The interest and controversy spawned by the creation of a "chief happiness officer" (CHO) lead to asking how this position will actually contribute to well-being at the workplace. Is the CHO a "gadget", or does this position signal an actual advance toward improving well-being in firms? Answers to this question are based on an analysis of the literature on well-being at the workplace and on a qualitative study of CHOs (or their equivalent). Although CHOs are recruited in an effort to improve hedonistic well-being and foster horizontal management, appointing a CHO has little to do with the pursuit of happiness (eudemonic well-being). Some CHOs are recruited for utilitarian purposes, but this might undermine any contribution they make to well-being in the long run. The contribution to well-being made by appointing a CHO falls short and has to be completed with other arrangements.
展开▼
