The Science of Happiness: The View From One Research Center

This article features a written interview between TAHP coeditor, Jessica Grossmeier, and the codirectors of the Lee Kum Sheung Center for Health and Happiness at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Written content was subjected to editing and approved by Drs Viswanath and Kubzansky prior to publication.

Please provide a brief overview of the work you do at the Lee Kum Sheung Center for Health and Happiness at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The overarching goal of the Lee Kum Sheung Center for Health and Happiness at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (Lee Center) is to build a rigorous, interdisciplinary science to understand the interplay between psychological and social well-being and physical health for the benefit of individuals and communities around the globe.

The Center has 2 key foci. One is to conduct rigorous research in positive health science including understanding the individual and social factors that contribute to positive health outcomes and identifying potential interventions that promote positive health. The second is to conduct foundational research in communication and knowledge translation, their relationship to health and well-being, and how this research may be translated to influence policy and practice. ^1,2,3

In addition to conducting original research, the Lee Center strives to achieve its goals through research seminars, funding innovative research in positive health among early-stage investigators and doctoral students, training the next generation of scholars and practitioners, and holding convenings on critical subjects of interest to the Center. Examples include a workshop on “Happiness and Health in Translation,” designed to bring together policy makers and researchers to consider what knowledge is actionable now and what gaps remain in the research, and a workshop on well-being measurement, seeking to establish the best measures for use in research, surveillance, or for other purposes (with a book describing the proceedings of the workshop forthcoming).

Employers are increasingly interested in initiatives that aim to improve the happiness levels of their employees. How is employee happiness linked to business outcomes?

The evidence that “employee happiness” is linked to business outcomes is equivocal. Having said that, there is an evolution in thinking among employers from focusing on occupational health and employee safety to employee wellness and, in some cases, well-being. Preliminary findings from our research with C-suite leaders points to a number of reasons for this evolution. There is greater recognition among employers that health is but one component of overall employee well-being and other realms such as financial well-being are also critical. Similarly, some employers have recognized that greater alignment is necessary between the core values of the company and employees’ desire to be good citizens of a community where the companies operate. In addition, leaders have sensed that employees would like to feel a sense of pride in working for a company that is a good steward of the environment and community well-being. Lastly, although the “bottom line” is not always clear, there is increasing attention to measuring employee wellness and its impact on companies’ success through various “report cards.”

It appears from the many books, lectures, and articles on the topic of happiness that there is no single consensus definition being used to understand levels of happiness and its contributing factors. Is there a definition you favor as part of your work/research?

We do not have a single consensus definition of happiness. However, both in lay publications and in some scientific publications there are claims about what makes people happy. We view this as an empirical question that requires careful research and a strong evidence base before drawing conclusions on what makes people “happy.” Moreover, the term “happiness” is often used interchangeably with “subjective well-being,” a broader term that has been divided into 3 subdomains capturing experiences of positive feelings (hedonic well-being—most closely correspondent with the term “happiness”), a sense of purpose and meaning (eudaimonic well-being), and/or levels of satisfaction with one’s quality of life as a whole (evaluative well-being). Although factors that predict one domain of subjective well-being often predict other domains, they are not necessarily uniform. As a result, when conducting research on the topic, it is important to distinguish carefully between the different forms of subjective well-being under consideration. ⁴ For example, some workers may find a great sense of purpose in their work, even though they do not report high levels of happiness per se.

Mindset and positive psychology research indicate happiness can be influenced by how an individual engages in the world and views their circumstances. But circumstances such as one’s workplace environment, homelife, and access to resources can also influence happiness. For employers interested in supporting their employees’ happiness, what is the role/responsibility of the employer to try to address broader systemic/environmental issues in addition to providing individual interventions to employees?

As we said earlier, there is increasing recognition among some employers that they need to take a more “systems” approach to promoting well-being. Such an approach recognizes not just the physical health and occupational safety of the employees but also ensuring attention to mental health and financial well-being and offering opportunities to promote social well-being, such as supporting volunteer opportunities in the community. Some of the same employers, either by design or unintentionally, are addressing social determinants of health such as addressing food deserts in the community or helping local schools, leading to a sense of pride among the employees that they are working for a company that cares. There are many such examples of employers going beyond attending to individual employee well-being. In addition, there is increasing recognition that programs that seek to increase employee well-being solely by offering wellness programs that help employees improve their health behaviors may not be sufficient. ⁵ Structural changes in the workplace may be needed for genuine or lasting improvements in worker well-being.

Many organizations have limited resources to invest in health and well-being initiatives for their employees or their community members and yet it seems that there are numerous approaches being endorsed to improve happiness. How might an organization identify the approach that will be most effective for their population?

Interventions need not always be costly. In our interviews with C-suite leaders, we learned some innovative ways through which employers can intervene. One example is to utilize the talent and expertise of the employees to provide services to the community. For example, an employer with employees who have expertise in science and engineering can provide time off to employees to tutor math and science in the local schools. Or, employees’ volunteer outings could be designed around building community services. Employees’ technical expertise could be tapped to provide technical assistance to local community services. The most “effective” approach is when employer programs are aligned with values and desires of the employees and when services are codesigned with employees.

Is there any final guidance that you would offer to employers seeking to increase employee happiness or psychological well-being based on the research from your Center?

Often when considering what factors might contribute to happiness or subjective well-being, people tend to focus on individual-level strategies, such as engaging in physical activity, meditation, or keeping a gratitude journal. While these kinds of activities can certainly contribute, often there are structural factors at the level of an organization or community that can have a significant influence as well, and this is particularly relevant for employers. For example, providing employees with more flexibility and control over their schedules, or promoting more positive relationships in the workplace, can also lead to improvements in employee well-being. ⁶