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
Introduction
Ireland’s rise as a global investment hub didn’t happen by chance. In the 1950s, it was a struggling economy on the fringes of Europe. Today, it’s a magnet for multinational giants, fuelled by low corporate taxes, EU access, and a business-friendly environment. Tech, pharma, and finance have poured in billions, transforming the country’s fortunes. But success brings challenges — rising costs, global competition, and shifting economic tides. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) fundamentally changed Ireland’s economic status. This article will explore its role in Ireland today.
The history of FDI in Ireland
Ireland took its first steps to becoming a magnet for FDI in the 1950s and 60s, following the establishment of the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) in 1949 [1]. The IDA’s mission was to attract foreign investment by promoting Ireland’s favorable business environment. A pivotal element of this strategy has been the maintenance of a competitive corporate tax rate, set at 12.5% since 2003, which is among the lowest in the European Union. This favorable tax policy, coupled with a skilled workforce, access to the EU market, and a pro-business regulatory framework, has made Ireland an attractive destination for multinational corporations [2].
Over the decades, Ireland’s FDI strategy has evolved, adapting to global economic trends and leveraging its unique advantages. The country’s membership in the European Union has been a significant factor, providing foreign investors with access to a market of over 450 million consumers. Additionally, Ireland’s English-speaking population, strong legal system, and commitment to innovation have further enhanced its appeal as a destination for foreign investment.
Current landscape of FDI
As of the end of 2022, the stock of FDI in Ireland reached €1.284 trillion, marking a 2% increase from the previous year [3]. This figure represents 254% of Ireland’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), approximately four times the EU average, underscoring the country’s significant reliance on foreign investment. Notably, €921 billion of this investment originated from the United States, accounting for 72% of the total FDI in Ireland [4].
The dominance of US investment in Ireland reflects the strong economic ties between the two countries, as well as Ireland’s strategic position as a gateway to the European market. However, Ireland has also attracted significant investment from other regions, including Europe and Asia, diversifying its FDI portfolio and reducing dependency on any single source.
Despite these impressive figures, 2023 saw a decline in FDI, with investments decreasing by €50.3 billion to €1.3 trillion [5]. This downturn highlights the volatility of global investment flows and underscores the need for Ireland to continually adapt its strategies to remain competitive in the face of economic uncertainties.
Sectoral distribution
FDI in Ireland spans various sectors, with a notable concentration in technology, pharmaceuticals, and financial services. The country’s favorable business environment has attracted tech giants like Google, Apple, and Microsoft, establishing Ireland as a tech hub in Europe. These companies have not only created thousands of jobs but have also contributed to the development of a vibrant ecosystem of startups and innovation.
The pharmaceutical sector has also seen substantial foreign investment, with companies like Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Novartis establishing operations in Ireland. The country’s robust regulatory framework, skilled talent pool, and strong intellectual property protections have made it an attractive location for pharmaceutical manufacturing and research.
In addition to technology and pharmaceuticals, Ireland has become a hub for financial services, with many global banks and insurance companies setting up European headquarters in Dublin. The presence of these firms has further diversified Ireland’s economy and reinforced its position as a global financial center.
As Peter Burke, Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment, put it: “Ireland continues to be recognised as a highly stable and attractive location for global investment. Our country has a reputation for being agile, with an economy underpinned by a dynamic ecosystem of global companies, indigenous enterprise and academia working in collaboration. Government remains committed to ensuring the right polices are in place to facilitate the development of appropriate skills, infrastructure, and innovation to facilitate strong levels of FDI into the future.” [6]
Regional development
While major cities like Dublin have been primary beneficiaries of FDI, efforts have been made to ensure that investment spreads to other regions. Initiatives aimed at regional development have led to the establishment of multinational operations in various parts of the country, promoting balanced economic growth and reducing regional disparities [7].
For example, Cork, Galway, and Limerick have also seen significant investment in recent years, particularly in the technology and pharmaceutical sectors [8]. These regional hubs offer lower operating costs compared to Dublin, making them attractive alternatives for multinational corporations looking to expand their presence in Ireland.
The IDA has played a key role in promoting regional development, offering incentives to companies that establish operations outside of Dublin. These efforts have helped to create jobs and stimulate economic activity in areas that were historically underserved, contributing to a more equitable distribution of wealth across the country.
Economic contributions
Beyond employment, FDI plays a crucial role in Ireland’s economic prosperity. The presence of multinational corporations contributes significantly to tax revenues, bolstering public finances. Corporate tax receipts have more than doubled since 2013, reaching €23.8 billion in 2023, an increase of €1.2 billion (or 5.3%) in comparison to 2022 (€22.6 billion) [9]. These revenues have enabled the government to invest in critical infrastructure, education, and healthcare, improving the quality of life for Irish citizens.
Additionally, multinational corporations drive investment in research and development, fostering innovation and enhancing the competitiveness of the Irish economy. Many of these companies have established R&D centers in Ireland, collaborating with local universities and research institutions to develop cutting-edge technologies and products [10].
FDI has also had a multiplier effect on the Irish economy, creating opportunities for local businesses that supply goods and services to multinational corporations. This has helped to build a robust domestic economy that is less reliant on foreign investment for growth.
Challenges
Despite the positive impact of FDI, Ireland faces challenges in maintaining its attractiveness to foreign investors. In 2023, FDI in Ireland decreased by €50.3 billion to €1.3 trillion, with investments from Europe and the US declining by €49.3 billion and €15 billion, respectively [11]. This downturn highlights the volatility of global investment flows and the need for Ireland to continually adapt its strategies to remain competitive.
Global economic uncertainties, such as rising protectionism, geopolitical tensions, and the potential fallout of any Trump-imposed tariffs, pose risks to Ireland’s FDI-dependent model. Additionally, domestic issues like high living costs, housing shortages, and infrastructure constraints could impact the country’s appeal to foreign businesses.
To address these challenges, Ireland must focus on maintaining its competitive advantages while addressing the needs of both businesses and citizens. This includes investing in infrastructure, improving the quality of life, and ensuring that the benefits of FDI are distributed more equitably across society [12].
Strategic initiatives
To address these challenges, Ireland has undertaken several strategic initiatives. Peter Burke writes that “while recognising the risks to the global economic outlook, IDA’s strategy remains a plan of ambition. It identifies and responds to key FDI growth drivers including digitalisation and AI, semiconductors, health, and sustainability. These convergent spheres of opportunity are well aligned to the core sectors in Ireland’s existing FDI base and will help shape IDA’s continued focus on attracting new investment to Ireland.” [13]
Burke also highlights IDA’s strategic objectives to scale cutting edge innovation and further deepen and scale RD&I in Ireland. Plans for doing so include partnering with Research Ireland on Centres for Research Training, and partnering with clients to realise opportunities associated with new and evolving EU instruments such as Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI). IDA is targeting 55% of investments to regional locations over the next 5 years. [14]
The role of foreign direct investment in Ireland
Foreign Direct Investment has been a driving force behind Ireland’s economic transformation, contributing to employment, innovation, and overall prosperity. While challenges persist, Ireland’s commitment to creating a conducive environment for foreign investors positions it well to navigate future uncertainties. By continually adapting its policies and infrastructure, Ireland aims to sustain and enhance the benefits derived from FDI, ensuring long-term economic resilience and growth.
As Ireland looks to the future, it must balance the need to attract foreign investment with the need to address domestic challenges and ensure that the benefits of FDI are shared by all. By doing so, Ireland can continue to thrive as a global hub for business and innovation, setting an example for other small, open economies around the world.
