Introduction
The world of work is often discussed through a narrow lens, one that privileges white-collar professionals — those in offices, technology firms, and knowledge-based industries. Whether in media narratives or policy discussions, their experiences take centre stage, shaping public perceptions of employment trends and workplace issues. This disproportionate focus, however, comes at a cost. It sidelines millions of workers in blue-collar and service industries, whose labour is no less vital to society. By failing to consider their realities, we construct an incomplete and exclusionary narrative about work itself.
The bias in work narratives
The dominance of white-collar workers in employment discussions is not accidental. Historically, knowledge-based work has been associated with status and economic power, while manual labour has often been undervalued. The rise of the service economy and technological innovation has only reinforced this divide, making the concerns of office workers more visible. The shift to remote work during the pandemic, for instance, was extensively covered in the media, with countless articles examining its impact on productivity, mental health, and work-life balance. Yet for factory workers, delivery drivers and other such professions — who could not perform their duties from home — the conversation was far more limited. Their struggles, from increased exposure to the virus to exploitative conditions, rarely made front-page news.
This imbalance is also reflected in policymaking. Governments and corporations have spent years crafting policies that cater to professional workers, such as tax incentives for startups and investments in digital infrastructure [1]. Meanwhile, issues like stagnant minimum wages, declining union power, and hazardous working conditions in blue-collar sectors receive comparatively less attention. As economist David Autor has pointed out, “the hollowing out of middle-wage jobs in manufacturing and routine office work has led to an increasingly polarized labour market, with growth concentrated at both the high and low ends” [2]. Yet, discussions about workplace reform frequently prioritise knowledge workers rather than addressing the declining job security of those in manual trades.
Overlooked realities
While white-collar employees may face challenges such as burnout and digital surveillance, their working conditions generally offer more stability than those in manual or service industries. Many blue-collar workers operate under precarious conditions, often lacking benefits like sick pay or pensions. Gig economy workers, such as Uber drivers and food couriers, experience this insecurity acutely, as their classification as independent contractors rather than employees deprives them of essential protections. Juliet Schor, author of After the Gig: How the Sharing Economy Got Hijacked and How to Win It Back, argues that “platform companies have perfected the art of labour exploitation while marketing themselves as worker-friendly and flexible” [3].
For those engaged in physically demanding jobs, the risks are even greater. Construction workers, agricultural labourers, and factory employees face significant health hazards, yet workplace injuries and chronic ailments receive far less media scrutiny than, for example, discussions about ergonomic chairs or standing desks in office settings. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 5,000 fatal work injuries occur annually in the United States, with a disproportionate number affecting those in manual labour [4]. Yet, mainstream conversations about job safety rarely extend beyond cybersecurity threats and office stress.
Career mobility also differs starkly between white- and blue-collar professions. Whereas professional workers often have clear paths for advancement, many in lower-wage industries struggle with career stagnation. Automation looms as a major threat, yet while there is robust discussion about how artificial intelligence might impact software engineers and journalists, less is said about how self-checkout machines, warehouse robotics, and AI-driven logistics systems will displace millions of retail, warehouse, and transport workers.
Ireland
Ireland provides a striking example of the disparities between white- and blue-collar workers. While the country has experienced remarkable economic growth, largely driven by multinational tech and pharmaceutical companies, many service and manual labour workers have seen stagnant wages and rising living costs. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) has frequently highlighted the growing gap between high-earning professionals in Dublin’s financial and tech sectors and low-paid workers in hospitality, retail, and healthcare [5]. Despite government efforts to raise the minimum wage, many workers still struggle with job insecurity and a lack of affordable housing.
Additionally, the rise of the gig economy in Ireland has introduced new challenges. Delivery and Uber drivers have reported exploitative conditions, prompting legal battles over worker classification. In 2021, the Irish Labour Party introduced a bill aimed at providing platform workers with better protections, addressing the power imbalance between workers and app platforms [6]. The bill sought to update employment codes to prevent bogus self-employment and grant workers access to information about the algorithms that decide their pay and performance. However, many workers remain in precarious situations, lacking sick pay, pensions, and reliable contracts.
The construction sector, another major pillar of the Irish economy, has also faced labour shortages, partly due to a cultural emphasis on white-collar careers. As vocational training and apprenticeships have been de-emphasised in recent years, Ireland now struggles to find skilled tradespeople, which has exacerbated the housing crisis by slowing down construction projects [7]. Addressing these issues requires a shift in both policy and public perception to ensure all workers receive fair wages, protections, and recognition for their contributions.
Why bias matters
Ignoring non-white-collar workers has profound economic and social consequences. A society that prioritises knowledge-based employment risks overlooking the fundamental infrastructure that supports its economy. Essential workers in logistics, sanitation, food production, and public transport ensure that daily life functions smoothly, yet they are often the lowest-paid and most vulnerable to economic shocks. As Sarah Jaffe, author of Work Won’t Love You Back, notes, “we celebrate essential workers in times of crisis, but when the crisis ends, they are quickly forgotten” [8].
Beyond the economic implications, this bias also fuels social divisions. The glorification of white-collar careers perpetuates the idea that other forms of work are less valuable, discouraging young people from pursuing trades or service jobs. For example, in Jobber’s Annual Blue-Collar Report, 76% of those surveyed said there was a stigma associated with going to a vocational school instead of a traditional university, 61% said their parents had told them not to pursue the trades or hadn’t talked to them about it, and 47% said that tradespeople are shown in a bad light in media [9]. This contributes to persistent labour shortages in industries that are critical to national economies. In countries like Germany, governments have actively promoted vocational training as a way to counteract this imbalance, yet cultural perceptions remain difficult to shift [10].
Furthermore, the lack of attention to blue-collar and service workers distorts our understanding of economic inequality. Discussions about workplace fairness often centre on white-collar issues, such as gender pay gaps in executive positions, but neglect the wage stagnation and job insecurity affecting those in lower-income roles. The Economic Policy Institute has reported that while CEO pay has risen nearly 1,300% since 1978, wages for the bottom 90% of workers have barely budged in real terms [11]. Without shifting our focus to include all workers, debates about inequality remain incomplete.
A more inclusive approach
To build a fairer and more accurate discussion about work, we must broaden our perspective. This requires acknowledging and amplifying the voices of workers across all sectors, not just those in offices. Journalists and researchers should prioritise stories that explore the realities of retail workers, warehouse staff, and gig economy labourers with the same depth and urgency as they do the challenges of remote work or corporate burnout.
Policymakers must also address disparities in worker protections. Labour laws need to evolve to secure fair wages, stable contracts, and health protections for those in physically demanding or precarious jobs. Some countries have begun to implement reforms — Spain, for instance, passed a law in 2021 recognising gig workers as employees rather than independent contractors, a move hailed by labour advocates as a crucial step towards equity [12].
Education systems, too, should reflect the value of all types of work. Societies that push every student towards a university degree and a corporate career risk devaluing vocational skills and exacerbating worker shortages in crucial industries. A shift in mindset is necessary — one that sees trade and service jobs not as fallback options, but as essential, respectable, and well-compensated career paths.
Expanding the conversation
The tendency to write primarily about white-collar workers creates a distorted picture of the workforce, reinforcing economic and social inequalities. By expanding our narratives to include blue-collar and service workers, we can foster a more inclusive understanding of work — one that recognises the contributions of all labourers, values their struggles, and ensures that policies reflect the needs of the entire workforce. The future of work cannot be defined solely by those behind desks; it must encompass everyone who keeps society running.
More on Bias
Refining Performance Assessments: Reducing Recency Bias for Superior Evaluations
Beyond the Spotlight: Unravelling the Hidden Truths of Survivorship Bias
Beyond Bias: Refining Our Decisions with Nuala Walsh – Podcast
The Psychology of Decision-Making
More on Inclusivity
Why Inclusive Leadership Matters: Building Better Workplaces
Leadership in Focus: Foundations and the Path Forward
Building A Resilient Workforce : The Power of A Growth Mindset
Sources
[2] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25588/w25588.pdf
[3] https://www.ucpress.edu/books/after-the-gig/paper
[5] https://www.ictu.ie/sites/default/files/publications/2023/8219%20ICTU%20BDC%20Report%202023.pdf
[8] https://workwontloveyouback.org/
[9] https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcperna/2024/08/15/gen-z-blue-collar-career-opportunity/
[12] https://www.ft.com/content/73be294b-a43d-4387-aced-7b5cb0d91007
Introduction
Ireland’s rise as a global investment hub didn’t happen by chance. In the 1950s, it was a struggling economy on the fringes of Europe. Today, it’s a magnet for multinational giants, fuelled by low corporate taxes, EU access, and a business-friendly environment. Tech, pharma, and finance have poured in billions, transforming the country’s fortunes. But success brings challenges — rising costs, global competition, and shifting economic tides. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) fundamentally changed Ireland’s economic status. This article will explore its role in Ireland today.
The history of FDI in Ireland
Ireland took its first steps to becoming a magnet for FDI in the 1950s and 60s, following the establishment of the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) in 1949 [1]. The IDA’s mission was to attract foreign investment by promoting Ireland’s favorable business environment. A pivotal element of this strategy has been the maintenance of a competitive corporate tax rate, set at 12.5% since 2003, which is among the lowest in the European Union. This favorable tax policy, coupled with a skilled workforce, access to the EU market, and a pro-business regulatory framework, has made Ireland an attractive destination for multinational corporations [2].
Over the decades, Ireland’s FDI strategy has evolved, adapting to global economic trends and leveraging its unique advantages. The country’s membership in the European Union has been a significant factor, providing foreign investors with access to a market of over 450 million consumers. Additionally, Ireland’s English-speaking population, strong legal system, and commitment to innovation have further enhanced its appeal as a destination for foreign investment.
Current landscape of FDI
As of the end of 2022, the stock of FDI in Ireland reached €1.284 trillion, marking a 2% increase from the previous year [3]. This figure represents 254% of Ireland’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), approximately four times the EU average, underscoring the country’s significant reliance on foreign investment. Notably, €921 billion of this investment originated from the United States, accounting for 72% of the total FDI in Ireland [4].
The dominance of US investment in Ireland reflects the strong economic ties between the two countries, as well as Ireland’s strategic position as a gateway to the European market. However, Ireland has also attracted significant investment from other regions, including Europe and Asia, diversifying its FDI portfolio and reducing dependency on any single source.
Despite these impressive figures, 2023 saw a decline in FDI, with investments decreasing by €50.3 billion to €1.3 trillion [5]. This downturn highlights the volatility of global investment flows and underscores the need for Ireland to continually adapt its strategies to remain competitive in the face of economic uncertainties.
Sectoral distribution
FDI in Ireland spans various sectors, with a notable concentration in technology, pharmaceuticals, and financial services. The country’s favorable business environment has attracted tech giants like Google, Apple, and Microsoft, establishing Ireland as a tech hub in Europe. These companies have not only created thousands of jobs but have also contributed to the development of a vibrant ecosystem of startups and innovation.
The pharmaceutical sector has also seen substantial foreign investment, with companies like Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Novartis establishing operations in Ireland. The country’s robust regulatory framework, skilled talent pool, and strong intellectual property protections have made it an attractive location for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research.
In addition to technology and pharmaceuticals, Ireland has become a hub for financial services, with many global banks and insurance companies setting up European headquarters in Dublin. The presence of these firms has further diversified Ireland’s economy and reinforced its position as a global financial center.
