Sunday Letters

In this episode of The Sunday Letters Podcast, I'm in conversation with former US Air Force pilot and current lecturer in digital media studies at TU Shannon, Bernie Goldbach. We talk about the contrast in Bernie's work from the high intensity of flying missions in the Pacific region and the Middle East to the perhaps less demanding work of lecturing third-level students in Clonmel. Here's a summary of some of the main points in the conversation.* Hauling radioactive waste on Enewetak in the Pacific* Identity and intrinsic motivation of Air Force pilots* The challenge of work-life balance in high-intensity roles* The Secret Service, working at The Pentagon and one of the greatest spoofs the US played on Russia.* Bernie's take on Ukraine, the intrinsic motivation of Ukrainian soldiers* Why the 1988 Ramstein Air Show disaster happened (what Bernie witnessed that day and, crucially, the night before.)* Leaving the Air Force and moving to Ireland and translating his skills into teaching.* The heightened attention, perception, memory and motor skills of high performers* Creative design and digital media in education* The negative impact of technology on young people's development. Passive entertainment Vs practical interaction.* Finding fulfilment and engagement in work and the power of symbols of success.* The work in the post-Social Media world and the power of stories.* What would you do if money was no object?* The future of work and the impact of technology on work and jobs.Linksclonmeldigital.micro.bloginsideview.ieBernie Goldbach LinkedInTechnological University of The ShannonHow to support The Sunday Letters JournalSubscribe for FreeBecome a paid subscriberUpgrade from FreeThe Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

To join live every Friday on Peak, go here. I'll be reading from the book of the week and follow with a discussion with you and others on the core message of the book. Tonight I was joined by philosopher and friend Dmitri Belikov. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.comThis is a bonus episode of Sunday Letters. If you'd like access to it, become a supporter of The Sunday Letters Journal. This episode is a reading from a speech by Juliet Schor, author of The Overworked American, to students at Tilburg University in 1997 titled Beyond An Economy of Work & Spend. In this essay, Schor offers a detailed breakdown of why th…

Support Sunday LettersSubscribe for freeTranscript ExtractI've been experimenting with transcriptions. Here's an extract from this week's monologue.(00:04)Welcome to episode 222, On The Merit of Doing Nothing. This is the Sunday letters podcast, part of the Sunday letters journal. Read, and listen to all previous episodes and issues of the newsletter over at sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com. There's a link at the top of the show notes, probably one or two in between, and one at the bottom. This podcast is free. Although if you decide to become a paying subscriber cost about three euros or €3.50 or $3.50 about the price of a good cup of coffee, you'll get subscriber-only episodes, short, little extracts, and other articles that are reserved for paying subscribers and supporters of the Sunday letters journal. So if you decide to do that I'd be very grateful. If not, you can listen for free. It's a free episode. And if you're so inclined, give us a review on apple podcasts or wherever you happen to listen to your podcasts.(01:11)Tell us what you think of the show. Give us a few stars, help people find what I'm doing and lets me know what you think of this material. So this week, I'm talking about the merit of doing nothing or switching off and tuning out of doing the opposite of being busy. And what got me on this topic this morning was I had planned something completely different, but an item appeared in my feed on LinkedIn about a piece of research that was reported in the Guardian, on the merits and the benefits of, and the ability to access air creativity. When we actually switch off from thinking, and it is true. And it's been reported in a number of different places by many writers that the benefit of switching off and going off for a wander and doing things that are not associated with work, call it rest, recuperate, recuperation, whatever you want to call it.(02:14)But it's, it's the absence of thinking and then, and trying to solve the problem or get where you want to go. We live in a world. That's very much hinged to the idea that you've got to be active. You've got to be productive. You've got to be working your ass off. You've got to work all the hours that are sent in order to make enough money in order to be of enough value to other people, to the corporation, to the company, to your customers, whoever. And it's really a foolish idea where we're, we're so welded to the nuts and bolts idea of life, to the practicalities of life, to(02:59)The ones and the zeros. And if it's not a one or a zero, if it's not, if we're not active enough if there's no data to read, if we're acting on a whim or an apparent whim, well, then that's in, that's not valuable at all. In fact, it's useless. So to play, for example, is something you do when you finish work, when you're finished being active and getting stuff done, you know because you're a practical human being. And, you know, in order to get ahead in the world, you've got to be a doer, and you've got to go after it, you know, embrace the hustle and all this kind of nonsense. And it's because I suppose we live in a technological society a digital society, and we've been this, this, our hegemonic common sense about work suggests that you've always got to be active and it's the value is in the data.