality types can flourish.
I can't agree more with this article. Every time I read articles about "fun companies to work at", I cringe. I think such notion is impossible, similar to what this article suggests. In my opinion, a comparison to our school would be appropriate. School is fun for some people, while dreadful to others. But as a collective group, if the group as a whole tried to make school "fun", it would be more of a burden to the initial group of people who dreaded school as they now have to put on a facade. I also think that the term "fun" shouldn't be used to describe a workplace; the word "passion" is more appropriate in my opinion. Just like the article suggests, I don't think having fun at work will necessarily improve efficiency and productivity of the group, but passion would. Pretending like everything is going swell and work is "fun", in my opinion, is a terrible idea.
ReplyDeleteBen Jung period 9
I am not sure if others who read this article feel the same way but I believe the writer is just a grumpy, cynical man who is quite pessimistic. He completely bashes on companies trying to fuse fun with work, a notion that I see no problem with. What is the problem with accomplishing work by means of a little game? In my opinion, a little incentive attached to a game here and there to add a little spice to a rather mundane job can be beneficial. As stated in the article, happier workers do entail greater production. However, I understand the point the writer is trying to make, that all employees are not the same and that what one employee might fight fun another might find it boring. Rather than focusing on trying to fuse activities with work to increase happiness, he proposes taking time to evaluate all workers to see what each worker likes. I understand this approach and it could definitely work well for some companies. However, I still believe that a little game or activity here and there to change up the normal work routine is a great idea. And for the select few who do not appreciate these such activities- deal with it, it’s part of your job.
ReplyDeleteWon Park Period 9
ReplyDeleteI have also heard about how worker satisfaction can increase productivity. However, it is very interesting that studies show that forced fun can actually be a nuisance to workers. With this information, it can be hard to try and make the workplace fun. When are you trying to hard? I am sure when I have my own job, I will try to have some kind of fun associated with it. It is pretty depressing that bosses can do nothing but keep the workplace boring. Even if they tried, they would most likely fail.
This is a very interesting concept because in America, a lot of people complain about how they have rather mundane tasks to do in the office, where most of them work. However, workers in Google do something similar to this. Unfortunately, it is not so ubiquitous, but I believe that if there is a time for breaks during work, people will be more motivated.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Chen - Period 9
ReplyDeleteI agree with the writer in that attempting to deliberately enforce happiness will only result in what he calls, the "paradox of hedonism." In order to prevent these attempts at lightening the atmosphere to feel like burdens, I think that the employees themselves should brainstorm and decide on how the work environment could be improved. That way, companies won't have to hire any more "fungineers" and the work environment can evolve to fit the personalities and desires of its employees.
AP Econ Pd.8 Chirag Soni
ReplyDeleteI feel that happiness and fun should not have to be forced in ones career. When someone picks a career they should pick something that will give them happiness. When there are a lot of superficial people around you trying to condone a super corny happy office atmosphere I can imagine how annoying work can get. I think that the productivity of the work place will increase if negativity is looked down upon but there is no need to advocate a fake jolliness. This relates to what duties the employee has. An employee should not be working for an employer they feel miserable under. An employer should make sure his/her employee’s are happy but he shouldn’t have to do anything over the top.
This article was interesting because it talked about fun at work. Work and fun seem juxtaposing forces but bosses try to make a fun environment with things such as Christmas parties. Studies at Penn State showed that productivity goes down with more "fun" at work. Not sure anything can make work fun, one has to really love what they do to have fun at work.
ReplyDelete-VG Prd. 6
I believe the article Who Goes to Work to Have Fun? by Oliver Burkeman is very informative and accurate. It is comical that companies have certain positions such as fun officers or happiness engineers to boost employee spirit and morale. I believe that having these positions is unnecessary and extreme. The boss should implement ways to make the workplace a more positive, productive, and pleasant environment, but they should not extremely overdo the fun factor. Bosses need to allow their employees to be themselves and feel negative sometimes, because it is not healthy to constantly feel the pressure to be happy everyday. Just like the article stated, employees will feel more anxiety and negative emotions if they are forced to be happy. So, if bosses encourage their employees to be themselves then they will be truly productive to their own ability. Also, I agree with the article that companies need pessimists to predict worst-case scenario situations for businesses. Overall, this article was very interesting and I learned a lot.
