Introduction
There’s a particular moment of workplace dread that many employees know all too well. It’s that unsettling instant when your boss outlines a plan, makes a decision, or champions an idea that you firmly believe is going to backfire. You know it’s flawed — but how do you say so? Telling your boss they’re wrong is one of the most delicate balancing acts in professional life. Get it right, and you might be seen as a trusted adviser. Get it wrong, and you could damage your relationship or your career.
But saying nothing comes with its own risks: poor performance, organisational inefficiencies, and — ironically — damaged relationships. So how can you push back without burning bridges?
Why it’s hard
Disagreeing with authority goes against our social conditioning. “Most of us are brought up to respect and defer to authority,” says Melody Wilding, executive coach and author of Managing Up: How to Get What You Need from the People in Charge. “Feedback, tough conversations, and disagreements usually roll downhill; they’re not something we’re taught to give upwardly” [1].
From a neuroscience perspective, the very thought of contradicting your boss can trigger a stress response. “Our brains associate these interactions with potential threats,” says neurologist Joel Salinas. The result? A racing heart, clenched muscles, and a narrowed focus that makes strategic thinking difficult [2].
But understanding this psychological wiring is the first step to overcoming it. If you can label the fear, you can start to loosen its grip.
The need for challenge
You might worry that disagreeing with your boss will label you as a troublemaker. But in reality, thoughtful pushback can mark you out as someone who cares deeply about the success of your team and organisation.
“When employees don’t challenge timelines, priorities, or direction, companies waste money chasing the wrong goals,” says Wilding. She points out that the higher up leaders rise, the fewer people challenge them. “You earn trust by speaking up, even when it’s tough” [3].
And the stakes for staying silent are real. As Harvard Law School’s Robert Bordone explains, “You’re going to feel frustrated, you won’t sleep well, and your performance could suffer. There’s a real ripple effect” [4].
Pushback power
Before diving into a disagreement, reflect on your position. Wilding suggests gauging your “pushback power” — your ability to safely challenge decisions — based on your tenure, your relationship with your boss, and the context of the organisation.
Is the company in crisis, requiring quick decisions and total alignment? Or is it a stable environment that welcomes discussion? “It doesn’t mean you can’t speak up if those factors aren’t in your favour,” Wilding says, “but you may need to be more incremental in your approach” [5].
It’s about shifting from a subordinate mindset to a partnership one — seeing yourself as a trusted collaborator, not just a follower.
Timing
Even the best points fall flat if delivered at the wrong moment. According to Wilding, it’s often wiser to wait until your next one-on-one or a quieter moment: “Timing is everything” [6]. Bordone adds, “Trying to have a potentially contentious conversation in the hallway on a Friday afternoon, just as they’re leaving for the weekend, isn’t ideal” [7].
Preparation also matters. Caroline Castrillon of Forbes advises that “If your boss is having a bad day, that’s not the right moment to explain why you disapprove of their recent marketing idea” [8]. Instead, set up a time in a private setting where you can both speak freely.
Every boss is different
Different bosses react to pushback in different ways. Some appreciate directness — “I don’t agree” — while others might take it personally. Wilding notes, “Saying, ‘I worry this plan will burn people out,’ lands differently than, ‘I worry this plan will waste money,’” depending on your manager’s values [9].
Observe how they react when others speak up. Do they value facts, efficiency, consensus, or loyalty? Matching your language to their priorities can help your feedback land more constructively.
And if in doubt? Ask questions.
No accusations
Leading with curiosity is one of the most effective ways to challenge without conflict. Instead of saying, “That’s wrong,” try: “Help me understand what factors are influencing this decision?” This signals that you want to collaborate, not contradict.
Wilding also suggests using a “micro yes” before sharing your view: “Are you open to another perspective?” or “Could I share what I’m seeing?” These small agreements make the conversation feel less adversarial and more consensual [10].
Mark Murphy, CEO of Leadership IQ, offers similar advice. Instead of saying, “This calculation is wrong,” say: “When I ran the numbers, I got a different result — did you notice anything in the third column?” [11]. The tone invites reflection rather than resistance.
Use the data
Data gives your argument structure and credibility. “Don’t just make a pitch because your position ‘feels’ right,” advises Patrick Mullane. “Find all the data you can to support your position. But don’t just find it — make it tell a story” [12].
That said, there’s a fine line between passion and emotion. “Managers love passionate employees,” says Castrillon. “Just don’t get overly emotional to the point that you become frazzled and lose focus” [13]. Passion can energise your argument. Raw emotion can undercut it.
Frame your disagreement around collective success. “I want to make sure this project succeeds and that you have all the information to make the best call,” is a much stronger opening than, “I don’t like this idea.”
If you’re a product manager, for example, Wilding recommends saying: “I see it as my job to steward our road map and ensure we’re prioritising the right features. To do that, here’s what I think” [14].
This frames your concern as part of your role — not as a personal objection.
Prepare for pushback
Even with the best intentions, your boss might get defensive. Stay calm. Salinas recommends taking a moment to breathe before responding [15]. If accused of undermining, flip it: “I am a team player, that’s why I’m bringing this up.”
And if your boss says, “I thought you were behind me,” respond with: “I am — that’s why I want you to have all the information to make the strongest decision” [16].
Remember: you’re advocating for success, not staging a rebellion.
Compromise
Sometimes you won’t win outright — but that doesn’t mean all is lost. Wilding suggests proposing a small test or pilot scheme: “Maybe we don’t go fully in the direction I’m proposing, but how about we try a pilot?” [17].
This signals that you’re collaborative, not combative. And it leaves the door open for future influence. “If you back off entirely and never bring it up again,” warns Wilding, “your manager might think, ‘I don’t have to listen next time’” [18].
Of course, you won’t always persuade your boss — and that’s okay. “In most cases, you should probably back off,” Wilding concedes. “Realise that there’s still a hierarchy. Your influence is substantial but limited” [19].
Pick your battles. As Mullane puts it, “Pick battles big enough to matter but small enough to win” [20]. And if it’s not unethical or illegal, sometimes you just have to let go.
If things don’t go your way, take time to reflect. What worked? What didn’t? “Sometimes, you need to let bad decisions play out, so people listen to you in the future,” says Wilding. And if you turn out to be right? Don’t rub it in. “We have to let people face the consequences so they can come to that realisation on their own” [21].
How to tell your boss they’re wrong
Disagreeing with your boss isn’t just about courage — it’s about strategy, timing, empathy, and mutual respect. When done right, it can strengthen your professional relationship, improve decision-making, and enhance team performance.
Bosses are human. They make mistakes. And most of them, if approached the right way, will thank you for helping them avoid one.
More on Conflict
Diversity and Conflict for a Plural Workforce
How to Argue and Why we Should
Emotional Intelligence and Engaging Others
How “Nice” Should You be at Work?
Six Negotiation Myths That Might Be Costing You
A Master Class in Negotiation with Simon Horton – Podcast
Sources
[1]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[2]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[3]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[4]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[5]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[6]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[7]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[10] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[12] https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmullane/2023/07/26/how-to-disagree-with-your-boss/
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[15] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[16] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[17] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[18] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[19] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[20] https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmullane/2023/07/26/how-to-disagree-with-your-boss/
[21] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
Introduction
In recent years, corporate sustainability has faced unprecedented challenges. What was once a burgeoning movement, celebrated for its potential to align business with planetary health, is now under siege. Political polarisation, populist backlash, and shifting regulatory landscapes have left many companies questioning their sustainability commitments. But this moment is not the end of sustainability but a critical juncture — one that demands resilience, pragmatism, and strategic foresight.
The crisis
The sustainability movement, after decades of progress, finds itself at a crossroads. Writing in Harvard Business Review, Georg Kell, Martin Reeves, and Helena Fox note that “a shifting political landscape — intensifying rivalry between nations, increasing social polarisation, and a populist backlash against sustainability efforts — is radically redefining the conditions under which corporations must survive and thrive” [1]. In the US, sustainability commitments are being unwound, while Europe faces pushback against stringent reporting requirements like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) [2]. Even the term “ESG” has become politically charged, with companies quietly removing it from their communications [3].
This retreat is not merely rhetorical. Dr Ioannis Ioannou, a leading expert in sustainability leadership and corporate responsibility, observes that “many companies are quietly backing away” from sustainability, exposing the fragility of commitments made during more favourable times [4]. Yet, this backlash does not negate the underlying imperatives. Climate disasters are intensifying, with the number of weather-related disasters increasing fivefold in the last 50 years [5]. Six of the nine planetary boundaries — critical thresholds for Earth’s stability — have already been breached, raising the risk of irreversible damage [6]. The question, then, is not whether sustainability matters, but how companies should navigate this turbulent period.
The rebound
Despite the current retreat, there are compelling reasons to believe that sustainability will regain momentum. Renewable energy, for instance, has reached a tipping point. China accounted for 40% of global renewable capacity expansion between 2019 and 2024, and renewables now represent nearly a quarter of the EU’s energy use [7]. These advancements are not easily reversed, as they are underpinned by massive infrastructure investments — $300-400 billion annually in global power grids over the past decade [8].
Moreover, planetary realities will eventually reshape politics. As climate impacts become more severe — evidenced by events like the Los Angeles fires — public opinion will likely demand stronger action [9]. Kell, Reeves, and Fox argue that “a deterioration of climatic conditions may even enhance the probability and intensity of a bounce back” [10]. Businesses that recognise this inevitability can position themselves ahead of the curve.
Another driving force is the economic viability of sustainable business models. Companies like Maersk, which invested in low-carbon fuels and electrified port operations, have turned sustainability into a competitive advantage [11]. Similarly, car-sharing platforms, home solar systems, and circular economy models are proving that sustainability can be profitable. As David Carlin notes in Forbes, “sustainability is no longer seen as an additional cost” but as a driver of economic opportunity [12].
Navigating the backlash
In this liminal period, companies must avoid two extremes: blind idealism and outright abandonment of sustainability. Instead, they should adopt a pragmatic, long-term approach.
Leaders must prepare for a future where sustainability rebounds. This means reducing exposure to environmental risks and pre-empting future regulations. Kell, Reeves, and Fox advise companies to “be guided by the long-term scenario of a sustainability rebound,” as this mindset builds resilience and trust with stakeholders [13]. For example, Interface, a global flooring company, pioneered a closed-loop recycling model in the 1990s, which now supplies over half of its materials from recycled or bio-based sources [14]. By embedding sustainability into their business model, they turned it into a source of efficiency and customer engagement.
Sustainability has become politicised, but shared values like environmental stewardship and intergenerational responsibility can still bridge divides [15]. Companies should anchor their strategies in these principles while remaining attuned to political realities. As Kell, Reeves, and Fox suggest, “operating from your own company’s values and principles creates a pragmatic basis to plot a steady course” [16]. This approach fosters consistency amid external volatility.
With international collaboration faltering, local initiatives offer a path forward. Elinor Ostrom’s research shows that polycentric approaches — multiple independent initiatives — can foster widespread agreement on norms [17]. Companies like Nike and New Belgium Brewing have successfully localised sustainability efforts, building trust and resilience from the ground up [18].
