The Simple Secret of Being Happier…

Key Takeaway

Simply sharing more meals with others can dramatically improve your well-being. Studies show that the number of shared meals per week is as influential on life satisfaction as income and employment status. In America, people now share only half their meals on average—and this social disconnection is fueling loneliness, political polarization, and declining happiness, especially among youth. Start today: schedule one more shared meal this week with a friend, family member, or colleague.

Episode Overview

Professor Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, director of Oxford's Well-being Research Centre, discusses alarming trends from the World Happiness Report: American well-being is declining, especially among youth who now rank 62nd globally. He reveals how shared meals are as important as income for happiness, explores why GDP growth doesn't equal well-being, and explains how loneliness fuels political polarization and anti-system voting.

Full Transcript

Transcript of The Simple Secret of Being Happier… from On Purpose. Auto-generated from episode audio; may contain minor errors.

Only one in four people, less than a quarter in the States report high workplace wellbeing. That's really, really worrying. The way you drive home from the office, the mood that you're in will impact your wife, your children. This feeds into our societies and our communities big time. We should not have had to write a book on why workplace well-being matters. The world of work in which God knows how much time we all spend. It ought to be naturally positive place. And it isn't. Hey everyone, welcome back to OnPurpose, the place you come to become happier, healthier, and more healed.

Today's guest is someone who's going to help us do exactly that. I'm speaking about Yan Emanuel Denv, a professor of economics and behavioral scientist at the University of Oxford and director of well-being research center. Yan is a leading expert on the economics of well-being and co-leads the world's largest study on how people feel at work. His latest book, Why Workplace Well-being Matters, explores how happiness at work shapes our lives, businesses, and society. If you want to lead better, if you want to know how to have happiness in your teams, in your workplace, and in your life, go and grab a copy of this book.

I promise you, you won't regret it. Please welcome to the podcast, Yan Emanuel Denv. Yan, it is great to have you here. Jay, thank you for having me. It's so wonderful to get the opportunity to reconnect as well. First question I want to ask you is you're part of the biggest study on happiness in the world. What's the most heartbreaking thing that you found in the Western world, especially in the United States of America, a breakdown over social tissue and that underpins the decline of well-being as we pick it up thanks to the Gallup World Poll metrics, the decline in the ranking of the United States in particular, which has now tumbled out of top 20 this year again, whereas about a decade ago, the US would have been 12th or 13th in the world.

And that I think is a worrying decline given um how important the United States is. Needless to say, and we've been digging into why there's this gradual decline in the US in terms of their well-being as measured through how people experience their lives themselves. So self-rated life satisfaction. And what we're finding is huge inequality. So there's a very wide distribution in terms of well-being. And then there's the inequalities also in terms of generational differences. So, we find that youth, especially in the United States, have tumbled off a cliff in terms of their self-reported well-being.

The way that they experienced their lives, if you were to look just at youth in America by itself, they they'd be 62nd or 63rd in the World Happiness Report ranking. Look at the 60 plusers, they'd still be in the top 10 of the World Happiness Report. And I think that's really telling. But I think if there's one thing that stood out in recent years looking at from the World Happiness Support general well-being perspective, it would have to be the precipitous decline in well-being in the US in particular.

Why are younger people becoming unhappier? unhappier? unhappier? There's a variety of things that play with youth. Um people are swift to point in direction of social media, but I think that's a little uh a little easy. It's easy to vilify the tech companies. But um if you actually talk with youngsters and do qualitative focus groups, what you find is it's affordability first and foremost, affordability of studies. Um the cost of studying has outpaced inflation by a long mile in the United States. And so you find that that's a real worry.

The second thing that comes to the four when you really dig into why youth is is off a cliff is the fact that they're very worried about the future of work. and I cannot blame them. How in the world are you going to catch up with Chad GPT at this point in terms of studying engineering or law or medicine or what have you? Uh and so there's real worries and concern about what they'll be doing. And so this sort of social contract that's always been there about okay, we'll always do better than our parents and every generation will make its step forward.

There's a lot of um doubt around that at the moment. And then there's no way around that. There's also social media. Um so social media is an extraordinary tool. Um but that does distract us from a lot of the things that would otherwise be more productive or potentially more purposeful. And now social media has done a lot of good and has the power to do a lot of good. And I think your podcast and and the wisdom nuggets of wisdom that you share through social media are extraordinary.

But we really ought to be thinking hard, kids, parents, policy makers all together to see, can we put the social back into social media somehow and do it together. So let's not cut corners and sort of blame social media and ban social media. No, we we ought to really work together. It's not something you're going to be putting back in the box anytime soon. It's here to stay social media, but it's about making it work for everybody in a way uh that is positive for well-being.

So the drop in youth is a combination of factors. It's it's uncertainty, anxiety, uh uh distraction, um and uh affordability issues uh for for youth at this point. So they're really they're really sort of an existentialist side crisis that they're having to deal with and that's not easy for them to grapple with and we pick it up in their self-reported life satisfaction. satisfaction. satisfaction. Yeah. I really like the fact that when you've actually sat down and talked to individuals, you don't get this glazed overview of what the issue is, right?

You get a very specific set of factors that are affecting well-being. When you talk about affordability, you mentioned education. education. education. What has shifted in the affordability of education? How different is it in the last 30, 20, 10 years from when these 15 to 24 year olds, their parents were growing up to where they are now? What have been the biggest shifts in affordability? affordability? affordability? Everything's become more expensive. But if you look at the cost of education, the cost of tuition fees has has risen quicker and faster than than inflation because companies and organizations require you to have degrees.

And so there's sort of a monopoly, if you will, at a national scale around you have to have a degree in order to obtain a good job. And so then obviously there's a a premium to be extracted um and and and in markets that's the way economics tends to work. But now I think there's going to be a lot of pressure being put on that now because it's not quite clear the extent to which learning through universities is going to happen and how that can be compared to learning through other means that might be less expensive.

If chat GPT is so good as we've all seen it in action and the other um uh large language models, then the whole question around learning and how to use your skills is going to be very different. Maybe other types of jobs, nursing, uh uh plumbing, uh the kinds of stuff that chap Chatt is not very good at as far as I can tell. Maybe those kind of jobs will come to the four and people will opt back into those kind of jobs and not always feel the need to necessarily go into tertiary education of the liberal arts type.

We hire a lot of people and I can't remember the last time I looked at what college someone went to. Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. Because it's just not become an important factor because the skills that we need to grow are not the skills that people are learning in college. We are expecting them to be able to prove it on the job to show experiments to create work and of course we're not hiring at the scale of the largest companies in the world. So there's a different uh task for sure but it's interesting to hear you say that because I think we are moving away from that as time goes on.

I think so depending on what career path I'm going to take. to take. to take. And I think third year education, universities and colleges in particular, they're in for a ride because they'll have to go sub substantively the courses and what what the skills are being taught cannot be outdated. And universities, they take a long time to change, but Chad GPT is really catching up. When you talk about uncertainty, when I was at college, we were being told that everyone should dream of being a data scientist.