More On Ireland’s Economic Outlook
AI in Ireland and Europe: the Taoiseach’s Perspective
What Does Donald Trump’s Second Coming Mean for Ireland?
What is the impact of DeepSeek, China’s new AI model?
Sources
[2] https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-investment-climate-statements/ireland/
[6] https://www.idaireland.com/latest-news/press-release/fdi-economic-impact-remains-strong
[7] https://www.idaireland.com/latest-news/press-release/fdi-economic-impact-remains-strong
[8] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275124005031
[9] https://assets.gov.ie/299819/180bd125-0e48-4c56-973a-05fb4fc8ccd5.pdf
[10] https://deconch30.medium.com/how-ireland-became-a-global-hub-for-r-d-and-innovation-097038d2be6f
[12] https://www.competitiveness.ie/media/d2nhry3o/icc_2024_final_version.pdf
[13] https://www.idaireland.com/ida-ireland-strategy-2025-2029
[14] https://www.idaireland.com/ida-ireland-strategy-2025-2029
Introduction
In a recent article in the Business Post, Ireland’s Taoiseach Micheál Martin underscored the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) for both Ireland and the EU [1]. Written in the wake of his attending the AI Action Summit in Paris earlier that week, Martin compared AI’s impact to that of the Industrial Revolution and the printing press, arguing that Europe must embrace AI’s opportunities while ensuring appropriate regulation. His remarks come at a time of increasing global debate on AI governance, with the EU’s AI Act aiming to set the world’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, and a new international declaration signed by more than sixty nations in Paris last week upping the ante regarding regulation.
A game-changer
Martin highlighted AI’s capacity to address economic and societal challenges, citing healthcare as a key area where AI can revolutionise diagnostics and chronic disease management [2]. AI-driven medical technologies, such as predictive analytics for disease outbreaks and AI-assisted imaging for cancer detection, are already showing promise in transforming healthcare systems. For example, Omdena’s AI-powered app in Liberia predicts malaria outbreaks and identifies high-risk areas, enabling health officials to take proactive measures, particularly for vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women. [3]
Beyond healthcare, AI offers the potential to boost productivity across industries. McKinsey estimates that AI could contribute $2.6 trillion to $4.4 trillion to the global economy annually in productivity, with sectors such as finance, logistics, and manufacturing standing to gain significantly [4]. Ireland, with its strong base of technology firms and multinational corporations, is well-positioned to capitalise on these gains if the right policies are put in place.
However, while Martin champions AI’s potential, concerns remain about the technology’s risks, including job displacement and ethical dilemmas surrounding AI decision-making. The OECD warns that up to 27% of jobs in developed economies could be at high risk of automation due to AI advancements [5]. In Ireland, where the tech sector employs over 100,000 people, the challenge will be to upskill the workforce to ensure that AI augments rather than replaces jobs. But Martin concludes that the risk is worth the reward, “If we don’t [enable Europe to access the full potential of AI], we risk losing out and forfeiting the enormous gains AI promises.” [6]
Regulation vs Innovation
Central to Martin’s argument is the need for a balanced approach to AI regulation. The EU AI Act, set to become the world’s first comprehensive AI legislation, classifies AI applications into four categories based on risk: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal. Applications deemed “unacceptable” (e.g., social credit scoring systems) will be banned, while high-risk AI systems (such as biometric surveillance) will be subject to stringent regulatory requirements.
While Martin supports the Act’s objectives, he stresses the importance of its implementation being proportionate and innovation-friendly. Critics of the AI Act, including industry leaders and policymakers in the US, have argued that excessive regulation could stifle AI development in Europe. JD Vance, the US Vice President, voiced concerns at the Paris summit, claiming that Europe’s approach risks hindering AI investment and competitiveness [7]. The Trump administration will “ensure that AI systems developed in America are free from ideological bias,” Vance told the conference, pledging that the US would “never restrict our citizens’ right to free speech.” In an address that seemed keen to provoke, he also stressed that “the Trump administration will ensure that the most powerful AI systems are built in the US, with American-designed and -manufactured chips”.
Proponents of AI regulation argue that Europe’s regulatory leadership will ensure AI development aligns with democratic values and fundamental rights. The European Commission has defended the Act, stating that it will create legal certainty for businesses while protecting citizens from harmful AI applications. Ireland’s role within this debate is crucial: as a major hub for tech companies, it must navigate both compliance with EU regulations and maintaining its attractiveness for AI-driven investment. As Martin puts it: “Good regulation provides appropriate protection, it provides certainty for all stakeholders, but it also facilitates innovation, growth and investment. It doesn’t stymie progress and opportunity; it enables it.” [8]
At the Paris summit, hosted by French President Emmanual Macron, more than 60 nations, including China, signed a new international document making a global pledge to promote responsible AI development. The document pledged to “ensure AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure, and trustworthy.” It also called for “making AI sustainable for people and the planet” and protecting “human rights, gender equality, linguistic diversity, consumer rights, and intellectual property.” Former Fine Gael MEP Deirdre Clune was one of the negotiators in the European Parliament working on the legislation. She told The Irish Times that MEPs tried to make the act “as innovation-friendly as possible…but it needs to be pinned down. It needs to be regulated and have oversight…You can’t have things run riot, making decisions about people.” [9]
Meanwhile, the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, came with a plan to set up AI research facilities, which officials likened to the Cern lab in Geneva that hosts the Large Hadron Collider. European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen said the EU planned to build four big facilities, or “gigafactories”, where European start-ups and other companies can train and develop AI models and software. The research sites will be funded from a €50 billion pot of investment to boost the EU’s AI industry. [10]
Investment in AI is gaining momentum across Europe. At the Paris AI Summit, in addition to the €50 billion pot, came a further €150 billion pledged by private investors, totalling €200 billion to support AI research, development, and deployment. Martin welcomed this initiative, positioning Ireland as a key player in Europe’s AI growth strategy. “This is the scale of ambition Europe needs to turbocharge its AI journey,” he writes. “And I want Ireland to be a central partner in this.” [11]
Ireland’s AI strategy
Ireland’s AI strategy is framed around making the country a leading hub for AI innovation. Martin highlighted Ireland’s strong digital infrastructure, including its network of data centres and high concentration of global tech firms such as Google, Meta, and Microsoft. However, he acknowledged concerns about energy capacity constraints and the need for sustainable AI growth, saying Ireland will need to refresh its National Digital Strategy over the coming months.
One of Martin’s key arguments is that public trust is essential for AI adoption. As without confidence in AI systems, businesses and governments may struggle to implement AI solutions effectively. “Without trust, we won’t have adoption, and without adoption, we will lose out on the potential myriad benefits AI offers across us,” he says. [12]
The EU AI Act seeks to build this trust through transparency requirements and ethical AI principles. In Ireland, the government has worked closely with the AI Advisory Council to establish guidelines on AI ethics, data protection, and algorithmic accountability. Public perception of AI remains mixed: a recent survey by the European Commission found that while 62% of Europeans view robots and AI positively at work and 70% believe it improves productivity, most Europeans support clear rules for the use of digital technologies, for instance protecting workers’ privacy (82%) and involving workers and their representatives in the design and adoption of new technologies (77%) [13].
AI in Ireland and Europe
Micheál Martin’s perspective on AI underscores the delicate balance that Ireland and Europe must strike between innovation and regulation.The debate surrounding the EU AI Act exemplifies this tension. While some view the regulation as necessary to protect democratic values, individual rights, and mitigate risks such as job displacement and misinformation, others warn that excessive restrictions could drive investment elsewhere. Martin’s stance — that regulation must be proportionate and innovation-friendly — reflects Ireland’s broader goal of remaining a global technology hub while complying with EU frameworks.
