Happiness Metric is quite a bit longer than other patterns because of the following extended rationale. We have included this rationale because of our concern that there are broad misconceptions about how this pattern works and even what it means. The following discussion, based on experience and authoritative references, helps set the record straight.

幸福指數這個模式的解釋之所以⽐其他模式更⻓，是因為以下幾點延伸的解釋緣由。

由於我們擔⼼⼈們對該模式的運作⽅式甚⾄其含義存在⼴泛的誤解，因此加⼊了這些解釋。以下基於經驗和權威參考⽂獻的討論有助於澄清事實。

Is happiness the right metric? The research shows that happiness does indeed measure something, and the literature broadly suggests that happiness links to engagement, which most references correlate to good team performance. It turns out that focusing on the happiness of the team indeed helps the team uncover issues standing in the way not only of happiness as an end in its own right, but of effectiveness as well. The argument for the Happiness Metric is that people feel more personally connected to and committed to the improvement (engagement), and team performance correspondingly improves. The common stereotype holds that this is because people derive great satisfaction from doing their jobs well. However, the research shows that in fact the opposite is more often true: established happiness leads to good performance more than good performance makes employees happy. In a Korn Ferry Institute article, the authors discuss the oft-cited Gallup study that suggests a correlation between happiness and good performance, but note that the causality is reversed from how we usually see it:

幸福是正確的衡量指標嗎？

研究表明，幸福確實衡量了某些東⻄，⽂獻資料普遍表明幸福與參與感相關，⼤多數參考⽂獻都將參與感與良好的團隊績效相關聯。

事實證明，關注團隊的幸福感確實能幫助團隊發現阻礙幸福感和效率的因素。實施幸福指數的理由是，⼈們會對改善更投⼊並更忠誠，團隊績效也會相應提⾼。

普遍的刻板印象認為這是⼈們因出⾊地完成⼯作⽽獲得極⼤的滿⾜感。

然⽽，研究表明事實往往相反：既有的幸福感帶來良好的績效，⽽不是良好的績效讓員⼯感到快樂。在⼀篇 Korn Ferry Institute 的⽂章中，作者討論了常被引⽤的蓋洛普 (Gallup) 研究，該研究表明幸福感和良好績效之間存在相關性，但他們指出因果關係與我們通常看到的相反：

The effort to use happiness as a measure of a society’s productivity on a macro scale is paralleled and bolstered by research on the micro level, which shows that being happy at work actually makes individuals more productive. In a recent study done for Gallup using a longitudinal database of 2,178 business units in 10 large organizations, the researcher James Harter “found evidence supporting the causal impact of employee perceptions on bottom-line measures” like customer loyalty, employee retention, revenue, sales and profit. In a related finding, the Gallup-Healthways well-being index showed earlier this year that Americans of all ages and income levels felt less happy at work and more disengaged from what they do than ever before. Gallup found that this disengagement correlated with lower productivity and poorer health outcomes and cost companies an estimated $300 billion annually. (Emphasis ours) [12]

為了衡量⼀個國家或地區的⽣產⼒，⼈們會在宏觀層⾯上使⽤幸福感作為指標。與此相輔相成的是，微觀層⾯的研究也⽀持了這⼀做法。微觀層⾯的研究表明，⼯作快樂實際上會使個⼈更加⾼效。

James Harter是蓋洛普 (Gallup) 組織的研究⼈員，他利⽤來⾃ 10 個⼤型組織的 2,178 個業務單元的縱向數據庫進⾏了⼀項最新研究，該研究 “發現了員⼯感知⼒對最終盈利指標”（例如客戶忠誠度、員⼯保留率、收⼊、銷售額和利潤）的因果影響的證據”。

蓋洛普-健康之路 (Gallup-Healthways) 的幸福感指數今年早些時候也顯示，與以往任何時候相⽐，美國各個年齡段和收⼊⽔平的⼈都感覺⼯作幸福感更低、投⼊感更低。蓋洛普的研究發現，這種投⼊感缺失與較低的⽣產⼒和更差的健康狀況相關，每年給公司造成的損失估計達3000 億美元。[12]

So, again, the common stereotype holds that happiness is a leading indicator of good performance. This is sometimes true, yet correlation is not causality. The passion and engagement that bode for good performance can evidence themselves in a number of emotions: excitement, confidence, self-assuredness, anticipation, determination, optimism, and sometimes happiness. But they may also trigger other emotions for which we do not hold a positive association, such as desperation or righteous anger. Weinberg notes that there is no such thing as a “bad emotion,” and the broad research shows that “negative emotions” are key to well-being (see [13]). In one HBR article, we find that grumpiness, rather than happiness, bodes for good performance and that, again, the causality is not what one might think it is ([14]):