(03:59)And the data will tell you everything you need to know, like as if we can predict the future. And we know we can't. The weather forecast can't even be predicted. And why do you think as a human being, as a kind of single cell in this multicellular organism we call life. Why is it did you think that you can predict and determine your future when nothing else can be predetermined, it arrives, and it's magical almost, and we should be content with that, but instead, we want to analyze the shit out of everything, and we have to work our asses off in order to be valuable to ourselves and other people. And it's a nonsense. So what do we do? We keep working and we work and we work and we work and we try to make things happen. And we try and circumvent the inevitable. We try and get around through the back door and cheat and try to get ahead of all the nasty shit that we , that we think is gonna come. And it does come because life is, life is a crime of two sides, but it's all a waste of time. A lot of it.(05:15)So this article appeared in my feed this morning and it was about the importance of taking time out. And it, it really is critical. I immediately thought of three books, four books, maybe even more where I previously read about the importance of taking time to do nothing. I couldn't find his book this morning, but Carol Ravelli is a quantum gravitational physicist, an Italian bloke. He probably read this stuff. There are a couple of really good books and audiobooks on the nature of reality time and space, et cetera, et cetera,(05:57)Very readable. It's not too heavy, you know? And I think it's in the introduction to, I can't remember the name of the book, but he speaks about how, how valuable his time away from study. It was like a year maybe I think he took a year off to just kind of loaf about in the states or whatever. And and just to kind of do whatever he felt like doing. And he, his commentary was around the idea that we often think that this time young people take to do nothing and to loaf off and do whatever they want to do is wasted. And no one particular adult parent of, of a, of a kid. I know, and she couldn't wait to get her son into school. And I think he'd be like 16 or not far gotten 16 when he is finishes leaving cert when he is left school and ready for tour level.(06:55)And it strikes me that the kid doesn't, and hasn't been afforded the time to just do nothing, you know, and we discount the value in it. Anyway, I'm, I'm rambling. So read this article and it was in the guardian just wanna pull it up here. So the article says that losing oneself in one's thoughts are letting the mind wander is an underrated activity that is most rewarding. The more it is practiced. An academic study has claimed like, as if you need, as if you need an academic study to tell you that, right. Psychologists who studied a group of more than 250 people encourage them to engage in directional contemplation or free floating thinking said that the activity was far more satisfying than the participants had anticipated.Support Sunday LettersSubscribe for free This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.comI discovered Bukowski a few years back and was immediately caught by the sharp end of what he wrote. He wrote from the inside out, saying what he saw and what he felt without censorship, often to the point of being crude and offensive. I think he was hated as much as loved, but it seems that despite it all, he stuck by his principles. He hadn't outlined any particular philosophy as such, other than that most people were full of shit and incapable of being real. At poetry readings, he'd abuse his audience. I think that's why they came to see him. Regarding the work of an artist, his advice was to do it or don't do it. If it is there, go with it; if it isn't, wait. Trying is counter-productive. In the commercial world of goods and services, we can't tolerate this philosophy of work. It is an offence against our consumerist common sense. Whatever you want, it is yours—just set yourself out in the world and get it. You'll find some of Bukowski's thoughts and feelings on the craft of writing and other topics in the collection, On Writing.In 1964, Bukowski wrote to author Jack Conroy about Conroy's novel The Disinherited, a work of fiction that tackled the plight of the working classes in the 1920s and 1930s United States. Bukowski insisted that from his point of view, the poverty of the 1920s working classes portrayed in the story was still relevant forty years on. When we read what Bukowski said about work, we'd be forgiven for thinking that it was today. Those of us in western industrialised nations may have a materially better standard of living and fancier gadgets than in 1964, but there remain many who are marginalised. Given the current energy crisis and increasing cost of living, many who were already struggling to stay afloat are probably drowning.Here's Bukowski;

Today in the Sunday Letters Journal article, I’m taking the opportunity to introduce you to Peak Performer–a community space I created for readers interested in achieving peak performance in their work. I’m a work and organisational psychologist, and as you likely know by now, the focal point of most of what I write is daily work—that thing human beings spend the most time doing. Better that daily work is by our own design serving our basic psychological needs than by someone else’s design and profit motives. However, the unfortunate fact of modern work is that most of us work jobs designed by others, and as such, it often lacks the necessary meaning and purpose we need to sustain us.Get your invitation to PeakPeak is a response to this situation. Here’s a little more about the space and what you can expect.Peak, is a place where you can discover the means to direct your own work and develop the mental skills necessary for success. It’s a space for self-employed people and others who aspire to work for themselves, be it as a solo worker or the founder of a larger organisation. It is a community for people who seek to command their