With €200 billion in AI investment pledged at the Paris Summit and the European Commission’s vision for AI moving forward, the trajectory for AI development in Europe is set. Ireland, with its strong technology sector, skilled workforce, and commitment to ethical AI, is well-placed to be a key player in shaping AI’s future. The challenge will be in navigating energy constraints, public concerns, and workforce adaptation, ensuring that AI serves as a force for progress rather than division.
Ultimately, as Martin notes, failing to embrace AI’s potential would mean forfeiting its vast benefits. As Europe embarks on this new era of digital transformation, Ireland’s role will be to bridge innovation and responsible governance — positioning itself as a leader in the AI revolution while safeguarding public trust and economic resilience.
Sources
[3] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/09/ai-diagnostics-health-outcomes/
[5] https://www.reuters.com/technology/27-jobs-high-risk-ai-revolution-says-oecd-2023-07-11/
[7] https://apnews.com/article/paris-ai-summit-vance-1d7826affdcdb76c580c0558af8d68d2
[13] https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3222
Introduction
Negotiation is often perceived as an art mastered only by a select few, but in reality success in negotiations is determined less by natural talent and more by learned skills. The problem is that many of these skills are misunderstood, mainly thanks to persistent myths that lead people to adopt counterproductive strategies. Whether you’re negotiating a salary, a contract, or a business deal, falling for these myths can cost you money, opportunities, and valuable relationships. This article exposes some of the most damaging negotiation myths and offers some expert-backed alternatives to help you secure better deals. But don’t worry, we won’t be quoting from The Art of the Deal…
Myth 1: ‘Win-Win’ is always the best outcome
The term ‘win-win’ is often thrown around as the gold standard in negotiations, but the reality is more complex. While mutually beneficial agreements are ideal, the pursuit of ‘win-win’ can sometimes lead negotiators to concede too much, too soon. You may want what’s best for your negotiating partners, but that doesn’t mean they want what’s best for you. A study by Harvard Business School backs this up. It found that negotiators who aim for ‘win-win’ tend to reveal too much information too early, weakening their bargaining position [1]. In contrast, skilled negotiators focus on value creation and value claiming. This means understanding when collaboration is beneficial and when a more assertive approach is required.
Instead of focusing solely on the idea of a perfect ‘win-win,’ it’s better to assess the situation strategically. If there’s room to expand the pie — meaning, creating value that both parties can enjoy — then a win-win approach may be applicable. But if it’s about splitting existing resources, focusing on the claim might take precedence. Being overly optimistic about ‘win-win’ scenarios can lead to failure if one party gives too much.
The Fix: Instead of blindly aiming for a ‘win-win’ outcome, assess the situation carefully. Are there opportunities to expand the pie before dividing it? Can you trade something of low value to you for something of high value from the other party? Strategic thinking should take precedence over feel-good platitudes. Be ready to recognise the difference between negotiation opportunities where collaboration is key and where a more aggressive stance is necessary.
Myth 2: The first offer should always come from the other side
Many people believe that letting the other party make the first offer provides an advantage by giving insight into their expectations. However, research on ‘anchoring bias’ suggests otherwise.
Anchoring bias occurs when the first piece of information provided in a negotiation serves as a psychological anchor, influencing all subsequent discussion. Research shows that the first offer has a disproportionate impact on the final agreement. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that the first offer in a negotiation heavily influences the final outcome, with those making the initial offer often securing better deals [2]. This is because the first figure presented acts as a psychological anchor, shaping the negotiation around it.
The initial offer sets the stage for success. Simon Bedard, CEO at Exit Advisory Group, offers some strategies in Forbes as to how to make sure your first move is strong [3]. Firstly, aim high but not outlandishly so. Bedard says you want to give yourself negotiation room without alienating the other party with unrealistic figures. He highlights how setting a high anchor gives you room for compromise, allowing the negotiation to proceed with a better outcome. Another tactic is using precise numbers instead of round ones — $497,000 rather than $500,000, for example — which can suggest you’ve done thorough valuation homework. This level of detail can be persuasive because it implies a well-founded rationale behind the offer. Research has shown that this technique increases the likelihood of your position being taken seriously and accepted.
The Fix: Rather than waiting for the other party, make the first offer — provided you’ve done your research. Setting an ambitious yet reasonable anchor forces the negotiation to start on your terms and increases the likelihood of a favourable outcome. Additionally, when you make that first offer, refrain from revealing all your cards. Hold back some concessions until later stages of the negotiation. The exchange should be gradual, which helps maintain leverage.
Lastly, understand when to reveal certain cards by withholding some concessions until later stages; let them unfold gradually as part of strategic exchange rather than laying everything out from the start. Your aim should always be a deal that feels like success on both sides — one where neither walks away feeling short-changed but empowered by fair play and mutual respect cultivated throughout discussions.
Myth 3: You should always mirror the other party’s behaviour
Popular negotiation advice suggests that mirroring — subtly copying gestures, tone, posture and speech patterns — helps build rapport and increases the chances of reaching an agreement. While there is some truth to this, excessive mirroring can backfire if it appears insincere or manipulative.
A 2022 study found that while subtle mirroring can enhance trust, overt mirroring often leads to discomfort and suspicion [4]. Overuse of this technique can make the other party feel as if they are being manipulated, reducing overall trust. When you mirror someone too much, the person can feel like they’re being played. People are perceptive, and if they sense something isn’t authentic, they will often disengage.
The Fix: Build rapport naturally through active listening and genuine engagement rather than mechanically copying the other person’s behaviour. Negotiations work best when the two sides foster a genuine connection. You don’t have to make a new best friend, but at least treat your negotiating partner with sufficient respect to not pretend to be what you’re not.
Myth 4: More information equals more power
While preparation is crucial, the belief that more information always leads to better outcomes is misleading. Overloading the negotiation with too many details can overwhelm the other party or cause ‘analysis paralysis,’ delaying decisions.
Research shows that negotiators who focus on a few key arguments rather than an exhaustive list tend to be more persuasive [5]. When there’s too much information on the table, the negotiation can become muddled, and the focus shifts away from key issues, which weakens your bargaining position. Rather than overwhelming the other party with all of your data and background, focus on presenting the most relevant points that directly support your case.
The Fix: Focus on delivering a concise, compelling argument supported by a few strong data points rather than bombarding the other side with excessive details. Instead of listing all possible reasons why you deserve a salary increase, for example, concentrate on the key achievements that demonstrate your value to the company.
Myth 5: Negotiation is about dominance
Some people approach negotiation as a zero-sum game, believing that the most aggressive party wins. We’ve all seen this ‘hardball’ mindset reinforced by Hollywood portrayals of tough negotiators who dominate discussions and force concessions.
However, research by the American social scientist Adam Galinsky found that aggressive negotiators often achieve short-term wins but damage long-term relationships, leading to lost business opportunities [6]. Collaboration and flexibility, on the other hand, secure better long-term results because they build trust and foster positive relationships. Strong, enduring partnerships are built through respect and mutual understanding, not by forcing someone into a corner.