因此，再次強調，普遍的刻板印象認為幸福感是良好績效的領先指標。這有時是正確的，但相關性並不等於因果關係。預示良好績效的激情和參與感可以通過多種情緒表現出來：興奮、⾃信、⾃負、期待、決⼼、樂觀，有時也包括幸福。但它們也可能會觸發其他我們並不持正⾯聯想的負⾯情緒，例如絕望或正義的憤怒。

Weinberg指出，不存在“壞情緒”這種說法，⼤量研究表明“負⾯情緒”是幸福感的重要因素（見 [13]）。哈佛商業評論 (HBR) 的⼀篇論⽂中，我們發現，易怒⽽不是幸福感才預示著良好的績效，同樣，因果關係也並⾮⼈們想象的那樣 ([14])。

…in a study we conducted on symphonies, we actually found that grumpy orchestras played together slightly better than orchestras in which all the musicians were really quite happy.

That’s because the cause-and-effect is the reverse of what people believe: When we’re productive and we’ve done everything good together (and are recognized for it), we feel satisfied, not the other way around. In other words, the mood of the orchestra members after a performance says more about how well they did than the mood beforehand.

… 在我們進⾏的⼀項針對交響樂團的研究中，我們實際上發現，脾氣暴躁的樂團演奏的協同性往往⽐所有⾳樂家都⾮常開⼼的樂團略好。這是因為因果關係與⼈們認為的相反：當我們⾼效地合作完成了⼀件好事（並因此獲得認可），我們才會感到滿意，⽽不是反過來。換句話說，樂團成員在演出後的情緒狀態⽐演出前的情緒狀態更能說明他們的表現如何。

So not only is happiness insufficient for success, it is also unnecessary. Happiness is not always a leading indicator of success, which strongly suggests that anticipated happiness is even less so. The Danes—one of the most efficient economies in the world—were ranked as the happiest people on Earth for years, and much of the theory prognosticates that it’s because their expectations for the future were so low ([15]). (In fact, the Danes would not say that they are happy, but would use the untranslatable word tilfreds—which might best be translated as “content.”)

In the publication of a study done at Deloitte, [16] the authors attempt to typify the emotional roots of great performance through a quote from Theodore Roosevelt, ([17]) who suggests that the path to achievement is hardly one of happiness:

因此，幸福感因此，快樂不僅不足以獲得成功，也不是必要的。幸福感並不總是成功的領先指標，這強烈地表明，預期的幸福感就更不是成功的領先指標了。丹麥是世界上效率最⾼的經濟體之⼀，多年來⼀直被評為地球上最幸福的民族，許多理論預測這是因為他們對未來的期望值很低 ([15])。（事實上，丹麥⼈不會說⾃⼰很幸福，⽽是會使⽤⽆法翻譯的詞 “tilfreds”，它可能最好被翻譯成“滿⾜”)。）

Deloitte的⼀項研究成果發表後，作者們通過引⽤Theodore Roosevelt的話來概括卓越績效的情感根源 ([16])，([17])，Roosevelt的話表明，實現⽬標的道路絕⾮幸福之路：

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred…; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

信⽤應當屬於真正置身競技場的⼈，他們⾯容憔悴…，他們英勇奮⽃，他們可能會犯錯，也會⼀次⼜⼀次地遭遇失敗，因為沒有不犯錯也沒有缺點的努⼒，但他們確實努⼒去做那些事，他們理解巨⼤的熱忱和奉獻，為崇⾼的事業付出⾃⼰的⼀切。最好的情況下，他們最終會體驗到卓越成就的勝利。最糟糕的情況下，如果他們失敗了，⾄少也是在奮⼒拼搏中失敗，這樣他們才永遠不會與那些既不瞭解勝利也不瞭解失敗的冷淡和膽怯的靈魂為伍。

Sutherland, by coincidence, has also used this quote, in the emotive context of a team that was “frantic” and “nervous” with “tremendous time pressure” and “skeptical” stakeholders who expected yet another in a series of failures—with “happy” conspicuous by its absence ([9], pp. 17–18). Sutherland apparently chose this quote to communicate this demeanor of the team. But one can sense drive, passion, and a sense of team identity in both the quote and in the example Sutherland relates.

Focusing on happiness may paradoxically lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy and a “happy bubble” (see Pop the Happy Bubble). Peter N. Stearns notes: ([18], p. 109)

Sutherland偶然地引⽤了這句話，⽤它來描述⼀個“狂熱”、 “緊張”的團隊，他們⾯臨著“巨⼤的時間壓⼒” 和“持懷疑態度” 的利益相關者，後者預計這將是⼜⼀例失敗——“快樂”在其中明顯缺失（[9]，第 17-18 ⻚）。Sutherland引⽤這句話顯然是為了傳達團隊的這種精神狀態。然⽽，從引⽤的話語和Sutherland講述的例⼦中，都可以感受到動⼒、激情和團隊認同感。

專注於幸福感可能會自相矛盾地導致自我滿足的預言和「幸福感泡沫」（請參閱「戳破幸福感泡沫」）。Peter N. Stearns 指出： ([18], p. 109)

[A]lthough the most obvious drawback of the emphasis on happiness involves the gaps with reality that can, paradoxically, create their own discontents, there’s also the risk that people will fail to explore reasons for dissatisfaction because of pressure to exhibit good cheer… Those risks suggest the need to cut through the pervasive happiness rhetoric at certain points.