As Peter Burke, Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment, put it: “Ireland continues to be recognised as a highly stable and attractive location for global investment. Our country has a reputation for being agile, with an economy underpinned by a dynamic ecosystem of global companies, indigenous enterprise and academia working in collaboration. Government remains committed to ensuring the right polices are in place to facilitate the development of appropriate skills, infrastructure, and innovation to facilitate strong levels of FDI into the future.” [6]
Regional development
While major cities like Dublin have been primary beneficiaries of FDI, efforts have been made to ensure that investment spreads to other regions. Initiatives aimed at regional development have led to the establishment of multinational operations in various parts of the country, promoting balanced economic growth and reducing regional disparities [7].
For example, Cork, Galway, and Limerick have also seen significant investment in recent years, particularly in the technology and pharmaceutical sectors [8]. These regional hubs offer lower operating costs compared to Dublin, making them attractive alternatives for multinational corporations looking to expand their presence in Ireland.
The IDA has played a key role in promoting regional development, offering incentives to companies that establish operations outside of Dublin. These efforts have helped to create jobs and stimulate economic activity in areas that were historically underserved, contributing to a more equitable distribution of wealth across the country.
Economic contributions
Beyond employment, FDI plays a crucial role in Ireland’s economic prosperity. The presence of multinational corporations contributes significantly to tax revenues, bolstering public finances. Corporate tax receipts have more than doubled since 2013, reaching €23.8 billion in 2023, an increase of €1.2 billion (or 5.3%) in comparison to 2022 (€22.6 billion) [9]. These revenues have enabled the government to invest in critical infrastructure, education, and healthcare, improving the quality of life for Irish citizens.
Additionally, multinational corporations drive investment in research and development, fostering innovation and enhancing the competitiveness of the Irish economy. Many of these companies have established R&D centers in Ireland, collaborating with local universities and research institutions to develop cutting-edge technologies and products [10].
FDI has also had a multiplier effect on the Irish economy, creating opportunities for local businesses that supply goods and services to multinational corporations. This has helped to build a robust domestic economy that is less reliant on foreign investment for growth.
Challenges
Despite the positive impact of FDI, Ireland faces challenges in maintaining its attractiveness to foreign investors. In 2023, FDI in Ireland decreased by €50.3 billion to €1.3 trillion, with investments from Europe and the US declining by €49.3 billion and €15 billion, respectively [11]. This downturn highlights the volatility of global investment flows and the need for Ireland to continually adapt its strategies to remain competitive.
Global economic uncertainties, such as rising protectionism, geopolitical tensions, and the potential fallout of any Trump-imposed tariffs, pose risks to Ireland’s FDI-dependent model. Additionally, domestic issues like high living costs, housing shortages, and infrastructure constraints could impact the country’s appeal to foreign businesses.
To address these challenges, Ireland must focus on maintaining its competitive advantages while addressing the needs of both businesses and citizens. This includes investing in infrastructure, improving the quality of life, and ensuring that the benefits of FDI are distributed more equitably across society [12].
Strategic initiatives
To address these challenges, Ireland has undertaken several strategic initiatives. Peter Burke writes that “while recognising the risks to the global economic outlook, IDA’s strategy remains a plan of ambition. It identifies and responds to key FDI growth drivers including digitalisation and AI, semiconductors, health, and sustainability. These convergent spheres of opportunity are well aligned to the core sectors in Ireland’s existing FDI base and will help shape IDA’s continued focus on attracting new investment to Ireland.” [13]
Burke also highlights IDA’s strategic objectives to scale cutting edge innovation and further deepen and scale RD&I in Ireland. Plans for doing so include partnering with Research Ireland on Centres for Research Training, and partnering with clients to realise opportunities associated with new and evolving EU instruments such as Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI). IDA is targeting 55% of investments to regional locations over the next 5 years. [14]
The role of foreign direct investment in Ireland
Foreign Direct Investment has been a driving force behind Ireland’s economic transformation, contributing to employment, innovation, and overall prosperity. While challenges persist, Ireland’s commitment to creating a conducive environment for foreign investors positions it well to navigate future uncertainties. By continually adapting its policies and infrastructure, Ireland aims to sustain and enhance the benefits derived from FDI, ensuring long-term economic resilience and growth.
As Ireland looks to the future, it must balance the need to attract foreign investment with the need to address domestic challenges and ensure that the benefits of FDI are shared by all. By doing so, Ireland can continue to thrive as a global hub for business and innovation, setting an example for other small, open economies around the world.
More On Ireland’s Economic Outlook
AI in Ireland and Europe: the Taoiseach’s Perspective
What Does Donald Trump’s Second Coming Mean for Ireland?
What is the impact of DeepSeek, China’s new AI model?
Sources
[2] https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-investment-climate-statements/ireland/
[6] https://www.idaireland.com/latest-news/press-release/fdi-economic-impact-remains-strong
[7] https://www.idaireland.com/latest-news/press-release/fdi-economic-impact-remains-strong
[8] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275124005031
[9] https://assets.gov.ie/299819/180bd125-0e48-4c56-973a-05fb4fc8ccd5.pdf
[10] https://deconch30.medium.com/how-ireland-became-a-global-hub-for-r-d-and-innovation-097038d2be6f
[12] https://www.competitiveness.ie/media/d2nhry3o/icc_2024_final_version.pdf
[13] https://www.idaireland.com/ida-ireland-strategy-2025-2029
[14] https://www.idaireland.com/ida-ireland-strategy-2025-2029
Introduction
In a recent article in the Business Post, Ireland’s Taoiseach Micheál Martin underscored the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) for both Ireland and the EU [1]. Written in the wake of his attending the AI Action Summit in Paris earlier that week, Martin compared AI’s impact to that of the Industrial Revolution and the printing press, arguing that Europe must embrace AI’s opportunities while ensuring appropriate regulation. His remarks come at a time of increasing global debate on AI governance, with the EU’s AI Act aiming to set the world’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, and a new international declaration signed by more than sixty nations in Paris last week upping the ante regarding regulation.
A game-changer
Martin highlighted AI’s capacity to address economic and societal challenges, citing healthcare as a key area where AI can revolutionise diagnostics and chronic disease management [2]. AI-driven medical technologies, such as predictive analytics for disease outbreaks and AI-assisted imaging for cancer detection, are already showing promise in transforming healthcare systems. For example, Omdena’s AI-powered app in Liberia predicts malaria outbreaks and identifies high-risk areas, enabling health officials to take proactive measures, particularly for vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women. [3]
Beyond healthcare, AI offers the potential to boost productivity across industries. McKinsey estimates that AI could contribute $2.6 trillion to $4.4 trillion to the global economy annually in productivity, with sectors such as finance, logistics, and manufacturing standing to gain significantly [4]. Ireland, with its strong base of technology firms and multinational corporations, is well-positioned to capitalise on these gains if the right policies are put in place.
However, while Martin champions AI’s potential, concerns remain about the technology’s risks, including job displacement and ethical dilemmas surrounding AI decision-making. The OECD warns that up to 27% of jobs in developed economies could be at high risk of automation due to AI advancements [5]. In Ireland, where the tech sector employs over 100,000 people, the challenge will be to upskill the workforce to ensure that AI augments rather than replaces jobs. But Martin concludes that the risk is worth the reward, “If we don’t [enable Europe to access the full potential of AI], we risk losing out and forfeiting the enormous gains AI promises.” [6]
Regulation vs Innovation
Central to Martin’s argument is the need for a balanced approach to AI regulation. The EU AI Act, set to become the world’s first comprehensive AI legislation, classifies AI applications into four categories based on risk: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal. Applications deemed “unacceptable” (e.g., social credit scoring systems) will be banned, while high-risk AI systems (such as biometric surveillance) will be subject to stringent regulatory requirements.
While Martin supports the Act’s objectives, he stresses the importance of its implementation being proportionate and innovation-friendly. Critics of the AI Act, including industry leaders and policymakers in the US, have argued that excessive regulation could stifle AI development in Europe. JD Vance, the US Vice President, voiced concerns at the Paris summit, claiming that Europe’s approach risks hindering AI investment and competitiveness [7]. The Trump administration will “ensure that AI systems developed in America are free from ideological bias,” Vance told the conference, pledging that the US would “never restrict our citizens’ right to free speech.” In an address that seemed keen to provoke, he also stressed that “the Trump administration will ensure that the most powerful AI systems are built in the US, with American-designed and -manufactured chips”.
Proponents of AI regulation argue that Europe’s regulatory leadership will ensure AI development aligns with democratic values and fundamental rights. The European Commission has defended the Act, stating that it will create legal certainty for businesses while protecting citizens from harmful AI applications. Ireland’s role within this debate is crucial: as a major hub for tech companies, it must navigate both compliance with EU regulations and maintaining its attractiveness for AI-driven investment. As Martin puts it: “Good regulation provides appropriate protection, it provides certainty for all stakeholders, but it also facilitates innovation, growth and investment. It doesn’t stymie progress and opportunity; it enables it.” [8]
At the Paris summit, hosted by French President Emmanual Macron, more than 60 nations, including China, signed a new international document making a global pledge to promote responsible AI development. The document pledged to “ensure AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure, and trustworthy.” It also called for “making AI sustainable for people and the planet” and protecting “human rights, gender equality, linguistic diversity, consumer rights, and intellectual property.” Former Fine Gael MEP Deirdre Clune was one of the negotiators in the European Parliament working on the legislation. She told The Irish Times that MEPs tried to make the act “as innovation-friendly as possible…but it needs to be pinned down. It needs to be regulated and have oversight…You can’t have things run riot, making decisions about people.” [9]
Meanwhile, the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, came with a plan to set up AI research facilities, which officials likened to the Cern lab in Geneva that hosts the Large Hadron Collider. European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen said the EU planned to build four big facilities, or “gigafactories”, where European start-ups and other companies can train and develop AI models and software. The research sites will be funded from a €50 billion pot of investment to boost the EU’s AI industry. [10]
Investment in AI is gaining momentum across Europe. At the Paris AI Summit, in addition to the €50 billion pot, came a further €150 billion pledged by private investors, totalling €200 billion to support AI research, development, and deployment. Martin welcomed this initiative, positioning Ireland as a key player in Europe’s AI growth strategy. “This is the scale of ambition Europe needs to turbocharge its AI journey,” he writes. “And I want Ireland to be a central partner in this.” [11]
Ireland’s AI strategy
Ireland’s AI strategy is framed around making the country a leading hub for AI innovation. Martin highlighted Ireland’s strong digital infrastructure, including its network of data centres and high concentration of global tech firms such as Google, Meta, and Microsoft. However, he acknowledged concerns about energy capacity constraints and the need for sustainable AI growth, saying Ireland will need to refresh its National Digital Strategy over the coming months.
One of Martin’s key arguments is that public trust is essential for AI adoption. As without confidence in AI systems, businesses and governments may struggle to implement AI solutions effectively. “Without trust, we won’t have adoption, and without adoption, we will lose out on the potential myriad benefits AI offers across us,” he says. [12]
The EU AI Act seeks to build this trust through transparency requirements and ethical AI principles. In Ireland, the government has worked closely with the AI Advisory Council to establish guidelines on AI ethics, data protection, and algorithmic accountability. Public perception of AI remains mixed: a recent survey by the European Commission found that while 62% of Europeans view robots and AI positively at work and 70% believe it improves productivity, most Europeans support clear rules for the use of digital technologies, for instance protecting workers’ privacy (82%) and involving workers and their representatives in the design and adoption of new technologies (77%) [13].
AI in Ireland and Europe
Micheál Martin’s perspective on AI underscores the delicate balance that Ireland and Europe must strike between innovation and regulation.The debate surrounding the EU AI Act exemplifies this tension. While some view the regulation as necessary to protect democratic values, individual rights, and mitigate risks such as job displacement and misinformation, others warn that excessive restrictions could drive investment elsewhere. Martin’s stance — that regulation must be proportionate and innovation-friendly — reflects Ireland’s broader goal of remaining a global technology hub while complying with EU frameworks.