Sustainable integration
Sustainability must be woven into core business functions, not treated as a standalone project. Carlin highlights that sustainability teams are increasingly seen as “internal experts” rather than just reporting specialists, with their input sought in strategic decisions [19]. This integration mirrors the rise of data protection as a cross-cutting priority. When sustainability is embedded into operations — such as supply chain optimisation or energy efficiency — it becomes harder to reverse and more likely to deliver tangible benefits [20].
Navigating the sustainability backlash requires a new leadership mindset — one that embraces contradictions between short-term pressures and long-term goals.
Rebuilding trust
One of the most critical lessons from the current backlash is the need for greater transparency and accountability in sustainability efforts. Many companies initially embraced ESG as a branding exercise, leading to accusations of greenwashing when commitments were not met. As Loannou notes, “not every company was ever serious about this work,” with some adopting sustainability language merely because it was fashionable or financially advantageous [21]. This has eroded public trust and fuelled scepticism. To regain credibility, businesses must move beyond performative pledges and demonstrate measurable progress. This means setting clear, science-based targets, regularly reporting on outcomes — even when they fall short — and engaging stakeholders in honest conversations about challenges and trade-offs.
For example, firms like Unilever and Patagonia have maintained stakeholder trust by openly sharing their sustainability data, including setbacks, while outlining concrete steps for improvement. Similarly, Carlin’s observation that “credibility will come from delivering measurable results” underscores the shift from rhetoric to action [22].
Transparency also requires democratising the sustainability conversation, which has often been dominated by technical jargon and elite circles. As Loannou points out, terms like “net-zero by 2050” or “Scope 3 emissions” may be essential but fail to resonate with workers, consumers, or small businesses [23]. Companies must communicate their efforts in accessible ways, tying sustainability to tangible benefits like cost savings, job creation, or community resilience. This approach not only counters disinformation but also rebuilds the broad-based support needed to withstand political headwinds. In a period of backlash, trust is the currency that will determine which companies emerge stronger — and which are left behind when the pendulum swings back toward sustainability.
Staying the course
Leaders must internalise that setbacks are inevitable but temporary. Kell, Reeves, and Fox urge companies to “guide your organisation based on your core values,” avoiding the cost of frequent strategy shifts [24]. This clarity helps teams navigate uncertainty without losing sight of critical objectives.
While idealism can inspire, pragmatism ensures survival. Companies should focus on specific, defensible priorities — like materials efficiency or climate risk mitigation — that align with both short-term gains and long-term sustainability [25]. As Carlin notes, “the time for pledges and announcements has passed”; credibility now comes from delivering measurable results [26].
Periods of uncertainty present opportunities. Companies that act decisively — whether through localisation, innovation, or resilience-building — can outpace competitors distracted by the backlash [27]. For instance, firms investing in renewable energy or circular economies are not just future-proofing their operations but also unlocking new markets [28].
Moving forward
The sustainability backlash is real, but it is also temporary. Companies must look beyond short-term politics and focus on the inevitable rebound. As Loannou puts it, “The firms that endure will not be those that retreat the fastest. They will be the ones that used this moment to clarify their strategy, recommit to their purpose, and lead with resilience” [29].
The question is no longer whether sustainability will matter again, but whether companies are prepared for its resurgence. Those that integrate sustainability into their core operations, champion localised solutions, and align it with economic value will not only survive the backlash but emerge stronger. As Carlin concludes, sustainability is evolving — not retreating — and businesses must evolve with it [30].
More on Sustainability
The Role of Financial Services in Combating the Climate Crisis
The Need for Biophilic Design in the Modern Workplace
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[5] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[6] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[10] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[11] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[13] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[15] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[16] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[17] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[18] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[24] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[25] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[27] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
Introduction
In an increasingly globalised economy, the ability to effectively lead international teams is no longer a specialist skill — it’s a core competency. Whether managing a cross-continental project team, coordinating global customer service, or integrating multinational departments post-acquisition, today’s leaders must navigate cultural differences, time zone clashes, and communication styles that vary dramatically. The best global leaders are not just multi-lingual in speech, but in behaviour, expectations, and understanding. They lead with what David Livermore, founder of the Cultural Intelligence Center, calls “cultural intelligence” — a learned, flexible capacity to adapt to and draw strength from diversity [1].
Managing autonomy
One of the most common pitfalls for Western managers leading international teams is the overreliance on autonomy as a universal motivator. In Western, individualist cultures, autonomy is often viewed as essential for creativity, engagement, and job satisfaction. Employees are expected to speak up, take initiative, and define their own success paths. However, 70% of the world’s workforce is collectivist and hierarchical, according to GLOBE Leadership Studies, meaning they are more comfortable when leaders provide guidance, define processes, and make group-oriented decisions [2].
This contrast was starkly evident in McDonald’s operations in India. The company’s Employee of the Month programme failed spectacularly when recipients, rather than being celebrated, were teased and resented. “They were accused of betraying their team and undermining camaraderie,” Livermore recalls. McDonald’s had to pivot to a Team of the Month model, better aligned with local values [3].
Likewise, the multinational firm Everfresh (a pseudonym) encountered resistance to a well-intentioned “Speak Up” initiative. Many employees in Asian countries associated the phrase with publicly challenging authority — a cultural taboo. So the company reframed the campaign to encourage alternative forms of feedback, such as anonymous group submissions or one-on-one discussions, which “led to a significant increase in constructive input” [4].
Sam Silverman, managing partner of EB5 Affiliate Network, recommends leaders of international teams design systems that respect these cultural nuances from the outset. “Provide new employees with a corporate structure chart… explain your management style and preferred communication channels,” he advises, noting that clear onboarding helps avoid clashes between cultural assumptions and company norms [5].
The obvious lesson is that successful global leadership requires flexibility. Leaders need to carefully evaluate each context and tailor their approach — offering the right balance of direction, independence, and oversight — to align with the specific cultural values and needs of their team members.
Psychological safety
The idea of psychological safety — where team members feel safe to speak freely and take risks — has become a staple of Western management theory. Amy Edmondson’s research at Harvard Business School and Google’s Project Aristotle are frequently cited as proof of its value [6]. Yet, the assumption that psychological safety looks the same in every context can backfire.
In more hierarchical or face-saving cultures, “open disagreement and debate can feel deeply unsafe,” Livermore warns. Teams may default to safe, unchallenging ideas in order to avoid conflict, leading to the “common knowledge effect” — where only familiar perspectives are shared [7]. Leaders like Isabella, a global marketing executive, discovered this firsthand. Despite investing in bonding activities, her team still struggled to navigate conflicting cultural priorities. Eventually, she implemented culturally inclusive norms such as: ‘Any product launch campaign must be tested in at least three markets within six weeks.’ The specificity of the norm provided clarity while respecting different styles of input and buy-in [8].
Even the phrasing of questions can shape participation. Instead of asking, ‘Do you have any questions?’, for example, say, ‘What questions do you have?’. This subtle shift signals that questions are expected, not disruptive. It is the minute changes like this that can open up a whole world of possibilities to those of a different cultural mindset.
Don’t overemphasise differences
Diversity is a strength — but focusing too much on difference can become counterproductive. According to a Deakin University study, over-indexing on diversity can lead to anxiety and reduced knowledge-sharing [9]. Another meta-analysis by Rockstuhl and Van Dyne found that knowing a lot about cultural differences can be more harmful than being culturally ignorant if it fosters rigid thinking or reinforces stereotypes [10].
To harness diversity without fragmenting teams, Livermore recommends leaders ensure they are regularly shifting their perspectives to put themselves in the shoes of their team. A simple shift in perspective may sound basic, but it’s effective. In a study led by Columbia’s Adam Galinsky, students were asked to write a first-person essay from the perspective of an elderly man. The exercise resulted in more empathetic, positive narratives than those written from a detached or stereotype-avoiding stance [11]. In practice, leaders can apply this by asking team members to describe a colleague’s opposing viewpoint in the first person during disagreements. This simple exercise humanises teammates and uncovers shared understanding — a powerful antidote to division.
Moreover, shared purpose remains a powerful unifier. As demonstrated by Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiments –– in which researchers divided boys into two teams at summer camp, leading to conflict that only subsided when they faced shared challenges, like fixing the camp’s water supply and a broken truck carrying food –– common goals can overcome entrenched differences. As Livermore writes, “Labeling differences… inevitably creates divisions. The most effective way to counter this tendency is to reframe the group’s identity around a common goal” [12].
Transparency
In the West, transparency is often seen as the core currency of leadership. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz once said that, “Owning your mistakes is key to building trust.” But for leaders working with collectivist or face-saving cultures, this kind of radical candour can backfire. In many cultures, particularly those where saving face is highly valued, team members often prefer that leaders respond to mistakes through quiet, corrective action rather than public acknowledgment. Rather than reinforcing trust, openly admitting fault — a hallmark of Western leadership — can sometimes erode it. In such contexts, trust is often rebuilt through consistent behaviour and measured responses, not confessions or vulnerability
The GLOBE Leadership Studies found that trust is primarily built on “clarity” [13] — but not necessarily full disclosure. In some settings, too much transparency induces anxiety, especially when there’s no resolution in sight. Instead, culturally intelligent leaders “modulate the level of disclosure,” sometimes delivering bad news through deputies or in more indirect ways [14].
This principle also applies to feedback. Kim Scott’s “radical candour” philosophy — while valuable — assumes that bluntness is always best. In many global contexts, indirectness is not evasiveness but an expectation of nuanced communication. “There’s an art to being crystal clear without a blunt edge,” Livermore observes. The goal is clarity, not shock value.
Systems and processes
While cultural fluency is crucial, effective international leadership also relies on robust systems and processes. Silverman stresses the importance of a seamless onboarding process. “Ensure that joining the company is as easy as possible in terms of both corporate and local red tape,” he advises. Clarity around reporting structures, communication channels, and business goals helps international hires hit the ground running [15].
Silverman also highlights communication as a double challenge — not just across language, but across expectations. Jargon-free language, inclusive facilitation, and active encouragement of quieter voices are essential. “Speak slowly, ask clarifying questions, and explicitly invite input from those who may be reluctant to speak due to cultural norms,” he recommends [16].
On the technological side, Robert Giovannini, CEO of IronPlane, recommends tools like Jira and Confluence to ensure “a robust and flexible set of structures to work with,” enabling clear communication and centralised knowledge-sharing [17]. For Giovannini, the balance is between clarity and flexibility — allowing for standardisation where needed but accommodating different time zones, languages, and tools of preference.
Giovannini also underscores the importance of regular check-ins and informal connection-building. “We hold regular video calls for informal discussions and all-hands meetings to celebrate personal achievements,” he explains. These not only help reduce isolation but build team cohesion and morale across distances [18].
Mindset
At the heart of it all is mindset. Forbes’ Young Entrepreneur Council emphasises the importance of curiosity over assumption. “Ask questions and listen,” encourages Nathalie Lussier of AccessAlly. “You don’t have to have all the answers. Your team members will help guide you — you just need to give them the space to do so” [19]. Similarly, Brent Liang of Fractal reminds us that effective leadership “means becoming an excellent communicator who’s able to identify not only what’s said, but also what’s left unsaid” — an especially critical skill in multicultural contexts where much is communicated through subtext [20].