The Fix: Instead of focusing solely on winning at all costs, balance assertiveness with relationship-building. The best negotiators know when to push and when to listen. By prioritising trust and respect over dominance, you can achieve better long-term results and build relationships that lead to future opportunities. Globally renowned negotiation expert William Ury suggests ‘going to the balcony’ before any negotiation, by which he means taking a step back to gain perspective [7]. By ‘going to the balcony’, you can get an idea of what it is you actually want. That way, once you’re in the negotiation, you don’t waste your time on peacocking power battles, instead you can commit to pursuing your clear and specific goals. Leave the posturing to the other side.
Myth 6: Negotiation is all about price
Price is often the focal point of negotiations, but an excessive focus on it can lead to missed opportunities. Deals often fail not because of price disputes, but because negotiators ignore other crucial factors such as timelines, terms, added value, and relationship quality.
In his book Negotiating the Impossible, Deepak Malhotra found that negotiators who broaden the discussion beyond price achieve better outcomes [8]. By expanding the conversation to include service levels, guarantees, and delivery terms, you increase the likelihood of finding common ground. Focusing on price alone can lead to a ‘race to the bottom,’ where one party ultimately feels short-changed. Negotiating for value, however, ensures that both parties walk away satisfied with the terms.
The Fix: Instead of fixating on price, explore other negotiable elements. If price reductions aren’t possible, consider requesting better payment terms, added features, or exclusive benefits that increase the deal’s overall value. Often, offering non-monetary benefits can help create a deal that’s more satisfactory to both sides.
Overcoming the myths
Negotiation success is not about following outdated maxims or playing psychological games. It’s about understanding the real dynamics at play, leveraging research-backed strategies, and being flexible in your approach. As William Ury suggests, “The key mistake people make when navigating conflict at work is not taking the time to negotiate with themselves first” [9]. By abandoning these common myths and embracing proven negotiation techniques, you can avoid costly mistakes and secure better outcomes in business and beyond.
More on Negotiation
A Master Class in Negotiation with Simon Horton – Podcast
Rules for Top Executives: Mastering the Art of Job Offer Negotiation
How to Argue and Why we Should
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2015/12/emotion-and-the-art-of-negotiation
[2] https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657
[4] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34541953/
[5] https://www.rhetoricinstitute.edu.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/fisher-getting-to-yes.pdf
Introduction
Every day, we make thousands of decisions — what to wear, what to eat, how to respond to an email, or whether to take a new job offer. While some decisions are automatic and require little thought, others shape our careers, relationships, and long-term well-being. The way we make decisions is influenced by cognitive biases, external pressures, and even the way we process our thoughts. Understanding the psychological mechanisms behind decision-making can help us make better choices, avoid common pitfalls, and gain confidence in our judgements.
Invisible forces
While we often believe we are rational decision-makers, research shows that biases play a significant role in how we perceive information and make choices. For instance, the framing effect influences our decisions based on how options are presented. A study at the University of Michigan demonstrated that participants who wrote about their choices before making them were more confident and made less biased decisions compared to those who did not [1]. This suggests that our decision-making improves when we take time to externalise our thoughts rather than react impulsively.
Similarly, the sunk cost fallacy — a bias where people continue investing in a failing endeavor due to previously spent resources — can cloud judgement. If you’ve ever sat through a terrible movie simply because you paid for the ticket, you’ve experienced this firsthand. When we recognise these biases, we can pause and question whether our decisions are being driven by rational evaluation or emotional attachment.
Cognitive load
The sheer number of decisions we make daily is staggering. Studies estimate that adults make anywhere from 33,000 to 35,000 decisions each day, most of them unconsciously [2]. With so many micro-decisions happening simultaneously, our brains rely on cognitive shortcuts to function efficiently. However, when faced with complex decisions — such as negotiating a salary, choosing an investment, or responding to an ethical dilemma — this reliance on mental shortcuts can backfire.
One significant issue is decision fatigue, a psychological phenomenon where the quality of our decisions deteriorates after prolonged decision-making. Research has shown that judges are more likely to grant parole early in the morning than later in the day, suggesting that as mental resources deplete, people resort to default choices [3]. To mitigate decision fatigue, strategies like automating routine choices (such as meal prepping or wearing a signature outfit) can free up mental bandwidth for more important decisions.
Another challenge is choice overload. When presented with too many options, people often become paralysed and either delay decisions or make impulsive ones. Studies have shown that consumers presented with six options were more likely to make a purchase than those given 24 options [4]. This suggests that simplifying choices, whether in business or personal life, can lead to more decisive and satisfying outcomes.
The role of emotion
Contrary to the belief that emotions hinder decision-making, they actually play a crucial role in helping us weigh outcomes and assign value to different choices. However, unchecked emotions can lead to reactive and impulsive decisions. One effective way to counteract this is by creating psychological distance from the decision. Studies show that when people imagine making a decision on behalf of someone else, they tend to think more rationally and strategically, reducing emotional biases [5].
For example, a manager dealing with a workplace dispute might feel compelled to side with a long-time employee due to personal rapport, but if they step back and ask, “What would I advise a friend in this situation?” they are more likely to arrive at a fairer resolution. Techniques like taking a break before making a high-stakes decision or writing down concerns can also help create this necessary distance.
Additionally, the concept of temporal distance plays a role in how we evaluate decisions. Research suggests that when people consider the long-term consequences of a choice rather than focusing on immediate gratification, they tend to make better decisions [6]. This is particularly relevant in financial and career decisions, where the benefits of patience and delayed gratification are well-documented.
The power of reflection
One of the most effective tools for improving decision-making is structured reflection, particularly through writing. Julia Cameron’s concept of “morning pages” — three pages of stream-of-consciousness journaling first thing in the morning — has been widely adopted beyond creative circles as a way to clarify thoughts and enhance decision-making [7].
A personal account highlights this well: An employee facing uncertainty in a toxic work environment used morning pages to process their fears before a crucial HR meeting. By preemptively deciding how to present themselves — calmly, confidently, and without excessive justification — they navigated the conversation with clarity rather than emotional reactivity [8]. Writing allowed them to solidify their stance and avoid the common pitfalls of seeking approval or over-explaining.
Additionally, research suggests that writing about decisions before making them engages both the logical and creative sides of the brain, leading to more balanced choices. It also helps break down complex decisions into manageable components, making you less likely to feel overwhelmed. If you’ve ever made a pros-and-cons list but still felt unclear, taking it a step further by free-writing about your deeper motivations and fears can reveal hidden insights.
The benefits of experience
Experience is often touted as the key to making better decisions, but it can also create a false sense of confidence. The Dunning-Kruger effect describes how people with low expertise tend to overestimate their competence, while experts are more likely to doubt themselves [9]. This paradox can be dangerous in high-stakes environments like business or medicine, where overconfidence can lead to risky decisions.
One way to combat this bias is to actively seek feedback and challenge assumptions. Surrounding ourselves with diverse perspectives, asking critical questions, and engaging in self-reflection can help counteract the blind spots created by overconfidence. Additionally, having a decision-making framework — such as considering worst-case scenarios, seeking a devil’s advocate, or writing through the decision — can prevent knee-jerk reactions based on perceived expertise alone.
In the workplace
Workplace culture significantly influences how decisions are made. In some organisations, hierarchical structures discourage employees from questioning authority, leading to poor collective decision-making. In contrast, environments that encourage psychological safety — where team members feel comfortable expressing dissenting views — tend to produce better outcomes [10].
One effective approach is fostering a culture of “pre-mortems,” where teams imagine a future where a decision has failed and work backward to identify potential pitfalls. This method reduces groupthink and forces individuals to critically examine their assumptions before finalising a decision. Additionally, organisations that normalise writing-based reflection, such as encouraging employees to document their reasoning for major choices, can create a more thoughtful and transparent decision-making culture [11].