own meaningful and fulfilling work. Being a part of Peak means you have decided to do work on your own terms and by your own design.The community is new, and membership is FREE until we get off the ground properly. So consider this a soft launch. Once the membership exceeds 100 people, the joining fee will apply. Now’s your chance to get in for nowt forever.What's Peak all about?Peak is a place where self-motivated, self-determined, self-employed people can develop the mental skills necessary for success. There are many communities for the self-employed, but few of them focus on the development of the person–that's what makes Peak different. Whether you currently work for yourself or have aspirations to do so, the same basis of motivation, personality and the seeking of meaning and purpose in work apply. As we look back on our lives as we enter our final days, we want to be able to say that we lived life on our own terms and that life was fulfilling. None of us likes being pushed around, told what to do, where to go, how long to spend there, and how long our rest should be—if we are afforded any at all. That’s not freedom—it’s slavery. Wages, their quantity or not is irrelevant. To be free and to work free at things of our own design is a basic human need. Work without that feature might as well be done by automatons, not human beings.Get your invitation to PeakMy Philosophy on WorkMy philosophy on work is grounded in the idea that work, first and foremost, must be done for its own inherent enjoyment and fulfilment. Without this, our focus will be flawed, and our efforts to succeed will be misdirected. This aligns with Abraham Maslow's concept of "Peak Experience", Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi's concept of "Flow", and Ryan & Deci's concept of "Self-Determination". These theorists recognised that to be creatively successful, human beings must work free, be fully integrated, and independent yet interdependent in their work. For our work to make a difference in our lives and to be meaningful and fulfilling, in other words, we must transcend the self-oriented, narcissistic personality structure that dominates the business world. We must find work that commands our interest and curiosity, and we much strive to do this work as often as possible and under our own terms.So, who are you, and why should I trust you?My name is Larry Maguire. I am a work & organisational psychologist in private practice with 20+ years business ownership experience. I earned my BA in psychology from DBS in Dublin and my MSc. in Work & Organisational Psychology from DCU Dublin. I am a graduate member of the Psychological Society of Ireland and an ordinary member of the International Association for Coaching.My research to date has focused on the well-being of self-employed people at work, and coupled with insights gained from this, my time in business has taught me many lessons. I want to share them here, and maybe you can gain some advantage from it. You also have experiences worth sharing that will benefit others, so I'm hoping you'll join me in developing this community.Who Is Peak For?Peak is for solo workers, freelancers, consultants, small business owners, and people who aspire to work for themselves. But Peak is not like other communities for the self-employed. Rather than focusing on the functions and structures of a business; sales, marketing, finance, HR, accounts, IT systems and so on, Peak is focused on aiding the development of the person–the business owner.How Much Does Membership Cost?Membership costs €29 per month, nothing for now. Membership is free for a short period, so you can join and access the benefits of membership immediately. In a few months, when we officially launch, new members will need to shell out for access. There may also be pay-walled areas for exclusive content added as we progress.Get your invitation to PeakWhat You Will LearnWith the resources and learning materials and the support of other members, Peak aims to be your catalyst for positive change and facilitate growth in the following areas;Leadership skillsDecision-makingFocus & AttentionEmotional RegulationStress ManagementMotivation & BehaviourCreativity & InnovationIf you wish to command your own work successfully and grow it beyond yourself (if that's what you want), then you must develop the necessary mental skills. The process will be difficult, but within Peak, you have the comfort of the support of others like you. You'll also have free access to coaching, resources, and information to help you along your way.A New Definition of WorkWork, as defined here, is that thing we do in our waking hours - it's how we expend energy getting things done. It doesn't necessarily have to be paid work, it can be voluntary work, hobbies, amateur sport, and so on. The only requirement for membership is that you want to command your own work and perform it to a high level. If that's you, then Peak is your place.This is a private space by invitation only where you can ask questions, get answers to burning questions, and share advice on achieving higher quality results in your work. If you want to be part of a close-knit and private community dedicated to a successful and fulfilling work experience, then I think you'll like it here.A Note on SuccessYou’ll often come across the word success in the content I and others write and share in the community. When we talk about success and peak performance, we're not necessarily talking about commercial, financial, or some other form of objective material fulfilment. These things might come about as a consequence of the work you do, but they cannot be the primary aim. At least not in terms of becoming The Performatist.What we are focused upon instead is the discovery and development of self through daily work. Work being the thing that has captured our interest, engaged our curiosity and provides fulfilment and