From flexibility around religious holidays to openness about pay structures and clear guidelines for conflict resolution, leading an international team well means balancing empathy with structure and adaptation with clarity.
How to effectively lead an international team
Autonomy, psychological safety, diversity, and transparency remain pillars of good leadership — but in the global arena, their implementation must be shaped by cultural intelligence. Leaders must shift from a one-size-fits-all approach to one that is deeply adaptive, listening-first, and context-sensitive.
The result is not just better communication and fewer misunderstandings. It’s a team that functions as more than the sum of its parts — a globally-minded, resilient unit capable of meeting the complex challenges of the modern workplace.
More on Feedback
Banduras Social Cognitive Theory
Refining Performance Assessments: Reducing Recency Bias for Superior Evaluations
Source
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[2] https://www.globeproject.com/study_2014.html
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[4] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[6] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[10] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-46260-009
[12] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[13] https://globeproject.com/
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
Introduction
The contemporary employment landscape is undergoing a profound transformation, one that challenges traditional notions of career paths and professional identities. What was once considered extraordinary — holding down multiple full-time jobs simultaneously — has become an increasingly common strategy for millions navigating the complexities of modern economic life. Recent data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reveals that a staggering 8.9 million Americans now work multiple jobs, the highest number recorded since the agency began tracking this metric in 1994 [1]. This phenomenon, known variously as “polywork,” “overemployment,” or “multiple jobholding,” represents more than just a financial stopgap — it signals a fundamental shift in how workers approach employment in an era of economic uncertainty and technological disruption.
Why work two jobs?
Financial necessity remains the most immediate catalyst for this trend. Rebecca Croucher, SVP of Marketing & Sales Enablement at ManpowerGroup NA, observes that “many report that as the cost of living has increased, they began living from paycheck to paycheck and taking a second job, which provides some comfort” [2]. The numbers substantiate this claim. Analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis shows the percentage of college-educated multiple jobholders rose from 45.1% in 2019 to 50.2% in 2024 [3], dispelling the notion that this is solely a low-wage worker phenomenon. Additionally, the average number of hours worked per week is on a downward trend. As ZipRecruiter’s chief economist Julia Pollak notes, “If employers are seeing soft demand for labor and cutting hours, that’s another reason why people are taking on additional jobs to fill the week and their bank accounts.” [4]
Yet economic pressures only partially explain the proliferation of polywork. The digital revolution has fundamentally altered the employment equation. Platforms like Uber, Fiverr, and Airbnb have dramatically lowered barriers to supplemental income, while remote work technologies have dissolved geographical constraints [5]. Professionals can now maintain a corporate position in London while freelancing for clients in Singapore, all from a home office in Dublin. The technological liberation of “digital nomadism” enables today’s workers to construct patchwork careers that would have been logistically impossible a decade ago.
It should be noted that there is a difference between polywork and a side hustle. Polywork is being employed in multiple full-time jobs, while side hustles are your efforts in an auxiliary role — rather than in another full-time role. Meanwhile, for a growing number of people, multiple jobholding represents not economic desperation but strategic career design. Writing in Forbes, Jennifer Jay Palumbo highlights the emergence of “portfolio careers,” where professionals intentionally combine roles across industries to build diverse skills and income streams [6]. David Nebinski, host of the Portfolio Career podcast, frames this as accumulating “career capital” — transferable competencies that enhance long-term employability [7]. The example of Serena Kern-Libera, who balances singing, a policy role at HM Treasury, and running a record label, exemplifies this approach [8]. As April Rhine writes in Harvard Business Review, “It’s a new way to think about, talk about, and –– most importantly –– craft your professional future to navigate our ever-changing world of work with purpose, clarity, and flexibility.” [9]
The downsides
The psychological and physical toll of sustained polywork should not be underestimated. Croucher warns that conflicting schedules and relentless demands can lead to “fatigue and burnout, which can affect your performance at both jobs” [10]. Research from Paychex paints a concerning picture: polyworkers report higher levels of burnout and stress, while being less likely to feel inspired or satisfied with their work [11]. The cognitive load of maintaining multiple professional identities — what psychologists term “attention residue” — erodes mental resilience over time.
Performance metrics reveal tangible consequences. Polyworkers demonstrate poorer organisational skills, frequent tardiness/absence, and difficulty integrating into company culture compared to single-job counterparts [12]. These findings have not escaped employer notice. Anthony Klotz, the academic who coined the term “The Great Resignation”, reports that concerns about secretly overemployed remote workers now rank among the top three questions he receives from corporate managers [13].
Is it allowed?
The clandestine nature of much polywork creates complex ethical dilemmas. Websites like Overemployed explicitly advise users to conceal multiple roles, with their first rule being “don’t tell anyone”, while their website admits it exists to “give the man, aka Corporate America, the middle finger for always trying to screw the little people over” [14]. McKinsey estimates 5% of the workforce engages in this “double-dipping,” often under significant stress [15]. The case of Bryan Roque, who simultaneously held positions at IBM, Meta, and Tinder before collapsing under the strain, illustrates the psychological toll of such secrecy [16]. It’s not a surprise, the stakes are high –– a Gallup poll found that 50% of the HR bosses said their business had punitive policies for workers who flouted hybrid rules, a big jump from the 16% who said this in September 2022. [17]
Yet the moral equation isn’t straightforward. In an era of eroded job security and stagnant wages, is it unreasonable for workers to diversify their income streams? Author of The Secrets to Happiness at Work, Tracy Brower PhD, suggests transparency with employers to avoid conflicts of interest [18], but as Forbes contributor Caroline Castrillon notes, many organisations remain unaware of employees’ additional commitments [19]. This disconnect fuels an uneasy tension between worker autonomy and employer expectations.
Ireland
Ireland presents a compelling case study in polywork dynamics. Central Statistics Office data indicates 4.6% of Irish workers hold multiple jobs, with concentrations among younger demographics and urban residents [20]. The tech sector — a cornerstone of Ireland’s economy — has seen particular growth in undisclosed remote roles, facilitated by multinational corporations’ flexible arrangements.
However, Ireland’s employment law remains ambiguous regarding undisclosed multiple jobs, creating legal grey areas. Culturally, where American workers might celebrate side hustles, Irish professional norms have traditionally viewed polywork with suspicion — though this stigma is eroding among younger generations facing Dublin’s housing crisis, where average rents consume 57% of take-home pay [21].
Finding the balance
For those committed to multiple roles, experts propose several strategies for sustainability. Croucher emphasises boundary-setting and self-care [22], while Tiffany Cruz of Power Writers USA advocates visual time mapping to identify inefficiencies [23]. The Overemployed community paradoxically recommends mediocrity — “be average”, they say, to avoid detection [24]. Such a strategy raises questions about job satisfaction and professional growth, something that Croucher addresses. “Overall, it’s important to carefully consider the pros and cons of working two jobs before making a decision,” she says, “since working multiple jobs may not provide the opportunity for career advancement and can make it difficult to pursue additional education or training.” [25]
Should you be working two jobs?
As polywork evolves from outlier to mainstream practice, its long-term implications remain uncertain. But its rise reflects deeper societal transformations — the gig economy’s erosion of traditional employment, technology’s enabling of borderless work, and generational shifts in professional expectations. As Castrillon observes, “Combining skills and pursuing multiple career paths provides more security and is an effective way of staying agile” [26]. In an unstable economic climate, the ability to diversify one’s professional portfolio may transition from advantage to necessity.
Yet the human costs cannot be ignored. Between financial pressures and personal wellbeing, workers are navigating uncharted territory. The challenge for individuals and organisations alike will be developing frameworks that harness polywork’s opportunities while mitigating its risks — creating sustainable models for the future of professional life.
More on Agility
Juggling a Full-time Job and a Side Hustle
Is Working From Home Still the Future?
What is the State of Workplace Loyalty in 2024?
Should You Consider Going Freelance?
Sources
[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
[11] https://www.paychex.com/articles/human-resources/the-rise-of-polywork
[13] https://www.ft.com/content/61921be8-15d2-4752-96ba-d3d5bfa3935a
[15] https://www.ft.com/content/61921be8-15d2-4752-96ba-d3d5bfa3935a
[16] https://www.ft.com/content/61921be8-15d2-4752-96ba-d3d5bfa3935a
[17] https://www.ft.com/content/61921be8-15d2-4752-96ba-d3d5bfa3935a
[20] https://www.cso.ie/en/index.html
[21] https://www.cso.ie/en/index.html
Introduction
According to the World Health Organization, people spend 90% of their time in buildings [1]. Some of us think that the simple act of popping a Vitamin D tablet every once in a while will counteract our body’s growing distance from nature. But it’s insufficient. Humans were meant to interact with the world around us –– doing so is not just pleasant, but unleashes all sorts of physical and cognitive benefits. Looking to cash in on the proven productivity boost nature lends us, a number of businesses are embracing the concept of biophilic design.
Biophilic design –– the art of bringing nature into our built environments, stemming from the classical term biophilia, meaning literally “love for life” –– has evolved from an architectural novelty to a fundamental component of workplace strategy. As our lives become increasingly urbanised, with over 82% of the UK population now living in cities [2], the human yearning for connection with the natural world has never been more pronounced or more systematically ignored. As such, forward-thinking organisations are discovering that by embracing biophilic principles, they’re not just creating prettier offices, but fundamentally transforming employee wellbeing, productivity and business outcomes.
What is biophilic design?
The roots of this movement stretch back to the 1980s when biologist Edward O. Wilson first observed how rapid urbanisation was severing humanity’s innate bond with nature. His biophilia hypothesis revealed what poets and philosophers had long intuited –– that humans possess “an innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes” [3]. This insight has since blossomed into a design philosophy that recognises our workplaces shouldn’t just shelter us from the elements, but actively nurture our biological need for natural connection. As Amanda Lim of Knight Frank’s Flexible Office Solutions team articulates it: “Architects and designers have begun incorporating elements of biophilia to alleviate the disparity between our urban lives and our born need to be close to nature, making our office environments more palatable.” [4]
Why do we need it?
The measurable impacts of this approach are startling in their consistency across industries and geographies. Consider the employee working near a sunlit window, whose exposure to optimised daylight makes them 2% more productive –– a seemingly modest figure that translates to an astonishing £100,000 in added value per 100 employees annually [5]. Or the hospital patient whose view of greenery reduces their recovery time by 8.5%, proving that our physiological responses to nature aren’t just poetic whimsy but quantifiable biological realities [6]. Even the humble office plant, often dismissed as mere decoration, emerges as a silent health worker when we learn that species like Snake Plants and Aloe Vera can absorb the indoor pollutants responsible for 40% of workplace sickness absences [7].
The psychological benefits are equally profound. In an age where mental health challenges account for 12.4% of all sick days in the UK, biophilic design offers a powerful antidote [8]. Studies demonstrate that exposure to natural elements in the workplace can reduce feelings of anxiety while increasing happiness and relaxation, sometimes in as little as five minutes. There’s a particular magic in how natural light regulates our circadian rhythms and boosts serotonin production –– that most precious of “happy hormones” –– creating workspaces that don’t just house us but actively elevate our mood. The UK charity Mind has documented how green spaces induce calm and reduce anger, suggesting that biophilic offices could be potent weapons against our modern stress epidemic [9].