Practical takeaways for better decision-making
In sum, to improve decision-making, try to be aware of cognitive biases like the framing effect and sunk cost fallacy, which can skew judgement. Simplify your daily routines to conserve mental energy and prevent choice overload. Try to create psychological distance by imagining that you’re advising a friend or by journaling to cultivate deeper self-reflection. Seek diverse perspectives to challenge assumptions and uncover blind spots, and use pre-mortems or scenario planning to provide clarity in complex decisions. These strategies collectively foster a more deliberate, rational approach to making choices.
The psychology of decision-making
Decision-making is not just a logical process — it is deeply influenced by biases, cognitive load, emotions, and reflection. By understanding the psychological forces at play, we can make more confident, rational, and intentional choices. Whether through structured reflection, reducing decision fatigue, or fostering an open decision-making culture, we have the tools to improve our ability to navigate life’s countless choices. The key is not to strive for perfection, but to cultivate awareness and adopt strategies that help us make decisions with greater clarity and confidence.
More on Decision-Making
Mastering Decisions: The Strategic Edge of Red Teaming in a Biased World
Beyond Bias: Refining Our Decisions with Nuala Walsh – Podcast
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2023/12/a-simple-way-to-make-better-decisions
[2] https://hbr.org/2023/12/a-simple-way-to-make-better-decisions
[3] https://hbr.org/1998/09/the-hidden-traps-in-decision-making-2
[4] https://globalbanking.ac.uk/blog/how-psychology-can-enhance-your-business-decision-making-skills/
[5] https://globalbanking.ac.uk/blog/how-psychology-can-enhance-your-business-decision-making-skills/
[6] https://www.accidentalpm.online/blog/the-psychology-of-decision-making-how-to-make-better-choices
[7] https://hbr.org/2023/12/a-simple-way-to-make-better-decisions
[8] https://hbr.org/2023/12/a-simple-way-to-make-better-decisions
[9] https://www.accidentalpm.online/blog/the-psychology-of-decision-making-how-to-make-better-choices
[10] https://hbr.org/1998/09/the-hidden-traps-in-decision-making-2
[11] https://hbr.org/2023/12/a-simple-way-to-make-better-decisions
Introduction
There was mass shock this week when DeepSeek, a Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company, emerged out of nowhere as a formidable player in the global AI landscape, challenging long-held assumptions about what it takes to develop cutting-edge models. Founded in 2023 and based in Hangzhou, DeepSeek became the most downloaded free app in the US just a week after it was launched. Why all the fuss? DeepSeek produced an open-source large language model (LLM) that rivals those of established Western firms, but for a fraction of the price.
The stock market reacted in panic to this shakeup of the race for AI dominance. The share price of Nvidia –– the company behind the advanced chips that dominate many AI investments –– plummeted by roughly 17% on Monday, wiping almost $600bn (£482bn) off its market value, the greatest one-day drop ever for a US company [1]. President Donald Trump called it “a wake-up call” for the US tech industry [2]. The markets have since steadied, but the global reaction reflects the growing realisation that AI breakthroughs are no longer confined to Silicon Valley or the largest research labs; innovation is becoming more decentralised and potentially disruptive to established market leaders. This shift could have profound implications for AI development worldwide, particularly in Ireland, where a thriving tech sector is heavily invested in AI innovation.
DeepSeek and Ireland
The impact of DeepSeek’s flagship model, DeepSeek-R1, is difficult to ignore. Trained with an investment of approximately $5.6 million — compared to the estimated $100 million to $1 billion spent by American competitors — its success challenges the prevailing notion that AI progress is reserved for companies with vast financial and computational resources. Much of this efficiency comes from innovative training methodologies, including a technique known as “mixture of experts,” which ensures that only the necessary computational resources are activated at any given time. This reduces energy consumption and operational costs while maintaining high performance, making AI more accessible to businesses, research institutions, and governments that might otherwise be priced out of the AI race.
For Ireland, a country that has positioned itself as a European hub for technology and artificial intelligence, DeepSeek’s rise presents both opportunities and challenges. The country’s status as a home to major multinational tech companies means that shifts in AI development strategies will have direct consequences for its economy and workforce. At the same time, Ireland’s strong research institutions and dynamic startup ecosystem are well-positioned to capitalise on the democratisation of AI technology.
The shift towards more efficient AI development could encourage Ireland’s own AI research initiatives, for example. DeepSeek’s success demonstrates that cutting-edge AI can be built with relatively limited resources, provided that innovative techniques are employed. Irish universities and research institutions could take inspiration from this model, focusing on efficiency-driven AI methodologies that align with Ireland’s strengths in software development and data science.
Equally, DeepSeek has made its technology open source, meaning its code is freely available for anyone to use or modify. As Mark Kelly, Founder of AI Ireland, told RTÊ, “Entrepreneurs and small to medium enterprises that are looking at this advancement are saying we can take this tech and now compete because DeepSeek has made it open source…So now, organisations can take that technology and use it to reimagine their service offering” [3]. If cultivated effectively, this could lead to new homegrown AI solutions that bolster Ireland’s position in the global AI economy.
However, there are also challenges to consider. Many of the multinational technology companies operating in Ireland have historically relied on significant investment in AI infrastructure. If DeepSeek’s approach signals a broader industry shift towards leaner, more efficient AI models, these companies may need to rethink their strategies. Some may scale back large-scale AI operations, potentially affecting employment and investment in Ireland. “We know that the US tech firms are so important to the Irish ecosystem, with the top seven companies here,” said Kelly. “The chances of this having a ripple effect are very big because they are investing six or seven hundred billion into this tech and if they don’t get the outcomes they expect then that will lead to job losses” [4]. Others may need to pivot towards AI applications that integrate more seamlessly with emerging models like DeepSeek’s, leading to shifts in workforce requirements and expertise.
It’s also necessary to consider the geopolitical aspect.
Tech wars: China vs the west
Beyond business concerns, DeepSeek’s Chinese origins raise significant geopolitical and security questions. The West has long been wary of Chinese technology companies, with concerns about data security, state influence, and national security risks driving regulatory scrutiny. The ongoing tensions surrounding TikTok in the US, including what nearly amounted to a nationwide ban due to fears of Chinese government access to user data, highlight the broader unease about China’s role in global tech. Already, Ireland and Italy have become the first countries to block the app, removing it from both the App Store and Google Play Store after the regulatory authorities in both countries raised concerns about the app’s handling of user data [5]. While the app is unavailable for download, it remains functional for users who previously downloaded it.
Voicing concern about the app prior to the ban, Fianna Fáil TD Malcolm Byrne explained: “If our data is stored in Ireland or other parts of the European Union, there are strong safeguards in place as to how that data will be used. If data is stored in China, those safeguards do not exist…The Chinese Communist Party can use its National Security Law to access this data.” [6]
The European Union has already taken steps to limit Chinese tech influence, particularly in telecommunications, with restrictions on Huawei’s 5G network equipment. DeepSeek’s emergence will prompt similar discussions in Europe with regards to AI regulation, particularly concerning data security and potential dependencies on foreign technology. Policymakers may need to consider whether safeguards should be implemented to prevent overreliance on AI models developed in geopolitical rivals. Ireland’s Data Protection Commission has already requested information from DeepSeek about data processing conducted in relation to Irish users [7].