ReplyDeleteLauren S. Period 6
different people have their own specific feeling on the jobs. decent people like very serious working condition, oppositely, optimistic people are fond of a fun workplace. so enforcing a workplace to be full of fun can negatively affect decent workers. my opinion is that people should find their own significance and interest in this job so that they can work more sufficiently. in the other word, workplace is for job. it is supposed to be serious. firms pay people to do the job and make them money, they do not pay workers to have fun in the workplace.
ReplyDeleteper 9
Yan
If i were in a work place i think i would be able to get a lot more done if i were able to act the way i wanted, not happy all the time. Personally when i'm sad
ReplyDeleteor angry i get my work done faster because my mind can focus on the work better. But companies hiring people as Chief of fussiness would probably take my job less seriously and overall get less done. Trying to provide a environment where people want to go is the direction that companies should do like Google already has.
Thomas F
Zeeshan Anwar – Period 8
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Oliver Burkeman’s op-ed “Who Goes to Work to Have Fun?” was rather fascinating and prevalent, especially with regard to modern American society. After reading this piece, I instantly thought of the expression, “Money cannot buy one happiness.” Burkeman is therefore valid in his claim, “The attempt to impose happiness is self-sabotaging.” Simply put, happiness cannot be achieved, reached, or acquired through artificial means. For this reason, it is essential that the workplace is one that is autonomous, fair, and diverse, allowing people from all walks of life to flourish and prosper. Moreover, this article reminded me of the common saying, “If you do what you love, you will never work a day in your life.” I sincerely believe that one should solely pursue his/her interests in choosing a certain career path. He/she should be minimally influenced by alternative motives, such as wage, prestige/reputation, and other potential benefits. As Burkeman states, “There’s nothing wrong with happiness at work. Enjoyable jobs are surely preferable to boring or unpleasant ones.” In fact, happiness actually plays a substantial role in increasing efficiency and productivity within the workplace.
Who Goes to Work to Have fun?
ReplyDelete- As soon as I read the title of the article it immediately caught my attention. It made me think of all the times that I visited my father’s real estate office and thought about how lively it looked. It wasn’t how I imagined offices to be. There were “score boards” of who had the most sales or who had sold a house that week and a birthday board with the names of the people whose birthday was coming up. It made me wonder what cause all of this, and then I realized that nobody would be motivated to come into work on a daily basis in a boring unappealing work place. If offices were more lively and encouraged a little bit of friendly competition then employees would be motivated and want to come into work. After all “Enjoyable jobs are surely preferable to boring or unpleasant ones; moreover, studies suggest that happy employees are more productive ones.” I think that if a workplace goes a bit over board with revamping it and make it resemble a preschool classroom then productivity may not be as high as it once was.
- Melinda R.
Period 6
Economics
I agree with this author because of his claim that even though it is good for employees to be happy, and that happier employees are more productive, it is incorrect for the managers to try to generate fun. I think that the fun should come out of the work that you're doing or through some automatic means rather than through the managers trying to create fun for the employees artificially, as even if this is actually fun, i do see how he can make the argument that this may damage the productivity of the workers or may cause them to work a little too leisurely. The author states, "Instead of striving to make work fun, managers should concentrate on creating the conditions in which a variety of personality types, from the excitable to the naturally downbeat, can flourish." I agree with this, as attempting to create fun and happiness may not work, but I think that allowing fun to happen on its own can definitely lead to it happening.
ReplyDeleteKaran L. Period 8
The idea that some companies are going to such extremes as to employ "Chief Fun Officers" and "Happiness Engineers" or are wasting valuable time and resources simply to measure their "Gross Happiness Index" is ridiculous. Referring to the previous essay we read, "On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs", I think these "happy consultants" certainly qualify as some. I agree with the article that when happiness or fun is forced, it is usually never attained. It's like when someone starts a joke with "Okay, this one is really funny" as if to persuade the audience rather than letting the joke take its natural course in getting people to laugh. Furthermore, I feel like it is also silly to treat a group of working professionals as if they were back in kindergarten with small, not very rewarding, games and tasks. If a company is concerned about employee morale, perhaps directly spending no more than a set period of time to ask about thoughts and suggestions from the employees themselves would be more effective than merely assuming that fun and games is the single key to happiness.