Creativity also flourishes in these nature-infused environments. A Human Spaces report reveals a 15% boost in creative thinking when workspaces incorporate biophilic principles [10]. This finding is brought vividly to life in Amazon’s Seattle headquarters, dubbed “The Spheres“. This jungle-inspired greenhouse office features rope bridges, treehouses and thousands of strategically placed plants that transport employees from sterile cubicles to an ecosystem designed to spark innovation. As Teneshia Naidoo, Head of Content at Cityscape Intelligence, put it, it’s a space that “pulls Amazon workers out of their high-rise offices and into a workspace that’s embedded in nature” [11]. The message is clear: when we design workplaces that honour our evolutionary heritage, we don’t just make people more comfortable –– we unlock their highest cognitive potential.
The bottom line
The business case extends beyond productivity to talent attraction and retention in an increasingly competitive labour market. CBRE’s research shows tenants willingly pay 14% premiums for offices with terraces in New York [12], while similar spaces in London command 5-10% higher rents [13]. These figures reflect a fundamental shift in employee expectations. Today’s workforce doesn’t just want a desk, but an environment that supports their wellbeing. With staff in biophilic offices showing 53% higher loyalty across generations [14], the return on investment becomes undeniable, especially when considering the £12,000 average cost of replacing a single employee in an SME [15].
Implementing biophilic design doesn’t require extravagant budgets or architectural overhauls. The principles can be woven into existing spaces through thoughtful interventions –– the strategic placement of plants where they’ll be most visible to employees, the use of nature-inspired colour palettes, or even simple adjustments to maximise natural light exposure. Water features, whether grand indoor waterfalls or subtle desktop fountains, have been shown to reduce stress and improve concentration through their calming auditory and visual qualities. Natural materials like wood and stone provide tactile connections to the outdoors, while biomorphic patterns in furniture or décor subconsciously reassure our primal brains. Even in windowless offices, innovative solutions like virtual nature scenes or circadian lighting systems can simulate the benefits of outdoor exposure.
Vanessa Champion, who runs the Journal of Biophilic Design, has shared some of the simple changes we can make to our office layout to impact our productivity and well-being. For example, psychoacoustic research has shown that noisy work environments filled with hard, reflective surfaces — where sound easily bounces around — can raise cortisol levels and blood pressure. Meanwhile, simple natural elements can have powerful effects: having a plant within your line of sight has been proven to boost creativity; a natural wood desk can aid concentration; and caring for plants can be especially beneficial for mental health, helping individuals develop a gentler, more nurturing attitude toward themselves [16].
Sustainability goals
There’s also the environmental consideration. By using sustainable materials, minimising energy use, and supporting biodiversity, organisations that embrace biophilic design can significantly lower their environmental impact and enhance overall environmental performance. Additionally, by strengthening employees’ connection to nature, biophilic design can encourage more environmentally conscious behaviours both at work and in their daily lives.
The need for biophilic design in the modern workplace
The implications extend far beyond individual workplaces to how we conceive of urban life itself. As cities continue to grow, absorbing ever more of our population, biophilic design represents a crucial bridge between our metropolitan present and our natural origins. It suggests a future where concrete and chlorophyll coexist, where productivity and wellbeing aren’t competing priorities but natural partners. For forward-thinking organisations, the message is clear: the workplaces that will thrive in the coming decades won’t just house employees, but will actively nurture them –– and in doing so, unlock unprecedented levels of creativity, loyalty and performance. The office of the future isn’t just a place we go to work, but an environment that works for us, in the most profoundly biological sense.
In this light, biophilic design ceases to be an optional perk or aesthetic preference, and emerges as nothing less than a fundamental reconnection with what makes us human. As we spend approximately 90,000 hours of our lives at work –– more time than we’ll spend with loved ones or in leisure –– shouldn’t those hours be spent in spaces that don’t just demand our labour but sustain our biological needs? [17] The evidence suggests that when we design workplaces that answer this question affirmatively, everyone –– employees, employers and the environment alike –– stands to benefit.
More on Workplace Wellbeing
Rethinking the Workplace with Deirdre O’Shea – Podcast
Schopenhauer and the Workplace
Exploring the Perfect Fit: Insights on Workplace Culture and Personal Growth with Dr. André Martin – Podcast
Sources
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization#long-run-history-of-urbanization
[3] https://www.knightfrank.co.uk/office-space/insights/culture-and-space/biophilic-office-design/
[4] https://www.knightfrank.co.uk/office-space/insights/culture-and-space/biophilic-office-design/
[5] https://www.knightfrank.co.uk/office-space/insights/culture-and-space/biophilic-office-design/
[6] https://www.oliverheath.com/biophilic-design-connecting-nature-improve-health-well/
[7] https://www.raconteur.net/business-innovation/biophilic-design-office
[11] https://www.knightfrank.co.uk/office-space/insights/culture-and-space/war-for-talent/
[12] https://www.gensler.com/blog/why-biophilic-design-is-crucial-in-workplace
[13] https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-07/Real_estate_beyond_location_report_0.pdf
[14] https://www.raconteur.net/business-innovation/biophilic-design-office
[15] https://www.knightfrank.co.uk/office-space/insights/scaling-your-business/roi-employee-happiness/
[16] https://www.point6.co.uk/our-thinking/behind-the-curtain-what-is-biophilic-design/
[17] https://www.knightfrank.co.uk/office-space/insights/culture-and-space/biophilic-office-design/
Introduction
Wednesday’s (April 2nd) ‘Liberation Day’ announcement by President Donald Trump, in which he imposed sweeping tariffs on all US imports, has sent shockwaves through global trade networks, with Ireland poised to feel the impact disproportionately. As a small, open economy heavily reliant on multinational corporations and exports, Ireland faces unique vulnerabilities that extend far beyond the immediate effects of these tariffs. The country’s economic model, built on foreign direct investment and a favorable corporate tax regime, is now under unprecedented scrutiny. So what exactly do Trump’s tariffs mean for Ireland?
Ireland’s exposure
One of the most striking aspects of Ireland’s economic landscape is its reliance on what are known as “phantom exports” –– goods produced abroad under contract by Irish-registered firms but booked as Irish exports despite never physically entering the country. These exports, officially termed “contract manufacturing” or “goods for processing,” represent a significant but often overlooked component of Ireland’s export figures. In 2023, phantom exports accounted for a staggering €92 billion, representing more than a quarter of Ireland’s total merchandise exports of €329 billion [1]. This marks a dramatic increase from just €6 billion in 2012, highlighting the rapid growth of this phenomenon and its central role in Ireland’s economic success.
The nature of these phantom exports creates unique vulnerabilities in the face of Trump’s tariffs. Unlike traditional exports, where tariffs are applied based on the country of origin, phantom exports are subject to tariffs based on where the goods are actually produced. This means that goods manufactured in China but booked as Irish exports would be subject to Trump’s existing tariffs on Chinese goods, rather than the new tariffs being imposed on EU products. The implications of this distinction are profound, particularly for the many US multinationals that use Ireland as a base for their European operations. Companies like Apple, which contracts manufacturing in China for its iPhones but books the exports through Ireland, could face significant additional costs that would directly impact their profitability and, by extension, Ireland’s corporate tax revenues.
John O’Loughlin, a partner in global trade and customs with PwC Ireland, emphasises the far-reaching consequences of this arrangement. “Anywhere where you have a movement of goods crossing an international border now is impacted,” he notes. “Those indirect aspects, like contract manufacturing, are not getting enough attention. Everybody’s focusing on the direct impact of what’s right in front of them but I think it’s further up and down the supply chain is where there is a massive risk that’s probably not been looked at that closely enough” [2]. This observation underscores the complex web of interdependencies that characterise modern global trade, and Ireland’s particularly exposed position within that web.
The potential impact on Ireland’s corporate tax base cannot be overstated. In 2023, corporate tax revenues reached €30 billion, with approximately half of that amount already considered at risk due to various international tax reforms [3]. The introduction of tariffs on phantom exports could further erode this vital revenue stream, either through direct reductions in multinational profits or through the more drastic scenario of companies relocating their intellectual property holdings out of Ireland altogether. While Feargal O’Rourke, chair of the IDA, has suggested that the 12.5% exit tax would serve as a deterrent to such moves [4], the rhetoric from US officials like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick indicates that Ireland’s tax arrangements are very much in Washington’s crosshairs. “They all put it there because it’s low tax and they don’t pay us. They pay them. So that’s got to end,” Lutnick stated recently, leaving little doubt about the administration’s intentions. [5]
Pharma, agri-food, and the north-south divide
The pharmaceutical sector, which accounts for the lion’s share of Ireland’s exports to the United States, has so far been granted a temporary reprieve from the new tariffs. This exemption provides some breathing room for an industry that exported over €110 billion worth of products in 2023, making Ireland the third-largest exporter of pharmaceuticals globally [6]. The concentration of this industry in locations like Cork, where 23 pharmaceutical firms operate including seven of the world’s top fifteen, means that any future tariff imposition would have severe regional as well as national consequences [7]. However, the respite may be short-lived, as Trump has made clear his intention to address what he sees as unfair practices in the pharmaceutical trade. The sector’s exclusion from the initial round of tariffs likely reflects concerns about potential drug shortages and price spikes in the US market rather than any long-term exemption.
In contrast to pharmaceuticals, Ireland’s agri-food and drinks sector faces immediate and significant challenges from the new tariffs. With annual exports to the US valued at approximately €2 billion, this sector must now contend with a 20% tariff that puts it at a distinct disadvantage compared to competitors from the UK and New Zealand, which face only a 10% tariff [8]. The Irish Whiskey Association has been particularly vocal about the potential consequences, noting that the US represents 41% of Irish drink exports, worth €865 million annually [9]. The Association’s statement captures the sector’s concerns: “Our high-quality jobs cannot be reshored or repatriated to the US. Our sectors are truly interconnected. There are many examples of EU and US distillers working together in developing portfolios, operating facilities, creating additional jobs and new investments in both jurisdictions” [10]. The 10% differential between Irish and UK whiskey exports to the US market could have lasting effects on market share and profitability for Irish producers.
The divergence in tariff treatment between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland introduces another layer of complexity to an already challenging situation. While the Republic faces the full 20% EU tariff, Northern Ireland benefits from the 10% rate applied to UK goods [11]. This discrepancy has raised concerns about potential distortions in cross-border trade and the possible undermining of the carefully negotiated Windsor Framework. Tánaiste Simon Harris has identified this as a “real challenge,” particularly for sectors like dairy where supply chains frequently cross the border. The practical difficulties are significant, as Harris explains: “If you look at things like dairy, there’s huge complexities. Stuff that goes out from the North could be listed as coming from the South” [12]. Former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has warned that this differential treatment could reopen trade issues that were thought to have been resolved by the Windsor Agreement, creating new tensions and uncertainties for businesses operating on both sides of the border. [13]
EU response
The European Union’s response to Trump’s tariffs will play a crucial role in determining the ultimate impact on Ireland. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has indicated that the EU is preparing countermeasures, but significant divisions exist among member states about the appropriate course of action. Some advocate for immediate retaliation, while others, including France, caution against escalating tensions with the United States [14]. Ireland finds itself in a particularly delicate position, torn between its traditional alignment with EU trade policy and its unique economic relationship with the US, where American companies account for the majority of foreign direct investment and a significant portion of employment.