purpose. It is an expression of who and what we are.Material success is fine, but that's not our goal. Our goal instead is to become the autonomous, self-directed, independent yet interdependent agent in command of its own work and life. It is, as Maslow said, the full and total expression of a self-actualised organism at one with its environment and in cooperation with others.The pursuit never ends. We are always developing and expanding, and that pursuit is challenging and difficult. Fortunately, you don't have to navigate the territory on your own. In this community, you'll find like-minded people to share your experience and find solutions to challenges. I'm glad you are here and look forward to talking with you regularly.Get your invitation to Peak This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Subscribe to The Sunday Letters JournalIn last weekend’s Sunday Letters essay, I discussed the stubborn idea that talent is born rather than made. In truth, it is more likely that apparently innate abilities and genetic endowments combined with environmental stimulation produce what we see as displays of exceptional talent and genius. In this week’s episode of Sunday Letters Podcast, I’m sharing the story of world champion high jumper Donald Thomas, as the late Anders Ericsson detailed in his book Peak.Malcolm Gladwell's 2008 book Outliers suggests that anybody can become an expert with enough practice. Gladwell, a journalist, says that “ten thousand hours is the magic number of greatness”. Sounds like the magic of getting people's attention rather than a maxim of human performance. In any event, Gladwell latched onto Ericsson's work and was selective about how he presented this apparent rule for success. In his book Peak, Ericsson was later critical of Gladwell, stating that "unfortunately, this rule, which is the only thing that many people today know about the effects of practice, is wrong in several ways." He went on to outline these errors. Case Western Reserve University psychologist Brooke MacNamara agrees, saying, “The [10,000-hour rule] idea has become entrenched in our culture, but it’s an oversimplification. When it comes to human skill, a complex combination of environmental factors, genetic factors, and their interactions explains the performance differences in people.”After extensive research, Ericsson's 1993 study of violinists and pianists titled "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance" found that those with the most experience (practice) were better than those who had less experience. The average top-ranked violinist had clocked an average of 10,000 hours of practice by age 20. This finding refutes claims of natural talent and suggests that other factors like hard work are more important for success. In their repeat of Ericsson's study, MacNamara and Maitra found that the factors influencing success depend on the skill being learned: in chess, it could be working memory; in sport, it may be how efficiently a person uses oxygen. MacNamara says, “Once you get to the highly skilled groups, practice stops accounting for the difference. Everyone has practised a lot, and other factors are at play in determining who goes on to that super-elite level.”MacNamara and her colleague Megha Maitra set out to repeat part of Ericsson's 1993 study to see whether they reached the same conclusions. The research team interviewed three groups of 13 violinists who were rated best, good, or less accomplished. Recording their testimony regarding their practice habits, the musicians were then asked to complete daily diaries of their activities for one week. The results showed that by the age of 20, while the less skilful violinists had an average of about 6,000 hours of practice, there was little to separate the good from the best musicians, each averaging around 11,000 hours. All told, the number of hours spent practising accounted for about twenty-five per cent of the skills difference across the three groups.Subscribe to The Sunday Letters JournalBecome a supporter of The Sunday Letters Journal This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Subscribe to Sunday Letters for freeBecome a paying supporter with this discount.In this week’s (lengthy) episode, I’m in conversation with Dr Jonathan Murphy, Senior Executive and Programme Manager in Leadership at Enterprise Ireland. His work is in programme design and delivery for management and leadership capability development. His expertise is in the areas of cognition, decision-making, human performance, creativity, innovation, critical thinking and communication with the aim of growing psychological literacy in decision-makers and bridging the gap between research and practice. We discuss the concept of free speech in the digital world and its importance for a healthy, functioning society. We also discuss work, social responsibility, meaning and purpose in work, motivation to work, inclusion and diversity, remote working, work and personal identity, past and future of work, AI and the loss of manual jobs.Get in touch with Dr Jonathan MurphyTimestamp02:50 Free Speech23:00 Education & Critical Thinking28:00 Psychology as a Discipline32:00 Trusting Expertise38:00 A Place for Violence40:52 What’s your work?45:20 How does work make you feel?48:40 What did you want to be when you were a kid?52:33 Meaning & purpose in work53:20 Social & environmental responsibility57:15 Micheal Porter on CSR01:03:18 Remote working, well-being at work01:05:00 Work and Personal Identity01:13:20 What would you do if all your financial needs were met?01:14:30 Past and future of work, universal basic income01:28:40 AI, the Turing Test, Redefining WorkThe Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. https://sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe?coupon=849ce4d3 This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