ReplyDelete- VL Period 8
Shivani Sharma pd 9
ReplyDeleteI loved this article for many reasons. First of all, whenever I heard companies were moving towards this "fun atmosphere" idea, I always thought it would be so innovative and amazing and that there would be no repercussions. However, this article gives an in depth look about the pros and cons of having this fun work environment. My favorite line of the piece was, "the attempt to impose happiness is self-sabotaging". You can't force happiness because it is not a destination, it comes and goes throughout the journey of life. And the article does a nice job of mentioning on an economic level that happiness in a workplace doesn't necessarily correlate with an increase in productivity. Sometimes it can be detrimental if a person feels pressured to be so positive all the time just to fit in and a manager is enforcing this idea in the workplace. Fighting through struggles and unhappiness gives the body and mind the opportunity and satisfaction of happiness after problems have been dealt with. This applies outside of the workplace as well. Forcing too much of an emotion can counteract the intended emotion, leading to anxiety and depression. The honest answer to all of this is mentioned in the article. Autonomy, where it is appropriate, allows workers to flourish as people who work efficiently and become comfortable with who they are in the work community by being able to bring different personalities to the table.
This article brought up some very interesting thoughts. For one, I think it is an excellent idea to incorporate fun into the work environment but not the idea of "fun" that requires employees to report on a fun index which is absurd, and is somewhat a mandated action rather than a choice. I feel that the "fun" companies should be focused on is trying to create the conditions in which a variety of different types of people can flourish and enjoy doing their jobs. For starters, the companies can stop trying to impose rules for fun and actually have employees give their opinions on what they think should be regarded as fun and uplifting because what a company may think of as fun may be a huge turnoff for the employees.
ReplyDelete-Maresa Misir. Pd 8.
I have noticed that companies are trying to attract young workers with "fun" lately. They want higher educated people to stay with their company, and are aware that these workers can start their own business of switch more willingly than in past generations, and therefore, fun in the office is their solution to this dilemma. Personally, I think it's okay to have a few fun days here and there, just to lighten up the mood in the workplace, however, I don't think this should become a routine. Some fun would increase productivity, but after a while, it's actually a huge consumption of time. Therefore, the fun in the workplace should be kept in moderation.
ReplyDelete- Maisha Savani
PD.8
It's hilarious that companies are hiring people whose main job is to try and make the work environment a fun place to be. It sort of reminds me of people laugh at everything. They try to make it seem like everything is funny, but you can tell that there faking it. The result is a very painful social situation. Tha fact that companies are hiring fungineers is also terrifying. It sort of remind me of 1984 and They Live. AA Per 9
ReplyDeleteI feel that while the author does provide some logical evidence, I do not think he takes into account that we are humans and not emotionless machines. While trying to optimize productivity is the obvious goal of businesses, they must not fail to consider the happiness of their workers. Aside from the job aspect, people need to enjoy themselves in order to work efficiently. I do not see a reason to take away the fun from jobs because that is where passion develops for people's jobs. Although the workplace cannot be extremely relaxed, it should be sufficiently pleasing for the workers.
ReplyDelete-Kevin Chao Period 8
LP Pd 8
ReplyDeleteI think this article gives an interesting point that happiness in the work field can be a positive and a negative. But I agree with the author's idea that managers should concentrate on creating the conditions in which a variety of personality types by giving employees as much autonomy. Although this idea does sound like a good plan, giving employees too much control can also be an issue because then it may be chaotic, but equal distribution of freedom is a good idea. But there also may not be an incentive of people to work harder because they are trying to gain the position that will give them more power. So I think the idea does have a good idea behind it, but I also think it won't be feasible. And in my opinion regarding happiness, I think the more happiness (rather than comfortability) will cause a higher production rate because then they are more willing to work since they genuinely enjoy their job.
I disagree with this article. I think it is important for managers to recognize the importance of encouraging fun in the workplace. Implementing specific programs in order to achieve an exciting environment is vital to creating a productive workplace. That is the case with companies like Google. Google is famed for its creative fun inducing tactics. It is also known for having the most productive workers. This should be the case in all work places.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the article. Work is work and there should be a difference between that and fun. Work can be fun, but trying to make boring work fun ends up seeming stupid, especially to those who don't want the work to be fun. At my job, for example, no one tries to make it fun. You can't make washing dishes and helping customers more fun than it is. If I got a prize after doing what I'm getting paid to do, I would get upset. My work can be fun when I'm around fun people, but there is no movie poster or office competition that could make my job anything that it isn't. I do what I do for the paycheck, and having that mentality with your job isn't necessarily bad, but trying to change my intentions can be very harmful.