The potential consequences of a full-blown trade war are severe. A study by Aston University cited in the Irish Independent suggests that in such a scenario, Ireland could experience a 6.6% drop in exports, a 13% fall in imports, and a GDP decline of up to 3% [15]. These figures reflect Ireland’s particular vulnerability as a small, open economy with a relatively undiversified trade base. Professor Jun Du, one of the study’s authors, notes that Ireland’s exposure is disproportionate compared to larger EU economies, leaving it more susceptible to the ripple effects of escalating trade tensions between major global powers.
The Irish government faces difficult choices in navigating this crisis. While immediate measures may focus on supporting the most affected sectors, there is growing recognition that longer-term structural changes to Ireland’s economic model may be necessary. As Ian Guider of the Business Post observes, “Ireland’s weakness is self-inflicted. This country once positioned itself as the gateway to sell technology, pharmaceuticals and medical devices into Europe and beyond. That natural position, aided by a stable economy and political system and a pool of skilled workers, suddenly changed. It became a tax-driven boom, booking revenues and profits for products that are not even manufactured here” [16]. This assessment suggests that the current crisis may accelerate existing trends toward economic diversification and a reduced reliance on the multinational sector.
What do Trump’s tariffs mean for Ireland?
The implementation of Trump’s tariffs marks the beginning of a new and uncertain chapter in global trade relations, with Ireland positioned squarely in the crosshairs. The country’s unique economic model, which has delivered remarkable success in recent decades, now faces its most serious challenge yet. The immediate effects will be felt most acutely in sectors like agri-food and drinks, while the longer-term implications for Ireland’s corporate tax base and its attractiveness to multinational investment remain uncertain.
What is clear is that Ireland cannot rely on past strategies to navigate this crisis. As Daniel Murray of the Business Post concludes, “If disaster is averted, this moment presents an opportunity, a chance to re-engineer our economy with long-term resilience in mind. That means moving beyond our over-reliance on multinational tax advantages and instead fostering a more self-sufficient industrial and technological base” [17]. The coming months will test the resilience of Ireland’s economy and the ingenuity of its policymakers as they seek to mitigate the impact of these tariffs while positioning the country for sustainable growth in an increasingly volatile global trade environment.
More on the Trump Administration
What Does Donald Trump’s Second Coming Mean for Ireland?
What Trump’s DEI Cuts Mean for Ireland
Why Some Companies Handle Trade Wars Better Than Others
Making sense of Brexit and the extraordinary times we live in with Diarmaid Ferriter – Podcast
AI in Ireland and Europe: the Taoiseach’s Perspective
Sources
[1] https://www.businesspost.ie/analysis/ireland-may-be-more-exposed-to-trumps-trade-war-than-we-think/
[2] https://www.businesspost.ie/analysis/ireland-may-be-more-exposed-to-trumps-trade-war-than-we-think/
[3] https://www.businesspost.ie/analysis/ireland-may-be-more-exposed-to-trumps-trade-war-than-we-think/
[4] https://www.businesspost.ie/analysis/ireland-may-be-more-exposed-to-trumps-trade-war-than-we-think/
[5] https://www.businesspost.ie/analysis/ireland-may-be-more-exposed-to-trumps-trade-war-than-we-think/
[11] https://www.businesspost.ie/news-focus/qa-what-does-trumps-trade-war-really-mean-for-ireland/
[17] https://www.businesspost.ie/analysis-opinion/ian-guider-on-trump-weve-just-witnessed-start-of-unprecedented-experiment/
Introduction
I’m writing this article on so-called ‘Liberation Day’, on which President Trump is set to announce his latest round of eye-watering tariffs, which are expected to greatly exacerbate the already fraught state of global trade. There is some bleak humour to the fact the President’s team pushed the announcement back by a day out of fear that if done on April 1st, the announcements might have been construed as an April Fools hoax. But this is no joke. At least not for the countless businesses competing in a globalised world who will be forced to work with these tariffs if they want to stay afloat, let alone get ahead.
Trade wars were already an increasingly prominent feature of the global economic landscape before the second Trump administration catapulted them into everyday consciousness. The 2018 US-China trade war, which saw the US government impose tariffs on more than $250 billion worth of Chinese products, served as a stark reminder of how geopolitical tensions can disrupt global supply chains [1]. However, what proved particularly fascinating was the uneven impact these tariffs had on different companies. Research by Di Fan, Daphne W. Yiu, Pengcheng Ma, and Lin Cui published in Harvard Business Review reveals that while transaction values between US buyers and Chinese suppliers fell by an average of 18.42% after 2018, some companies demonstrated remarkable resilience while others struggled significantly [2]. Their research aims to understand what separated the wheat from the chaff.
Understanding trade wars
Before examining why some companies fare better than others, it’s important to understand what trade wars entail. Hint: the answer is Trump’s supposedly favourite word: tariffs. As George Schultze, hedge fund manager and author of The Art of Vulture Investing, explains in Forbes: “The most basic definition of a tariff is a tax on imported goods. They can be used by governments for a number of reasons — to make domestic products more competitive by raising the price of imports, to protect jobs or even as a foreign policy tool to exert economic leverage on trading partners.” [3]
Schultze notes that while tariffs can accomplish certain policy goals, they also carry significant downsides: “They can make protected domestic industries less competitive and even hurt consumers through higher prices. They can also foment investor uncertainty when countries start going tit-for-tat, as we’re starting to see in the US’s trade relationships with China, Europe and other countries.” [4]
The 2018 US-China trade war provided a particularly illuminating case study because of its scale and the availability of detailed transaction data. According to Fan et al.’s research, which analysed more than 300 pairs of US and Chinese companies engaged in business both before and after the trade war began, the impacts varied dramatically based on several key corporate characteristics. [5]
Innovation shield
Perhaps the most striking finding from the research was the protective effect of innovation. Suppliers that were one standard deviation more innovative than their peers engaged in 32.48% more valuable transactions after tariffs were imposed [6]. This resilience manifested through several distinct corporate strategies.
Companies that prioritised R&D spending were better positioned to adapt to new trade barriers. The most notable example was Huawei, which responded to US technology restrictions by dramatically increasing its R&D investment. This allowed the company to develop its own chipsets and work toward self-sufficiency in critical technologies. The payoff was substantial — in 2018, Huawei applied for more patents than any other company globally, surpassing industry giants like Mitsubishi, Intel, and Qualcomm [7].
Diversifying technology sources through international partnerships emerged as another effective strategy. Drone manufacturer DJI established R&D centers in the US, Germany, and Japan, while also forming strategic collaborations with international universities like Polytechnic University of Turin [8]. These global connections provided access to talent and technologies that helped maintain the company’s competitive edge despite geopolitical tensions.
Some companies used innovative approaches to market intelligence to navigate trade challenges. Alibaba’s use of big data analytics from its e-commerce platforms to identify consumer behaviors and trends allowed for rapid product adaptation. Remarkably, Fan et al. found that Alibaba’s transactions with US buyers actually increased after the trade war began — a testament to the power of data-driven innovation [9].
Corporate social responsibility shield
The research revealed corporate social responsibility (CSR) as the second major factor in trade war resilience, with socially responsible suppliers maintaining 28.58% more valuable transactions than their peers [10]. This advantage manifested across several CSR dimensions. Companies with strong environmental practices benefited from enhanced reputations and operational efficiencies. Lenovo’s focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using recycled materials in packaging earned it recognition as a sustainability leader, which in turn helped mitigate some of the negative impacts of trade conflicts [11].
Social investment programs created goodwill that translated into business resilience. Alibaba’s establishment of the Alibaba Foundation and its Poverty Relief Program, which focused on education and technological innovation [12], appeared to contribute to the company’s ability to maintain sales growth (albeit of a more limited variety than pre-tariffs) despite trade tensions [13].
Comprehensive CSR reporting built stakeholder trust during uncertain times. Huawei’s detailed annual sustainability reports provided transparency about its operations and social impact. Industry analysts suggested this transparency contributed to Huawei’s ability to navigate trade war challenges [14].
Political exposure
In contrast to the benefits of innovation and CSR, the research found that political connections created significant vulnerabilities. Suppliers with one standard deviation greater state ownership engaged in 32.65% less valuable transactions after tariffs were imposed [15]. Companies employed several strategies to mitigate this risk.
Establishing operations abroad reduced perceptions of government control. Xiaomi incorporated in the Cayman Islands, while Baidu opened technology labs in Silicon Valley. These moves helped distance the companies from direct Chinese governmental oversight while providing access to global talent pools.
International executive appointments also helped change perceptions. ByteDance’s hiring of former Disney executive Kevin Mayer as TikTok CEO, for example, demonstrated how leadership choices could reduce political associations. [16]
Global impact
The HBR research is focused on US-China trade tensions, but the lessons have broader applicability. The new US tariffs under the second Trump administration are causing panic the world over, with long-time trading partners no longer sure where they stand.
Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin’s warning about impending US tariffs being “the most serious issue to face his country’s economy in a long time” underscores how localised these impacts can be [17]. With Ireland exporting €73 billion worth of goods to the US in 2024 — nearly a third of its total exports — the stakes are particularly high for certain industries and regions [18].
Why some companies handle trade wars better than others
The research presents a compelling blueprint for corporate resilience in today’s volatile trade landscape. As global economic tensions continue to escalate, companies must recognise that weathering trade wars requires proactive, strategic investments rather than reactive measures. The evidence clearly demonstrates that innovation serves as the first line of defence –– substantial R&D investments and advanced manufacturing capabilities can transform vulnerabilities into competitive advantages during trade conflicts.
Equally important is the realisation that corporate social responsibility has evolved from a nice-to-have ethical consideration to a critical strategic imperative. Robust CSR programs create tangible business value during geopolitical disruptions, fostering stakeholder trust and maintaining market access when competitors falter. Meanwhile, while government ties may offer short-term benefits, they emerge as significant liabilities when trade tensions flare. In an era where trade wars have become the new normal, resilience to the fallout may well determine which companies lead their industries in the coming decade and which fall by the wayside.
More on Social Responsibility
Should Brands Weigh in on Social Issues?
Sources
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/01/research-why-some-companies-weather-trade-wars-better-than-others
[5] https://hbr.org/2025/01/research-why-some-companies-weather-trade-wars-better-than-others
[6] https://hbr.org/2025/01/research-why-some-companies-weather-trade-wars-better-than-others
[7] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-03/19/c_137907828.htm
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/01/research-why-some-companies-weather-trade-wars-better-than-others
[10] https://hbr.org/2025/01/research-why-some-companies-weather-trade-wars-better-than-others
[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/technology/alibaba-earnings.html
[15] https://hbr.org/2025/01/research-why-some-companies-weather-trade-wars-better-than-others
[17] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly56p6ke3qo [18] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cre8expj2leo
Introduction
Five years after the Covid-19 pandemic upended workplaces across Ireland and the world, its influence remains deeply embedded in how we work, collaborate, and engage with our professional lives. While the crisis itself may have passed, the transformations it triggered have reshaped office culture, work-life balance, and employer expectations in ways few could have anticipated. From the rise of hybrid working to the technological acceleration in digital communication, the long shadow of Covid continues to define the modern workplace.