With €200 billion in AI investment pledged at the Paris Summit and the European Commission’s vision for AI moving forward, the trajectory for AI development in Europe is set. Ireland, with its strong technology sector, skilled workforce, and commitment to ethical AI, is well-placed to be a key player in shaping AI’s future. The challenge will be in navigating energy constraints, public concerns, and workforce adaptation, ensuring that AI serves as a force for progress rather than division.
Ultimately, as Martin notes, failing to embrace AI’s potential would mean forfeiting its vast benefits. As Europe embarks on this new era of digital transformation, Ireland’s role will be to bridge innovation and responsible governance — positioning itself as a leader in the AI revolution while safeguarding public trust and economic resilience.
Sources
[3] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/09/ai-diagnostics-health-outcomes/
[5] https://www.reuters.com/technology/27-jobs-high-risk-ai-revolution-says-oecd-2023-07-11/
[7] https://apnews.com/article/paris-ai-summit-vance-1d7826affdcdb76c580c0558af8d68d2
[13] https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3222
Introduction
Negotiation is often perceived as an art mastered only by a select few, but in reality success in negotiations is determined less by natural talent and more by learned skills. The problem is that many of these skills are misunderstood, mainly thanks to persistent myths that lead people to adopt counterproductive strategies. Whether you’re negotiating a salary, a contract, or a business deal, falling for these myths can cost you money, opportunities, and valuable relationships. This article exposes some of the most damaging negotiation myths and offers some expert-backed alternatives to help you secure better deals. But don’t worry, we won’t be quoting from The Art of the Deal…
Myth 1: ‘Win-Win’ is always the best outcome
The term ‘win-win’ is often thrown around as the gold standard in negotiations, but the reality is more complex. While mutually beneficial agreements are ideal, the pursuit of ‘win-win’ can sometimes lead negotiators to concede too much, too soon. You may want what’s best for your negotiating partners, but that doesn’t mean they want what’s best for you. A study by Harvard Business School backs this up. It found that negotiators who aim for ‘win-win’ tend to reveal too much information too early, weakening their bargaining position [1]. In contrast, skilled negotiators focus on value creation and value claiming. This means understanding when collaboration is beneficial and when a more assertive approach is required.
Instead of focusing solely on the idea of a perfect ‘win-win,’ it’s better to assess the situation strategically. If there’s room to expand the pie — meaning, creating value that both parties can enjoy — then a win-win approach may be applicable. But if it’s about splitting existing resources, focusing on the claim might take precedence. Being overly optimistic about ‘win-win’ scenarios can lead to failure if one party gives too much.
The Fix: Instead of blindly aiming for a ‘win-win’ outcome, assess the situation carefully. Are there opportunities to expand the pie before dividing it? Can you trade something of low value to you for something of high value from the other party? Strategic thinking should take precedence over feel-good platitudes. Be ready to recognise the difference between negotiation opportunities where collaboration is key and where a more aggressive stance is necessary.
Myth 2: The first offer should always come from the other side
Many people believe that letting the other party make the first offer provides an advantage by giving insight into their expectations. However, research on ‘anchoring bias’ suggests otherwise.
Anchoring bias occurs when the first piece of information provided in a negotiation serves as a psychological anchor, influencing all subsequent discussion. Research shows that the first offer has a disproportionate impact on the final agreement. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that the first offer in a negotiation heavily influences the final outcome, with those making the initial offer often securing better deals [2]. This is because the first figure presented acts as a psychological anchor, shaping the negotiation around it.
The initial offer sets the stage for success. Simon Bedard, CEO at Exit Advisory Group, offers some strategies in Forbes as to how to make sure your first move is strong [3]. Firstly, aim high but not outlandishly so. Bedard says you want to give yourself negotiation room without alienating the other party with unrealistic figures. He highlights how setting a high anchor gives you room for compromise, allowing the negotiation to proceed with a better outcome. Another tactic is using precise numbers instead of round ones — $497,000 rather than $500,000, for example — which can suggest you’ve done thorough valuation homework. This level of detail can be persuasive because it implies a well-founded rationale behind the offer. Research has shown that this technique increases the likelihood of your position being taken seriously and accepted.
The Fix: Rather than waiting for the other party, make the first offer — provided you’ve done your research. Setting an ambitious yet reasonable anchor forces the negotiation to start on your terms and increases the likelihood of a favourable outcome. Additionally, when you make that first offer, refrain from revealing all your cards. Hold back some concessions until later stages of the negotiation. The exchange should be gradual, which helps maintain leverage.
Lastly, understand when to reveal certain cards by withholding some concessions until later stages; let them unfold gradually as part of strategic exchange rather than laying everything out from the start. Your aim should always be a deal that feels like success on both sides — one where neither walks away feeling short-changed but empowered by fair play and mutual respect cultivated throughout discussions.
Myth 3: You should always mirror the other party’s behaviour
Popular negotiation advice suggests that mirroring — subtly copying gestures, tone, posture and speech patterns — helps build rapport and increases the chances of reaching an agreement. While there is some truth to this, excessive mirroring can backfire if it appears insincere or manipulative.
A 2022 study found that while subtle mirroring can enhance trust, overt mirroring often leads to discomfort and suspicion [4]. Overuse of this technique can make the other party feel as if they are being manipulated, reducing overall trust. When you mirror someone too much, the person can feel like they’re being played. People are perceptive, and if they sense something isn’t authentic, they will often disengage.
The Fix: Build rapport naturally through active listening and genuine engagement rather than mechanically copying the other person’s behaviour. Negotiations work best when the two sides foster a genuine connection. You don’t have to make a new best friend, but at least treat your negotiating partner with sufficient respect to not pretend to be what you’re not.
Myth 4: More information equals more power
While preparation is crucial, the belief that more information always leads to better outcomes is misleading. Overloading the negotiation with too many details can overwhelm the other party or cause ‘analysis paralysis,’ delaying decisions.
Research shows that negotiators who focus on a few key arguments rather than an exhaustive list tend to be more persuasive [5]. When there’s too much information on the table, the negotiation can become muddled, and the focus shifts away from key issues, which weakens your bargaining position. Rather than overwhelming the other party with all of your data and background, focus on presenting the most relevant points that directly support your case.
The Fix: Focus on delivering a concise, compelling argument supported by a few strong data points rather than bombarding the other side with excessive details. Instead of listing all possible reasons why you deserve a salary increase, for example, concentrate on the key achievements that demonstrate your value to the company.
Myth 5: Negotiation is about dominance
Some people approach negotiation as a zero-sum game, believing that the most aggressive party wins. We’ve all seen this ‘hardball’ mindset reinforced by Hollywood portrayals of tough negotiators who dominate discussions and force concessions.
However, research by the American social scientist Adam Galinsky found that aggressive negotiators often achieve short-term wins but damage long-term relationships, leading to lost business opportunities [6]. Collaboration and flexibility, on the other hand, secure better long-term results because they build trust and foster positive relationships. Strong, enduring partnerships are built through respect and mutual understanding, not by forcing someone into a corner.
The Fix: Instead of focusing solely on winning at all costs, balance assertiveness with relationship-building. The best negotiators know when to push and when to listen. By prioritising trust and respect over dominance, you can achieve better long-term results and build relationships that lead to future opportunities. Globally renowned negotiation expert William Ury suggests ‘going to the balcony’ before any negotiation, by which he means taking a step back to gain perspective [7]. By ‘going to the balcony’, you can get an idea of what it is you actually want. That way, once you’re in the negotiation, you don’t waste your time on peacocking power battles, instead you can commit to pursuing your clear and specific goals. Leave the posturing to the other side.
Myth 6: Negotiation is all about price
Price is often the focal point of negotiations, but an excessive focus on it can lead to missed opportunities. Deals often fail not because of price disputes, but because negotiators ignore other crucial factors such as timelines, terms, added value, and relationship quality.
In his book Negotiating the Impossible, Deepak Malhotra found that negotiators who broaden the discussion beyond price achieve better outcomes [8]. By expanding the conversation to include service levels, guarantees, and delivery terms, you increase the likelihood of finding common ground. Focusing on price alone can lead to a ‘race to the bottom,’ where one party ultimately feels short-changed. Negotiating for value, however, ensures that both parties walk away satisfied with the terms.
The Fix: Instead of fixating on price, explore other negotiable elements. If price reductions aren’t possible, consider requesting better payment terms, added features, or exclusive benefits that increase the deal’s overall value. Often, offering non-monetary benefits can help create a deal that’s more satisfactory to both sides.
Overcoming the myths
Negotiation success is not about following outdated maxims or playing psychological games. It’s about understanding the real dynamics at play, leveraging research-backed strategies, and being flexible in your approach. As William Ury suggests, “The key mistake people make when navigating conflict at work is not taking the time to negotiate with themselves first” [9]. By abandoning these common myths and embracing proven negotiation techniques, you can avoid costly mistakes and secure better outcomes in business and beyond.
More on Negotiation
A Master Class in Negotiation with Simon Horton – Podcast
Rules for Top Executives: Mastering the Art of Job Offer Negotiation
How to Argue and Why we Should
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2015/12/emotion-and-the-art-of-negotiation
[2] https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657
[4] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34541953/
[5] https://www.rhetoricinstitute.edu.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/fisher-getting-to-yes.pdf
Introduction
Every day, we make thousands of decisions — what to wear, what to eat, how to respond to an email, or whether to take a new job offer. While some decisions are automatic and require little thought, others shape our careers, relationships, and long-term well-being. The way we make decisions is influenced by cognitive biases, external pressures, and even the way we process our thoughts. Understanding the psychological mechanisms behind decision-making can help us make better choices, avoid common pitfalls, and gain confidence in our judgements.
Invisible forces
While we often believe we are rational decision-makers, research shows that biases play a significant role in how we perceive information and make choices. For instance, the framing effect influences our decisions based on how options are presented. A study at the University of Michigan demonstrated that participants who wrote about their choices before making them were more confident and made less biased decisions compared to those who did not [1]. This suggests that our decision-making improves when we take time to externalise our thoughts rather than react impulsively.
Similarly, the sunk cost fallacy — a bias where people continue investing in a failing endeavor due to previously spent resources — can cloud judgement. If you’ve ever sat through a terrible movie simply because you paid for the ticket, you’ve experienced this firsthand. When we recognise these biases, we can pause and question whether our decisions are being driven by rational evaluation or emotional attachment.
Cognitive load
The sheer number of decisions we make daily is staggering. Studies estimate that adults make anywhere from 33,000 to 35,000 decisions each day, most of them unconsciously [2]. With so many micro-decisions happening simultaneously, our brains rely on cognitive shortcuts to function efficiently. However, when faced with complex decisions — such as negotiating a salary, choosing an investment, or responding to an ethical dilemma — this reliance on mental shortcuts can backfire.
One significant issue is decision fatigue, a psychological phenomenon where the quality of our decisions deteriorates after prolonged decision-making. Research has shown that judges are more likely to grant parole early in the morning than later in the day, suggesting that as mental resources deplete, people resort to default choices [3]. To mitigate decision fatigue, strategies like automating routine choices (such as meal prepping or wearing a signature outfit) can free up mental bandwidth for more important decisions.
Another challenge is choice overload. When presented with too many options, people often become paralysed and either delay decisions or make impulsive ones. Studies have shown that consumers presented with six options were more likely to make a purchase than those given 24 options [4]. This suggests that simplifying choices, whether in business or personal life, can lead to more decisive and satisfying outcomes.