ReplyDeleteI find this article interesting for many reasons. I feel like the idea/topic of happiness at work is one that's been long discussed. We all want to feel happy and content with our jobs. But more often than not, people don't feel this way. Instead millions of people hate their jobs, hate their bosses, hate going to work every day. And I don't think that's right. But I do believe there's a difference between enjoying the career you're in and being happy on the job. Firstly, you can't be happy all the time, and the article talks about this. We can't always be expected to be happy; we shouldn't feel as if we MUST be happy. If you're forced to be happy, you're not actually happy. Instead, you should pursue your passions and do what you love. You won't be happy all the time. But you can find satisfaction in your work, and you'll feel content with what you're doing. This doesn't mean work should or shouldn't be fun. You should have a good time. Hopefully, you get along with people in the office or at least have a few friends at work. Hopefully you're not stuck at a desk all day. But you shouldn't be forced to have fun. Fun means different things for different people, first of all. And the fact that people are hired to make people have fun at work is even worse! It's unnecessary and may actually backfire, as the article briefly explains. Yes, I want to one day work in a place that I enjoy being in. Yes, I hope to enjoy my job. But no, I won't expect myself to be happy at work every day. I won't expect myself to have fun every day; it is work after all. And no one should tell me that I need to be happy and that I need to have fun.
ReplyDeleteJess S pd9
I thought this article was amusing, and its argument was cogent. I initially thought the author came off as a curmudgeon, but he backs up his points with oft-cited psychological research. Especially compelling, in my opinion, was the reaffirmation of the old adage about happiness: “When you try too hard to obtain it, you’re almost guaranteed to fail.” I think this is something we intuitively know, but when I was reading this, I thought of my own attempts to obtain happiness by reading Dan Gilbert’s Stumbling on Happiness. It’s an interesting idea nonetheless, and one that pins the rest of the points made in the article, from “emotional labor” to the dangers of putting “fungineering” in practice in light of administrators’ possible ulterior motives.
ReplyDeleteKaran Singhal
AP Econ Pd. 9
I was always taught that, the happier the workers of a company are, the more productive they are. This makes sense; no one wants to work if what they do is a drag and uninteresting. However, I was surprised to read that some efforts towards making the work environment a more fun one can be detrimental towards productivity. If happy employees are productive employees, how could a fun environment decrease their productivity? However, the article explained well how a "happy facade" is no substitution for actual enjoyment at the workplace. It brought up a good point that, if you have to force something, the results usually won't be very good. If you have to force happiness, you most likely won't actually be happy. I think the key to actual productivity in the work place is to find something you actually enjoy doing instead of settling for something that isn't what you want to do. Whether this is possible for most or not is another question.
ReplyDelete-KH8
The article One Last Thought on Labor has some very valid points and its overall argument is full of evidence and facts from studies which add to its ethos and logos. The thought that trying to hard to make work fun can make it even less fun is a very interesting concept. I know that if i worked in an environment that was shaped around this fake facade and these corny ways to try and boost moral and work ethic i would seriously consider a new career. In my opinion you have to love what you do in order to be successful and when you are successful at what you love that is when you will be able to have fun doing it. Until you meet that set of criteria the article is correct that trying to make work more fun just doesn't work. To make work more enjoyable there must be a bigger focus on equal employee treatment and equal promotion opportunity, workers need to have goals to strive toward. Stephen F. period 6
ReplyDeleteI feel like it's weird to think of work as fun. In every movie or book I've ever watched or read, the working parents dread their jobs because it's boring. But I feel that if a job was "fun" it wouldn't be taken as seriously. Instead, I agree that instead of striving to make work fun, managers should concentrate on creating the conditions in which a variety of personality types, from the excitable to the naturally downbeat, can flourish. This would be a far more effective way to insure a stable workplace.
ReplyDelete- Lydia G
In the labor force, happiness is a compensation everyone is looking for. Companies know that it is a key ingredient in order for a healthy workplace. Studies show that employees who are happy in their jobs are more productive, making the company as a whole more successful. This article explains how they are trying to generate fun in order to make their employees happier. I agree that instead of wasting money on “fungineers,” companies should concentrate on creating working conditions in which all employees can flourish. Google is an example of a company who molded their workplace to create an environment in which all employees could enjoy. By doing so, it increased the demand for a position and added value to it.