Like that was the goal. That's what would be the ideal career. If you were talking to parents today, what skill would you encourage them to think about exposing their children to or college students to think about learning in the uncertain environment that we're at right now? No. And frankly, myself, the team, Chad GPT does all the coding at this point for us. But it may not be far off that the real skill in the future of education will be asking the right questions and not the skill set to find answers through data science or engineering because tools and machinery and large angles models will do that for us.

But we still need to ask the right questions to prop the machines to do the job for us. So I think maybe we'll shift back to questions and the right questions rather than the skills to make and build out answers to questions posed by somebody else. I'll be teaching for the first time at the University of Oxford a class on the science of well-being in business policy and life and the fact that this new elective was overs subscribed from never having been taught a bit like Lori Santos at Yale uh though in this case within the business school uh with about a third of the entire MBA court signing up for this a class that never been taught no word of mouth no nothing I think also speaks to the question you just raised around uncertainty looking for answers asking the right questions.

And so that's exactly what we'll be doing in this class and speaks to the point we just raised. I will be asking in this class more questions than providing answers and we will debate it. We'll be asking questions around purpose and meaning and and the role of income and well-being and and how much is enough um and uh what's the human case, not just the business case for investing in workplace wellbeing and so on and so forth. And so maybe that's a sign of the times that I'm starting to teach this class at Oxford and that students are signing up for it in droves and it's about asking the bigger questions rather than just looking for tools and tricks and skills.

I agree with that approach and we grew up at a time where answers made you smart smart smart and today we're living at a time where questions make you smarter because the answers are available. It's easy. Wikipedia anyul Yeah. It's it's easy. you your smartness comes through the right questions. right questions. right questions. Exactly. And I couldn't agree with you more that whether it's art, whether it's math, whether it's engineering, whether it's design, it's like, do you know what you're searching for? I want to go off what you just said about the conversations and the debates you want to start in your class.

And I'm so glad that that class exists because I think it's been needed for a long time, especially in business schools because the people that are at the business schools are going to go off to be leaders of organizations and companies. And if they don't understand the value of well-being, of well-being, of well-being, it's pretty impossible for that that anyone else will. You just said there a question that you think people would debate is how much is enough. I wanted to get the empirical take on how much is enough.

So first and foremost, two Nobel Prize winners, Angus Deon and Danny Conne, they published a paper showing that you may remember this figure about $75,000 was the golden number. Now, truth be told, it depends also on how you define well-being. If it's about sort of positive experiences in the moment, then yes, they were right. Back in the days, so obviously you would have to inflation adjust that today. It was about 75K. But if you if what matters to you is sort of life evaluations, how you evaluate the quality of life as you stand back, then income plays a bit more of a role and it went up a bit higher like 120,000.

Again, I would need to inflation adjust. The thing that all economists and all of the science agrees on is there's huge diminishing marginal returns to further income. And so for as soon as you reach about 100 120 150,000 then it becomes difficult and more and more difficult to pick up differences in well-being from further income. further income. further income. The relationship is logarithmic. As I say, to have the same impact on your well-being from moving from 20,000 to 40,000, you would need another 40,000. To then have the same impact again, you would need from 80 to 160,000.

To then have the same impact on your wellbeing again, you would need to move from 160 to 320,000. to 320,000. to 320,000. And so that's how it sort of creeps up. There's continues to be increases, but it requires way more money to find the additional increase. Now, you ask the question why? And the reason is unless you're inheriting money or you're winning the lottery, you still have to work for it and you're starting to make compromises and you're making compromises in terms of work life balance, seeing your friends and family stress, you're rising in the hierarchy, you're responsible for other people.

And so there's tradeoffs at that point. And while yes, more money may allow you to do more things and live bigger and nicer, you will be missing out on other drivers of well-being. And this is where we come back to the science of well-being is that in our societies, we've been led to believe in particular so in the United States that money does make you happy and the more the better. Yes. But the trade-offs you're starting to make are real and they're real in terms of sharing meals with your friends and family.

They're real in terms of looking after your own health, physical and mental. And so all in all, uh, it weighs it back down and you find l little or no difference anymore in people's life satisfaction above a certain point. And so there is a bit of an optimal point for well for for well-being in terms of income. It's interesting because it's not that we don't all want and need more money. It's the fact that those roles and responsibilities come with more work, more sacrifices, more choices, more more difficult options.

could be more stress mentally and physically if you're not prioritizing that. And and it's interesting to think about that because you would hope that if people had more money that they would be able to reduce some of their problems, which is true. I think it can decrease some of your issues, but it's interesting to think about the proportion of happiness. And you're absolutely right, but only up to a certain point. So the real issues that you're solving with money, the deeper issues like daily anxieties, paying off mortgage, paying off your loans, paying for the basic necessities, you're there after say 100 or $120,000 unless you live in like New York or LA or London.

or London. or London. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. But but and so this is obviously context dependent and inflation needs to be inflation adjusted, etc., etc. But the the tradeoffs starting to weigh in after that sort of situation point way more heavily than the benefits of further money at that point. And that's real. And but the fact of the matter is the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the data is right there. I could show you right now if I brought on my computer that extraordinary line.

So if you don't have much money, it matters a great deal because it solves real issues as you were alluding to. But after a certain point, obviously depending where you are, LA, New York, there'll be a bit more. But after a certain point, the basic amenities, necessities, the the real worries are taken care of, then aspiring for even more money will by all means go for it. But beware of the trade-offs you're making. And then that will start putting a real break on the the opportunity for improving your well-being because you're going to be your integrity might be out of the window.

uh you'll be more responsible, stress, family, work life balance, physical, mental health, everything we've just alluded to. And the the fact of the matter is people underestimate these other drivers of one's well-being in our societies and particularly in the United States. There's this real focus on wealth and income and everything around us from marketing and so on and so forth pushes us to think in the direction of okay, got to make more money, it'll make me happier. We forgo and underestimate the importance of something like a social connection running into people having shared meals and and we can talk about this.

We've got new data on this. It's just just extraordinary in the United States. And this is brand new research just come out in the world happiness report published on March 20th of this year, International Day of Happiness. And one of the most we always knew social capital, the importance of social connections in the field. We know that people underestimate the importance of social ties or social lives. I had no idea just how powerful and important our social lives were for our well-being until this. In the United States, we've got data on how many of your meals are being shared uh on a week- toeek basis.

So, how many of your lunches, how many of your dinners? So, a variable that runs from zero to 14. Seven lunches, seven dinners. Fortunately, we don't have anything about breakfast, but anyway, lunches and dinners. In the US, on average, people now have about seven of the 14 meals together. That means half of your meals on average in the US are essentially dining alone. What we've seen is an increase of 53% to be precise in America over the last two decades in dining alone. If you slice and dice that by age groups, it's been an increase of an almost doubling for youth.

So below 30 year olds are now almost twice as likely to be dining alone on a day-to-day basis as compared to two two decades ago. Now, why does this matter? Going back to the point we made earlier is if you run a regression, think of it as a horse race between variables, income, social connections as proxy through number of shared meals, employment status, etc. You would obviously think that while your income and employment status matter more, that coefficient will come in more strongly. No, the simple indicator that number around how many of your meals over the past week were shared is as influential in explaining people's life satisfaction as their relative income and their employment status.

employment status. employment status. No way. No way. No way. Yes way. And it's it's really striking. So even for us, this was a real sort of um eye opener. Oh my god. We we knew social capital and social ties were important. Didn't quite realize just how important. And we've been very lucky to have to be able to get information around sharing meals. Um we we've got this over the past two decades thanks to the American Time use survey and we have it globally thanks to the Ajinamoto module on the Gallop World Poll which has just gone in for one year and my god there's such variation the extent to which people have social lives around the world.