At the same time, DeepSeek’s emergence also has significant consequences for Western AI firms. Companies like Nvidia, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind have long held dominance in AI development, but the rise of a powerful, efficient Chinese competitor could force them to adapt. This could lead to accelerated innovation in AI development, with a stronger emphasis on efficiency and cost reduction. On the other hand, it may also lead to increased trade tensions between the West and China, particularly if US or EU regulators impose restrictions on the use of Chinese-developed AI models.
Another key challenge is talent development. As AI becomes more efficient and widely accessible, the nature of AI expertise will evolve. There will be a growing need for professionals who understand not just traditional AI development, but also efficient training methodologies, AI ethics, and real-world applications of these technologies. Ireland’s educational institutions must keep pace with these shifts, updating curricula and expanding AI-focused programs to prepare the next generation of talent for a rapidly changing industry. Already there are concerns the country is falling behind, with John Clancy, founder and CEO of the Irish firm Galvia AI, arguing that “we are sleepwalking into inertia in this part of the world…We need to wake up.” [8]
What next?
Looking ahead, Ireland has an opportunity to position itself as a leader in ethical and efficient AI. By fostering closer collaboration between academia, industry, and government, the country can develop innovative AI solutions tailored to its economic and societal needs. Supporting startups and SMEs in AI-driven sectors will also be essential, as they are often the quickest to adapt to new technologies and business models.
In many ways, DeepSeek’s emergence marks a turning point for the global AI industry. It challenges the notion that only the largest and most well-funded companies can drive AI progress, opening the door for more decentralised innovation. For Ireland, this presents a unique moment to embrace these changes, leveraging its tech ecosystem, regulatory expertise, and research capabilities to carve out a distinct role in the future of AI. By doing so, it can ensure that it remains not just a participant in the AI revolution, but a leader in shaping its trajectory.
Sources
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gpq01rvd4o
[3] https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0128/1493478-deep-seek-ireland/
[4] https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0128/1493478-deep-seek-ireland/
[6] https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0128/1493478-deep-seek-ireland/
Introduction
The high cost of childcare is a significant barrier for many families, often forcing parents, particularly mothers, to make difficult choices about their careers. In many countries, the cost of childcare rivals or exceeds the cost of housing, leaving families with little financial flexibility.
In Ireland, childcare costs are among the highest in the EU. The financial strain discourages many parents from returning to work, contributing to lower workforce participation rates and exacerbating gender inequalities. High childcare costs also have broader economic implications. When parents, particularly women, leave the workforce due to unaffordable childcare, economies lose valuable talent and productivity. Furthermore, the reduced spending power of families affects overall economic growth.
Addressing the childcare-work dilemma requires a multifaceted approach that combines increased public investment, progressive workplace policies, and cultural change. Increased public investment is critical: governments should allocate more resources to childcare, focusing on making it affordable and accessible for all families. In many EU countries, systems are in place to subsidise childcare costs for families, particularly low-income households. For example, Germany offers substantial subsidies, ensuring that parents pay fees based on their income, while France provides universal preschool (école maternelle) starting at age three, significantly reducing the financial burden on families. These models highlight how targeted policies can help alleviate the strain on working parents.
The effect of home working
The rise of remote and hybrid working models has introduced new dynamics into the childcare-work equation. While home working offers greater flexibility for parents, it also blurs the boundaries between professional and personal life, creating unique challenges.
On the positive side, remote working allows parents to manage their time more effectively, reducing the need for formal childcare and enabling greater involvement in their children’s lives. For example, a parent working from home can take a short break to pick up a child from school or attend a school event, activities that might be impossible in a traditional office setting. A number of Irish businesses have adopted a hybrid model (or continued it since the pandemic), with three-quarters of companies surveyed in a recent Dublin chamber survey saying they offered staff remote working options, with seven in 10 providing flexible working arrangements, 46% allowing flexible scheduling for all workdays, and 38% allowing employees to log off and log back on as childcare needs arise [2].
However, home working is not a quick-fix solution. Many parents struggle to balance professional responsibilities with caregiving duties, particularly when young children are at home. This dual burden can lead to decreased productivity, increased stress, and, in some cases, career penalties. Women, again, often bear the brunt of these challenges, as societal norms frequently position them as the primary caregivers. Meanwhile, the same Dublin chamber survey found that while 36% of businesses offer part-time roles or reduced hours to parents, just 11% offer the facility to job-share and only 1% said they had on-site childcare facilities or partnerships with local childcare providers in place [3]. In other words, the barrier to entry for child caregivers is still prohibitively high.
The sustainability of remote work as a solution to childcare challenges depends on organisational support. Unsurprisingly, employers that offer flexible schedules, clear boundaries around work hours, and an understanding of employees’ caregiving responsibilities are better positioned to support working parents.
Ireland
Ireland’s childcare system faces numerous challenges, making it difficult for families to balance work and caregiving responsibilities. High costs, limited availability, and workforce shortages are among the most pressing issues. Almost nine in 10 Irish businesses reported that the childcare crisis affected their ability to attract and retain staff, with a fifth of all companies describing it as the primary barrier to doing so. [4]
One of the key problems is the chronic underfunding of the childcare sector. Despite recent increases in government investment, Ireland’s public spending on early childhood education and care remains notably low. This underinvestment has resulted in high fees for parents and low wages for childcare workers, creating a vicious cycle of high costs and low quality.
“Looking at childcare costs as a share of average wages, Ireland ranks the second highest in the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] and worst in Europe,” said Dublin Chamber public affairs executive Mia Finnegan. “The cost of childcare in Dublin is even higher than the national average. It is about 10 per cent higher than Cork, and 50 per cent higher than Limerick.” [5]
The gender gap
The lack of affordable childcare has significant implications for gender equality in Ireland and all over the globe. Many mothers are forced to reduce their working hours or leave the workforce entirely. In the US, 45% of mothers with children aged five and under who left the workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic cited childcare as a major reason for their departure, compared with just 14% of fathers who said the same. Additionally, 24% of the mothers with children aged five and under said they had considered reducing their hours or moving to a part-time schedule, compared with just 18% of the fathers. [6]
Efforts to address these issues have included measures such as the National Childcare Scheme in Ireland, which provides subsidies to families based on income. However, critics argue that these subsidies do not go far enough to address the underlying issues of affordability and accessibility. Until governments take decisive action to alleviate the pressure of childcare on women, any talk of their hopes for gender equality can be written off as empty rhetoric.
The creche problem
A considerable part of the problem lies in the fact that caregivers are so poorly rewarded for their work that the number of willing workers is lessening year on year. Most childcare workers struggle to cope with unexpected expenses, such as replacing a washing machine, highlighting the sector’s low pay and financial instability. Siptu has warned that creches are at serious risk of closure as poor wages drive professionals out of the sector, with the 2024 Siptu Early Years Professionals Survey revealing that 30% of managers believe recruitment and retention challenges will lead to service closures, a 6% increase since 2022. Additionally, 42% of managers reported threats of room closures, up 9% from two years prior. [7]
Workers describe the profession as deeply undervalued, with one Galway educator stating that they feel treated like “babysitters” rather than essential contributors to society. Despite the intrinsic rewards of working with children, 86% of workers cite low pay as their primary issue, followed by staff shortages, stress, and burnout, with 95% struggling to make ends meet. “The staffing crisis is continuing unabated and it is undermining quality for children and services for parents as qualified educators struggle to make ends meet,” says Siptu Head of Organising, Darragh O’Connor. [8]
The European context
Ireland’s childcare challenges are not unique; they reflect broader trends across Europe. While the EU has made childcare a policy priority, significant disparities persist between member states.
