Hacker News Reader

Comment by robocat | Hacker News Reader

They did look at causation: "the authors cite studies of changes within individual firms and organisations which seem to show that improvements in employee morale precede gains in productivity, rather than the other way round."

Many of us understand the other causation arrow (corporate unsuccess leads to unhappiness!)

View on HN

Seems obvious for anybody that's had a job. I'm more self-motivated than the average person. I'll go above and beyond on tasks and take pride in my work, which benefits the company. But if I work in a shitty workplace, even my work ethic and quality will drop and I might even start doing less than is required.

A preceding B does not imply that A causes B, it only implies that B doesn't cause A. Which doesn't really reduce the world of possible causal relationships by all that much, since there may be any number of other factors that weren't considered.

For example, it could just as easily be the case that adjustments to dysfunctional aspects of the company's internal politics improve both morale and productivity, but the morale change becomes apparent more quickly.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Little known trick to establish that A causes B is to trigger A at will and see if a B is observed.

If you trigger A 100 times and it precedes a B 98 times then you have established causation to a degree. Similar to the correlation coefficient there must be some causation coefficient.

You might imply it, but not triggering A should give less B than triggering A, too.

"Turning on my TV at 5 a'clock causes channel 4 to broadcast The Simpsons."

Good point. If B was just happening all the time, then a B would always happen after A. Have to make sure the inverse is true.

Though if B happens all the time, but also A causes B. Then there's really no way to establish causation.

"The Channel four studio has electrical sensors that will trip and broadcast the simpsons either at 5pm or when I turn on my TV at 5pm."

Sure. There is a subtle difference between "things that make employees happier also improve business performance" and "making employees happier improves business performance", but in both cases you generally want to do things that make employees happy if you want business success (you just might want to be a bit more selective about which happiness-boosting things).

Yeah, confounding* variable C causes happiness and profitability (A and B).

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

In some cases corporate unsuccess leeds to happiness. I've seen this in my case once. And hope that I'll not need to see this again.

Does it go something like: when the company tanks due to mismanagement > shareholder value suffers > employees feel vindicated?

I've seen a simpler version many times -- a chronically under-resourced group overworks itself until people leave and catastrophe strikes, and only then is it funded/etc.

I've seen it in the form of an employee desiring a negative outcome for the business because that outcome is tied to vengeance for another employee's perceived professional mistake.

E.g., "I'm not going to help that team because they need to feel the pain of the decision I didn't like."

Sometimes you just don't have ability to help. You are only observer and fail makes you happy, because you predicted it and you tried to stop it. But no one was listening.

Isn't that still confounded by new management or shift in thinking at the top? You need an RCT to tease everything out.

Yes, this! "Be happy first", per "The Happiness Equation" by Paschra.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com