There's countries where at the 14 lunches and dinners in a week, there's countries where there's only three or four meals shared. And then there's others, mostly Latin American countries, where it's sort of like 12, 11, 12 out of the 14 meals are being shared. And in the US, it's about seven. Wow. Why is it that millennials are becoming unhappier and boomers are becoming happier? So, first of all, you got to know and I'm sure you know this Jay, but in one of the what we thought was one of the universal facts in well-being science was the U- shape.

The the relationship between age and well-being is one that has the form of a U. People start higher in terms of well-being. So, lose that happiness and well-being over the years, reach a midlife crisis. So, everybody talks about midlife crisis, but you actually pick it up in the data. It exists. And then from there on and the midlife crisis sort of like early 40s the peak of of the pressures um mortgages small children responsibilities at work and all of it coming together and then from there on on average people go up again in terms of well-being as measured through their satisfaction with life and only at the very very end do you see it come down again when physical issues and disabilities come into play.

What we're finding in the United States in particular, but generally in the West, is that first leg of the U, the high what is meant to be high levels of well-being for youth, that is gone. So I got in the news quite a bit with quotes along the lines of youth in America are experiencing their midlife crisis today. We find that that is empirically the case. So there's this long thought universal truth that we thought was the case around the U shaped relationship between wellbeing and age is just just gone.

Now the question of course is why and in the United States we touched upon it earlier there's a number of reasons um why we believe youth are um having their midlife crisis today and it's got to do with the affordability crisis. It has to do with absolute distress and anxiety, worry about the future of work for them and the questions it raises about decisions around studies for example now and then social media being a very um a force for distraction and not really social or as social as it should be.

And all of these things sort of come together and you see it come together in the likes of people feeling more and more lonely. And if we look at the extent to which people share meals together, you find that youth, especially in America, is now almost twice as likely to be dining alone on a on a day-to-day basis as on on a on a day-to-day basis as compared to two decades ago. You know, when Ry and I started our tea company, Juny, it didn't start with a big plan.

It started with an idea we really believed in. Shopify is what helped us turn that idea into a real business. It's the platform we use to build and grow Juni while staying connected to the people who support what we do. And what's been mind-blowing, how people actually find us. Sometimes it's an ad on Instagram, other times a YouTube video, a Tik Tok scroll, and even through AI tools like ChatGpt, you can literally complete a purchase inside a conversation. Shopify makes all of that seamless because Shopify meets customers where they already are.

our product shop naturally making it easier for people to connect with what we've created. As Juny continues to grow, I get to focus more on the creative side knowing Shopify is handling the rest. But what about starting a business? This is your sign. Get started today at shopify.com/j. What does loneliness actually do to us? Because we talk about it a lot, but what does it actually do? A lot. So obviously loneliness is a bigger concept and and the indicator that we have here is the extent to which we share meals and that's coming down.

So in in the world happiness support this year we dig into this precisely question you're after. And what we're finding is if you are less social so you have less social interactions. In other words, you're more lonely. You will have less social support. Duh. Needless to say, so if you're having less social connections, it means that in times of need, you'll have less people to call on. You also are less socially trusting of others people and Jay this is important and I owe this to Professor John Hiell the founding editor of the World Happiness Report who while we did chapter three he did chapter 2 he found that um and he's always been very strong on this particular aspect we underestimate the kindness of people by a factor of two and so left to our own devices and by ourselves lonely we underestimate the kindness of others.

So, we need to get in touch and in front of other people to find out that they're actually all right. Other people left their own devices and in echo chambers within social media, we obviously polarize in our thinking. And so this too, the New York Times really dug into this when I spoke with them is loneliness as for example proxy to the fact that we're having less and less meals shared is also important in in sort of radicalization of opinions because if you think about it and I don't have strong empirical evidence for this this is more sort of conjecture but still when you speak with other people everybody has slightly different views on the world their frames of of of views of the world and other people.

But the more you speak with people, the more you moderate your own views. You generate a sense of empathy necessarily and you find that your views need to be moderated because not everybody thinks the same way. If we are less and less social, we eat by ourselves or with our phones in our hand rather than with others around the table. And this is clear in the data. Then it's also one of the reasons why we're polarizing in terms of opinions. It's because we're no longer moderating our views very much and are stuck in our echo chambers.

And so the result of which is more polarized political behavior. And this by the way is very important generally because wonderful colleague and co-author of this book George Ward his early studies and some of them co-authored including published in the American Journal of Political Science. We find that how you feel about life is predictive of your political behaviors, your voting behavior. behavior. behavior. Interesting. In what sense? Talk to me about that. about that. about that. Well, think about it. If you're unhappy with the way life is going, you're not in favor of the incumbent.

Obvious. And so you're way more likely to vote um anti-systemm. And as in the United States, we've now seen in the last decade as exemplified in the World Happiness Report, you see a decline in general well-being. There's inequalities. There's people are happy, but people are less happy. But generally speaking, decline in in well-being in the US, particularly for youth. You find thus a more fertile ground for anti-system votes, populist votes. Now, that can go towards a a Donald Trump, that can go towards a Bernie Sanders depending on a number of indicators, but the fact of the matter is the increasing number of people being unhappy makes them angry, makes them want to vote against the current system.

And that is most reasonable and most normal. Uh, but we picking this up very strongly. And what's really important here to know is that this is really an advantage of our kind of data, subjective well-being data. They capture how people feel about their lives and it's how they feel about their lives that makes them choose and vote a certain way. And what's really powerful and we owe this to George and others, we really find that if you uh compare this with economic proxies is how we feel about life is a lot stronger in predicting how we vote.

Quick example, GDP in the United States is growing but well-being is dropping. So if you look at it from a traditional economics perspective like an alien landing and you're neocclassical economist alien and you arrive and you see the United States and you're like oh wait they're doing well there's growth uh so people must be happier because there's more growth and the GDP has grown as compared to last year and it isn't and yet you have these um and well-being is dropping and as a result you obviously have these anti-system votes.

Now, I don't want to be scaremongering, but when we picked up these big differences where there's growth and yet people are getting unhappier, the first time this was picked up and we owed this to John Clifton, the CEO of Gallup was the Arab Spring. If you looked at Egypt, Syria, remember this is now about a decade and a half ago, the Arab Spring. You would have said things are going great in Egypt. They had almost doubledigit growth and yet well-being was dropping. Well, guess what happens the next time?

In our textbook on well-being science, we read the the analysis for the Hong Kong riots. Back in 2019, youth in Hong Kong really stood up and there was real riots and it was real real concerns. If you look at the GDP of Hong Kong, it is through the roof in a decade before is is like plus 60% in the space of a decade. Yet, if you look at life of the section, particularly that of youth, it's gone down. It was minus 10 or 12% over that same decade.