The new normal
Perhaps the most significant workplace shift post-pandemic has been the widespread adoption of remote and hybrid working. Once seen as a temporary measure, working from home (WFH) has now become a permanent feature of many organisations. Globally, about 90% of organisations have embraced hybrid work models that allow employees to work remotely from off-site locations for some or much of the time. [1]
Companies that previously resisted remote work have had to adjust to new employee demands. Tech giants like Google and Meta, both of which have significant operations in Dublin, initially pushed for a full return to the office but eventually adopted hybrid models in response to employee pushback [2]. Irish firms, too, have had to navigate this changing landscape. Financial services, legal sectors, and even traditionally office-based industries like advertising have all restructured their approaches to accommodate remote work preferences.
However, hybrid working is not without its challenges. Employers are grappling with issues of productivity measurement, team cohesion, and company culture. A survey by McKinsey revealed that companies adopting hybrid work models reported higher revenue growth compared to those mandating work from a single location [3]. There is an ongoing debate about whether fully remote employees are as engaged as their in-office counterparts and how best to foster collaboration in a digital-first environment. Data from LinkedIn suggests that most workers think some meaningful office attendance is fair, but 50% do not want more mandatory office days than they have at present [4]. The divergence of opinion between employers and their staff is not an issue likely to go away any time soon.
Digital living
One of the most immediate responses to the pandemic was the mass adoption of video conferencing platforms like Zoom and Teams. Five years on, these tools remain integral to business operations, but the way we use them has evolved. Studies have shown no negative relationship between hybrid work and productivity, suggesting that virtual meetings and remote collaborations can be as effective as in-person interactions. [5]
Beyond video calls, the rapid advancement of AI and automation has also been accelerated by the pandemic’s disruption. AI-driven tools are streamlining project management, automating administrative tasks, and even enhancing recruitment processes. In Ireland, where multinational corporations like Apple and Microsoft have a strong presence, AI integration in the workplace is growing steadily. Ireland’s National Digital Strategy has set a target of 75% of enterprises in Ireland using AI by 2030. [6]
Changing mindsets
Covid changed the psychological contract between employers and employees. Work-life balance, mental health, and job satisfaction have taken on new levels of importance. In Ireland, the government has responded with legislation such as the Right to Request Remote Work Bill, aimed at giving employees greater flexibility in how and where they work [7]. This aligns with broader global movements advocating for worker-friendly policies, including the push for four-day work weeks, which has gained traction in several European countries.
Employee well-being is now a boardroom priority. The pandemic highlighted the need for mental health support in workplaces, leading to increased investment in Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), wellness initiatives, and better work-life integration strategies. In 2022, seven in 10 HR professionals told the CIPD that employee wellbeing was on senior leaders’ agenda, while 42% agreed that senior leaders encouraged a focus on mental wellbeing. In 2024, the same survey found that 53% of organisations now have standalone mental health strategies, and 43% continue to support employee mental health. [8]
Additionally, a study found that remote working should improve labour market outcomes for both people with disabilities and those with caring responsibilities [9]. Burnout, which surged during the height of Covid, remains a significant issue, but there is now more awareness and support available.
The office
As hybrid work takes hold, companies are rethinking their real estate needs. In Dublin, office occupancy rates remain below pre-pandemic levels, mirroring trends in global cities like London and New York. Large office spaces are being redesigned to accommodate flexible working models, with an emphasis on hot-desking, collaborative hubs, and social spaces rather than rows of desks.
Some companies have downsized, reducing their office footprint in favour of co-working spaces or decentralised hubs. This shift has had knock-on effects on commercial real estate markets, particularly in major urban centres. In Ireland, this has led to increased vacancies in traditional office districts, prompting discussions on repurposing buildings for alternative uses, such as residential developments or mixed-use spaces.
There can be benefits of this for business. For example, independent research from Global Workplace Analytics reveals that reducing their traditional property footprint by adopting hybrid working enables US companies to realise average annual savings per employee of $11,000 [10]. Businesses can also cut energy usage by a fifth (19%) because of the more efficient use of office space or by providing teams access to flexible workspace. [11]
Retention and recruitment
The pandemic triggered what has been dubbed ‘The Great Resignation’ — a mass movement of employees reevaluating their careers. Five years on, the job market remains dynamic, with workers prioritising flexibility, career development, and meaningful work. Employers are facing new challenges in talent retention, as skilled professionals are more willing than ever to change jobs or seek remote positions with international companies. A survey by McKinsey revealed that nearly 90% of 25,000 working Americans surveyed said they would use workplace flexibility when offered. [12]
Ireland, with its strong multinational presence, has felt this shift acutely. Companies must now offer more than just competitive salaries — they need to provide clear career progression paths, robust well-being support, and flexible work arrangements to attract top talent. Some organisations have leaned into the concept of ‘work from anywhere,’ allowing employees to work remotely from different locations, further intensifying competition for talent.
Meanwhile, some roles have gained in prominence as a result of the events of 2020, HR especially. According to research from HR analyst Josh Bersin, most (53%) HR leaders are now in the C-suite, boosted by their responses to not just the pandemic but also movements such as Black Lives Matter and D&I, the rise of globalisation, and the shift to remote work. [13]
Covid’s impact on the workplace five years on
The workplace of 2025 is unrecognisable from its 2019 counterpart. Hybrid work, digital transformation, employee well-being, and sustainability have become defining features of modern employment. While challenges remain, the long-term legacy of Covid is a more flexible, employee-centric, and tech-driven world of work. Companies that embrace these shifts will be best positioned for success in the years to come.
More on Retention
Is Working From Home Still the Future?
Employee Retention: the Hows and Whys
Sources
[2] https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/empty-spaces-and-hybrid-places-chapter-1
[4] https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/most-workers-think-meaningful-office-attendance-is-fair/
[5] https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/empty-spaces-and-hybrid-places-chapter-1
[8] https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/five-years-on-how-has-work-changed-since-the-pandemic/
[10] https://www.bizcommunity.com/article/5-years-on-how-covid-redefined-the-future-of-work-470729a
[11] https://www.bizcommunity.com/article/5-years-on-how-covid-redefined-the-future-of-work-470729a
[13] https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/josh-bersin-research-most-hr-leaders-are-now-in-c-suite/
Introduction
Layoffs are a workplace reality that few people feel comfortable talking about. They happen, we acknowledge them briefly and quietly, if at all, then move on without a word. But the effects linger. A colleague’s departure is not just a logistical shift –– it disrupts the social and emotional fabric of the workplace.
For whatever reason, many people choose to avoid the conversation around layoffs entirely, unsure of what to say or do. It’s easier that way. But easier isn’t always better. For context, the technology sector alone laid off nearly 130,000 employees in 2024. Major players like Intel suddenly announced a 15% global workforce reduction. Meanwhile, Unilever shared plans to reduce a third of all European office roles by the end of this year [1]. In other words, these layoffs are happening whether we talk about them or not. The best thing we can do is find a way to address the subject in a compassionate way –– for everyone involved.
After all, a layoff isn’t just about the person leaving. It’s also about those who remain. It raises questions. Who’s next? What does this mean for the company? Why them and not me? It’s a shift that goes beyond empty desks and farewell emails, creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that can be hard to shake.
The unspoken
But what’s the right thing to say when a colleague gets let go? You don’t want to make the situation worse. The wrong words can feel dismissive, but saying nothing at all can come across as cold.
Nancy Meredith, a project manager who lost her job after 17 years at a software company then blogged about her experience at mylayoffstory.com described the aftermath as crushingly isolating. “The silence was deafening,” she recalled. “It’s better to say something than nothing. You do weed out who your friends are.” [2]
“It’s a lot like death,” says Penelope Trunk, chief executive officer of Brazen Careerist, a social networking site for young professionals, “people don’t know what to say. Everyone wants to be nice, but 50 percent will try to say something nice and won’t” [3]. The truth is, there’s no perfect phrase that makes being made redundant feel okay. What matters is showing up. A simple, “I heard what happened — I’m really sorry. If you ever want to talk, I’m here,” can mean more than you realise.
Meanwhile, the temptation to comfort with all-out optimism can be strong, but it can often come across a bit tone deaf. Telling someone, “This could be a great opportunity,” or, “Everything happens for a reason,” can sound dismissive or outright annoying when they’re still reeling. Positivity is generally a good trait, but there’s a time and a place. “Do not try to make someone feel better by telling them that you’re jealous of their new-found free time,” advises Donna Gerson, co-author of Modern Rules of Business Etiquette [4]. What they need in the moment isn’t perspective, it’s space. The Daily Muse in Forbes offers a simple but powerful approach: “Stick around, and if you aren’t sure what to say, just say nothing. What this person really needs is to talk it out and for you to listen with both ears” [5]. Sometimes, being present is enough.
There’s also the question of practical support. Peter Post, director of the Emily Post Institute, advises, “The best thing you can do is be compassionately considerate. Don’t tiptoe around and pretend it’s not there. You can’t ignore it. But don’t make the person feel like an object viewed in a window either” [6]. Instead, small actions — offering to introduce them to industry contacts, reviewing their CV, forwarding job leads — can make a significant difference. Just be careful with how you frame it. A simple “Let me know if you’d like me to introduce you to someone in my network” is better than “You really should do this.”
Meanwhile, if you’re the one being laid off, try not to burn any bridges on your way out the door. “You never know when a former manager or coworker might be asked about your work ethic or demeanor –– or be in a hiring position,” Nancy Collamer, a career coach and author, writes in Forbes [7]. A far better idea is to email coworkers and clients letting them know that you’ve been laid off, where to contact you and how much you enjoyed working with them. “That email really reflects on you,” says Post. “It’s good for you, and it’s the appropriate way to handle things, instead of trashing the company.” [8]
Louise, a laid off senior executive at an advertising firm speaking to the New York Times, also made the point that if your friend has just lost their job, you don’t need to ask them whether they’ve got a new one every time you see them. Your heart might be in the right place, but it can just pile on the misery if the answer is no. “It’s like someone trying to get pregnant and having a difficult time,” she said. “You don’t say every time you talk to them, ‘Are you pregnant yet?’ You know when it happens you’ll hear.” [9]
Essentially, it all boils down to being supportive, but not gratingly, unrealistically so. The newly laid-off “need a circle of supporters to remind them that better times are ahead, and that you’re part of their network,” says Gerson. Treat them how you’d like to be treated yourself. After all, says Gernson, “In this economy, the tables may turn very quickly, and you may be the one seeking advice and support. Helping others in need is not only good manners, it’s good karma.” [10]
What if you know in advance?
Meanwhile, there can sometimes be other awkward scenarios that arise when a colleague is being let go. For example, there’s an ethical dilemma that comes with hearing a rumour about layoffs before they happen. If you know someone is about to lose their job, do you tell them? Do you give them time to prepare? The instinct to protect a friend is understandable, but workplace expert Stephanie Sarkis warns against it to avoid professional and personal risks. [11]
For one, you might be wrong. Companies change their minds at the last minute, and spreading premature warnings can create unnecessary panic. More importantly, you could jeopardise your own position by sharing information that isn’t meant to be public.