The role of emotion
Contrary to the belief that emotions hinder decision-making, they actually play a crucial role in helping us weigh outcomes and assign value to different choices. However, unchecked emotions can lead to reactive and impulsive decisions. One effective way to counteract this is by creating psychological distance from the decision. Studies show that when people imagine making a decision on behalf of someone else, they tend to think more rationally and strategically, reducing emotional biases [5].
For example, a manager dealing with a workplace dispute might feel compelled to side with a long-time employee due to personal rapport, but if they step back and ask, “What would I advise a friend in this situation?” they are more likely to arrive at a fairer resolution. Techniques like taking a break before making a high-stakes decision or writing down concerns can also help create this necessary distance.
Additionally, the concept of temporal distance plays a role in how we evaluate decisions. Research suggests that when people consider the long-term consequences of a choice rather than focusing on immediate gratification, they tend to make better decisions [6]. This is particularly relevant in financial and career decisions, where the benefits of patience and delayed gratification are well-documented.
The power of reflection
One of the most effective tools for improving decision-making is structured reflection, particularly through writing. Julia Cameron’s concept of “morning pages” — three pages of stream-of-consciousness journaling first thing in the morning — has been widely adopted beyond creative circles as a way to clarify thoughts and enhance decision-making [7].
A personal account highlights this well: An employee facing uncertainty in a toxic work environment used morning pages to process their fears before a crucial HR meeting. By preemptively deciding how to present themselves — calmly, confidently, and without excessive justification — they navigated the conversation with clarity rather than emotional reactivity [8]. Writing allowed them to solidify their stance and avoid the common pitfalls of seeking approval or over-explaining.
Additionally, research suggests that writing about decisions before making them engages both the logical and creative sides of the brain, leading to more balanced choices. It also helps break down complex decisions into manageable components, making you less likely to feel overwhelmed. If you’ve ever made a pros-and-cons list but still felt unclear, taking it a step further by free-writing about your deeper motivations and fears can reveal hidden insights.
The benefits of experience
Experience is often touted as the key to making better decisions, but it can also create a false sense of confidence. The Dunning-Kruger effect describes how people with low expertise tend to overestimate their competence, while experts are more likely to doubt themselves [9]. This paradox can be dangerous in high-stakes environments like business or medicine, where overconfidence can lead to risky decisions.
One way to combat this bias is to actively seek feedback and challenge assumptions. Surrounding ourselves with diverse perspectives, asking critical questions, and engaging in self-reflection can help counteract the blind spots created by overconfidence. Additionally, having a decision-making framework — such as considering worst-case scenarios, seeking a devil’s advocate, or writing through the decision — can prevent knee-jerk reactions based on perceived expertise alone.
In the workplace
Workplace culture significantly influences how decisions are made. In some organisations, hierarchical structures discourage employees from questioning authority, leading to poor collective decision-making. In contrast, environments that encourage psychological safety — where team members feel comfortable expressing dissenting views — tend to produce better outcomes [10].
One effective approach is fostering a culture of “pre-mortems,” where teams imagine a future where a decision has failed and work backward to identify potential pitfalls. This method reduces groupthink and forces individuals to critically examine their assumptions before finalising a decision. Additionally, organisations that normalise writing-based reflection, such as encouraging employees to document their reasoning for major choices, can create a more thoughtful and transparent decision-making culture [11].
Practical takeaways for better decision-making
In sum, to improve decision-making, try to be aware of cognitive biases like the framing effect and sunk cost fallacy, which can skew judgement. Simplify your daily routines to conserve mental energy and prevent choice overload. Try to create psychological distance by imagining that you’re advising a friend or by journaling to cultivate deeper self-reflection. Seek diverse perspectives to challenge assumptions and uncover blind spots, and use pre-mortems or scenario planning to provide clarity in complex decisions. These strategies collectively foster a more deliberate, rational approach to making choices.
The psychology of decision-making
Decision-making is not just a logical process — it is deeply influenced by biases, cognitive load, emotions, and reflection. By understanding the psychological forces at play, we can make more confident, rational, and intentional choices. Whether through structured reflection, reducing decision fatigue, or fostering an open decision-making culture, we have the tools to improve our ability to navigate life’s countless choices. The key is not to strive for perfection, but to cultivate awareness and adopt strategies that help us make decisions with greater clarity and confidence.
More on Decision-Making
Mastering Decisions: The Strategic Edge of Red Teaming in a Biased World
Beyond Bias: Refining Our Decisions with Nuala Walsh – Podcast
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2023/12/a-simple-way-to-make-better-decisions
[2] https://hbr.org/2023/12/a-simple-way-to-make-better-decisions
[3] https://hbr.org/1998/09/the-hidden-traps-in-decision-making-2
[4] https://globalbanking.ac.uk/blog/how-psychology-can-enhance-your-business-decision-making-skills/
[5] https://globalbanking.ac.uk/blog/how-psychology-can-enhance-your-business-decision-making-skills/
[6] https://www.accidentalpm.online/blog/the-psychology-of-decision-making-how-to-make-better-choices
[7] https://hbr.org/2023/12/a-simple-way-to-make-better-decisions
[8] https://hbr.org/2023/12/a-simple-way-to-make-better-decisions
[9] https://www.accidentalpm.online/blog/the-psychology-of-decision-making-how-to-make-better-choices
[10] https://hbr.org/1998/09/the-hidden-traps-in-decision-making-2
[11] https://hbr.org/2023/12/a-simple-way-to-make-better-decisions
Introduction
There was mass shock this week when DeepSeek, a Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company, emerged out of nowhere as a formidable player in the global AI landscape, challenging long-held assumptions about what it takes to develop cutting-edge models. Founded in 2023 and based in Hangzhou, DeepSeek became the most downloaded free app in the US just a week after it was launched. Why all the fuss? DeepSeek produced an open-source large language model (LLM) that rivals those of established Western firms, but for a fraction of the price.
The stock market reacted in panic to this shakeup of the race for AI dominance. The share price of Nvidia –– the company behind the advanced chips that dominate many AI investments –– plummeted by roughly 17% on Monday, wiping almost $600bn (£482bn) off its market value, the greatest one-day drop ever for a US company [1]. President Donald Trump called it “a wake-up call” for the US tech industry [2]. The markets have since steadied, but the global reaction reflects the growing realisation that AI breakthroughs are no longer confined to Silicon Valley or the largest research labs; innovation is becoming more decentralised and potentially disruptive to established market leaders. This shift could have profound implications for AI development worldwide, particularly in Ireland, where a thriving tech sector is heavily invested in AI innovation.
DeepSeek and Ireland
The impact of DeepSeek’s flagship model, DeepSeek-R1, is difficult to ignore. Trained with an investment of approximately $5.6 million — compared to the estimated $100 million to $1 billion spent by American competitors — its success challenges the prevailing notion that AI progress is reserved for companies with vast financial and computational resources. Much of this efficiency comes from innovative training methodologies, including a technique known as “mixture of experts,” which ensures that only the necessary computational resources are activated at any given time. This reduces energy consumption and operational costs while maintaining high performance, making AI more accessible to businesses, research institutions, and governments that might otherwise be priced out of the AI race.
For Ireland, a country that has positioned itself as a European hub for technology and artificial intelligence, DeepSeek’s rise presents both opportunities and challenges. The country’s status as a home to major multinational tech companies means that shifts in AI development strategies will have direct consequences for its economy and workforce. At the same time, Ireland’s strong research institutions and dynamic startup ecosystem are well-positioned to capitalise on the democratisation of AI technology.
The shift towards more efficient AI development could encourage Ireland’s own AI research initiatives, for example. DeepSeek’s success demonstrates that cutting-edge AI can be built with relatively limited resources, provided that innovative techniques are employed. Irish universities and research institutions could take inspiration from this model, focusing on efficiency-driven AI methodologies that align with Ireland’s strengths in software development and data science.
Equally, DeepSeek has made its technology open source, meaning its code is freely available for anyone to use or modify. As Mark Kelly, Founder of AI Ireland, told RTÊ, “Entrepreneurs and small to medium enterprises that are looking at this advancement are saying we can take this tech and now compete because DeepSeek has made it open source…So now, organisations can take that technology and use it to reimagine their service offering” [3]. If cultivated effectively, this could lead to new homegrown AI solutions that bolster Ireland’s position in the global AI economy.
However, there are also challenges to consider. Many of the multinational technology companies operating in Ireland have historically relied on significant investment in AI infrastructure. If DeepSeek’s approach signals a broader industry shift towards leaner, more efficient AI models, these companies may need to rethink their strategies. Some may scale back large-scale AI operations, potentially affecting employment and investment in Ireland. “We know that the US tech firms are so important to the Irish ecosystem, with the top seven companies here,” said Kelly. “The chances of this having a ripple effect are very big because they are investing six or seven hundred billion into this tech and if they don’t get the outcomes they expect then that will lead to job losses” [4]. Others may need to pivot towards AI applications that integrate more seamlessly with emerging models like DeepSeek’s, leading to shifts in workforce requirements and expertise.
It’s also necessary to consider the geopolitical aspect.
Tech wars: China vs the west
Beyond business concerns, DeepSeek’s Chinese origins raise significant geopolitical and security questions. The West has long been wary of Chinese technology companies, with concerns about data security, state influence, and national security risks driving regulatory scrutiny. The ongoing tensions surrounding TikTok in the US, including what nearly amounted to a nationwide ban due to fears of Chinese government access to user data, highlight the broader unease about China’s role in global tech. Already, Ireland and Italy have become the first countries to block the app, removing it from both the App Store and Google Play Store after the regulatory authorities in both countries raised concerns about the app’s handling of user data [5]. While the app is unavailable for download, it remains functional for users who previously downloaded it.
Voicing concern about the app prior to the ban, Fianna Fáil TD Malcolm Byrne explained: “If our data is stored in Ireland or other parts of the European Union, there are strong safeguards in place as to how that data will be used. If data is stored in China, those safeguards do not exist…The Chinese Communist Party can use its National Security Law to access this data.” [6]
The European Union has already taken steps to limit Chinese tech influence, particularly in telecommunications, with restrictions on Huawei’s 5G network equipment. DeepSeek’s emergence will prompt similar discussions in Europe with regards to AI regulation, particularly concerning data security and potential dependencies on foreign technology. Policymakers may need to consider whether safeguards should be implemented to prevent overreliance on AI models developed in geopolitical rivals. Ireland’s Data Protection Commission has already requested information from DeepSeek about data processing conducted in relation to Irish users [7].
At the same time, DeepSeek’s emergence also has significant consequences for Western AI firms. Companies like Nvidia, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind have long held dominance in AI development, but the rise of a powerful, efficient Chinese competitor could force them to adapt. This could lead to accelerated innovation in AI development, with a stronger emphasis on efficiency and cost reduction. On the other hand, it may also lead to increased trade tensions between the West and China, particularly if US or EU regulators impose restrictions on the use of Chinese-developed AI models.
Another key challenge is talent development. As AI becomes more efficient and widely accessible, the nature of AI expertise will evolve. There will be a growing need for professionals who understand not just traditional AI development, but also efficient training methodologies, AI ethics, and real-world applications of these technologies. Ireland’s educational institutions must keep pace with these shifts, updating curricula and expanding AI-focused programs to prepare the next generation of talent for a rapidly changing industry. Already there are concerns the country is falling behind, with John Clancy, founder and CEO of the Irish firm Galvia AI, arguing that “we are sleepwalking into inertia in this part of the world…We need to wake up.” [8]
What next?
Looking ahead, Ireland has an opportunity to position itself as a leader in ethical and efficient AI. By fostering closer collaboration between academia, industry, and government, the country can develop innovative AI solutions tailored to its economic and societal needs. Supporting startups and SMEs in AI-driven sectors will also be essential, as they are often the quickest to adapt to new technologies and business models.