Wow. So you're looking at from the outside and saying like wait whoa growth fantastic and you look at how people feel in that society and it's actually come down and it's when you see that difference and obviously we're now starting to pick it up greatly in the United States as well where there continues to be economic growth but while being negative and dropping that fuels anti-system sentiment and obviously makes it a fertile ground for for for discontent and and possibly more. Yeah, it's incredible to see the connection between something like individual loneliness and then national outrage.

Yes. outrage. Yes. outrage. Yes. Right. Like that kind of you don't necessarily put the two together and one should because it's the loneliness that makes us unhappy and being unhappy makes us not wanting the current system and voting anti-system and us uprooting everything. Um, and so that's sort of the linkage is there. And this is where well-being science and actually capturing how we feel, which is what you're all about is really capturing how we feel about our lives and how to improve that. If you can put numbers on this like we do in the economics of well-being, you can capture this.

And this is I'm not new. I'm part of a larger movement called the beyond GDP movement where at a population level we really try and think more holistically and capture what really matters which is real progress in society is people's quality of life improving as they experience it and not GDP is a means to an end. Growth in GDP will likely enable if done properly greater and better lives but the proof of the pudding is maybe not in the eating but is in the measuring of people's well-being.

And so we urge so strongly to do a lot more in the measurement. You know, most countries actually do. The United Kingdom, we've been doing really well. Since 2012, the UK Office for National Statistics measures in the annual population household survey well-being. How satisfied are you with your life these days? We have that data since 2012. In the UK, in the official national statistics in the United States, it is not there. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the the statistical agent in the US do not measure how people feel about their lives.

Crazy, isn't it? isn't it? isn't it? That's crazy. It is absolutely crazy. So, they don't even ask. They don't even ask. We've been pushing the entire field of well-being economists. We've been lobbying. We've been working in Washington say like, "Hey, no, we we it's subjective." Why do you think that is? Because it's subjective is the argument. And then then we make the case, but wait a second. subjective well-being, how you feel about life, isn't that what ultimately matters, and then they're still not convinced. And then we have to make the case for well, but how you feel about life drives objective behaviors like productivity and we can talk about it or voting like what we're seeing in the United States.

Um, and yet it's difficult. difficult. difficult. Yeah. I mean, it impacts whether people get married or not, impacts the amount of children you have, impacts everything. everything. everything. Yeah. like our behaviors are and we owe again Daniel Con econom and others the the the extraordinary Nobel Prize winner like why we do thing the things we do is because it makes us feel a certain way and yet the US government is not interested or at least the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not interested in measuring people's subjective wellbeing.

I want to dive into work if we can because I think that's the core of this book uh why workplace well-being matters the science behind employee happiness and organizational performance and the reason why I want to talk about this is because I think what's interesting is probably around three decades ago we found happiness and meaning in multiple different places we had church or temple or community you had home life children you had other friends that lived close by you probably lived close to your family I don't close to my family.

You're not that close to yours. And then you had work. Whereas now it feels like church, temple, community has gone. gone. gone. We're further away from our families. So all the pressure is on work. Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. To provide all of this. And that's why I think the work conversation is so important because we're now living at a time where that's the place that we're looking for meaning, for belonging, for connection. But as you talk about it in the book, the book, the book, we're not getting it.

We're not getting it there. it there. it there. No. No. Only one in four people, less than a quarter in the States would report high workplace well-being. And with high workplace wellbeing, I'd say it would it would mean a four or five out of five in terms of job satisfaction, for example. And so that's really, really, really worrying. And the other reason why we know why work is just so important for all the reasons you just mentioned is if you're being made redundant as the English say which is probably the worst term to use um or being laid off as they I guess they say in the states is we see a huge drop in life satisfaction but to your point only about half of the drop in life satisfaction of being made unemployed is due to the loss of income.

Most of the drop is actually explained by the loss of identity and social ties, which is exactly the point you're making. People's identities are now tied up with their work and their titles less so than with family or church or temple as you say, and so makes it all makes work all the more important. So, this blew my mind. On page 74 of your book, figure 42, only feeling sick in bed is a more unhappy activity than working. Which means we would rather care or help for adults, wait in line, do admin or organizing, do housework, chores, or DIY more than working and studying.

The only thing we'd rather not do than work is be sick in bed. Sick in bed. Yeah. So I we owe this study to George McCarron who developed mappiness which is extraordinary and like looked at what people were doing dayto-day and the work bit uh and especially spending time with your line manager as it turns out was really the worst thing. Now truth be told while in the workplace you do a number of things. Um you're also socializing at work. You're having lunch together. one would hope or you're also exchanging and being excited by by projects and developments here.

what George McCarron was after was really the work work bit. Uh and so that is is not particularly liked. Whether it's the the Mappiness study that puts work so low in terms of emotional well-being, in terms of daily activities, whether you're looking at the the world's largest study uh thanks to indeed where we find and crowdsource data and find that only a quarter of people actually less than a quarter people feel happy. But you look at our friends at Gallup who do engagement surveys around the US and the rest of the world, they also find that less than 20% of people are actually actively engaged in the work they're doing, which is a proxy for well-being.

And so there's a lot of room for improvement. improvement. improvement. What can individuals do differently to find meaning at work? Can I start with leaders? Yeah, let's start with leaders. Let's go there. there. there. Don't just talk to talk, walk to walk. And I'll I'll back this up. I feel kind of sad about this and it took me a while cuz I come out of a family of actual people managers. my dad ran business and he was a an actual people manager and so that's what I thought good managers were and starting in the study of workplace wellbeing is sort of drove me because I thought okay this is interesting and important and I care and it's sort of part of my DNA and lo and behold it was only about a year or two ago we were able to advise and set questions on an HBR survey of senior managers HBR being Harvard Business Review what we found is that 87% to be precise of managers senior manager would say yes I care about my people and they would competitive advantage and it's the right thing to do blah blah blah.

In that same survey, we actually started test testing them to look for what they prioritize when it comes down to it. Only a third of people would actually prioritize their people over other uh stakeholders. How did you test them? Essentially asking questions and and sort of um in in a in a in a situation having to uh prioritize particular stakeholders. So for example would be customers and clients would be prioritized over people for example. But actually, Jay, the real point is only half of that third, 19% actually has actions against people management and and well-being of your people being a strategic priority.

Study by my colleague Stefan Meyer, Columbia Business School, great friend, great guy, but sit tight. He studied with an army of of research assistants all the earnings calls of the big listed companies in the US. And that's typically the CEO and the CFO talking about financial results every quarter. and they speak to the investor community and what Stefan found was that the word customer business development side came up eight times more than people employee side of the business. So obviously a business is essentially you got to have clients and you got to people delivering.

So there are two main stakeholders here in delivering and running business obviously the clients and the people who make it possible and yet somehow customers the business development is so much more prevalent in their minds as their own people who deliver on the business. But worse when they then sentiment analysis around when the word customer was raised it was in the context of positive words opportunity. When the word employee was raised, it was in the context of challenge, problem, risk. And so the fact of the matter is, and this is the sound truth is that, and again about 20, I think only about 20% of senior leaders actually care, invest, act on the notion that take care of your people and they'll take care of business.

