Feel as you're told 1

January 28, 2010

The manifestation of mushrooming wellbeing initiatives across the academic landscape may be rooted in a number of factors, and I applaud those colleagues who question their altruism ("Get happy, and get on with it", 21 January).

Many of these programmes are too prescriptive when it comes to how we should feel. Ironically, this is disempowering, as we aren't encouraged to acknowledge emotions as they occur, interpret their meaning through our own life histories and use the information to guide our behaviour.

My own, rather sinister, view is that this leads to a creeping homogenisation of emotions and behaviour. We receive manuals instructing us how to feel, excluding, of course, those emotions that do not fit into the wellbeing agenda. However, the very hallmark of emotional evolution has always been diversity, a circumstance in stark contrast to the developments materialising in universities (and elsewhere).

Emotions contain data about us, our environment and what matters to us. The moment organisations turn to prescriptive measures to regulate them, there is a peril that our lives will be impoverished, not enriched. Instead of understanding what causes us to be stressed at work or why we feel anxious when facing redundancy, we are encouraged to believe that happiness and wellbeing are easily acquired commodities. It's a cover-up, no more.

Dirk Lindebaum, Postdoctoral research fellow in organisational psychology, University of Manchester.

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October