In many ways, DeepSeek’s emergence marks a turning point for the global AI industry. It challenges the notion that only the largest and most well-funded companies can drive AI progress, opening the door for more decentralised innovation. For Ireland, this presents a unique moment to embrace these changes, leveraging its tech ecosystem, regulatory expertise, and research capabilities to carve out a distinct role in the future of AI. By doing so, it can ensure that it remains not just a participant in the AI revolution, but a leader in shaping its trajectory.
Sources
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpq01rvd4o
[3] https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0128/1493478-deep-seek-ireland/
[4] https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0128/1493478-deep-seek-ireland/
[6] https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0128/1493478-deep-seek-ireland/
Introduction
The high cost of childcare is a significant barrier for many families, often forcing parents, particularly mothers, to make difficult choices about their careers. In many countries, the cost of childcare rivals or exceeds the cost of housing, leaving families with little financial flexibility.
In Ireland, childcare costs are among the highest in the EU. The financial strain discourages many parents from returning to work, contributing to lower workforce participation rates and exacerbating gender inequalities. High childcare costs also have broader economic implications. When parents, particularly women, leave the workforce due to unaffordable childcare, economies lose valuable talent and productivity. Furthermore, the reduced spending power of families affects overall economic growth.
Addressing the childcare-work dilemma requires a multifaceted approach that combines increased public investment, progressive workplace policies, and cultural change. Increased public investment is critical: governments should allocate more resources to childcare, focusing on making it affordable and accessible for all families. In many EU countries, systems are in place to subsidise childcare costs for families, particularly low-income households. For example, Germany offers substantial subsidies, ensuring that parents pay fees based on their income, while France provides universal preschool (école maternelle) starting at age three, significantly reducing the financial burden on families. These models highlight how targeted policies can help alleviate the strain on working parents.
The effect of home working
The rise of remote and hybrid working models has introduced new dynamics into the childcare-work equation. While home working offers greater flexibility for parents, it also blurs the boundaries between professional and personal life, creating unique challenges.
On the positive side, remote working allows parents to manage their time more effectively, reducing the need for formal childcare and enabling greater involvement in their children’s lives. For example, a parent working from home can take a short break to pick up a child from school or attend a school event, activities that might be impossible in a traditional office setting. A number of Irish businesses have adopted a hybrid model (or continued it since the pandemic), with three-quarters of companies surveyed in a recent Dublin chamber survey saying they offered staff remote working options, with seven in 10 providing flexible working arrangements, 46% allowing flexible scheduling for all workdays, and 38% allowing employees to log off and log back on as childcare needs arise [2].
However, home working is not a quick-fix solution. Many parents struggle to balance professional responsibilities with caregiving duties, particularly when young children are at home. This dual burden can lead to decreased productivity, increased stress, and, in some cases, career penalties. Women, again, often bear the brunt of these challenges, as societal norms frequently position them as the primary caregivers. Meanwhile, the same Dublin chamber survey found that while 36% of businesses offer part-time roles or reduced hours to parents, just 11% offer the facility to job-share and only 1% said they had on-site childcare facilities or partnerships with local childcare providers in place [3]. In other words, the barrier to entry for child caregivers is still prohibitively high.
The sustainability of remote work as a solution to childcare challenges depends on organisational support. Unsurprisingly, employers that offer flexible schedules, clear boundaries around work hours, and an understanding of employees’ caregiving responsibilities are better positioned to support working parents.
Ireland
Ireland’s childcare system faces numerous challenges, making it difficult for families to balance work and caregiving responsibilities. High costs, limited availability, and workforce shortages are among the most pressing issues. Almost nine in 10 Irish businesses reported that the childcare crisis affected their ability to attract and retain staff, with a fifth of all companies describing it as the primary barrier to doing so. [4]
One of the key problems is the chronic underfunding of the childcare sector. Despite recent increases in government investment, Ireland’s public spending on early childhood education and care remains notably low. This underinvestment has resulted in high fees for parents and low wages for childcare workers, creating a vicious cycle of high costs and low quality.
“Looking at childcare costs as a share of average wages, Ireland ranks the second highest in the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] and worst in Europe,” said Dublin Chamber public affairs executive Mia Finnegan. “The cost of childcare in Dublin is even higher than the national average. It is about 10 per cent higher than Cork, and 50 per cent higher than Limerick.” [5]
The gender gap
The lack of affordable childcare has significant implications for gender equality in Ireland and all over the globe. Many mothers are forced to reduce their working hours or leave the workforce entirely. In the US, 45% of mothers with children aged five and under who left the workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic cited childcare as a major reason for their departure, compared with just 14% of fathers who said the same. Additionally, 24% of the mothers with children aged five and under said they had considered reducing their hours or moving to a part-time schedule, compared with just 18% of the fathers. [6]
Efforts to address these issues have included measures such as the National Childcare Scheme in Ireland, which provides subsidies to families based on income. However, critics argue that these subsidies do not go far enough to address the underlying issues of affordability and accessibility. Until governments take decisive action to alleviate the pressure of childcare on women, any talk of their hopes for gender equality can be written off as empty rhetoric.
The creche problem
A considerable part of the problem lies in the fact that caregivers are so poorly rewarded for their work that the number of willing workers is lessening year on year. Most childcare workers struggle to cope with unexpected expenses, such as replacing a washing machine, highlighting the sector’s low pay and financial instability. Siptu has warned that creches are at serious risk of closure as poor wages drive professionals out of the sector, with the 2024 Siptu Early Years Professionals Survey revealing that 30% of managers believe recruitment and retention challenges will lead to service closures, a 6% increase since 2022. Additionally, 42% of managers reported threats of room closures, up 9% from two years prior. [7]
Workers describe the profession as deeply undervalued, with one Galway educator stating that they feel treated like “babysitters” rather than essential contributors to society. Despite the intrinsic rewards of working with children, 86% of workers cite low pay as their primary issue, followed by staff shortages, stress, and burnout, with 95% struggling to make ends meet. “The staffing crisis is continuing unabated and it is undermining quality for children and services for parents as qualified educators struggle to make ends meet,” says Siptu Head of Organising, Darragh O’Connor. [8]
The European context
Ireland’s childcare challenges are not unique; they reflect broader trends across Europe. While the EU has made childcare a policy priority, significant disparities persist between member states.
Northern European countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Finland lead the way in providing affordable, high-quality childcare. These nations have heavily subsidised systems, with fees capped as a percentage of household income. As a result, they boast some of the highest female workforce participation rates in the world.
In contrast, countries in Southern and Eastern Europe face greater challenges. Limited public investment, cultural norms around parenting, and economic constraints have resulted in lower availability and higher costs of childcare. For example, according to the OECD, in 2023, only 17.4% of Bulgarian children under the age of 3 attended formal childcare, compared to the EU average of 37.4% [9]. In contrast, Denmark has more than doubled the EU target, providing childcare to 70% of toddlers. [10]
The EU has sought to address these disparities through initiatives like the European Pillar of Social Rights, which includes commitments to affordable and accessible childcare. However, implementation varies widely, and the pandemic has strained national budgets, making further progress challenging.
Moving forward
Addressing the childcare-work dilemma requires a multifaceted approach that prioritises increased public investment, progressive workplace policies, and cultural change. Governments must allocate more resources to childcare, focusing on making it both affordable and accessible for all families. Policies such as capping fees as a percentage of household income could provide immediate relief to parents grappling with high costs. At the same time, supporting the childcare workforce is essential. Improving wages and working conditions for childcare professionals would ensure high-quality care and help address persistent staff shortages.
Promoting gender equality is another critical component, with measures such as shared parental leave and incentives for fathers to take on caregiving roles helping to rebalance childcare responsibilities within families. Employers also have a role to play by adopting flexible working arrangements that accommodate the needs of working parents, while ensuring clear boundaries to prevent burnout. On a broader level, the EU should actively set benchmarks for childcare affordability and quality, holding all member states accountable to minimum standards. This coordinated effort would help create a more equitable and sustainable system across Europe.
In Ireland, all the main political parties made pledges on childcare in advance of the general election. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were among the five parties to promise that they would cap childcare costs at €200 per month per child [11]. However, with the forming of government having taken place so recently, as of right now it is unclear when this might happen.
What to do about childcare?
The intersection of childcare and work is a complex and deeply consequential issue that affects families, economies, and societies as a whole. While progress has been made, significant challenges remain, particularly in Ireland and across Europe. Addressing these challenges requires bold policy action, societal change, and a commitment to equity and inclusion. By prioritising affordable, accessible, and high-quality childcare, we can create a future where all parents, regardless of gender, can thrive both at home and in the workplace.
More on Workplace Equality
Designing Workplace Equality with Sonya Lennon – Podcast
Why Inclusive Leadership Matters: Building Better Workplaces
Sources
[1] https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/ip231_en.pdf
[10] https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/items/625317/en?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Introduction
In the realm of scientific discourse, pseudoscience presents a peculiar conundrum. It comprises ideas and theories that may appear scientific but are devoid of the rigour, methodology, and empirical evidence necessary to substantiate their claims. This blog post will delve into the nature of pseudoscience, its dangers, and how to differentiate it from genuine scientific findings.
Science Vs Pseudoscience
The distinction between science and pseudoscience is of paramount importance. Science follows a systematic method of inquiry and relies on empirical evidence (Shermer, 2010). Pseudoscience, in contrast, often lacks such rigour. Its proponents may base their beliefs on anecdotal evidence, personal experiences, or untested hypotheses, rendering them unreliable and potentially misleading (Novella, 2013). The ability to differentiate between these two domains is crucial, as it underscores the need for critical thinking and scepticism when evaluating scientific claims.
Why Pseudoscience?
The appeal of pseudoscience can be attributed to various factors, such as the desire for quick and easy solutions, the need for certainty, and the allure of unconventional ideas (Lilienfeld et al., 2001). These factors contribute to the widespread acceptance of pseudoscientific ideas, despite the lack of evidence supporting their claims.
The Dangers
The dangers of pseudoscience are manifold, ranging from wasted resources and time to misguided beliefs that can have serious consequences for individuals and society. For instance, the anti-vaccine movement has led to the resurgence of preventable diseases and the endangerment of public health (Offit, 2014).
Real-Life Examples
Several real-life examples of pseudoscience include astrology, homoeopathy, and psychic phenomena. Famous proponents of pseudoscience include television personality Dr Oz, who has been criticised for promoting questionable medical treatments (Rosner & Mercurio, 2014), and Deepak Chopra, known for his fusion of spirituality and alternative medicine (Barrett, 2003).
One example of a pseudoscientific principle is the Law of Attraction, which posits that our thoughts can directly impact our reality. Although it may be a comforting idea, little empirical evidence supports its validity (Lammers & Stapel, 2009).
It is important to note that some ideas initially categorised as pseudoscience were later proven valid. For instance, continental drift was once dismissed as pseudoscience, but it is now widely accepted as the basis for the theory of plate tectonics (Oreskes, 2002).
Defining Pseudoscience
To determine whether an idea is pseudoscientific, we can look to the “seven sins of pseudoscience” outlined by Boudry et al. (2017). These criteria include the absence of a scientific method, the use of vague or ambiguous language, and reliance on personal anecdotes, among others. Another useful resource is Carl Sagan’s “Baloney Detection Kit,” which provides guidelines for critical thinking and evaluating scientific claims (Sagan, 1996).
Conclusion
In conclusion, distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is crucial for making informed decisions and avoiding the pitfalls of false claims. By applying critical thinking and scepticism, we can better discern the truth and protect ourselves from the dangers of pseudoscience.