Most leaders, about 80%, I'm willing to put that number out there. um talk to talk but don't walk to walk. What I find about that having worked in the corporate world is I found that a lot of leaders were never cared for themselves. So they don't know how to care for others possibly. They were the person who came in and they had to carry everyone's laptops. They had to go run around and grab everyone's coffee. They had to go and walk someone's dog or drop their kid to school or whatever it was.

And now as that person's come up the ranks, they have never even known what it feels like to have someone say, "How are you feeling? How are you doing?" And because they don't give themselves that permission, they don't know how to do it for anyone else. The amount of times I've coached senior leaders inside of organizations organizations organizations and they'll always be like, "Yeah, we wish people were more productive, more proactive, more organized, more this, more that." I'm like, "Yeah, but you realize people need a break.

They need this, they need what? Whatever it may be, and then they go, "Yeah, but I never did it." did it." did it." Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. I don't take my vacation, so why do they need it? Right. And it's that. But it's it's these senior leaders. They're so driven. They're so ambitious. And we going back straight back to where we started with this conversation. They make trade-offs with their health, with their humanity, their the empathy for others who may not be in that same spirit of wanting to be at the very top of the organization.

The partial reason why senior senior leaders just don't walk the walk as much as they should in terms of investing in people is because they didn't invest in their own work life balance enough. So they don't quite see it for the others. So they need to be reminded and one of the ways of reminding and speaking to that caliber to that level in the organization is to build out the business case. And so in a way I I this is something I really have to get off my chest because and it took me a while to really get this is George and I we should not have had to write a book on why workplace well-being matters.

When you think about it, Jay, as you know, the the human case ought to be self-evident. I mean, we're human beings. We ought to care about each other. It's in the scriptures and our religions and our just our nature. We ought we we like being cared for and we ought to care for others. So the world of work in which god knows how much time we all spend it ought to be naturally positive place and it isn't as as we show through the crowd source data with indeed and many other places.

So it's the business case that then tries to resonate with the with with those senior leaders who have the power and the tools and the influence to try and raise workplace wellbeing for others but they have a tough time because they didn't invest in their own wellbeing perhaps sufficiently so to actually care about the wellbeing of others. But they do what does resonate with them is numbers the business case. And so that's obviously what the book sets out is to show that investing in workplace well-being is actually good for the bottom line is good for the bottom line.

So there's the human case which ought to be self-evident but that didn't work out all too well and so the business case needs to be made and what the book does is to show the business case the links between wellbeing and productivity retention and talent attraction and ultimately the bottom line in terms of uh profitability and even stock market performance in a way that's never been shown before. And it took George and me, oh god, a decade and a half to put it all together uh in different academic papers and large large studies with major companies and to finally bring it together in the book.

It makes a very strong case for why investing in workplace wellbeing is not just the right thing to do but also the clever thing to do. Do you think it's possible for people to have work life balance and be at the top of a company? That is such a good question. It's hard to and every case is different. So one thing, one caveat that listeners need to know is that we study big samples and is there's averages and there's always the case by case might be different, but on average it is the way we find it.

I'm afraid the answer is to your question is yes. I think um people who make it all the way to the top have given up on a chunk of work life balance. And I think it goes back to right the start when you ask the question about money. Does money make you happy? And these high levels, these very very big salaries, it's surprising how little extra happiness it buys them. And that is because they've given up and and paid off other things like work life balance.

Yeah. And I think we need to change that as well because it won't change for everyone else unless it changes for someone at the top. And then you start to see that, oh, someone at the top sleeps 8 hours and therefore they're more effective. more effective. more effective. Oh, someone at the top works out and so they're more productive. Because I remember a period in my life when I was working 18our days, 7 days a week. And my wife would always say to me, she'd say, "Hey, if you took care of your health, like if you worked out and you slept a little bit more, I promise you you'd be more productive and effective." effective." effective." And I'd say to her, "No, no, no.

You don't understand. Got to work this hard." And it was only when I started to listen to her that I started to see the value of that. And I was so much more effective, strategic. I didn't get ill as often. I wasn't dealing with migraines or headaches. I didn't have to take an Advil or whatever to suppress that feeling. Like, you just felt better. But my wife had to literally coach me to that. I'm very proud to be able to say that not not only is your wife right, we have the causal field evidence to back her up.

up. up. Okay? Okay? Okay? And you'll know the company that we had. It took us 10 years to get to this point. The company with whom we work to be able to show for the first time the causal effect of how you feel, whether that's through better sleep, working out, whatever, but how you feel from one week to another impacting how you perform that week. It was with British Telecom, BT, you'll know them. They're one of the largest employers in the UK. We tested all of their call center employees.

This was back in 2015 when this project started. Took us 10 years to finally get to call inference. The way we did it, Jay, was by every week on Thursday at 4 p.m. we pulled these call center employees across all the BT call centers to see how they were feeling that week. And whether that was because they slept well or whether they had been working out or private or or work life, we had an extraordinary data set around how people felt from one week to another.

And then we tied that to very granular levels of performance, which is calls and police tend to have, which is seconds per call, customer satisfaction coming back from every call, weekly sales, which is obviously the the big headline performance number. But what we find is a standard deviation change. So a significant change in how you feel from one week to another just like you were experiencing experiencing experiencing led to a 12% increase in uh weekly sales. Now that's actually a lower bound effect of how you feel on how you perform because what we found is that these BT customer employees depending on the on the types of tasks they were doing the effect of how they felt was greater on uh the performance.

So if the task was just plain order taking the effect of how you felt didn't have that much impact on how you perform. But the higher order tasks the types of tasks that you and your team and most companies these days will do and the future of work will only be consisting of which is sort of tasks that require social and emotional intelligence and creativity. The stuff you do there the effect of how you felt from one week to another was much greater. We're talking 20 25% impact on performance.

And so yes, to the point your wife is 100% right, if you invest in yourself and you you you feel better in your skin, as they say in French, like feeling good, then you will be performing better. And all of this is super super intuitive because these tasks, dealing with customers, the the social activating your social emotional intelligence is really only possible when you feel good yourself. If you're not in a good place and you're thinking about your worries or problems with in your household or what have you, then it's very difficult to raise and generate the empathy to deal with a customer and really perform and come up with something creative or do an amazing interview or be really present and engaged while you have other worries.

And so we picked this up in the data from one week to another. People would say, "I'm feeling good. I'm feeling better and not so feeling so good." And you see this picked up especially in the task that require social emotional intelligence. It's a long story to tell you how we actually nailed causality, but it has to do with weather differences around the call centers. And I'll spare you that story because it took us 10 years to nail the causal inference, but we got there in the end.

No, I love that. I mean, I'm happy for you to share if you think it's important. But I I love what you're saying because and the bigger point you made that I think I want people to make note of is in 25 years time that will matter even more. Yes. Yes. Yes. Because AI will take away so the routine task, the order taking tasks. Well, already by now I think we started the study in 2015 2016. I bet you if we were to rerun the study, these sort of more menial tasks, order taken probably are no longer there to begin with.