In last Sunday’s article, I wrote about four ways to build resilience and offered a step-by-step process for each tool. These tools work, however, if you find yourself in a difficult place, they may not always be as simple to apply as they may seem at face value. When life kicks us around, we may not always have the energy or ability to focus as we would ordinarily, and tools like these can be overwhelming. That’s where a professional can come in and become a facilitator for change. On a more practical note, I thought I would talk about resilience and offer a few more straightforward means of building resilience.Check out these four practical ways to build resilience and listen to this week's episode where I flesh out these ideas a little bit more and discuss the mindsets that promote resilience and those that don’t. The Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a patron and supporting this work.Practical Ways To Build ResilienceWhat resilience is in research terms is not always agreed upon. However, for practical purposes, we can refer to it as the human ability to bounce back from adversity. What contributes to any given person’s innate ability to bounce back from adversity is also not entirely agreed upon. Still, it is agreed that there are things we can do to build resilience within ourselves.1. BUILD YOUR NETWORKPrioritise your personal and friendly relationships. Find and hang out with people that have the same interests as you. This can be done in tight online communities, but it's better in person. Connect with people who understand you and can help you navigate difficult times. Fellowship helps support the growth of resilience.In addition to close personal relationships, being active in community groups and religious or sporting organisations provide valuable social support. Visit your local community centre, charity or church and find out about where people with similar interests gather.2. MIND YOUR MIND & BODYKeeping your body fit and healthy is a legitimate practice for maintaining good mental health and building resilience. That’s because stress has both a physical and an emotional component. Anxiety and depression can be countered by the brain, a veritable chemical factory, prompted into production by physical activity.Get centred by developing a meditation practice and finding a private space to be alone. You don't need to understand how it works, but it does. So practice journalling, meditating, or praying, instead of ruminating on negative aspects of life. Also, avoid drugs, alcohol and other stimulants. These things tend to exacerbate our negative states.3. GIVE OF YOURSELF WITHOUT EXPECTATIONFind a local charitable organisation where you can volunteer. Give your time, even if it's only a couple of hours per week, to help people in difficult situations. Helping others in need builds a sense of purpose, self-worth, connection, and resilience.What about the local school or even an elderly neighbour? How can you contribute and foster in yourself a sense of purpose and meaning by providing simple tasks to others like doing their shopping, cutting their grass or walking their dog?4. ASK FOR HELPHaving the bravery to ask for help when you need it is a crucial component in building your resilience. For many of us working alone, using the kinds of strategies listed above may be enough to build resilience. But it's not unusual to get stuck or have difficulty making progress on the road to resilience. If that's you, there are resources that can help, so reach out.Did you enjoy this episode? Give the show a review on Apple PodcastsThe Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive member-only content and free digital books, become a paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

In this edition of Sunday Letters, I met with Owen O’Malley from The Investment Club Network (TICN). The company teaches ordinary people how to successfully trade the stock market by investing in high-quality, cash-rich companies and then renting the shares to other investors via contracts known as Options. After taking the training course, TICN helps groups of people form Investment Clubs — legal entities run by its members that allow the club to trade the markets. Read more about Investment Clubs here. TICN have helped people set up and operate investment clubs worldwide that use their investing system.In this episode, Owen speaks about his background in the Irish fisheries industry and how, when the company he worked for was bought by a Norwegian outfit, he considered going into business for himself. But when he discovered that the chances of making over 50k profit per year were so slim, he began to reassess. Subsequently, he discovered a method of investing that changed the course of his career and shaped the organisation that he later formed - The Investment Club Network.What I like about Owen O’Malley is that he is understated. There is no bluster and no showmanship — you just get the facts. What he and his people teach, works. I know because I took the course and continue to take Owen’s advice today. I must also point out that I have no affiliation with Owen or TICN and receive no gratuity for promoting what they do. Get in touch with Owen O'Malley below to learn more about TICN and how you can begin to command your own money.Support Sunday Letters Contact Owen O’Malley; https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenomalleyshares/Visit TICN; https://www.ticn.com/The Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