ReplyDeleteAB pd. 9
This article definitely causes me to view the workplace differently because i always assumed that work was no fun but some companies according to this article promote it. I think its possible to be able to be productive while having fun but its hard to find that proper mix.
ReplyDeleteGoing to college is an expensive investment in your future. Choosing the right major is important because you want to gain a profit from your investment. Some people, like Gardner from the article, know exactly what they want to be after college and know they will be happy in that profession no matter what the wage. Others, like myself, want to choose a major they can live comfortably on. If you view college as an investment, you want to choose a major that is demanded with a limited supply, like engineering. The article gives the comparison between the engineer and the pyschologist because unlike the engineer, there is an excess supply of psychology majors and a little demand for them, making it more difficult to obtain a job in that area. The longer you don’t have a job after college, the harder it is to get a profit from the money invested in college.
ReplyDeleteAB pd. 9
"ONE of our core values is to inject fun and quirkiness into everything we do." This is so true. At first i was questioning why the author was so opposed to fun in the workplace until i saw the words Chief Fun Officers and Happiness Engineers. From that point on i knew that business owners, who have heard that a happy worker is a productive worker, would try some ploys to increase productivity by injecting artificial fun into the workplace. In the first line it said it; we create fun and we can create it out of nothing, its part of the reason we enjoy it. When businesses try to set fun up with motives like increasing productivity and distraction from low wages it defeats the purpose and has a negative effect. This was funny to read
ReplyDeleteKJ PD 8
I agree with what the author of the article said. I think employees have very little faith in managers making the workplace "fun. In my opinion, and as the author said, managers should focus on removing, or alleviating the negative aspects of work. If I were an employee, I would appreciate being able to leave work an hour hourly much more than I would appreciate a 30 minute "team-building" exercise which is supposed to be fun. So because of this, managers can make the workplace fun by just giving more freedom to their employees, then let the employees do what they like and have fun in the way they like.
ReplyDeleteE.S. per 8
I think this article is interesting because it shows the dynamic between work and play. It shows that having fun at work does not always result in a "fun" environment for everyone and it certainly doesn't help with productivity. It also shows that there's a difference between loving what you do and having fun at work.
ReplyDeleteD.C. period 8
There is a theory in physics I believe that says that the mere observation of something can change its outcome. That, I think, is a main point of the article, or rather it is a main argument the author uses to make his point. The author says basically that if people consciously try to attain happiness, then it will always allude you, which makes sense. If someone tries to become happy, they'll make themselves miserable constantly trying. They'll never actually get to experience the happiness because they'll always be trying to become more happy. I also think its kind of ridiculous that "fungineers" actually exist. It seems like bosses are trying to hard. If they try too hard then that only enforces the idea that if you try to be happy, you'll never achieve true happiness. One shouldn't have to try to make ones job a fun experience, rather they should naturally feel that way.
ReplyDelete-Period 8/ TM
Jugal Pd. 8
ReplyDeleteI laughed out loud when the author of this article mentioned the word "fungineering." I think many people would agree with the author, myself included, that, on average, a happier employee means a more productive employee. I do not, however, support a totally transformed workplace with the primary purpose of exuding as a ploy to increase productivity. If a employer really wanted to help their employees' attitudes and productivity in that manner, he/she knows that an increase in wage/salary would do just the trick. Even though many times this is not possible, spending a smaller amount of money on someone who will 'funify' (my own word) a workplace may make employees wonder why that money isn't going to a better resource such as their own wages. I agree that a more fitting way to run the workplace would be to give employees more autonomy over their work. A worker whose wishes are being heard will come into work with a more positive attitude than a worker who despises the idea of "Funtastic Fridays", something he never signed up for when he took his job.
It is important for a person to enjoy their work. Sure they are working to make money, but they need to enjoy it since a majority of their life will be spent working.
ReplyDeleteKK Period 8
From grades 7 to 9, I had a paid job as a volunteer instructor in a place that teaches abacus math. I didn't really like that job, so I welcomed fun activities hosted by the bosses as an opportunity to procrastinate from my work. As an employee, I liked fun activities, but for the wrong reasons. I think that fostering a light-hearted and easy-going environment in the work place has both pros and cons. The pros include that people are more likely to be creative and take initiatives. For instance, Google employees are given one day a week to collaborate with others. Some of the results of this include G-Mail and G-chat. However, I can also see how emphasizing "play" at work could lead to decreased productivity (the most notable example of this is The Office - the employees often had to stay late to finish their work because of the follies of their boss). Ultimately, I think that hosting fun activities at work is beneficial only if the employees actually enjoy their job and have an inner desire to contribute to improving their place of employment.