By the way, on the the the causality issue, no need to go into technical details, but it's an important point to raise, which is that senior leaders when a their chief people officer, chief HR officer comes to them and says like, "Oh, we found a study and and happier workers are more productive." A typical response and not fully wrong would be well yeah but is it is it happiness driving performance or is it the business going well and us being able to invest in their well-being or the business going well and then making people feel good in the first place.

So that chicken the egg problem that so there's what we call reverse causality. It's a dynamic relationship. If you feel good, you perform better. If performance is going good, it feeds back into you feeling better in the first place. So it's a dynamic relationship. Performance and well-being. Yeah. And we were able to disentangle the two arrows in that dynamic relationship by leveraging weather differences because anyway long story and I urge you to read the paper that came out management science on this. What employee programs well-being programs actually helped because I think the challenge is there's so many well-being programs now.

Every company subscribed to a million of them. They're all available but the actual takeup is lowact or people don't know what to do or people don't know what's available to them. So what actually helped versus what people thought would help. So our well-being research center is quite well known now in the HR space for pushing a basic but very important argument. A lot of the benefits and programs that you're referring to are individual options um mindfulness apps, you name it. And those are good and by all means continue them.

But you're right, there's typically a pickup problem. sort of selection bias in who actually uses them and typically people who don't need them the most who actually uh use them and people who would benefit a lot from them are not using them. And so we find that that there's mixed evidence on those sort of more individualistic interventions. And then um others like yoga and others are fantastic but you cannot yoga your way out of more structural issues. So if you're underpaying people offering yoga classes is not going to help them.

If there's bullying in the in a company, you're not going to yoga your way out of that. If the CEO is not setting the right tone or or culture that genuinely cares about people, it's like it's not yoga or mindfulness apps that's going to if there's just too much work and you're stressing people out because of overwork, don't ask them to. Then also in the office do yoga on top of it while they're stressed out. And then it's ways of working. And so we've made a lot of claims and evidence uh and research on the fact that we've got to look a bit more broadly.

And so then in and then we've even done a huge systematic literature review around what interventions actually work the best by drivers. So how to generate more sense of belonging, how to improve uh the impact of people feeling they're being paid fairly, etc., etc., etc. And there's a lot there. We've got a whole playbook that we've put out where we summarize and highlighted about five or six studies for each driver of workplace wellbeing out of about 4,000 papers that we've analyzed a rank word. We've call it um the playbook, the interventions playbook and it's published by the world wellbeing movement in partnership with Indeed.

And so that's out there and no charge, free to use for everybody. But I think you're going to be asking me so what actually works like give me examples and here I'm going to I want to give you one because as an economist I do feel obliged incentives do matter. So um how much you pay people does matter especially at the bottom of the pay scale. And so pay people living wage for crying out loud and particularly so in context reference I context dependent places like Los Angeles or New York where the cost of living is so high.

But and here this is really important. It's not just how much you pay people. It's also how you pay people that can make a difference in terms of how they're made to feel while at work which is the definition of workplace wellbeing. And so if you look at just um we've compared actually colleagues of mine Andrew Clark and others have looked at similar pay packages overall on an annual basis but those that would just be straightforward salaries versus those that are combination of salary plus variable pay that is for example a group bonus or e joint equity schemes where you become sort of however small it might be like co-owner of the company in the organization and it helps raise purpose um it helps raise a number of elements around how you feel engaged and a sense of agency and whether the organization cares about you as a person.

And if you're a part, however small owner of the organization, that's a real change in the way you view at the organization to begin with. Then it no longer becomes a transactional thing, but much more one where we're all in the same boat and we are not just a stakeholder, we're also the shareholder. the shareholder. the shareholder. Um, and that's really really quite critical. So the first thing to really urge people is think beyond just the individual. If if there's a workplace wellbeing problem in your organization, don't put the responsibility all on the individual.

It's probably if not more than half of the variance in workplace wellbeing. It's probably due to the environment of the organization and work on that. And that could range from pay to setting a culture of belonging and so on and so forth. And there's ample evidence for types of interventions that work on each front. I love that. I'm so glad that that's available. We should link to that in the resource as well because it would be great for people to dive into that. Absolutely. Sure. And it's easy, accessible.

It's just like um bullet points, suggestions, and a lot of these interventions will have already already been some of them you'll have in your workplace already. Some might inspire you to do better. And so it's it's a real a real resource. I wanted to ask you a question about page 124 of your book, Figure 62. You talk about the determinance of work well-being. What people think versus reality. walk us through what we think makes a workplace have better well-being versus what actually makes a difference. This is one of the big insights um generally in the study of workplace well-being but also coming through the big crowdsource study with Indeed where we've got over 25 million workers 250 million data points by now and counting where we've looked at how people feel at work and why they feel the way they do at work.

And we've done a little cute test which is we um we ran a survey where we asked people so what do you think makes you happy at work? what drives your workplace wellbeing and what comes through is pay and flexibility is what people would put on top in terms of what they think makes them happy at work. But when you actually run the analyses of what actually explains differences in job satisfaction, for example, work wellbeing more generally, you find that people hugely underestimate the social elements, a sense of belonging, feeling like you're being treated uh as a person in the organization, having friends at work.

In the Gallup engagement survey, there's an item called, "Do you have a best friend at work?" People laugh at it when they have to answer it. The reality is is the answer to that question is most predictive of job satisfaction more than anything else. anything else. anything else. Do you have a best friend at work? Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. That's so good. It is. It absolutely is. And so we've now picked up in the Indeed data and the Gallup engagement survey data, but other more academic data sets, people always and consistently underestimate the importance of our social capital in the workspace as the thing that is actually most all things matter, but some things matter more than others.

And it's our social capital in the workplace that is way more predictive of how we end up feeling generally at work compared to other things. Now that's not to say that pay doesn't matter or flexibility don't matter. In fact, it's sort of more like half of the middle of the pack in terms of the relative importance in driving workplace well-being. But people underestimate feeling like they belong, having friends at work, and feeling like the company cares about them as a person. And I think that's really important in the HR space.

There's an old saying, people don't quit their jobs, they leave their bosses. Or you could reframe as they don't leave their jobs, they quit their teams. And that's true. Think about it for whomever is listening. Think about this yourself. When would you make the decision to leave the company. When when are you sick and tired and no longer sticking it out is when you're not getting along with people. When your line manager is not treating you like a human being. When you no longer have friends at work.

That's when you actually start making the move to start thinking about going somewhere else more so than when the job isn't all that interesting to you anymore or you feel like pay isn't all that fair, but you can sort of live with it. It's the social elements that trigger um people's workplace wellbeing and their behaviors more than anything else. There's two things there that stood out to me. One is when you realize that you need a best friend at work. Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. One of the biggest challenges I find is versus st uh you said flexibility and money which are both important as you said.

said. said. Flexibility means working from home. Friendship generally means being in person. person. person. Mhm. And now with more people working from home versus being in person, it's harder to have a best friend on Zoom. What's that looking like for workplace well-being? Do you believe that companies and people should want to be in person or the flexibility of being at home is actually outweighing having a best friend at work? This is a classic economic answer on the one hand. on the other hand. But Jay, I feel very strongly and passionately about precisely this question and I came out very strongly at the start of co which was March 2020 when it really hit uh and the lockdown started 2 3 months in so we're talking mid 2020 the likes of Facebook and Twitter were saying brilliant people are working from home we don't see a drop in productivity that's the end of the office everybody can work remotely and I came out strongly in the the UK newspapers uh coming out saying careful careful Yes, there's short-term benefits of the fully remote working from home approach.