More On Decision-Making
Mastering Decisions: The Strategic Edge of Red Teaming in a Biased World
Beyond Bias: Refining Our Decisions with Nuala Walsh – Podcast
Sources
Barrett, S. (2003). A close look at Deepak Chopra’s mind/body muddle. Skeptical Inquirer, 27(3), 32-37.
Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Pigliucci, M. (2017). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. The University of Chicago Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579391/
Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). How power influences moral thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015437
Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Lohr, J. M. (Eds.). (2001). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. Guilford Press.
Novella, S. (2013). The skeptic’s guide to the universe: How to know what’s really real in a world increasingly full of fake. Grand Central Publishing.
Offit, P. A. (2014). Bad advice or why celebrities, politicians, and activists aren’t your best source of health information. Columbia University Press.
Oreskes, N. (2002). Plate tectonics: An insider’s history of the modern theory of the Earth. Westview Press.
Rosner, D., & Mercurio, R. (2014). Dr. Oz and the pathology of open-mindedness. Skeptical Inquirer, 38(1), 50-54.
Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Ballantine Books.
Shermer, M. (2010). The believing brain: From ghosts and gods to politics and conspiracies—How we construct beliefs and reinforce them as truths. Times Books.
Introduction
We’ve all either experienced a toxic workplace first hand or have a clear idea in our minds of what it entails. Screaming bosses, excessive hours, harsh feedback and a general atmosphere in which people feel too afraid to make a mistake or raise a concern for fear of being excoriated in front of their peers. It exists and it’s horrible, but it’s not the only form of toxicity that can appear in the workplace…
Amidst the cultural shifts away from the more traditional brand of toxicity noted above, the trend towards a kinder, more positive outlook has been championed and adopted in the workforce and beyond. That, of course, is a good thing –– mostly. But over the past few years there’s been a growing sense that that positive approach can occasionally go too far in what has been termed “toxic positivity”. It may sound oxymoronic to lump those words together, and yet I imagine most readers can immediately envisage the type of behaviour it involves –– most of us have been on the receiving end of it at one point or another. A rampant, relentless positivity that is devoid of reality and refuses to engage with life’s real and necessary struggles is a hindrance more than it’s a help, and can be just as stifling as its opposite number.
In this article, we will explain what positivity is, how it affects individuals and the workplace more broadly, and what businesses can do to ensure that their office is not toxic in a negative or positive way.
What is toxic positivity?
The BBC defines toxic positivity as “the assumption that we should always have a positive outlook, even if we are in emotional or physical pain. It is the unrealistic idea that acting more positive and happy will make us feel better. But in reality, it’s a way of shutting down our very real and human feelings and can often make us feel worse.” [1] There is a stark difference between having a positive attitude –– which is encouraged –– and allowing that positivity to become toxic. As grief expert David Kessler puts it, “Toxic positivity is positivity given in the wrong way, in the wrong dose, at the wrong time.” [2] This form of positivity “rejects all difficult emotions in favor of a cheerful and often falsely positive façade.” [3]
It’s something we’ve all experienced –– that person who tells you to simply “cheer up” in the wake of genuinely upsetting conditions, or that “everything happens for a reason” while you are in the process of working through a job loss, financial troubles or in the throes of grief. These people are (mostly) trying to help, but there’s a minimisation of the reality of the situation that is unhelpful. We cannot simply hope that adopting a positive attitude will dissolve our problems away, rather we have to acknowledge and work through them. As the gratitude researcher Robert Emmons of UC Davis writes, “To deny that life has its share of disappointments, frustrations, losses, hurts, setbacks, and sadness would be unrealistic and untenable. Life is suffering. No amount of positive thinking exercises will change this truth” [4]. Or, to quote an unlikely source in the new Nosferatu film: “If we are to tame darkness, we must first face that it exists.” [5]
That line may have been written for a piece of vampiric fiction, but it has a basis in science too. A 2018 University of Toronto and Berkeley study found that the more we accept our negative emotions, the more beneficial it is to our mental health. Through laboratory, diary and longitudinal studies, they concluded that acknowledging our feelings reduces distress and anxiety symptoms [6]. Meanwhile bottling those feelings up has the opposite effect. “Think of emotions as a closed circuit,” says Natalie Dattilo, a clinical psychologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “They have to go somewhere, so they come back up, like Whac-A-Mole.” [7]
Studies have even shown that those who suppress their feelings have a higher risk of developing substance abuse problems [8]. These negative emotions exist and need an outlet; if we don’t provide one, they may seek a darker solution.
The impact of toxic positivity
Toxic positivity is prevalent in modern workplace culture and indeed in all of society. In a Science of People study, 67.8% of respondents said they had experienced toxic positivity from someone in the past week [9]. This is especially troubling given the effects on the recipients of that toxicity can be profound.
Receiving toxic positivity often results in feelings of shame, as people come to feel that their emotions are invalid and that they are wrong to be feeling them. It also causes feelings of guilt by creating an idea that there is a positive in the situation that the person struggling is simply failing to find –– it places the burden on the sufferer to simply feel better irrespective of the problem they are going through. Susan David, a psychologist and consultant at McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and the author of Emotional Agility, argues that those who opt for the “cheer up”/”it happened for a reason”/”look on the bright side” variety of positivity are partaking in a form of gaslighting. “You basically are saying to someone that my comfort in this situation is more important than your reality”, she says. [10]
It is also an avoidance mechanism. As noted, we cannot simply smile our problems away, we must face them. “Emotions are data,” says David. “They are not good or bad. They are signposts to things we care about” [11]. It’s important that we don’t shun those signposts in order to search for a non-existing, more positive road.
Toxic positivity in the workplace
Toxic positivity can be extremely harmful in the workplace. In Forbes, founder and CEO of the Compliance Search Group Jack Kelly has written of the process of “glossing”, which he defines as a form of toxic positivity that “occurs when managers, in an attempt to maintain a positive atmosphere, downplay or ignore significant challenges rather than addressing them head-on” [12]. He says this phenomenon trickles down from the leadership to the workforce and that, while bosses might believe they are alleviating anxieties and preserving workplace culture by projecting an image of “everything is fine,” this approach often backfires. “Instead of fostering a truly positive environment, it creates a disconnect between leadership and employees, leaving workers feeling unseen and ignored. This misguided strategy ultimately undermines trust, stifles open communication and can lead to a deterioration of workplace morale and productivity.”
This is backed up in the data. According to a recent Leadership IQ poll, only 15% of workers feel that their organisation consistently communicates to them the challenges it faces [13]. Meanwhile, only 24% of respondents reported that their leader always encourages and acknowledges suggestions for improvement, while 16% said that their leader never does this. Health Canal founder Erik Pham makes the case that this glossing culture, in which reality is shunned in favour of what he calls “eternal optimism”, represents a “cavalier attitude” to business in which employees end up failing to take responsibility for their failures and mistakes. [14]
Cat Colella-Graham, a coach at Coaching for Communicators, says that part of the problem is that workplaces have come to reward what she calls “culture carriers”, who serve as corporate cheerleaders, offering fake smiles and unrelenting positivity to every workplace issue rather than addressing it head on [15]. If change is to take place, it has to be grounded in reality and it has to start at the top.
The solution to toxic positivity
Writing in The Atlantic, Scott Barry Kaufman argues that the antidote to toxic positivity is “tragic optimism,” a phrase coined by the existential-humanistic psychologist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl [16]. “Tragic optimism,” Kaufman argues, “involves the search for meaning amid the inevitable tragedies of human existence, something far more practical and realistic during these trying times.” Tragic optimism essentially equals a form of gratitude, albeit one that is not concentrated exclusively on the happy aspects of life. In other words, rather than feeling grateful for your family or good health, you would make the effort to say that you are grateful for any suffering you have faced, or that you are grateful for certain people who have caused you pain. “Gratitude as a fleeting emotion can come and go, but gratefulness, or “existential gratitude,” can pervade your entire life, throughout its ups and downs,” he writes. [17]
To avoid falling into the trap of toxic positivity, the Anxiety & Depression Association of America recommends avoiding words like “should” or “must”. Thinking that you “should” feel better or “must” be more positive is setting an expectation that is unhelpful. Meanwhile, if someone else is telling you their problem, avoid offering them advice –– not just of the “cheer up” variety but all advice; most of the time people just want someone to listen. The best thing you can do is be there for them and ask if there is anything you can do.
Avoiding toxic positivity
In conclusion, while fostering positivity in the workplace is generally beneficial, it’s crucial to recognise the fine line between real, helpful positivity and toxic positivity. The latter can stifle genuine emotions, hinder personal and professional growth, and create a disconnect between leadership and employees. As businesses strive to cultivate healthy environments, they must balance encouraging optimism with allowing space for authentic, sometimes difficult, emotional experiences. Embracing “tragic optimism” and fostering open, honest communication can lead to a more resilient and supportive workplace culture. By acknowledging both the challenges and triumphs, organisations can avoid the pitfalls of toxic positivity and build truly positive and empathetic environments. No matter what Monty Python say, sometimes it’s okay not to look on the bright side of life.
More On Optimism
Optimism is a Force Multiplier
How to cultivate confidence into a superpower with Ian Robertson – Podcast
Performing Under Pressure with Hendrie Weisenger – Podcast
Sources
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z64yn9q
[3] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-toxic-positivity-5093958
[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/08/tragic-optimism-opposite-toxic-positivity/619786/
[5] Nosferatu (2024). Robert Eggers.
[6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z64yn9q
[16] https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/08/tragic-optimism-opposite-toxic-positivity/619786/
[17] https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/08/tragic-optimism-opposite-toxic-positivity/619786/
Introduction
In an increasingly connected world, the boundaries of the traditional workplace are dissolving. Airports, train carriages, and even cramped-for-legroom economy seats are becoming extensions of the modern office. With global work rhythms operating 24/7, professionals are often left navigating a fine line between productivity and burnout.
But how do you work effectively on the move while ensuring that your time is well spent — or, occasionally, not spent at all? This article explores the practicalities of working while traveling, emphasises why switching off might sometimes be the smartest move of all, and offers insights into how to optimise your efforts while on the go.
The 24/7 work environment
The rise of remote work and ubiquitous internet connectivity has given birth to a productivity paradox. On one hand, it’s easier than ever to stay connected and efficient wherever you are. On the other, this seamless access creates an unspoken expectation to be constantly “on.”
“We’re living in an era where our devices are both our liberators and our captors,” says Laura Vanderkam, author of Off the Clock: Feel Less Busy While Getting More Done [1]. Constant connectivity has blurred the lines between personal and professional time, making it vital for workers to establish clear boundaries. As such, the daily commute, business trips, or even trips for pleasure all turn into opportunities to get ahead. As Dorie Clark writes in Harvard Business Review, “Life doesn’t stop when you’re in the air: emails still pour in, and reports and proposals are still expected” [2]. It’s the productivity mindset at its most opportunistic. But not every moment in transit should be about maximising productivity. In fact, recognising when to unplug might be as important as knowing when to log on.
Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Mason Media co-founder Nora Ali says she welcomes flying as one of the few times she has an excuse to be unreachable. “The airport and the airplane, weirdly enough, are my happy places,” she says. “I love watching terrible movies on planes that I would dare not watch when I’m not flying” [3]. She argues that this rare chance to unplug actually leaves her better equipped for the tasks to come. “I don’t have to actually be writing emails or writing a presentation, because something else is happening.” she says. “I’m on the way.”
Clark agrees. “Taking downtime away from the grinding pace of work may enable you to be sharper once you get down to business,” she says [4]. Rest isn’t the opposite of productivity, it’s an integral part of it. She points out that numerous studies have touted the benefits of “strategic renewal.” Instead of using all of your time on the plane to plough through reports or fine-tune a presentation deck, she says, you may be better advised to take some time for yourself.