ReplyDeleteShweta Lodha
There's no harm in creating a fun work environment, the way companies like Google have, but it sounds like what the author is describing is a forced atmosphere of Stepford Smilers. The environment that some companies have been successful with is a more relaxed environment with employees that don't try to game the system, not a quantified fun scale generating a contrived happy exterior just for the sake of turnover rates. I'd say it's a valid article, but specifically for that sort of attempted plan concocted by a hopelessly out-of-touch and desperate management; a fun workplace can easily still be just as productive and efficient.
ReplyDelete-JW Per. 8
I think that it is definitely okay to have fun in the workplace. But it should be a free-willed fun, not forced or induced by a higher power. Nobody likes those people who come in early on a Monday morning, full of energy, singing holiday songs. And when the management forces people to smile and have fun, it’s like a scene from a dictatorial communist country. Everywhere you look, there’s propaganda showing happy civilians who live there, when in reality, everyone is miserable. Anytime anything is forced, it usually has the opposite affect. But I think if the employees have the freedom to do what they want, then they will be the happiest.
ReplyDelete-ArjunL Pd. 8
Its true when they say having a fun and enjoyable job is rare. And those who have one aren’t always earning tons or underachieving. Having happiness is hard in a persons job is hard and the company make it bored. They have to force the happiness on them and thats not real happiness. To force someone to be happy at the business isn’t right and will make someone miserable but keep it up long enough and force happiness/ real happiness will blend into one… That isn’t good if the lines are blended together. The working atmosphere should be a place of openness, not restrictions to ones ability to express themselves. Things need to change because all of this causes bad stress and that is terrible to everyones health.
ReplyDelete- Period 9, NG
I don't really know where I stand on this topic. I do know that work should be an enjoyable place where people love to wake up in the morning to but I don't like the idea of forced fun in the workplace. Fun is very subjective so this new environment may not be fun for all. On the other hand, this positive atmosphere may be very lively but it would probably reduce productivity and lose professionalism. I also don't like the idea of incentives on working adults. The article talked about "turning work tasks into games" which is so childish depending on your workplace. This would definetely reduce productivity and job satisfaction in this new and immature environment.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Thomas per 6
I don’t agree with this article. I believe that every job was made because there is a demand. If an office is so bleak that it is hurting the company there is a demand for someone to fix that. I wouldn’t think the title would be as ridiculous as a “fungineer” but something along the lines. Its not dumb if it works and if the company works more efficiently with it I don’t think there is a problem. Big companies like Google and Microsoft see this and make their facilities less like an office cubical but a lounge. Better benefits drives people to work more creatively because benefits allows more room for comfort.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author of this because his points make total sense. The happier the employes are the better they work because they have the incentive to keep working. I will be honest with you If I were happy to go to work everyday I would try to do the best that I can because I will feel like I need to do do something that is productive and makes me a happier person. You also have to understand that the employers have to also make whatever they are doing practical and efficient.
ReplyDelete-Per 6 B.S
I do think that a workplace should be a happy place and do what it can to make sure that employees are having the best experience possible. But, with that being said, this seems like a lot of work to keep people happy. I do think more work could get done in a happier more positive environment, but with that being said I also think there is another side to this. I think that happiness is obviously linked to fun, which could potentially lead to fun being valued over work. I almost feel like the fun officers and actual positions to make jobs more fun are childish. I feel like we learn growing up that there are certain things we have to do that we don’t always want to, and work with people that aren’t always easy. For the mission to be have fun I think it makes it a bit artificial and forced, and overall I think will hinder more than help. -Tara O'Shea
ReplyDeleteWorkplace quirkiness is beneficial in improving the overall productivity and morale of employees in a workplace, but this article highlights the more negative effects that I believe are only prevalent when the workplace quirkiness is taken to an extreme and counteracts productivity. This focuses more on the motives behind "fungineering", at times used by managers to stray from a particular topic or ulterior motives. There is going to be something wrong with the administration if there is forced workplace quirkiness, but I would not eliminate the relaxed setting from workplaces as, a small diversion from a stressful workplace environment will overall increase job satisfaction. It is only when employees feel they are not working to the best of their potential because of intrusive workplace quirkiness.
ReplyDeleteD.M, 8