Even after the fact, navigating this conversation is tricky. If a former colleague asks whether you knew in advance, be mindful of how you respond. Transparency is important, but so is discretion. Focus on supporting them in the present rather than dwelling on what you did or didn’t know.
The leftovers
There’s also the unspoken weirdness of those who are left behind. They’re in the supposedly lucky camp of those not to have been fired, but this tends to leave a strange, bitter taste. This is what’s known as “survivor syndrome.” Alyson Meister, a professor of leadership at IMD Business School, describes it as an emotional whiplash — employees left behind experience a mix of relief and guilt, gratitude and anxiety [12].
It’s an odd place to be. You might feel lucky, but at the same time, you wonder if you were just spared for now. Workloads often increase as remaining employees absorb the responsibilities of those who left. There’s also an unspoken expectation to prove your worth — to justify why you’re still here.
Management consultant Kevin Coyne acknowledges this psychological toll, saying, “If you’ve worked someplace long enough to get to know your colleagues, it’s inevitable to play the ‘Why me?’ and ‘Why them?’ game. Nobody is immune from thoughts like these” [13].
Acknowledging these feelings is important. Redundancies don’t just affect those who leave; they reshape the workplace for those who stay. Speaking with colleagues, finding clarity from leadership, and maintaining boundaries are all ways to navigate this period. You can’t control the decisions that led to the layoffs, but you can control how you respond and adjust.
Maintaining morale
Equally there’s the question of how to rebuild a positive work environment in the wake of layoffs. Letting people go doesn’t just remove employees — it changes the entire atmosphere of the workplace. People walk on eggshells, conversations become stilted, and trust in leadership is often shaken. The uncertainty can be just as stressful as the layoffs themselves.
Simma Lieberman, a management consultant, highlights the danger of leadership staying silent in these moments. “One of the worst actions management can take during this time is to not acknowledge the situation and the impact it is having on employees. This only makes the situation worse” [14]. Employees don’t need sugarcoating. They need clarity. They need to understand what comes next.
For those who remain, finding ways to rebuild morale is key. That doesn’t mean forcing a false sense of normalcy. It means keeping connections strong — checking in with colleagues, creating moments of levity, and acknowledging that things feel different, because they are. It’s about small gestures that make the workplace feel human again. That approach has to come from the top.
What to do when a colleague is laid off?
Layoffs are an unavoidable part of working life, yet the way we handle them — both as individuals and as organisations — can make a significant difference. Ignoring the discomfort may seem like the easiest route, but it often leaves those affected feeling isolated and those remaining feeling anxious. Instead, a thoughtful, compassionate approach — acknowledging the loss, offering support without overstepping, and creating space for honest conversations — can help navigate the aftermath in a way that fosters resilience rather than fear.
For those laid off, small acts of connection can be lifelines. For those left behind, recognising the emotional toll and maintaining open dialogue can make a workplace feel less fractured. And for leaders, clear communication and genuine engagement are crucial in rebuilding trust. Layoffs don’t just reshape an organisation on paper; they reshape its people. How we respond determines whether that change erodes a workplace or strengthens it.
More On Worlplace Morale
Creating and fostering cultures of meaning
The Role of Empathy in the Workplace: Impact and Implications
How “Nice” Should You be at Work?
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/02/when-your-coworkers-got-laid-off-but-you-didnt
[2] https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/21/layoff-etiquette-workplace-leadership-careers-basics.html
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/your-money/25shortcuts.html
[4] https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/21/layoff-etiquette-workplace-leadership-careers-basics.html
[6] https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/21/layoff-etiquette-workplace-leadership-careers-basics.html
[7] https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/21/layoff-etiquette-workplace-leadership-careers-basics.html
[8] https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/21/layoff-etiquette-workplace-leadership-careers-basics.html
[9] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/your-money/25shortcuts.html
[10] https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/21/layoff-etiquette-workplace-leadership-careers-basics.html
[12] https://hbr.org/2025/02/when-your-coworkers-got-laid-off-but-you-didnt
[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/business/yourmoney/29career.html
[14] https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/business/yourmoney/29career.html
Introduction
Stepping into a managerial role for the first time is both an exciting and challenging experience. The transition from being an employee to leading a team can be daunting, especially when your authority is questioned. New managers often struggle with balancing likability and respect, setting the right tone for leadership, and dealing with employees who may not take them seriously. As McKinsey senior partner Lareina Yee aptly puts it: “Respect and likability are not the same thing” –– but many new managers end up confusing the two [1]. So, how do you earn respect as a new manager?
Emphasis on the earn
One of the biggest misconceptions new managers have is that respect comes automatically with the title. As Lisa Parker, an executive coach, president of Heads Up Coaching, and author of Managing the Moment: A Leader’s Guide to Building Executive Presence One Interaction at a Time, explains: “Respect is something that must be earned. It is not awarded automatically when someone gets promoted to manager or gets a little gray at the temples” [2]. Instead, managers gain respect by demonstrating trustworthiness, credibility, and humanity.
That said, respect is also not earned by status-play histrionics; just because you’re higher on the corporate ladder than your employees doesn’t mean you should treat them poorly or give off an aura of superiority. Insecure managers often fall into a ‘who shouts leads’ model of leadership, relying on aggression or the authority afforded by their title rather than the validity of their points or ideas. Treating employees as inferiors is not going to win you any popularity contests, and it’s not going to get the best performance out of your team either.
Set high standards
Employees look to managers for guidance and inspiration. “If you want to earn respect, you can’t settle for mediocrity in yourself or in your staff,” says Lynn Taylor, workplace expert and author of Tame Your Terrible Office Tyrant: How to Manage Childish Boss Behavior and Thrive in Your Job [3]. This means leading by example — whether in work ethic, professionalism, or decision-making. If you want your team to have values, demonstrate those values yourself. If the team is up against it on a big deadline and you want them working late, you better be there with them. Cliches are cliches for a reason, and that of “don’t ask your team to do anything you wouldn’t do yourself” is a justified one.
Communicate
Respect is built on clear, honest communication. Speaking to Forbes, Bob Lee, a New York-based executive coach and management consultant, emphasises that “most employees want fairness, consistency, a chance to be heard, clear direction, and adequate support” [4]. Managers who communicate frequently and honestly build trust within their teams. Those who obfuscate or try to use manipulative motivation tactics tend to burn through goodwill fast.
Shweta Khare, a job search expert, agrees. “Developing excellent communication skills is a key to successful leadership and to earning respect from others,” she says [5]. Being transparent about expectations, company goals, and performance feedback ensures that employees feel valued and understood. Employees want to feel they have a purpose; shared goals are an excellent way to give them one.
Balance authority with approachability
Being approachable is crucial, but new managers often struggle with finding the right balance –– how do you make sure you’re not tipping too far in the direction of ‘friend’ rather than ‘boss’? “Leading with likability is just going to get you in trouble,” warns Amy Bernstein of Harvard Business Review’s On Leadership podcast [6]. “You have to recognise that making people like you doesn’t win anything…being respected is not being liked necessarily. You better ask yourself what you care about more.”
This likeability tradeoff can be especially difficult for managers who were promoted from within. People who were once their colleagues, maybe even their friends, are now their staff –– the dynamic shift can be uncomfortable. How best to handle this will depend on each unique situation and likely each unique relationship. Only you know how close you were to your colleagues before and how your hierarchical jump may affect them. You don’t want them to treat you the same as before, or else you risk sacrificing respect and credibility. That said, you also don’t want to be the person that became a monster once they got their own office. The best outcome requires balance.
Equally, managers should always remain open to input. A vice president interviewed by Forbes described her respect for her senior vice president boss: “I would walk on hot coals for that man.” Why? “Because he treated her as an equal with regard to thought partnership: he sought her advice and followed it, and he included her in meetings where she could add value regardless of her level or functional expertise” [7]. Just because you’re the boss doesn’t mean you have all the best ideas. Listen to others and support them. You’re only as good as your team.
Demonstrate fairness and integrity
Fairness and integrity are essential for earning respect. Employees want to work for a leader they can trust. As Bob Lee points out, “Titles and formal authority can wear out quickly if there is little or no desire to follow a manager’s leadership” [8].
One of the best ways to establish credibility is to ensure that every team member is treated fairly. This means acknowledging contributions, setting realistic expectations, and providing constructive feedback. It also means avoiding favouritism or micromanagement, which can quickly erode trust. Think of a leader you trusted and respected. What about them made you such a fan? Can you emulate their traits in your new role?
Make tough decisions
Respect is often earned through difficult decisions. “The most respected managers are those who see problems as opportunities and are undeterred by setbacks,” says Taylor [9]. Whether it’s making a strategic shift or handling underperformance, leaders must show decisiveness.
However, tough decisions should always be made with fairness and transparency. Taylor advises managers to “never meet your needs at their expense. For instance, you should never take credit for your employees’ work” [10]. Being ethical in decision-making ensures long-term credibility.
Recognise your team
A common reason employees lose respect for their managers is a lack of appreciation. “There are numerous research studies that demonstrate that good people most often leave good jobs because of bad managers –– and not because of pay, duties, title, etc.,” notes Parker. “Managers who do not express appreciation or regard for the people on their team will quickly lose the respect of that team; morale will devolve and the best people will leave, because they can” [11]. A simple “thank you” or public recognition for a job well done can go a long way in building goodwill and loyalty.
Parker advises managers to praise publicly, punish privately. Employees need to feel valued, and public recognition enhances morale. However, when corrections are needed, these conversations should be handled discreetly and constructively.
Be vulnerable
Many first-time managers feel pressure to have all the answers, but vulnerability can be a strength. “By showing that you are capable of making mistakes, you allow others to see that you’re human and approachable,” says Taylor [12]. Acknowledging when you don’t know something or when you’ve made an error fosters a culture of trust.
On a recent episode, co-host of HBR’s On Leadership podcast Kelsey Alpaio recalled her early managerial struggles: “I was almost ashamed of the fact that I felt like I wasn’t good at being a manager, and so I didn’t talk about it and I didn’t go to anyone. I think that made it so much harder for my boss to intervene. It made it so much harder for my peers to help me make that transition. And being honest with yourself and with them can go a really long way” [13]. Seeking mentorship, gathering feedback, and being open to growth can make a significant difference. Your team knows you’re human. There’s no point in pretending otherwise.
Consider biases
According to the 2022 Women in the Workplace report, for every 100 men promoted to management, only 87 women and 82 women of color achieve the same advancement [14]. This shows that structural biases exist in the workplace, making it even more critical for underrepresented groups to establish their credibility early on. Not all of that burden should fall on their shoulders –– employees should be treating their boss with due respect regardless of their race or gender. That said, if you are a new boss from a minority background, there are some elements that are within your control, such as not going out of your way to appease any staff who aren’t giving you the respect you’ve earned simply because of your background. You should work on removing any internal self-doubts. Understand that you’re the boss because you’ve earned it. Embody that, soon others will acknowledge it too.