So, before taking the plunge to work on the move, first ask yourself whether you should. It could be that a bit of rest and relaxation in the form of an airport beer or in-flight movie is a better use of your time. Equally, if you need to rest but suffer from productivity guilt, try something in between the two such as listening to an informative podcast. You’re learning without expending too much energy. As Clark notes, it’s “a hands-free way to learn something new and mitigate the frustration of delays.” [5]
All that said, there are some times when work needs to be done –– and sometimes in transit is the best place for it.
Practical productivity tips for travel
As Matthew Kronsberg observes in the Wall Street Journal, “For many business travelers, everything that conspires to make flying so onerous — little personal space, few worthwhile distractions and a seemingly interminable amount of time before you land — also makes it an ideal opportunity to hunker down.” [6]
For some people, planes, trains and the like aren’t a place burdened by a gnawing feeling that you should be working, they are simply great opportunities to get ahead. “You have time to yourself that you wouldn’t normally get at home or in the office,” says Russell Ganim, the associate provost and dean of international programs at the University of Iowa. His productivity peaks while he’s shuttling between campuses and conferences around the world. He finds those “relatively quiet, relatively dark and relatively cool” long-haul flights conducive to accomplishing “nitty-gritty” administrative tasks, he said, while also putting him in the state of mind to think “a little bit more broadly and deeply” on bigger projects [7].
For some people, then, it comes naturally. The isolation and lack of distractions serve as tools for greater productivity. But what about those of us who are less naturally inclined to find our flow state at 30,000 feet? How should we go about it? Frequent flyer Hannah Herman has some tips. And given that the app In the Air, a travel management tool for frequent fliers, says that just 13% of its users work on flights [8], with most choosing to spend their time sleeping, listening to music or watching movies, it’s advice that a lot of us could do with taking.
Herman offers twelve top tips. But some are more pertinent than others. Namely, getting comfy, exploring Wi-Fi options ahead of time, preparing what exactly it is you’ll be working on beforehand, focusing on low stakes work, and opening your docs before you board [9].
She advises packing strategically for comfort — bring a sweater or travel blanket if you tend to get cold, or dress in light, breathable layers if you run warm. Meanwhile, it might be worth investing in a window seat or extra legroom to minimise interruptions and create a workspace that feels functional. As Herman notes, “If you can create a nice little nook, you’re more likely to want to do work in the first place.” [10]
Regarding Wi-Fi, Herman notes that some airlines offer free or affordable connectivity, while others charge high fees for inconsistent service. On long-haul routes, be prepared for variable performance, as Wi-Fi reliability can drop over oceans or remote areas. Knowing what to expect can help you adjust your workload accordingly. Don’t leave yourself with too much to do and dependent on a weak service to do it. Which leads onto her next points.
Plan what you’re going to do in advance of your trip and make it as low stakes as possible. Limiting your workload to confined tasks ensures that you have everything you need — documents, notes, and resources — downloaded and ready to go, so you won’t find yourself caught out. Meanwhile, keeping your work to low stakes tasks like reviewing documents, brainstorming ideas, or providing feedback on a colleague’s work allows for flexibility, not to mention less stress, while still making productive use of your time.
Finally, Herman stresses the importance of preparation when working with cloud-based tools. Opening all the documents you’ll need and enabling offline access ensures that a poor connection won’t hinder your productivity. For simpler tasks, consider using offline-friendly software or even pen and paper. Just don’t accidentally hand your notes to the flight attendant with your rubbish.
She also offers one additional important point, one that won’t help your workflow but might just improve everyone else’s: be considerate. “We’ve all seen it before,” she says, “some self-centered business person taking a call too loudly, complaining about noise in a public place, or just generally acting like their work is more important than anyone else’s comfort. Everyone hates that person, so don’t be them. Don’t encroach on other people’s physical space, be mindful of your volume while talking or typing, and please, please, please use headphones if you need to watch a Loom or listen to a voice memo.” [11]
The right mindset
Perhaps more important than any of those practical tips is this broader one: don’t stress it. We all know that travelling can be that most irritating of necessities that sets our rage dials to eleven and ensures that wherever we’re going –– be it to a conference, to work or even to a holiday –– we end up arriving in such a state that we’re no use to anyone, least of all ourselves. As such, as in all walks of life, mindset is pivotal.
If you find yourself excessively stressed, try practising mindfulness during your journey. Meditation apps or simple breathing exercises can help you remain calm and clear-headed, ensuring that your work is effective. Building a travel routine that incorporates both productivity and relaxation ensures a balanced approach to working on the go. Flexibility is equally crucial. Travel plans can be unpredictable, and adaptability allows you to make the most of unexpected delays or changes. Viewing these moments as opportunities rather than setbacks shifts your perspective and enhances your overall productivity.
“Your environment may change, but your discipline shouldn’t,” Chief Revenue Officer for EOS Worldwide Pam Kosanke reminds us. “Staying aligned with your goals ensures that travel remains a complement to your work, not a distraction” [12].
That said, if trying to get your work done is proving more a hindrance than a help then close the laptop, put down the tablet, disconnect, and stick on whatever middling rom-com the airline has lined up for you –– whatever work you’re doing is not worth working yourself into a tizzy over. It’s a 24 hour economy; we all work too much. If you need a break, take it.
How to work on the move
Working on the move is a skill that combines preparation, adaptability, and self-awareness. Whether you’re tackling low-stakes administrative tasks on a long-haul flight, brainstorming creative ideas during a train journey, or simply taking the opportunity to unplug and recharge, the key lies in recognising what works best for you in the moment. From ensuring your workspace is as comfortable as possible to preloading your documents and setting realistic goals, small steps can make a big difference. Equally, knowing when to embrace downtime or flexibility — whether by enjoying an in-flight film or recalibrating your plans when Wi-Fi disappoints — is critical to maintaining balance.
Ultimately, the productivity paradox of modern travel boils down to one question: how can you make this time serve you? Sometimes that means getting ahead on work; other times, it means allowing yourself to take a break. Whether you’re logging on or logging off, the journey is yours to navigate.
More on Stress Management
Stress Management and Leadership Through Mindfulness
Breaking the Cycle of Workplace Stress: Practical Tips to Thrive
Manage Your Energy, Not Your Time
Sources
[1] https://lauravanderkam.com/books/off-the-clock/
[2] https://hbr.org/2015/11/how-to-use-your-travel-time-productively
[3] https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/travel/how-to-get-work-done-on-a-plane-9767b95d
[4] https://hbr.org/2015/11/how-to-use-your-travel-time-productively
[5] https://hbr.org/2015/11/how-to-use-your-travel-time-productively
[6] https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/travel/how-to-get-work-done-on-a-plane-9767b95d
[7] https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/travel/how-to-get-work-done-on-a-plane-9767b95d
[8] https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/travel/how-to-get-work-done-on-a-plane-9767b95d
[9] https://zapier.com/blog/how-to-work-on-a-plane/
[10] https://zapier.com/blog/how-to-work-on-a-plane/
[11] https://zapier.com/blog/how-to-work-on-a-plane/
[12] https://hbr.org/2022/08/how-to-work-when-youre-traveling
Introduction
In today’s fast-evolving work environments, the concepts of equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) are no longer just ideals—they are essential to organisational success. Inclusive leadership is at the heart of these efforts, fostering workplaces where everyone feels valued, respected, and empowered to contribute. But what does it really mean to lead inclusively, and why should organisations invest in it?
Defining Inclusive Leadership
Inclusive leadership is more than just a management style; it’s an approach that prioritises recognising and valuing the unique strengths of diverse team members. Leaders in this domain create environments where individuals can thrive by promoting fairness, mutual respect, and trust. This mindset enables teams to innovate, collaborate, and adapt to challenges more effectively.
Inclusive leadership also requires self-awareness and an ability to recognise personal biases. According to Banaji and Greenwald’s (1995) Implicit Bias Theory, many of the assumptions and decisions leaders make are influenced by unconscious biases. Recognising and addressing these biases is a fundamental aspect of inclusive leadership, ensuring that actions align with equitable values.
The Benefits of Inclusive Leadership
Research highlights the profound impact of inclusive leadership on organisations and their people:
- Enhanced Innovation and Problem-Solving: Diverse teams bring a variety of perspectives, leading to more creative and effective solutions. Inclusive leaders foster psychological safety, encouraging team members to share ideas without fear of judgment. Studies by Javed et al. (2017) demonstrate that this approach leads to measurable improvements in innovation.
- Improved Employee Well-being: Employees who feel valued and included report higher levels of job satisfaction, which translates into greater retention and reduced turnover. This also creates a healthier, more supportive workplace culture. According to Brunetto et al. (2012), inclusive practices reduce stress and improve organisational loyalty.
- Stronger Team Performance: Inclusive leadership builds trust and cohesion within teams, helping members work collaboratively towards common goals. This is reinforced through Transformational Leadership Theory (Bass, 1985), which encourages leaders to inspire their teams to achieve beyond expectations.
- Better Community Engagement: For organisations that interact with diverse communities, inclusive leadership ensures representation and understanding, strengthening relationships and reputation. This is particularly critical in sectors like public services, where trust and collaboration are essential.
Overcoming Barriers to Inclusivity
Despite its many benefits, implementing inclusive leadership comes with challenges. Resistance to change is a common hurdle, often rooted in unconscious biases or deeply ingrained systems. Addressing these requires a strategic, evidence-based approach, including:
- Awareness Training: Educating leaders and teams about the value of inclusion and how unconscious biases affect decision-making. Tools such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) can help identify and mitigate these biases.
- Structured Recruitment and Development: Using transparent processes to attract, retain, and promote talent from diverse backgrounds. Intersectionality, a concept introduced by Crenshaw (2013), underscores the importance of recognising individuals’ multifaceted identities in these efforts.
- Continuous Evaluation: Regularly assessing the effectiveness of EDI initiatives and making data-driven adjustments to ensure progress.
Practical Steps to Build Inclusive Leadership
Organisations aiming to embed inclusivity can follow these steps to drive meaningful change:
- Set Clear Objectives: Establish SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) goals to align efforts with organisational priorities. For instance, measurable improvements in cultural competency can be tracked through pre- and post-training assessments.
- Foster a Culture of Learning: Provide ongoing training and mentorship opportunities to build awareness and skills related to inclusivity. Development centres and action learning sets are particularly effective for leadership development.
- Encourage Feedback and Reflection: Create safe spaces for open dialogue about diversity and inclusion, allowing leaders and teams to grow together. Reflection exercises, such as maintaining journals on EDI efforts, can deepen understanding and commitment.
- Leverage Diverse Talent: Actively seek input from individuals with varied experiences and perspectives, ensuring their contributions are acknowledged and integrated. As Pearson-Goff and Herrington (2014) note, diversity-driven leadership often leads to better decision-making and problem-solving.
Measuring Success
Evaluating the impact of inclusive leadership initiatives is essential to ensure they achieve their objectives. Frameworks like the Kirkpatrick Model (2006) offer a structured approach to measure learning outcomes, behavioural changes, and organisational results. Combining this with process evaluations ensures that training remains effective and adaptable over time.
The Future of Inclusive Leadership
Inclusive leadership is not a one-time initiative but an ongoing commitment to creating workplaces where everyone has the opportunity to succeed. By prioritising EDI, organisations can unlock the full potential of their workforce, driving innovation, collaboration, and long-term success.
As we navigate the complexities of modern work environments, the role of inclusive leadership has never been more critical. It’s time to embrace this transformative approach—because building better workplaces starts with leaders who lead for all.