No commute, no cost of commute, more flexibility. You can take care of XY Z and and you can sort of work life balance and job craft a bit more. But I said careful careful what you wish for because your social capital and your intellectual capital are capitals. They need inflows because there's outflows all the time. So you need to restock that stock of um a capital stock of intellectual and social capital. And so people were relying on the existing social intellectual capital they had. But essentially that got undermined.

And about 6 months in or a year into the pandemic, these calls for fully working remotely were starting to be dialed back and talk came around hybrid working. And truth be told, we owe a lot of this work, by the way, to to um Nick Bloom at Stanford, a colleague in the economics department, who's done most research on this. It's now clear that we can have the best of both worlds. We need to have a hybrid way of working where people can work part-time at home, part-time in the office.

It's looking like the best is three days office, two days home. But we need to do this cleverly. It needs to be a coordinated/smart hybrid. The worst thing that can happen, Jay, is half of your team in on Monday, Tuesday, and the other half on Thursday, Friday because you're not building that social capital and that sense of belonging that we know is so important. Same thing for intellectual capital. You need to be having the sort of water cooler moments. There's no point coming into the office if it's to be doing emails, report writing, or Zoom calls again.

And so, what does this mean? It means that we need to have conversations within teams or units. Okay? Are we going to coordinate on being in mostly the beginning of the week or midweek or the end of the week? And what kind of tasks? So we need to think throughout the week what are our tasks? What are the synchronous and the asynchronous tasks? What do we do? What do we do together? What do we do solo? And to separate the tasks and to do the asynchronous tasks, email writing, report writing, zoom calls at home.

And whereas it's the client meetings, the engagements, the brainstorming sessions, the interviews that happens together. And so I think if we can nail hybrid working then we'll have the best of both worlds. We'll see improvements in productivity and improvements in wellbeing. I agree with that. We've done that too where we have flexibility in the sense I mean ours is easy. When I'm traveling the team works from home when I'm in LA the team is in the office. And that works exceptionally well for us because we get enough together community time and the team has enough time to be productive at home or have flexibility and and I couldn't imagine imagine imagine Mhm.

Mhm. Mhm. being on a Zoom call every day with my whole team. Like I just couldn't imagine it. and the amount of social capital you lose, the connection, the the best time at work. That ideas, some of these ideas that you've shared today, the the eating meals, you know, taking that from 50% up to 75% of our meals every week to be with people. The big advice right now of having a best friend at work, I think for so long, we've started to think work is work and life is life.

And I always like to remind people, you spend at least 8 to N hours a day at work. You're basically saying that a third of your life, it doesn't matter if I don't feel good there. No. And how satisfied we are with our job feeds into how satisfied we are with our lives. So job satisfaction is a huge predictor of, you've guessed it, life satisfaction. You don't check into the office leaving your home life behind and you don't check out of the office leaving your work life behind.

And so the two are integrally connected that puts a lot of responsibility on the organization because how you treat people their workplace well-being feeds into the larger society and there's a degree of separation of even three people away will have been touched by how you were made to feel coming back from the office. M there's amazing studies by Nicholas Kristakis and James Fowler, their book connected is a real real recommendation where they essentially show that the way you drive home from the office the mood that you're in no no no will impact your wife your children and they'll pick up sentiment changes with the school friends of your children.

So there were three degrees of separation now will be impacted indirectly. So people you don't even know their well-being will be marginally impacted by how about how you're feeling. So if you're driving home from work in a bad mood because bullying for example in the office that's impacting not just a person who gets bullied the victim it impacts three degrees of separation out. So when we're actually goes back to the fact that if only about a quarter of people actually feel good at work there's so much room for improvement within the workplace.

But this feeds into our societies and our communities big time. big time. big time. Did you find anything about what the factors were around a toxic work culture or a toxic workplace? You've mentioned bullying a few times, but did you have you done any research on that? Not specifically in in toxic workplaces as such. What we have done obviously it's it's the reversal like all the drivers of workplace well-being then go into reverse. People are stressed out, not satisfied with their job, find little purpose and meaning in the work they do, if and are not happy dayto-day, if there's no belonging, if there's no flexibility and there's no room for job crafting, if they're poorly paid, etc., etc., etc.

Is it possible to find meaning and purpose in a job that is purely functional and repetitive? You're raising a good question because we started by saying, "God, there's so much room for improvement here. But what's the upper limits is what is what you're really after is like can we make everybody happy at work all the time? Can we go to 100% of people saying four or five out of five in terms of say job satisfaction? I think yes and no. I think yes we can do frankly we can do a lot better still and the way we know this is thanks to the the large crowd source data with Indeed we know that even in tough industries in tough areas of the US for example in companies that are not necessarily known to be good workplaces we'll still find examples of warehouses units where people feel good e even within industries that are difficult say hamburger industry flipping burgers selling them, you'll find big differences.

And no naming and shaming, but applauding our friends at In-N-Out Burger. And I know we're in in Los Angeles, so that's that that's a real shout out. And so they're doing the same job as other hamburger chains. And somehow, and we've put in the book, um somehow workers at In-N-Out are reporting about 20% higher workless wellbeing than other hamburger. That's cool. That's cool. That's cool. And and it shows it shows in the way they connect to people, the smiles on their faces, etc. So it is possible.

So we can do a lot better than we're currently doing. Now back to the question at hand. Can we raise everybody to like 100% all the time? Your original question was a bit more profound is like can we raise levels of purpose and meaning? Can we and there I think it's a that's a higher bar to clear in and out does an amazing job at raising workplace well-being in a job that is difficult otherwise. So they connect with clients. There's camaraderie between workers etc. They do a whole thing a whole host of things, right?

But when when you say actual high purpose and meaning, I think of the notion of being in flow, so consumed and within the work you're doing, you're losing track of time. You don't even think about being happy or not. You're sort of obsessed with what you're doing. And so the kindest people like you and me or musicians or mathematicians get into a state of flow, but I think that's not a given for everybody. And we're very fortunate to found our niche where we can unleash our talents and be in a state of flow because we're so engaged and in the significance of what we're doing and we find it purposeful and meaningful that we think about nothing else and the whole notion of work and life become.

Yeah. That I think is not realistic for the majority or the vast majority of people. people. people. Yeah. And I really appreciate your in-n-out example because that's that's great that and also I' I've always loved Amy Rnooki's study from Yale of the hospital cleaners and how half of them saw themselves as cleaners and the other saw themselves as healers because of job crafting that they really believe that a clean hospital was integral to the healing journey of the patient. So, so I think you are right.

It is possible. Of course, flow state and everything else, you know, there's certain careers and and maybe not everyone wants that, needs that, is searching for that. Exactly. But it is good to know that we can do so much better. We can and there are jobs that externally seem repetitive and functional. And yet there are places that have made them enjoyable. Because I think a lot of people think, oh yeah, well, I'm an X and I don't need my job to be meaningful. It will never be meaningful.