Bernstein reflects on a moment when, relatively early into her new role as a manager, her authority was questioned: “I had people reporting to me, who had been my peers and who were my friends, they were the people I had lunch with every day, who didn’t respect my approaches, who would ignore it when I’d say, “Let’s do it this way, not that way.” And [they would] run around me to my boss” [15]. She said her boss tried to be an ally, but ultimately she ended up leaving that role. For the boss in question, it’s a difficult situation: do you get involved, potentially undermining the person you’re trying to help by making it look like they need you to fight their battles for them, or do you do nothing and allow someone you’ve appointed as manager to be undermined? There’s probably a middle ground. Regardless, it’s imperative you offer to support the manager in question, even if that doesn’t involve active intervention. Simply being there and letting them know you’re with them may be enough.
How to earn respect as a new manager
Ultimately, earning respect as a manager is about authenticity. Employees respect leaders who are real, fair, and competent. “Your competence, your candor, your openness to new ideas. Maybe it’s the fact that you don’t embrace the hierarchy, you treat everyone with respect and as an equal. I think that if you communicate all of that, you will win respect,” says Bernstein [16].
New managers should focus on demonstrating trust, setting high standards, and maintaining clear communication. By leading with integrity and prioritising their team’s well-being, they can create an environment where respect is mutual — and lasting.
More on Vulnerability as a Strength
Leading in extraordinary times with Suzanne Dempsey – Podcast
How to make the most of your relationships, personally and professionally with Trish Murphy – Podcast
Sources
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/11/05/how-to-get-more-respect-as-a-manager/
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/11/05/how-to-get-more-respect-as-a-manager/
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/11/05/how-to-get-more-respect-as-a-manager/
[5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/11/05/how-to-get-more-respect-as-a-manager/
[7] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/11/05/how-to-get-more-respect-as-a-manager/
[8] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/11/05/how-to-get-more-respect-as-a-manager/
[9] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/11/05/how-to-get-more-respect-as-a-manager/
[10] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/11/05/how-to-get-more-respect-as-a-manager/
[11] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/11/05/how-to-get-more-respect-as-a-manager/
[12] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/11/05/how-to-get-more-respect-as-a-manager/
[16] https://hbr.org/podcast/2025/03/how-to-earn-respect-as-a-first-time-manager#:~:text=Your%20competence%2C%20your%20candor%2C%20your,that%2C%20you%20will%20win%20respect.25/02/06/the-dei-backlash-employers-reframing-not-retreating/
Introduction
The backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives has been gaining momentum in the United States, with President Trump spearheading efforts to dismantle such policies through a series of executive orders. These cuts have had an immediate impact on corporate America, with major companies like Meta, McDonald’s and Target rolling back their DEI commitments. But the implications extend far beyond the US, raising the question: what does this shift mean for businesses worldwide, particularly in Ireland?
How the DEI landscape shifted
The 2020 murder of George Floyd catalysed a surge in corporate DEI initiatives, with businesses across sectors setting ambitious diversity targets. Meta set a goal in 2020 to double the number of Black and Hispanic employees in the US by 2024 — achieving this two years ahead of schedule [1]. Apple committed $100 million to a Racial Equity and Justice Initiative, funding Black-owned businesses and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) [2]. Google pledged to increase Black leadership representation by 30% by 2025 and invested $175 million into economic opportunities for Black businesses and job seekers [3]. Meanwhile, Nike pledged $40 million over four years to support Black communities and businesses [4].
However, as DEI became more entrenched in corporate policies, it also became a target for criticism. Early detractors argued that DEI efforts prioritised race and gender over merit, leading to preferential treatment. Others suggested that such initiatives violated anti-discrimination laws by disadvantaging white applicants. This sentiment gained traction, and as conservative pressure mounted, businesses like Disney, Target, and Bud Light faced consumer boycotts over their inclusion-driven marketing campaigns [5]. “DEI efforts have irritated people, especially white men,” said Peter Cappelli, professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “Inclusion efforts, such as training, sensitise you to your own biases, which no one wants to hear.” [6]
Others are opposed to DEI for more practical reasons: they think it doesn’t work. According to an Axios/Harris Poll, 57% of Americans said DEI initiatives had no impact on their careers, while 16% explicitly stated they had been hindered by them [7]. Additionally, a report by the previous UK government found that many DEI programmes lacked rigour and failed to track impact, stating, “The collection of robust data and insights is rare” [8]. Meanwhile, evaluating the situation two years on from George Floyd’s murder, Forbes writes that, “Two years later, there is evidence that the wave of activity seen in 2020 has been largely performative in nature, and that little actual progress has been made.” [9]
The hostility towards DEI was further bolstered by the Trump administration. Upon returning to office in January, Trump swiftly issued executive orders dismantling federal DEI programmes, including the directive to end all federal DEI offices and equity action plans. One particularly controversial order, titled Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, scrapped affirmative action mandates for federal contractors and called for the identification of “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners” within 120 days. [10]
Corporate America’s response
For some companies, these policy shifts were the catalyst to dismantle their DEI initiatives altogether. Accenture, headquartered in Dublin but with extensive operations in the US, recently announced it was scrapping its diversity targets. “We are and always have been a meritocracy,” said Accenture CEO Julie Sweet, justifying the decision as an adaptation to the evolving US landscape. She said the decision came “as a result of our continued evaluation of our internal policies and practices and the evolving landscape in the United States, including recent Executive Orders with which we must comply” [11]. Other firms who were once keen to boast of their diversity credentials –– such as Walmart, Amazon, Starbucks and Disney –– quickly dropped them in response to the President’s decree.
Other firms, however, have sought a middle ground. JPMorgan Chase, for instance, has reaffirmed its commitment to diversity, tying inclusion directly to performance and innovation [12]. Costco’s shareholders recently voted overwhelmingly to uphold DEI policies.
Joelle Emerson, chief executive of the US-based diversity consultancy Paradigm, highlights the paradox: “It looks like most companies are standing by their goals of creating fair, inclusive workplaces, while at the same time distancing themselves from a politicised acronym. The acronym is far less important than the work.” [13]
This tension is evident in the statistics. A Paradigm report found a 22% decrease in Fortune 100 companies’ use of terms like ‘DEI’ and ‘diversity’ between 2023 and 2024, yet a survey by AlixPartners revealed that two-thirds of executives believe initiatives tied to social issues — including diversity — positively impact economic performance. [14]
Even among businesses that remain committed to inclusion, there is a sense of exhaustion. Jennie Glazer, CEO of the diversity think tank Coqual, notes that legal risks and political polarisation are prompting many leaders to pause and recalibrate. One executive confided, “It’s not that our leaders don’t care –– it’s that they’re exhausted by constant change and the feeling they must ‘get it right’ all the time” [15]. Another, while affirming commitment to DEI, described business leaders as “overwhelmed.”
Will Ireland follow the US lead?
The concern now is whether Trump’s hardline stance on DEI will have a trickle-down effect internationally. “When the US sneezes, the UK catches a cold,” says Asad Dhunna, founder of the inclusion consultancy The Unmistakables [16]. “However, when it comes to DEI, we’re in a period of waiting to see just how immune we are to the MAGA/Trump love over on this side of the pond.” It’s hard to see how any germs that are UK-bound can skip over the island to its west.
For Ireland, the stakes are particularly high. The country hosts the European headquarters of numerous US-based multinationals, making it susceptible to shifts in American corporate culture. Accenture’s retreat from diversity targets may set a precedent for other companies operating in Ireland.
Laurie Ollivent, co-head of the diversity faculty at Linklaters, warns that businesses considering a rollback on DEI should weigh legal and commercial risks. “If companies are considering pausing or retreating from their corporate DEI commitments, there may also be legal and commercial risks to consider.” [17]
Unlike the US, Ireland follows EU equality law, which allows for “positive action” to rectify existing inequalities, provided it does not grant automatic preference to one group over another. However, Ireland does not have an equivalent to the US’s affirmative action policies.
Affirmative Action vs. Positive Action: The Irish context
Trump’s crackdown on affirmative action has had sweeping consequences in the US, particularly after the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that race-conscious admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated civil rights law [18]. While affirmative action in employment was always regulated differently, US companies had long been mandated to adopt diversity initiatives.
In contrast, Ireland’s legal framework is more cautious. The EU permits positive action to support disadvantaged groups, but any rigid quotas that give automatic preference to one demographic over another are unlawful. Instead, Ireland allows softer quotas where equally qualified candidates from underrepresented groups may be given preference, provided individual merit is still considered.
This distinction is crucial, as it underscores why a direct importation of the US’s anti-DEI stance may not align with Irish and European legal norms. However, there is a risk that companies operating in both jurisdictions may align their global policies with the US trend, diluting DEI efforts in Ireland.
DEI Positives
Despite the current backlash, there is strong evidence that diversity initiatives contribute to business success. Research shows that companies with diverse executive teams are:
- 21% more likely to outperform competitors on profitability [19]
- 27% more likely to achieve improved value creation [20]
- 70% more likely to capture new markets [21]
- 36% more likely to outperform their peers when ethnically diverse [22]
Given that 76% of businesses struggling to recruit cite difficulties in finding people with the right skills, broadening the talent pool through DEI should be a commercial priority rather than a political bargaining chip. [23]
Aneeta Rattan, professor of organisational behaviour at London Business School, sees this moment as revealing: “If companies are rushing to embrace an anti-DEI agenda, then I wouldn’t consider this a change. Almost no one goes from truly caring about DEI to embracing the opposite agenda. Those making major shifts right now are simply showing us who they have always been.” [24]
What Trump’s DEI cuts means for Ireland
Ultimately, Trump’s DEI rollback is more than just a domestic US issue — it’s a test of corporate values on a global scale. While some companies are retreating, others are doubling down on inclusion, recognising that diversity isn’t just a moral stance but a business imperative. For Ireland, the challenge is clear: will it maintain its own commitment to workplace equality, or will it follow the US lead in scaling back DEI efforts? With global corporations shaping policies across borders, the answer will define Ireland’s corporate culture for years to come.
More on Ireland, Europe & Trump’s Presidency
What Does Donald Trump’s Second Coming Mean for Ireland?
The Role of Foreign Direct Investment in Ireland
AI in Ireland and Europe: the Taoiseach’s Perspective
Sources
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ng-interactive/2025/feb/11/dei-meta-facebook
[5] https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later
[6] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/06/the-dei-backlash-employers-reframing-not-retreating/
[7] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/06/the-dei-backlash-employers-reframing-not-retreating/
[8] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/06/the-dei-backlash-employers-reframing-not-retreating/
[11] https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/companies/arid-41570155.html
[12] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/06/the-dei-backlash-employers-reframing-not-retreating/
[13] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/06/the-dei-backlash-employers-reframing-not-retreating/
[14] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/06/the-dei-backlash-employers-reframing-not-retreating/
[15] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/06/the-dei-backlash-employers-reframing-not-retreating/
[16] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/06/the-dei-backlash-employers-reframing-not-retreating/
[17] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/06/the-dei-backlash-employers-reframing-not-retreating/
[24] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2025/02/06/the-dei-backlash-employers-reframing-not-retreating/
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