In today’s Sunday Letters essay, I’m taking a look at the Anarchist Communist philosophy of the Russian Prince and social activist, Petr Kropotkin. He envisioned a socialist revolution, a revolution of the people, but was his vision for society too idealistic to work? Is our society today any different from Kropotkin’s era? Most commentators suggest our working conditions and freedoms have improved one hundredfold. But large numbers of people are dissatisfied with work, still seeing it as a means to an end. So have things really improved? One hundred years after Kropotkin’s death, let’s examine his Anarchist philosophy and its parallels with today’s society.Become A Patron of Sunday LettersIf Socialism is a dirty word, Anarchism is outright filth. Where the former is a cynical means by which the lazy and inept in our society scheme to lie about all day doing little while hard-working citizens like you and me pay for it, the latter steals from our pockets and destroys everything we own. Of course, this is the Fox News or Daily Mirror version. The reality is very different. Anarchism, and by extension, Socialism, are not about you and I propping up wasters and wielding the wrecking ball on society. Rather, their fundamental premise was founded on equity and fairness for all and the removal of exploitation by dictators and bureaucrats of those in society who are weaker.Anarchism has its roots in the socialist movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, where its idealism centred upon ultra-democratic principles of fairness, economic equality, individual and collective freedom, the integrity of self-directed work, and non-hierarchical socially-led politics. Unfortunately, as it has been with most if not all social change through history, violence and destruction are never far away and served to taint the ideals that gave birth to those movements. Lenin’s version of socialism and corruption of Marxist ideas — the communist dictatorship of the proletariat—is a case in point.One of the modern era’s most recent Anarchist initiatives was the Occupy Wall Street movement post the 2008 global financial crash. People were irate with the boldness and arrogance of the political and financial elite that ran the show. These were and are the real pick-pockets of ordinary working people, not the unemployed and disadvantaged. However, in spite of the sympathy the movement received, its leftist ideology, which sought to address the imbalance, failed to drum up a long-lasting following. It was merely a flash of idealism that peered out from a gap in the capitalist fabric of US society. The reason to fight must become compelling and inevitable for real change to happen. It must be enduring too, and I wonder if most Americans, British, Europeans and others in the Global North, are simply too comfortable to fight even in spite of the raging inflation we’re currently experiencing.Anarchism’s 2011 display of rage against the machine of Capitalism and the inequality it breeds petered out, and people once again settled into their jobs (or their unemployment). Powerless to make a lasting change and alienated once again from the promise of work that might possibly bring about fulfilment and freedom, people got on with their lives. Although founded on the principle of freedom and liberty from the tyranny of hierarchical systems, some suggest that Anarchism may be too interested in making bold statements through violent action. It is argued that it has no lasting impact because it lacks the ability to think strategically about the change it wishes to see. As the populist idea goes, Anarchism is too interested in looting, burning, rioting and being a general nuisance to society to become a popular long-lasting movement for change.But perhaps this idea is too simple.The Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.What Is Anarchism?The late David Graeber, in a 2011 article for Aljazeera, said the following of Anarchism;“The easiest way to explain anarchism is to say that it is a political movement that aims to bring about a genuinely free society – that is, one where humans only enter those kinds of relations with one another that would not have to be enforced by the constant threat of violence. History has shown that vast inequalities of wealth, institutions like slavery, debt peonage or wage labour, can only exist if backed up by armies, prisons, and police. Anarchists wish to see human relations that would not have to be backed up by armies, prisons and police. Anarchism envisions a society based on equality and solidarity, which could exist solely on the free consent of participants.”There is a long tradition of political and intellectual anarchist thought, one of the most astute being the nineteenth Century anarchist communist Petr Kropotkin. (For an extensive collection of political and intellectual writings from Kropotkin and others, see The Anarchist Library, the Monthly Review, and Freedom Press). Kropotkin was a blue-blood aristocrat born to an ancient noble family descendant from the Ninth Century Rurik Dynasty and the first rulers of Russia. Despite his privileged background, he railed against its imperial status and its abuse of power over the people. His father was, in his eyes, the embodiment of Tsarist Russia and its military-bureaucratic state, and although highly regarded in political and social circles, Kropotkin dedicated his life to activism. Petr’s home life was irrationally disciplinarian, and he viewed his father’s contempt and cruelty towards servants as despicable. As such, Petr developed a strong empathy for ordinary people. He wrote, “I do not know what would have become of us if we had not found in our house, amidst the serf servants, that atmosphere of love which children must have around them.”It was this childhood experience and the contrast between the cold imperialist attitude of his parents and the open and loving arms of the servents that laid the foundation for his later thought and writing, the most influential of which was The Conquest of Bread. The book is said to capture Kropotkin’s philosophy more than any other of his writings. His vision of the anarchist society was based on camaraderie rather than hierarchy and goodwill rather than coercion and was founded on a profound optimism about human nature. It is a