And the truth is it'll be better for your health if it is like it'll be better for your well-being. Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. If you feel that work is a little bit meaningful, even if you're not in flow, that's the goal. Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. I wanted to ask you about what work life balance actually is because I think lots of the time we think when we hear the word work life balance, the word balance in and of itself makes us feel equal. And we all spend at least 5 days at work and only have two days off a week.

So it's already not equal. So that but the evenings the work and the evenings. Yeah. The workday evenings. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This you're asking a tough question and I know lots of there's people out there who will vehemly go after oh work life balance overrated what have you. Jeff Bezos for example Amazon I remember seeing a clip of him saying oh work life balance if you're in a state of flow at work it will feed positively into life and it should also flow over into one another.

And I agree with him in a sense for entrepreneurs like him, like you, like me, really loving what I'm doing with that the two flow into one another. But I think for the vast majority, reflecting to the discussion we just had, it is a bit more transactional. And we do have to respect work life balance. And we cannot expect as leaders, as managers, as entrepreneurs that everybody, the staff, the team members are necessarily looking to be fully engaged engaged engaged all day, all night, weekends included, uh, engaged with work.

Um, and and I think we got to be honest about this and we cannot expect the same of of everybody. And so I I I actually feel strongly that most people do care a lot about work life balance and being able to check out and not have to think about work like you and I will typically do after say 5 or 6 p.m. Um and I think we got to respect that. Yeah. I think we have to respect that an employee should never have to work as hard as the entrepreneur.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. And that the member of staff will never have to be as strategic as the founder. It just isn't fair. It doesn't work. No. And yet founders or senior leaders expect no less of their team. And as we referred to earlier, they themselves have given up on a number or trade all traded off a whole host of things possibly their own health mental and physical to be where they are and taking the risk that they are taking as entrepreneurs or senior leaders. And so it's hard for them to raise the empathy to realize that a majority of people are not CEOs and are not meant to be CEOs.

And I think again we we have to respect that and have the wisdom to take a bit of distance and out of our own mental frames and understand that we're all a bit different. bit different. bit different. Yeah. And it's been so illuminating talking to you. I'm wondering what have I not asked you that you wish I had? Well, maybe one last thing or workless well-being. Sadly, I've George and I have spent and teams have spent a lot of time developing out the business case. And I think that's obviously what the book then ultimately works its way towards is giving the best evidence to date on how we feel at work matters for how you perform at work, whether you stay at work, and whether a workplace will attract talent in the first place.

And those are all the benefits of workplace well-being. workplace well-being. workplace well-being. But if you then actually look at the organization level and you look at whatever it might cost organizations to raise well-being or do the right thing. And by the way, some of these interventions don't cost the earth at all. Being a good boss, opening up about mental health, culture, and and sense of belonging and and developing a car and community doesn't need to cost anything. It's about setting the right example, the right leadership.

Whatever companies can do to improve workplace well-being, it pays. And so we've then shown leveraging the indeed crowdsource data for all the US listed companies on the NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange that we link their work well-being score because we have data from behind the back of their CHRO's. We've we've pulled and crowdsourced 25 million workers around the US. And so we know that the levels of workless well-being these companies correlate and predict very strongly their quarterly financials. And if you were to invest solely based on workplace well-being, you'd find that you outperform the S&P 500 uh and the NASDAQ and so on and so forth.

We've now been doing this since 20120. And so that's obviously that's gotten the attention of the of the business world and that's the business case right there for you. for you. for you. I love it. Yeah. And uh thank you so much. We end every OnPurpose episode with a final five. Each question has to be answered in one word to one sentence maximum. So, Yan, these are your final five. The first question is, what is the best well-being advice you've ever heard or received? or received?

or received? If you want to move from ill-being to well-being, change focus from I to. I like that. Literally and empirically. That's great. Uh, question number two. What's the worst well-being advice you've ever heard or received? I'm going to upset some of my colleagues. Flow. I think it's it's it's only a few people who will actually achieve the state of flow and I find it annoying and disrespectful of majority of people to think that that is to be aspired to whereas they may not wish it and will never achieve it.

Question number three, if you were speaking to a room of 100 CEOs and leaders right now, what would be your number one piece of advice for them? Read why workplace wellbeing matters, please. Seriously. please. Seriously. please. Seriously. Question number four. If you were speaking to a group of employees, team members standing in front of you right now, what would be your advice to them? Slam why workplace well-being matters on your CEO's desk today anonymously. Yeah. Fifth and final question. We ask this to every guest who's ever been on the show.

If you could create one law that everyone in the world had to follow, what would it be? If there's a law that I would love to really implement, which I would think have short-term and positive consequences immediately, a 4-day work week. It's been since Henry Ford almost 100 years ago that we've made the weekend from uh into two days from a Sunday to also include a Saturday. It's high time to try and think about giving us off another half a day or a day. But we would have to do it all together.

the entire US or the entire world would have to come together and coordinate on this and doing so will make the future of work more exciting uh for for youngsters to know that um the gains of productivity will also be given back in time. time. time. So you're saying just 100 years ago we were working 6 day weeks. Yeah. So it's Henry Ford who realized that caring for their people for his employees and their health and their well-being meant that he couldn't keep squeezing them six days a week.

And so he's the one. So obviously Sunday was Sunday because of religious reasons and even that was a hard-fought fight. And then so the Saturday came up in fact uh the Saturday was Henry Ford. But you know for example my grandparents uh still had to work the Saturday mornings. And so it's only in the 1950s that that we extended the weekend to not just be the Sunday and a Saturday afternoon but also the Saturday morning included. But we're talking the 1930s 40s50s when we got the weekend.

And yet we've become five times more productive in the century that followed. And yet we're still working the oldfashioned 5day work week. But our brains are still the old monkey brains or the hunter gatherer brains I should say. And yet they're having to process so much more. So people are surprised and that we're having all these burnouts and people are unhappy and stressed out. And so I think I've lost faith in the fact that these gains in productivity get redistributed to people because most of the gains of productivity go to shareholders and and the happy few.

I've now started to think that one way we can make the future work more exciting and have the gains of productivity redistributed in terms not just of trying to give back money and redistribute but also give back time which ultimately is our most precious commodity. And so I do think it's high time frankly to start thinking about a shorter work week. And if we do that then it will make the future work less anxious less worrisome for um for youth today. Really great answer everyone. The book is called why workplace well-being matters the science behind employee happiness and organizational performance.

Yan Emanuel Denev Yan honestly this has been such an illuminating conversation. And I find it so insightful to sit and talk to you about these things. I love the way you think about them and I'm so glad you're doing this work. It's massively needed and I know I'll be giving this to every leader I know for sure. Uh so thank you so much for coming all the way from Oxford to be here with us and uh I'm really grateful for you and your work. Thank you so much.

Thank you Jane and thank you for everything you do disseminating your own nuggets of wisdom and and help spread those of others. Thank you. Thank you. If you love this episode, you'll love my conversation with Airbnb founder Brian Chesy on how to tap into your creative potential and the number one thing people get wrong about success. success. success. The best people in your life will be people who see potential in you that you didn't see in yourself. And I often wonder,