Northern European countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Finland lead the way in providing affordable, high-quality childcare. These nations have heavily subsidised systems, with fees capped as a percentage of household income. As a result, they boast some of the highest female workforce participation rates in the world.
In contrast, countries in Southern and Eastern Europe face greater challenges. Limited public investment, cultural norms around parenting, and economic constraints have resulted in lower availability and higher costs of childcare. For example, according to the OECD, in 2023, only 17.4% of Bulgarian children under the age of 3 attended formal childcare, compared to the EU average of 37.4% [9]. In contrast, Denmark has more than doubled the EU target, providing childcare to 70% of toddlers. [10]
The EU has sought to address these disparities through initiatives like the European Pillar of Social Rights, which includes commitments to affordable and accessible childcare. However, implementation varies widely, and the pandemic has strained national budgets, making further progress challenging.
Moving forward
Addressing the childcare-work dilemma requires a multifaceted approach that prioritises increased public investment, progressive workplace policies, and cultural change. Governments must allocate more resources to childcare, focusing on making it both affordable and accessible for all families. Policies such as capping fees as a percentage of household income could provide immediate relief to parents grappling with high costs. At the same time, supporting the childcare workforce is essential. Improving wages and working conditions for childcare professionals would ensure high-quality care and help address persistent staff shortages.
Promoting gender equality is another critical component, with measures such as shared parental leave and incentives for fathers to take on caregiving roles helping to rebalance childcare responsibilities within families. Employers also have a role to play by adopting flexible working arrangements that accommodate the needs of working parents, while ensuring clear boundaries to prevent burnout. On a broader level, the EU should actively set benchmarks for childcare affordability and quality, holding all member states accountable to minimum standards. This coordinated effort would help create a more equitable and sustainable system across Europe.
In Ireland, all the main political parties made pledges on childcare in advance of the general election. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were among the five parties to promise that they would cap childcare costs at €200 per month per child [11]. However, with the forming of government having taken place so recently, as of right now it is unclear when this might happen.
What to do about childcare?
The intersection of childcare and work is a complex and deeply consequential issue that affects families, economies, and societies as a whole. While progress has been made, significant challenges remain, particularly in Ireland and across Europe. Addressing these challenges requires bold policy action, societal change, and a commitment to equity and inclusion. By prioritising affordable, accessible, and high-quality childcare, we can create a future where all parents, regardless of gender, can thrive both at home and in the workplace.
More on Workplace Equality
Designing Workplace Equality with Sonya Lennon – Podcast
Why Inclusive Leadership Matters: Building Better Workplaces
Sources
[1] https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/ip231_en.pdf
[10] https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/items/625317/en?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Introduction
In the realm of scientific discourse, pseudoscience presents a peculiar conundrum. It comprises ideas and theories that may appear scientific but are devoid of the rigour, methodology, and empirical evidence necessary to substantiate their claims. This blog post will delve into the nature of pseudoscience, its dangers, and how to differentiate it from genuine scientific findings.
Science Vs Pseudoscience
The distinction between science and pseudoscience is of paramount importance. Science follows a systematic method of inquiry and relies on empirical evidence (Shermer, 2010). Pseudoscience, in contrast, often lacks such rigour. Its proponents may base their beliefs on anecdotal evidence, personal experiences, or untested hypotheses, rendering them unreliable and potentially misleading (Novella, 2013). The ability to differentiate between these two domains is crucial, as it underscores the need for critical thinking and scepticism when evaluating scientific claims.
Why Pseudoscience?
The appeal of pseudoscience can be attributed to various factors, such as the desire for quick and easy solutions, the need for certainty, and the allure of unconventional ideas (Lilienfeld et al., 2001). These factors contribute to the widespread acceptance of pseudoscientific ideas, despite the lack of evidence supporting their claims.
The Dangers
The dangers of pseudoscience are manifold, ranging from wasted resources and time to misguided beliefs that can have serious consequences for individuals and society. For instance, the anti-vaccine movement has led to the resurgence of preventable diseases and the endangerment of public health (Offit, 2014).
Real-Life Examples
Several real-life examples of pseudoscience include astrology, homoeopathy, and psychic phenomena. Famous proponents of pseudoscience include television personality Dr Oz, who has been criticised for promoting questionable medical treatments (Rosner & Mercurio, 2014), and Deepak Chopra, known for his fusion of spirituality and alternative medicine (Barrett, 2003).
One example of a pseudoscientific principle is the Law of Attraction, which posits that our thoughts can directly impact our reality. Although it may be a comforting idea, little empirical evidence supports its validity (Lammers & Stapel, 2009).
It is important to note that some ideas initially categorised as pseudoscience were later proven valid. For instance, continental drift was once dismissed as pseudoscience, but it is now widely accepted as the basis for the theory of plate tectonics (Oreskes, 2002).
Defining Pseudoscience
To determine whether an idea is pseudoscientific, we can look to the “seven sins of pseudoscience” outlined by Boudry et al. (2017). These criteria include the absence of a scientific method, the use of vague or ambiguous language, and reliance on personal anecdotes, among others. Another useful resource is Carl Sagan’s “Baloney Detection Kit,” which provides guidelines for critical thinking and evaluating scientific claims (Sagan, 1996).
Conclusion
In conclusion, distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is crucial for making informed decisions and avoiding the pitfalls of false claims. By applying critical thinking and scepticism, we can better discern the truth and protect ourselves from the dangers of pseudoscience.
More On Decision-Making
Mastering Decisions: The Strategic Edge of Red Teaming in a Biased World
Beyond Bias: Refining Our Decisions with Nuala Walsh – Podcast
Sources
Barrett, S. (2003). A close look at Deepak Chopra’s mind/body muddle. Skeptical Inquirer, 27(3), 32-37.
Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Pigliucci, M. (2017). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. The University of Chicago Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579391/
Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). How power influences moral thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015437
Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Lohr, J. M. (Eds.). (2001). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. Guilford Press.
Novella, S. (2013). The skeptic’s guide to the universe: How to know what’s really real in a world increasingly full of fake. Grand Central Publishing.
Offit, P. A. (2014). Bad advice or why celebrities, politicians, and activists aren’t your best source of health information. Columbia University Press.
Oreskes, N. (2002). Plate tectonics: An insider’s history of the modern theory of the Earth. Westview Press.
Rosner, D., & Mercurio, R. (2014). Dr. Oz and the pathology of open-mindedness. Skeptical Inquirer, 38(1), 50-54.
Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Ballantine Books.
Shermer, M. (2010). The believing brain: From ghosts and gods to politics and conspiracies—How we construct beliefs and reinforce them as truths. Times Books.
Introduction
We’ve all either experienced a toxic workplace first hand or have a clear idea in our minds of what it entails. Screaming bosses, excessive hours, harsh feedback and a general atmosphere in which people feel too afraid to make a mistake or raise a concern for fear of being excoriated in front of their peers. It exists and it’s horrible, but it’s not the only form of toxicity that can appear in the workplace…
Amidst the cultural shifts away from the more traditional brand of toxicity noted above, the trend towards a kinder, more positive outlook has been championed and adopted in the workforce and beyond. That, of course, is a good thing –– mostly. But over the past few years there’s been a growing sense that that positive approach can occasionally go too far in what has been termed “toxic positivity”. It may sound oxymoronic to lump those words together, and yet I imagine most readers can immediately envisage the type of behaviour it involves –– most of us have been on the receiving end of it at one point or another. A rampant, relentless positivity that is devoid of reality and refuses to engage with life’s real and necessary struggles is a hindrance more than it’s a help, and can be just as stifling as its opposite number.
