Tracking Joy at Work

http://begriffs.com/posts/2015-03-15-tracking-joy-at-work.html

by begriffs • 11 years ago

60 26 11 years ago

begriffs.com

wozmirek• 11 years ago

Sort of reminds me of what we've done at my first work: http://blog.lunarlogic.io/2013/measurable-happiness/ ;)

sblawrie• 11 years ago

Did you use any libraries for the dashboard? I'd be interested in setting something like this up at my company, too.

begriffs• 11 years ago

Yeah, it's mostly just open source software inside. Grafana for the charting which gets its data from InfluxDB. The happiness bot is broken into three haskell programs, a scheduler, a soliciter, and a server which listens for slack responses.

The services are wired together with https://github.com/begriffs/microservice-template

Send me an email if you want help setting things up. joe@begriffs.com

harterrt• 11 years ago

I did something similar for myself based on TagTime [1] from the same folks who made beeminder.

I'd suggest not enforcing a minimum spacing between samplings. The minimum spacing tends to push samplings towards the ends and center of the day. It also gives the randomness memory. I noticed when I was sampling myself, my behavior would subtly change after a sampling when I knew I wouldn't be sampled for a little while. Although, I don't think this would cause a meaningful problem in your context.

Thanks for the writeup! Very interesting.

dreeves• 11 years ago

Thanks for pointing this out! In addition to not wanting a minimum, it's also bad to fix the number of samples. Then you know that the more you get sampled the less likely additional samples are. Might not matter for some applications but, as you say, it can subtly affect your behavior.

The right way to do the sampling is as a Poisson process, ie, where the gaps between samples are drawn from an exponential distribution. Details: http://tagti.me

cle• 11 years ago

"You can’t improve what you can’t measure, and what better to measure than an activity that consumes your waking life. Work."

Does anyone else think the phrase "you can't improve what you can't measure" is nonsense? I think that most improvements are qualitative and inherently unmeasurable.

I'm not downplaying the importance of measuring, but we have to be careful when trying to reduce qualitative changes down to metrics. Too many times I've seen businesses or teams try to measure qualitative changes, and then spend so much time optimizing for their metrics that they qualitatively regress. Measurements are not magic bullets that remove the need for good intuition.

danieljeff• 11 years ago

He is referencing a famous quote often attributed to W. Edwards Deming. He actually never said it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

I've seen it attributed to Peter Drucker as well.

I think the general notion that it is more difficult to improve things that you can't/don't measure is fairly accurate.

jdmichal2• 11 years ago

I think the general notion that it is more difficult to improve things that you can't/don't measure is fairly accurate.

To be somewhat pedantic:

The difficulty of improving a thing does not change based on you measuring it. If I, say, measure the response time of a service, it's still just as difficult as it was before to improve the response time of the service. Furthermore, any improvement you do make will not change based on you measuring it. If I do improve the response time of the service, it will be just as improved whether or not I measure the change.

So, measuring does nothing but allow you to quantify the improvement you have made. It doesn't make improving a thing easier, and it doesn't make improvements better.

That said, there's plenty of scenarios where impartial measurements are critical. If you don't know what to improve, broad measurement across the entire system can provide an answer. If there's indecisiveness about which action will provide the best improvement, then impartial measuring will provide an answer. If you don't trust your perception, or cannot perceive the result, then impartial measuring can also provide an answer.

ianstallings• 11 years ago

Well you can never be sure you improved without measurement of some sort.

But maybe you're right in the area of emotions and feelings. I think humans know inherently what is optimal when it comes to social situations, but we're still trying to codify exactly what that is. For instance, we know that people work better with sunlight and plants in the office. We could do an informal measurement of sorts simply by asking around, do you like this?

But ultimately I think that's what they are doing here, trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.

throwawaymsft• 11 years ago

Yep, some things can be quantified, some can't. Ironically, programmers who steadfastly insist on objective data bristle at the thought of their own productivity being measured. (Lines of code per day? Bugs fixed per day? No, no, code is an _art_ that can't be reduced to some number. Just everything else in the universe can be!)

tedks• 11 years ago

qualitative and inherently unmeasurable.