system of society based on cooperation, fairness, collectivism, and the belief that these traits of being are natural and innate to human beings.Kropotkin on Work & CapitalismHowever, Kropotkin’s Anarchism wasn’t without its challenges. For example, how may Anarchism be made compatible with the modern technological society and growing consumerism? The Conquest of Bread was first published in a series of articles, then republished in a single volume in 1892 and was his attempt to address these concerns in simple terms. He started from the assumption that property must be collectively owned because, in the complex modern world where everything is interdependent, claiming a single origin for a product of industry was untenable. He also wrote that keeping the wage system unequal would only ensure the survival of competitiveness and selfishness. Wages would have to be distributed equally, and goods and services distributed freely by democratic bodies. The economy would then be organised according to the communist principle — from each according to their ability and to each according to their need.These ideas are so alien to a mind educated and raised in a Capitalist culture that they seem completely absurd and unworkable. But Kropotkin believed that this radical equality should govern all spheres of life. He argued that the normal division of labour that privileged intellectual, white-collar workers enjoyed over manual workers, consigned most people to monotonous and soul-destroying lives. Labour was to be shared, and “mental” and “manual” tasks integrated so that work would no longer be a curse, and instead, be the free exercise of all the faculties of humankind.His critique of specialisation and hierarchy was also applied to the global economy. An early critic of globalisation, Kropotkin argued that industry and agriculture must be integrated into all regions of the world, ensuring self-sufficiency. Developing countries were to be aided towards industrialisation and, therefore, rectify the growing gap between rich and poor.It [economics] should try to analyse how far the present means are expedient and satisfactory… [, and] should concern itself with the discovery of means for the satisfaction of these needs with the smallest possible waste of labour and with the greatest benefit to mankind in general.Kropotkin’s Anarchism was a rigorous and coherent application of radical democracy and equality to all areas of life. It did not, for example, require a central state body to distribute wages according to performance and so avoided the potential authoritarianism of other versions of Anarchism. However, it did show Kropotkin to be overly idealistic with a naive view of human nature. What about people who refused to work or those who behaved antisocially? Would eliminating market incentives not undermine a functioning economy bringing it to its knees? On the subject of production, Kropotkin insisted that collective organisation and participation were more efficient than the managerialism common in private firms. Enjoyable work, Kropotkin argued, and workers’ knowledge that they were working for the common good provided higher incentives than being compelled to work under the threat of starvation or punishment. It was the democratic organisation of work.Kropotkin also insisted that eliminating market capitalism would improve, not undermine, market efficiency and minimise waste. For instance, abolishing private banks, he suggested, would remove parasitic middlemen allowing resources to be directed to those parts of society that desperately needed them. Similarly, local economic self-sufficiency would remove the expense of transport systems and communications required by the increasingly specialised global economy. For Kropotkin, a more egalitarian society with fair patterns of consumption was possible, and at the root of this argument was his conviction that the economy already produced enough to provide everyone with a good standard of living. The problem, he insisted, was with distribution rather than production. In Fields, Factories and Workshops, Kropotkin demonstrated that humanity already possessed the technical means to produce healthy food abundantly for everyone with relatively little effort and expense. We know this today too, although the imperative to hoard wealth and resources remain in place. The precursors to today’s factory farms existed at this time, and which, Kropotkin noted, destroyed the soil for generations and displaced people who might otherwise obtain a comfortable living from the land.On the subject of wages, Kropotkin suggested that if people had the means to support themselves, to meet their daily requirements without the need to hire out their bodies for payment, no one would consent to work for wages. Which are, he insisted, inevitably a mere fraction of the value of the goods or services they produce. Even the independent artisan worker of Kropotkin’s time could barely do better than support his family, let alone save for his old age. Have Things Changed For The Better?Here we are today, just over one hundred years since Kropotkin’s death, and I wonder, are things fundamentally any different? Technology is a bit of a double-edged sword insofar as it has improved materially the lives of millions of people. But it has also worsened the lives of many more. African children still dig in mines for precious metals, Indian girls are forced into the sex trade in the slums of Mumbai, and illegal migrants in the US are forced to work in cramped rooms all day and night for meagre wages. Jason Hickel, economic anthropologist and author, writes extensively on globalisation and the damage it does to people in the global south. They are, he suggests, paying for the luxury that we in the north enjoy. In a recent article, Hickel says that extreme poverty is not natural; it’s created. Exploitation in the name of Capitalism carries on.Kropotkin sought a global revolution by working people over their capitalist overlords. It didn’t happen, and although there are brief flurries of anarchist activity, as we saw in the 2011 Occupy movement, they are short-lived. I sense that we have become too comfortable, too easily manipulated and made weak by the ease at which life comes to us. Yet, ironically, we are deeply dissatisfied and unhappy with work. We may wear different clothes, have access to a universe of information in our pockets, enjoy better healthcare, have access to endless “entertainment”, and the opportunity to satisfy our every whim, but are we really better off? And crucially, have we found a way to work free? I’m not so sure the conquest of bread has ever been satisfied and perhaps it never will.The Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

