4 ms·

Like many other tools utilised by powerful leaders/CEOs, mandatory positively, too, is a means to an end. An excolleague of mine was a "happiness engineer" at

Like many other tools utilised by powerful leaders/CEOs, mandatory positively, too, is a means to an end. An excolleague of mine was a "happiness engineer" at a FAANG-esque firm, we discussed the pros and cons of ensuring positive communication is demonstrated in all echelons of the business. We were delighted knowing that although discontent existed in some engineers, the mandatory happiness messaging prevented them from gaining any real traction and material support from the rest of the business, since that goes against the business culture. Thus, the problematic engineers could be dealt with and removed with minimal impact on the morale and reputation of the company.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sublinear 4y ago
I generally agree that a positive culture lets people focus on their work. I don't agree that a negative outlook should automatically dismiss someone or their ideas. That's seriously crazy toxic. Some of the best work comes from frustration and it's totally worth it to dig into that resource when you have problems being swept under the rug by maliciously cheery people.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  It's not very HN to do this, but "whoosh"
  - vore 4y ago
    Judging from the commenter's other comment, maybe it's not that whooshy unless they're really committed to the bit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33714952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33714952
  - sublinear 4y ago
    > Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. From the FAQ. I'm entirely aware what I was replying to may have been satire, but I don't care. What's it worth to you?
dEnigma 4y ago
I assume this must be a joke since it sounds like something straight out of a dystopic novel. But then again you also talk about doing some "reputation management work with the defense sector" in an older comment, so I'm genuinely wondering if you're serious.
- PradeetPatel 4y ago
  I honestly don't see anything dystopic about it. The end goal of any business and corporation is to make money, and the objective of every manager is to provide value for their stakeholder. Although at first it may seem awfully bleak, but one must consider the broader implication of maintaining a culture harmony and stability, especially for larger companies in the age of social media, where a small group of disgruntled individual contributors can cause significant reputation damage. Happy to discuss this further, I am interested in your views too. There could also be a cultural difference as I've mostly worked in India and the Middle East.
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    What good is money if it won't buy you the services/products you require? In that case, the goal of the business or corporation or organization is not to make money, it's to create those services/products. Making money along the way is then seen only as an organization tool that allows you to build those services/products by coordinating technology, material, labor etc. The reward is not the pile of money that you can run off to some Shangri-la with and enjoy a few more years of luxury or whatever, it's seeing the thing you built take form. This notion might seem alien to our hyper-financialized modern economy (which seems suicidally foolish to me), but this is how industrialists in past eras often thought, and is not entirely unheard of today, either.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - maeil 4y ago
    > The end goal of any business and corporation is to make money, and the objective of every manager is to provide value for their stakeholder. This is being stated as if it's some kind of universal law of physics, when it's as far from that as it can be. Modern society is built on past businesses, corporations and managers who did not have those end goals and objectives.
q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
This sounds so endlessly fascinating. I love the idea of this sort of intentional cultural engineering. Can you give an example of "mandatory happiness messaging"? What does a structured program for that look like?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sublinear 4y ago

I generally agree that a positive culture lets people focus on their work. I don't agree that a negative outlook should automatically dismiss someone or their ideas. That's seriously crazy toxic. Some of the best work comes from frustration and it's totally worth it to dig into that resource when you have problems being swept under the rug by maliciously cheery people.

jvanderbot 4y ago
It's not very HN to do this, but "whoosh"
- vore 4y ago
  Judging from the commenter's other comment, maybe it's not that whooshy unless they're really committed to the bit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33714952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33714952
- sublinear 4y ago
  > Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. From the FAQ. I'm entirely aware what I was replying to may have been satire, but I don't care. What's it worth to you?

dEnigma 4y ago

I assume this must be a joke since it sounds like something straight out of a dystopic novel. But then again you also talk about doing some "reputation management work with the defense sector" in an older comment, so I'm genuinely wondering if you're serious.

PradeetPatel 4y ago
I honestly don't see anything dystopic about it. The end goal of any business and corporation is to make money, and the objective of every manager is to provide value for their stakeholder. Although at first it may seem awfully bleak, but one must consider the broader implication of maintaining a culture harmony and stability, especially for larger companies in the age of social media, where a small group of disgruntled individual contributors can cause significant reputation damage. Happy to discuss this further, I am interested in your views too. There could also be a cultural difference as I've mostly worked in India and the Middle East.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  What good is money if it won't buy you the services/products you require? In that case, the goal of the business or corporation or organization is not to make money, it's to create those services/products. Making money along the way is then seen only as an organization tool that allows you to build those services/products by coordinating technology, material, labor etc. The reward is not the pile of money that you can run off to some Shangri-la with and enjoy a few more years of luxury or whatever, it's seeing the thing you built take form. This notion might seem alien to our hyper-financialized modern economy (which seems suicidally foolish to me), but this is how industrialists in past eras often thought, and is not entirely unheard of today, either.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- maeil 4y ago
  > The end goal of any business and corporation is to make money, and the objective of every manager is to provide value for their stakeholder. This is being stated as if it's some kind of universal law of physics, when it's as far from that as it can be. Modern society is built on past businesses, corporations and managers who did not have those end goals and objectives.

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago

This sounds so endlessly fascinating. I love the idea of this sort of intentional cultural engineering. Can you give an example of "mandatory happiness messaging"? What does a structured program for that look like?