雖然過分強調幸福感最明顯的缺點在於它與現實之間的差距可能會帶來悖論的不滿情緒，但還存在另⼀個⻛險，即⼈們可能會因為展示快樂情緒的壓⼒⽽⽆法探索不滿的原因…… 這些風險表明，在某些時候需要摒棄普遍存在的說教式幸福觀。

Happiness, therefore, may be the wrong metric, also because it fails to predict well and works at the wrong level of granularity (i.e., while being a broad indicator, it doesn’t appear to correlate to individual results in isolation). One can be temporarily encouraged or excited about the prospects of some improvement succeeding, but happiness comes from less situational drivers. A host of research (summarized in [15], p. 240) suggests that “objective circumstances, … and life events” contribute to no more than about eight percent and certainly no more than 15 percent of the variance in happiness. Further, “people are not very good at predicting what will make them happy and how long that happiness will last.” ([3], p. 86) Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman has done research that shows our happiness with a given environment relies on memory, and memory is usually faulty. A person’s memory of happiness focuses on the highest level or emotional culmination of an experience, rather than on any sustained feeling over the interval of the entire experience. So, the answer to: “Were you happy in your last job?” is likely to be a selective remembrance of how the job ended, or might crystalize the high point of the job experience though the overall experience was terrible ([19], ff. 380). These results imply that it doesn’t work to tie the benefit of potential improvement to an anticipated sense of happiness. In no case does the literature offer evidence that any gradient of happiness is useful for selecting the best from among alternative improvements or mitigations.

因此，幸福感也可能是⼀個錯誤的衡量指標，因為它既預測不佳，也不適⽤於正確的粒度層⾯（即，雖然作為⼀個廣泛的指標，它似乎與孤⽴的個體結果無關）。⼈們可能會對某些改善成功的可能性暫時感到⿎舞或興奮，但幸福感來⾃更少受情境影響的驅動因素。

許多研究 (總結見 [15]，第 240 頁) 表明，“客觀環境……和⽣活事件” 導致的幸福感變化不超過 8%，肯定不超過 15%。此外，“⼈們並不能很好地預測什麼會讓他們快樂，以及這種快樂能持續多久。” ([3]，第 86 頁) 諾貝爾獎得主 Daniel Kahneman 的研究表明，我們對給定環境的幸福感依賴於記憶，⽽記憶通常是不可靠的。⼈們對幸福感的記憶往往集中於體驗的最⾼潮或情感頂點，⽽不是整個體驗過程中持續的感覺。

因此，“你上份⼯作開⼼嗎？”這個問題的答案很可能只是⼀種選擇性的記憶，即⼯作如何結束，或者可能會讓⼯作體驗中的最⾼點結晶化，儘管整體體驗可能⾮常糟糕 ([19]，ff. 380)。這些結果表明，將潛在改善的收益與預期的幸福感聯繫起來是沒有效果的。⽂獻在任何情況下都沒有提供證據表明任何幸福感梯度對從備選的改善或緩解措施中選擇最佳⽅案有幫助。

In [20] (p. 51), the author Ferriss properly dissects popular axes of emotion:

FERRISS 的著作 ([20]，第 51 頁) 中，作者正確地剖析了流⾏的情緒曲線：

Let’s assume we have 10 goals and we achieve them—what is the desired outcome that makes all the effort worthwhile? The most common response is what I also would have suggested five years ago: happiness. I no longer believe this is a good answer. Happiness can be bought with a bottle of wine and has become ambiguous through overuse. There is a more precise alternative that reflects what I believe the actual objective is.

Bear with me. What is the opposite of happiness? Sadness? No. Just as love and hate are two sides of the same coin, so are happiness and sadness. Crying out of happiness is a perfect illustration of this. The opposite of love is indifference, and the opposite of happiness is—here’s the clincher—boredom.

Excitement is the more practical synonym for happiness, and it is precisely what you should strive to chase. It is the cure-all. When people suggest you follow your “passion” or your “bliss,” I propose that they are, in fact, referring to the same singular concept: excitement.