Qualitative doesn't imply unmeasurable.

If something is unmeasurable, there is no way to tell if it's changed.

If you can tell if something has changed, and you have no feelings about it, you can measure it, but not optimize it, because you can't force it towards your preference.

If you can tell if something has changed, and you know how you feel about it, you can always just say "I feel better about this since last time" or "I feel worse about this since last time." There you go, you can graph how you think of the thing over time, and steadily increase how much you like it.

bscofield• 11 years ago

This is great! I love to see people exploring mood tracking and looking for correlations and insights. I hope you write more about what this helps you discover.

<shameless plug> I built Moodprint (http://moodprint.com) to do the same sort of thing. It's using random sampling as well, though it's personal as opposed to team-based, and it allows free-form mood entry. Some people have been using it for >6 months, and it's helped find patterns around work and relationships, for instance.

zenogais• 11 years ago

This is basically the idea of the algedonic meter that was set to be part of Chile's project Cybersyn in the 1970s [1] before a military coup overthrew the Allende government.

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/13/planning-machin...

jdmichal2• 11 years ago

I wonder: Do you derive value from the use of a 1-5 scale? Do you have set definitions for each level, or is that left up to the responder?

I have a certain curiosity sometimes about the use of 1-5 or 1-10 scales, where it seems like a simple boolean response could be appropriate. In this context, I could see an interesting experiment in simply asking, as a yes/no question, "Are you content?"

jeffwass• 11 years ago

why not take a poll :

On a scale from 1 to 5, how much value do you derive from the use of a 1 to 5 scale?

True or False - it's OK to limit subjective questions to Boolean responses.

orlandopoli2• 11 years ago

Back in 2012 we were also curious about that topic and developed a service called CompanyMood (https://www.company-mood.com)

It tracks the mood of invited employees on a weekly basis.

We thought, instead of asking for specific feelings it would be more intuitive to estimate the mood from 0(lowest) to 100.

Furthermore you can organize your team/company in departments, use an anonymous complaint/suggestion box and get an overview via a dashboard that shows all metrics in a graphical overview.

andrea_sdl2• 11 years ago

Another tool on the same topic is http://www.nikoniko.co/

I'm a big believer of tracking mood, although it must be very easy to integrate into the daily workflow.

How did your project evolved?

orlandopoli2• 11 years ago

It evolved (and still does^^) very well.

With almost no paid advertising, more than 100 companies use CompanyMood (mostly in Germany over https://www.company-mood.de)

We have lots of new features (and Apps) in the pipeline and we're currently working on making a business out of it.

simonebrunozzi• 11 years ago

Linden Labs, the company that built Second Life, used to have a "Love machine", used to "give" love points to other co-workers (as a result of a good interaction or contribution).

I found that concept extremely fascinating.

nickpo• 11 years ago

While this comment does not offer a tracking mechanism or a tool, I do believe you can measure and feel when an environment gets better. More subjective than most would like...but you can definitely observe a difference in behaviors.

The UN also thought that this was important. There are more details at liveHappy.com and #HappyActs. There is an upcoming International Happiness Day on March 20th.

In our office we are celebrating the day with everything from team walks, Jenga competitions, popcorn, and managers serving the employees ice cream, as well as building a Happiness Wall.

I can tell you over a year of diligently addressing team morale...it is nothing Big Bang it is consistent small steps and paying attention to the employees and their needs.

squirrel• 11 years ago

At Osper we use an electronic Niko Niko[1] board to track daily mood. I find it helpful for uncovering issues in the company early though of course it isn't the only source.

[1] http://agiletrail.com/2011/09/12/how-to-track-the-teams-mood...

hammock• 11 years ago

Interesting, see this blog from NYT two days ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/business/dealbook/when-emp...

"What companies really need to measure is not how engaged their employees are, but rather how consistently energized they feel."

partition• 11 years ago

Hawthorne effect: "Feels good to track mood."

Tracking Joy at Work

Related Stories