In this article, we will explain what positivity is, how it affects individuals and the workplace more broadly, and what businesses can do to ensure that their office is not toxic in a negative or positive way.
What is toxic positivity?
The BBC defines toxic positivity as “the assumption that we should always have a positive outlook, even if we are in emotional or physical pain. It is the unrealistic idea that acting more positive and happy will make us feel better. But in reality, it’s a way of shutting down our very real and human feelings and can often make us feel worse.” [1] There is a stark difference between having a positive attitude –– which is encouraged –– and allowing that positivity to become toxic. As grief expert David Kessler puts it, “Toxic positivity is positivity given in the wrong way, in the wrong dose, at the wrong time.” [2] This form of positivity “rejects all difficult emotions in favor of a cheerful and often falsely positive façade.” [3]
It’s something we’ve all experienced –– that person who tells you to simply “cheer up” in the wake of genuinely upsetting conditions, or that “everything happens for a reason” while you are in the process of working through a job loss, financial troubles or in the throes of grief. These people are (mostly) trying to help, but there’s a minimisation of the reality of the situation that is unhelpful. We cannot simply hope that adopting a positive attitude will dissolve our problems away, rather we have to acknowledge and work through them. As the gratitude researcher Robert Emmons of UC Davis writes, “To deny that life has its share of disappointments, frustrations, losses, hurts, setbacks, and sadness would be unrealistic and untenable. Life is suffering. No amount of positive thinking exercises will change this truth” [4]. Or, to quote an unlikely source in the new Nosferatu film: “If we are to tame darkness, we must first face that it exists.” [5]
That line may have been written for a piece of vampiric fiction, but it has a basis in science too. A 2018 University of Toronto and Berkeley study found that the more we accept our negative emotions, the more beneficial it is to our mental health. Through laboratory, diary and longitudinal studies, they concluded that acknowledging our feelings reduces distress and anxiety symptoms [6]. Meanwhile bottling those feelings up has the opposite effect. “Think of emotions as a closed circuit,” says Natalie Dattilo, a clinical psychologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “They have to go somewhere, so they come back up, like Whac-A-Mole.” [7]
Studies have even shown that those who suppress their feelings have a higher risk of developing substance abuse problems [8]. These negative emotions exist and need an outlet; if we don’t provide one, they may seek a darker solution.
The impact of toxic positivity
Toxic positivity is prevalent in modern workplace culture and indeed in all of society. In a Science of People study, 67.8% of respondents said they had experienced toxic positivity from someone in the past week [9]. This is especially troubling given the effects on the recipients of that toxicity can be profound.
Receiving toxic positivity often results in feelings of shame, as people come to feel that their emotions are invalid and that they are wrong to be feeling them. It also causes feelings of guilt by creating an idea that there is a positive in the situation that the person struggling is simply failing to find –– it places the burden on the sufferer to simply feel better irrespective of the problem they are going through. Susan David, a psychologist and consultant at McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and the author of Emotional Agility, argues that those who opt for the “cheer up”/”it happened for a reason”/”look on the bright side” variety of positivity are partaking in a form of gaslighting. “You basically are saying to someone that my comfort in this situation is more important than your reality”, she says. [10]
It is also an avoidance mechanism. As noted, we cannot simply smile our problems away, we must face them. “Emotions are data,” says David. “They are not good or bad. They are signposts to things we care about” [11]. It’s important that we don’t shun those signposts in order to search for a non-existing, more positive road.
Toxic positivity in the workplace
Toxic positivity can be extremely harmful in the workplace. In Forbes, founder and CEO of the Compliance Search Group Jack Kelly has written of the process of “glossing”, which he defines as a form of toxic positivity that “occurs when managers, in an attempt to maintain a positive atmosphere, downplay or ignore significant challenges rather than addressing them head-on” [12]. He says this phenomenon trickles down from the leadership to the workforce and that, while bosses might believe they are alleviating anxieties and preserving workplace culture by projecting an image of “everything is fine,” this approach often backfires. “Instead of fostering a truly positive environment, it creates a disconnect between leadership and employees, leaving workers feeling unseen and ignored. This misguided strategy ultimately undermines trust, stifles open communication and can lead to a deterioration of workplace morale and productivity.”
This is backed up in the data. According to a recent Leadership IQ poll, only 15% of workers feel that their organisation consistently communicates to them the challenges it faces [13]. Meanwhile, only 24% of respondents reported that their leader always encourages and acknowledges suggestions for improvement, while 16% said that their leader never does this. Health Canal founder Erik Pham makes the case that this glossing culture, in which reality is shunned in favour of what he calls “eternal optimism”, represents a “cavalier attitude” to business in which employees end up failing to take responsibility for their failures and mistakes. [14]
Cat Colella-Graham, a coach at Coaching for Communicators, says that part of the problem is that workplaces have come to reward what she calls “culture carriers”, who serve as corporate cheerleaders, offering fake smiles and unrelenting positivity to every workplace issue rather than addressing it head on [15]. If change is to take place, it has to be grounded in reality and it has to start at the top.
The solution to toxic positivity
Writing in The Atlantic, Scott Barry Kaufman argues that the antidote to toxic positivity is “tragic optimism,” a phrase coined by the existential-humanistic psychologist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl [16]. “Tragic optimism,” Kaufman argues, “involves the search for meaning amid the inevitable tragedies of human existence, something far more practical and realistic during these trying times.” Tragic optimism essentially equals a form of gratitude, albeit one that is not concentrated exclusively on the happy aspects of life. In other words, rather than feeling grateful for your family or good health, you would make the effort to say that you are grateful for any suffering you have faced, or that you are grateful for certain people who have caused you pain. “Gratitude as a fleeting emotion can come and go, but gratefulness, or “existential gratitude,” can pervade your entire life, throughout its ups and downs,” he writes. [17]
To avoid falling into the trap of toxic positivity, the Anxiety & Depression Association of America recommends avoiding words like “should” or “must”. Thinking that you “should” feel better or “must” be more positive is setting an expectation that is unhelpful. Meanwhile, if someone else is telling you their problem, avoid offering them advice –– not just of the “cheer up” variety but all advice; most of the time people just want someone to listen. The best thing you can do is be there for them and ask if there is anything you can do.
Avoiding toxic positivity
In conclusion, while fostering positivity in the workplace is generally beneficial, it’s crucial to recognise the fine line between real, helpful positivity and toxic positivity. The latter can stifle genuine emotions, hinder personal and professional growth, and create a disconnect between leadership and employees. As businesses strive to cultivate healthy environments, they must balance encouraging optimism with allowing space for authentic, sometimes difficult, emotional experiences. Embracing “tragic optimism” and fostering open, honest communication can lead to a more resilient and supportive workplace culture. By acknowledging both the challenges and triumphs, organisations can avoid the pitfalls of toxic positivity and build truly positive and empathetic environments. No matter what Monty Python say, sometimes it’s okay not to look on the bright side of life.
More On Optimism
Optimism is a Force Multiplier
How to cultivate confidence into a superpower with Ian Robertson – Podcast
Performing Under Pressure with Hendrie Weisenger – Podcast
Sources
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z64yn9q
[3] https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-toxic-positivity-5093958
[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/08/tragic-optimism-opposite-toxic-positivity/619786/
[5] Nosferatu (2024). Robert Eggers.
[6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z64yn9q
[16] https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/08/tragic-optimism-opposite-toxic-positivity/619786/
[17] https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/08/tragic-optimism-opposite-toxic-positivity/619786/