假設我們有 10 個⽬標並且實現了它們，那麼什麼樣的結果會讓所有付出變得值得呢？最常見的答案也是我五年前會建議的答案：幸福感。

但我現在不再認為這是⼀個好的答案。幸福感可以通過⼀瓶酒來換取，並且由於過度使⽤⽽變得模糊不清。還存在⼀個更精准的替代詞，它反映了我認為的實際⽬標是什麼。請耐⼼聽我解釋⼀下。幸福感 的反⾯是什麼？ 悲傷？ 不對。就像愛和恨是同⼀枚硬幣的兩⾯⼀樣，幸福感和悲傷也是如此。幸福地哭泣就是⼀個完美的例⼦。愛的反⾯是冷漠，幸福感的反⾯是 – ⽆聊（這是關鍵所在）。

興奮是幸福感⼀個更實⽤的同義詞，是你應該追求的東⻄。它是萬能藥。當⼈們建議你追隨“激情” 或“幸福”時，我認為他們實際上指的是同⼀個概念：興奮。

Lastly, happiness is more the result of an integration over many successive, small improvements than of any single change, and we can rarely tie increased happiness to any specific, single change ([3], p. 88). Henrik Kniberg notes ([5]):

最後，幸福感更多地來⾃於對許多連續的⼩進步進⾏整合的結果，⽽不是任何單⼀的變化帶來的結果，⽽且我們很少能將幸福感的提升與任何特定的單⼀改變聯繫起來 ([3]，第 88 頁)。正如 Henrik Kniberg 指出的那樣 ( [5])：

We’ve seen many examples of the metric influencing our actions, and our actions influencing the metric (but not on a day-by-day basis, more like a few times per year)… Interestingly enough our average happiness is very stable and boring, it hovers around 4.0 (+/- 0.2) most of the time. And in that sense the average happiness is pretty useless data, there are no interesting trends to follow, except some things like that the happiness tends to gradually degrade and then make a jump back up after our unconferences. The ROI of getting everyone together was directly measurable 🙂

我們見過許多例⼦，衡量標準會影響我們的⾏動，我們的⾏動也會影響衡量標準（但這並不是每天都發⽣，更像是每年幾次）……有趣的是，我們的平均幸福感⾮常穩定和平淡，⼤多數時間它都徘徊在 4.0（正負0.2）左右。

從這個意義上說，平均幸福感是⼀個⾮常無⽤的數據，沒有什麼有趣的趨勢可以追蹤，除了幸福感會逐漸下降然後在我們去參加⾮會議活動後再次上升等⼀些特例。讓⼤家聚在⼀起的投資回報率是可以直接衡量的 🙂

Some even argue that happiness is genetically linked, and that “urging a person to become happier is like insisting she become taller.” ([18], p. 108) These insights suggest that the use of happiness at all is an unreliable indicator of any property, emotional or otherwise, of any single change.

甚⾄有⼈認為幸福感與基因有關，就像“敦促某⼈變得更快樂就像堅持要求她變得更⾼⼀樣”([18]，第 108 頁)。這些見解表明，在任何情況下，使⽤幸福感作為衡量任何屬性（⽆論是情感屬性還是其他屬性）的指標都是不可靠的。

Putting the team’s fate in its own hands gives the team a stronger sense of autonomy, but autonomy alone won’t carry the day. Therefore, the measure needs a connection to some purpose that transcends the individual. The team members must share some sense of value and be focused on the whole, and on an outwardly directed sense of Greatest Value. Consider this case study contributed by John Hayes for one of his teams. The team members ranked happiness along a spectrum that ranged from loving their job and not wanting to look elsewhere, to desperately seeking alternative employment. They started doing Scrum and started moving toward a Collocated Team. The team was measurably unhappy with this, as each team member valued being able to work from home. Happiness drove to an all-time low. So in one Sprint, people were allowed to work individually, at home, in silos. (The gap in the data comes from two Sprints that weren’t measured, because the team abandoned their faith in the Happiness Metric while their impatience with collocation grew.)

讓團隊掌控⾃⼰的命運可以賦予團隊更強的⾃治權，但僅憑⾃治並不能取得勝利。

因此，衡量標準需要與超越個體的某種⽬標相關聯。團隊成員必須共享某種價值觀，並專注於整體以及外向的最⼤價值。

請考慮 John Hayes 為他的⼀個團隊提供的案例研究。團隊成員根據⼀個範圍來評價幸福感，該範圍從熱愛他們的⼯作且不想另謀⾼就，到迫切地尋找替代⼯作。

他們開始實施 Scrum 並開始向同地辦公團隊邁進。團隊對此感到⾮常不滿，因為每個團隊成員都珍視在家⼯作的可能性。幸福感降⾄歷史最低點。

因此，在⼀個Sprint中，⼈們被允許單獨在家⼯作，各⾃為政。（數據中的缺⼝來⾃兩個沒有測量的迭代，因為團隊在對幸福指數的信⼼喪失的同時，他們對同地辦公的厭煩情緒也在加劇。）