More on Equality, Diversity & Inclusion
Diversity and Conflict for a Plural Workforce
Blending Skills-Based and Competency-Based Interviewing: Similarities, Differences, and Benefits
Sources
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Kirkpatrick Model – Provides a structured evaluation framework for training effectiveness.
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit Bias Theory – Discusses how unconscious biases influence decision-making and actions.
Javed, B., Naqvi, S., Khan, A., Arjoon, S., & Tayyeb, H. (2017). Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior – Highlights the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation.
Brunetto, Y., Teo, S., Shacklock, K., & Farr-Wharton, R. (2012). Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, and well-being – Links inclusive practices to employee retention and satisfaction.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Transformational Leadership Theory – Framework for motivating teams to exceed expectations.
Crenshaw, K. (2013). Intersectionality – Emphasises recognising individuals’ complex identities.
Pearson-Goff, M., & Herrington, V. (2014). Police leadership and diversity-driven decision-making – Highlights improved decision-making in diverse teams.
Introduction
Sam Peters, a distinguished investigative journalist, has been instrumental in bringing the hidden dangers of concussions in sports, particularly rugby union, to the forefront of public consciousness. His relentless pursuit of truth has ignited essential conversations about player safety and challenged deeply ingrained cultural norms within the sport. In a recent episode of The 1% Podcast, we delved into the critical issues surrounding concussions in rugby and the urgent need for change.
Understanding the Invisible Injury
Concussions are complex injuries that often go unnoticed or are misunderstood. Their immediate effects can range from loss of consciousness—a symptom in less than 10% of cases—to subtler signs like dizziness, nausea, sensitivity to light or sound, and balance issues. The lack of a unified definition has led to inconsistencies in diagnosing and managing concussions, hindering effective treatment and prevention.
What’s even more concerning is the cumulative impact of repeated head trauma. It’s not just the symptomatic concussions that pose a risk but also the repetitive exposure to sub-concussive blows—those smaller hits that may not cause immediate symptoms but, over time, can lead to severe long-term conditions like Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). This degenerative brain disease has been found in athletes who have sustained repetitive brain trauma, highlighting the grave consequences of continuous exposure.
The stories of players whose lives have been irrevocably altered by repeated head injuries are harrowing. Take, for instance, the case of Ben Robinson, a 14-year-old rugby player from Northern Ireland who tragically died after sustaining multiple concussions in a single game. His death underscores the critical need for better awareness and management of concussions at all levels of the sport.
The Evolution of Rugby: Bigger, Faster, Riskier
Since rugby turned professional in 1995, the sport has undergone significant transformations. Players have become larger and stronger, training regimes more intense, and the game itself faster and more physically demanding. This “bigger, faster, stronger” mentality has escalated the risks, resulting in an increase in high-impact collisions on the field.
The professional era introduced a level of physicality previously unseen in the sport. The speed of the game, combined with the increased size and strength of players, has led to a dramatic rise in injury rates, particularly concussions. Medical staff often find themselves overwhelmed by the sheer number of injuries, struggling to manage and treat players effectively during matches.
While making the game more exciting for spectators, this evolution has had unintended consequences. The human body, particularly the brain, is not designed to withstand such repeated high-impact forces. The long-term health implications for players are becoming increasingly apparent, necessitating a re-evaluation of training methods and gameplay strategies to prioritise safety without compromising the essence of the sport.
Cultural Barriers: The Normalisation of Risk
A significant obstacle in addressing the concussion crisis lies within the culture of rugby itself. There’s a longstanding tradition of toughness and resilience, where playing through pain is not just expected but celebrated. Injuries, including concussions, are often seen as mere hurdles to overcome rather than serious health concerns requiring attention.
This normalisation of concussions hinders efforts to improve player safety. Athletes may underreport symptoms, fearing they will be perceived as weak or risk losing their place on the team. Traditional notions of masculinity contribute to this mindset, perpetuating the “play through pain” mentality and creating an environment where seeking help is stigmatised.
Changing this culture is essential for advancing player welfare. It requires a shift in how toughness and bravery are defined within the sport. Emphasising that true strength lies in acknowledging injuries and taking necessary steps to heal can help break down these harmful barriers. Education and open dialogue are crucial in fostering a culture that values health and safety over outdated ideals.
Concussions in Women’s Rugby: An Overlooked Issue
While much attention has been focused on men’s rugby, concussion issues significantly impact women’s rugby as well. Female athletes may experience concussions differently, sometimes with more severe symptoms. Research suggests that factors such as hormonal differences and variations in neck strength could contribute to these disparities.
Moreover, evidence indicates that women are more likely to have unreported concussions. This underreporting can be attributed to a combination of societal perceptions that underestimate the risks in women’s sports and a lack of tailored education and resources. For instance, in sports like roller derby, the speed and impact can lead to severe whiplash injuries, but because the sport is less mainstream, the magnitude of potential damage is often underestimated—even by the players themselves.
Addressing gender disparities in sports medicine is vital for comprehensive athlete care. Ensuring that female players receive adequate attention, research, and protection helps create a safer environment for all athletes. It also highlights the need for inclusive studies and protocols that consider women’s unique experiences and physiological differences in sports.
Learning from Other Sports: Models for Improvement
Other sports have taken significant steps in handling concussions, offering potential models for rugby to follow. Boxing and martial arts, for example, enforce strict medical suspensions after knockouts, ensuring that athletes have sufficient recovery time before returning to competition. The NFL, following a series of high-profile concussion lawsuits, implemented measures to reduce contact during training and enhance concussion protocols.
Adapting similar practices in rugby could enhance player safety without fundamentally altering the game’s nature. Limiting contact in training sessions, enforcing mandatory rest periods following concussions, and improving education about head injuries are practical steps that can be implemented. These changes can help reduce the incidence of concussions and mitigate their long-term effects, demonstrating a commitment to player welfare.
Moreover, embracing technological advancements, such as improved protective gear and diagnostic tools, can offer additional layers of safety. Innovations like smart helmets equipped with impact sensors can help monitor hits in real time, allowing for immediate assessment and intervention when necessary.
Ethical Dilemmas: The Role of Medical Professionals
One of the most troubling aspects of the concussion crisis is the role that medical professionals have played, sometimes inadvertently, in perpetuating the problem. The ‘Bloodgate’ scandal is a stark example of compromised ethics in sports medicine. In this incident, a rugby player faked a blood injury to facilitate a tactical substitution, with the complicity of medical staff.
This case highlighted the conflicts of interest that can arise when medical professionals are employed directly by clubs. The pressure to prioritise team success over player health can lead to decisions that compromise medical ethics and endanger athletes. It raises critical questions about the responsibilities of medical staff and the structures that govern their roles within sports organisations.
Reforming this system is crucial. Proposals include establishing independent medical teams separate from clubs and organisations to ensure unbiased decision-making focused solely on athlete welfare. Eliminating conflicts of interest empowers medical professionals to uphold their duty not to harm and prioritises the health and safety of players above all else.
Balancing Tradition with Safety
Some argue that contact sports like rugby might need to be drastically altered or even banned to protect players fully. However, this raises broader concerns about where to draw the line, as many activities and sports involve risk. For instance, horse riding, cycling, and skateboarding carry potential dangers yet are widely accepted and enjoyed.
The challenge lies in balancing the preservation of the sport’s essence with the imperative of player safety. Practical changes can be implemented to reduce risks without fundamentally changing rugby. Adjusting rules to minimise high-impact collisions, improving protective equipment, and enforcing existing safety protocols more rigorously are steps that can make a significant difference.
It’s about finding a middle ground where common sense prevails over extremes. Protecting players doesn’t mean stripping the sport of its excitement or competitiveness. Instead, it involves thoughtful modifications that prioritise health while maintaining the qualities that make rugby beloved by players and fans alike.
Legal Actions and the Path to Change
Recently, there’s been a surge in legal actions taken by former players against rugby authorities over concussion-related health issues. This movement is significant for individuals seeking redress and has the potential to drive meaningful change within the sport.
These legal challenges bring heightened attention to the consequences of inadequate safety measures and can pressure governing bodies to re-evaluate their policies. Similar to the impact of lawsuits in the NFL, this scrutiny may prompt rugby organisations to prioritise player welfare more effectively, implement stricter protocols, and invest in research and education.
There’s also a broader conversation among current and former players about the risks they face. While some accept the dangers as part of the game, others are increasingly concerned about the long-term implications. This growing awareness is crucial in shifting mindsets within the sport and advocating for necessary reforms.
Overcoming Obstacles and Pushing Forward
Advocating for change in a traditional and tightly-knit community like rugby isn’t without challenges. Sam Peters has faced significant pushback, including being labelled a “rugby hater” by critics who view his efforts as an attack on the sport. Despite this, his commitment to highlighting the concussion crisis remains steadfast.
The media plays a dual role in this context. On one hand, sensationalised coverage can perpetuate a culture that glorifies dangerous play. On the other, responsible journalism brings critical issues like concussions to light, fostering public awareness and prompting discussions about player safety. As the narrative shifts, the media’s focus on promoting health and well-being becomes increasingly important.
Sam’s perseverance underscores the difficulties in addressing entrenched cultural norms and the resistance that often accompanies efforts to reform. His work exemplifies the impact that dedicated individuals can have in challenging the status quo and promoting meaningful change, even in the face of significant obstacles.
Protecting the Next Generation
For parents and coaches, managing children’s involvement in rugby safely is a pressing concern. Education is paramount. Understanding the signs of concussion, fostering an environment where reporting injuries is encouraged, and emphasising skill development over physical dominance can help reduce risks.
Schools and clubs have a responsibility to implement safety measures and ensure that young athletes are protected. This includes proper training on tackling techniques, enforcing rules that limit dangerous play, and providing adequate medical support during games and practices.
Moreover, it’s important to recognise that the sport can evolve. Adjustments at the youth level, such as modifying rules to reduce high-impact contact and focusing on non-contact versions of the game, like touch rugby, can maintain enjoyment while prioritising health. These changes contribute to a culture that values player welfare from the grassroots up.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Rugby
Reflecting on the progress made since his campaign began, Sam believes that while significant resistance remains, there’s a path to real change. Increased awareness, legal actions, and evolving attitudes toward player safety are driving forces in this transformation. The future of rugby concerning concussion protocols and player welfare hinges on continued advocacy, education, and a willingness to adapt.
Embracing technological innovations, such as advanced protective gear and improved diagnostic tools, offers hope in mitigating concussion risks. Collaboration among all stakeholders—players, coaches, medical professionals, governing bodies, and fans—is essential to implement effective solutions and ensure the sport’s sustainability.
Sam intends to continue his advocacy within rugby and expand his focus to broader issues in sports safety. His journey underscores the profound impact that persistent efforts can have in effecting change, highlighting the importance of staying engaged and committed to the cause.
Conclusion
The conversation with Sam Peters sheds light on the complex challenges surrounding concussions in rugby. It’s a multifaceted issue involving cultural norms, medical ethics, legal implications, and the delicate balance between tradition and innovation. Addressing these challenges requires collective effort and a shared commitment to prioritising player welfare.
By fostering open dialogue, implementing practical solutions, and embracing necessary changes, it’s possible to preserve the essence of rugby while ensuring the safety of those who play it. Sam’s work serves as a catalyst for this change, highlighting the uncomfortable truths that must be confronted to safeguard the future of the sport.
Ultimately, the goal is to create an environment where athletes can enjoy the game they love without compromising their long-term health. It’s about honouring the spirit of rugby while evolving to meet the demands of a modern understanding of player safety. The journey may be challenging, but with dedication and collaboration, meaningful progress is within reach.
Concussed: Sam Peters Unveils Rugby’s Uncomfortable Truths – Podcast
