While not completely true, it’s not entirely false either; productivity and the emotion that decides it depends on the person. However, a generalization of “happy people being more productive” isn’t agreeable. After all, with all people different factors that influence attitude and drive towards productivity are rarely the same.

A different generalization: “Happy people are complacent”. Thus saying that such a person - by definition - is contented to a fault; self-satisfied and unconcerned. Perhaps having arrived at such a state of happiness after years of successful productivity, now this specific person is the opposite of productive, thus altering the initial generalization. Now… being happy is the conclusion and not the prelude to productivity, saying: “Productive people are happy people”.

So if this is the case - of happiness being a result and not a cause - then what inspired the productivity to start with? Possibly the person was happy to begin with and the productivity as a result of a stronger sense of dedication led to an increased level of happiness that eventually reached complacency, but even more likely was that it could have been rooted in any emotion. Since a wide variety of emotions are usually triggers for productivity.

An example of the opposite: “Angry people are productive”. Now, anger or even a deeper sense of hatred is the motivator towards productivity. Perhaps not even the anger itself, but the by-product in the form of frustration, competition, struggle, or desperation… all of which are easily observed emotions in times of conflict and war, when the highest level of productivity - especially in new technologies - is observed in extremely limited time periods. Can the same be said for the ideal Utopian societies? Where in the highest form of observed complacency exists? No, of course not. Much like the Garden of Eden, there’s no need for productivity to exist, especially when happiness is the only product.

Then, as the counter argument, is a happy person incapable of productivity? Not necessarily, but to what degree of happiness is that person and for what purpose are they living? To produce is to survive. A farmer can be happy, and produce crops and building materials from the land and live in happiness, but that productivity isn’t caused from happiness… it is focused on survival. On the other hand, there is another farmer in the same region who is equally as productive, and is completely bitter and resentful, but his level of productivity might even surpass the other because he strives to accomplish his goals faster because the act of doing it doesn’t cause him happiness; as much as finishing the task. A similar - but slightly different - case can hold true for two neighbors and a need to mow their lawns before a coming rain. If neighbor A is happy, he may not feel a need to accomplish his task, while neighbor B recognizes that waiting would result in a more difficult job in the future. Thus, B mows his lawn and A does not. B is able to concentrate on other tasks, although he may not have wanted to be productive, its the act of need that resulted in an increased level, while happy A’s lack of productivity just cost him. Because he was happy, he didn’t feel the need to mow, thus the state of happiness was a negative factor in productivity.

So, in recognizing the previous examples, one would realize that truth rests in the need of accomplishing a task, and not necessarily the emotional state leading into it. That when concerning a level of productivity, a person who is happier may be at a disadvantage. It’s not to say they aren’t productive when they are, just that they may not be as efficient as the next person. That the best course of those persons productive is the one where they use productivity to reach their goal of happiness, and aren’t already there to start.