To gain access to paid subscriber episodes of the Sunday Letters Podcast, become a patron of The Sunday Letters Journal. You can become a patron and support this work for the cost of a cup of coffee per month (and often less). Hit the blue button to subscribe (there’s a discount inside).As I mentioned in last week’s issue of Sunday Letters, I’ve been consolidating. The podcast didn’t come into the equation then because I was still figuring things out. This change involves bringing episodes from The Mental Game into Sunday Letters and making the latter the only source of audio content. Both shows are really about the same things, so it makes sense.I imported the Sunday Letters Podcast to Substack from Anchor, and although it’s better to bring everything to the one platform, it is presenting challenges - like what to do about the duplication of episodes and how will subscriber-only episodes display in other platforms. Anyway, it’s all technical stuff that can be resolved. The important thing is that content is easier for readers and listeners to consume.We’ll have two kinds of episode on the Sunday Letters Podcast; Long episodes of 30 to 60 mins reflecting the weekly article and will include conversations with people about their work, the future of work, and how to command one’s own work.Shorter subscriber-only episodes will focus on a particular topic of how we can resolve conflict, improve our performance, and achieve career and business success - whatever way we may define it.How To ListenEpisodes are available on all major podcast platforms. Subscriber-only episodes are available on the Substack App and in your browser for everyone who is a patron of The Sunday Letters Journal. Become a patron here.Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Pocketcasts | Substack This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Jung says the bigger the crowd, the more negligible the individual becomes. This lost individual Jung speaks of is the ego-based individual—the one that sees itself as either an oversized old stuffed shirt full of its own importance or as poor little me overwhelmed by its insignificance. We perhaps can see how a consumerist society such as ours can offer a solution to the problem, albeit not much of a solution. In this way, Jung says that the individual becomes more and more a function of society as an abstract idea where everybody is the subject of autocratic rule. Read the full article --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

Sunday Letters pursues answers to the question of human happiness and all the drama of that. But this state of happiness it seeks to identify is not hedonistic, in which arguably most people seek happiness...or is it an escape from unhappiness? That might be more accurate. Sunday Letters attempts to go deeper than this, to explore the full scope of the human condition. And so it attempts to uncover the paradox of the pursuit–happiness is this or that, and yet it’s not. If happiness was something concrete, if it lay in front of our eyes or occupied the contents of our conscious thinking mind, then we would surely choose it. There would be no problem with life. But there is. In fact, there is an entire never-ending universe of problems. When we find a solution to one, we invariably pick up another problem. Unless that is, we realise that there are no problems really, that we create them all. As my father so accurately puts it, “the world is all right son; it’s the people in it that are the problem.”In psychology, and in some respects common language, we use the psychoanalytic term ‘Ego’ to denote this happiness seeking aspect of the self, its level of awareness of itself and the world surrounding it. But the term has become a little overused, abused and misunderstood, so I tend to steer away from it. In fact, Freud never coined the terms’ Ego’, ‘Superego’ and ‘Id’. This was Abraham Brill’s choice, the original translater of Freud’s writings. Freud’s ‘das Ich’ translates as ‘the I’, a subjective sense of personal reality. It is argued that Freud’s ‘das Ich’ lost its subjectivity through the Latin word ‘Ego’ which already had affixed to it the concept of being overly self-centred. It might be more accurate to use the term ‘persona’ here, Carl Jung’s “outward or social personality.” It is derived from the Latin’ persona’ “human being, person, personage; a part in a drama or an assumed character,” originally “a mask, a false face,” such as those of wood or clay, covering the actors head in Roman theatre. So we see that what we refer to as “I,“ our reflection in the mirror, our clothes, our job, our social role etc., is merely a temporary mask overlaying something mysterious and perhaps unknowable.The surface-level personality is that aspect of the unidentifiable subject that sees its reflection, thinks itself so important (or not), and believes itself to exist in all the drama and manifestations of its life. And despite the findings of those who have looked deep into the cavern of the human condition, people like Freud, Jung, Lacan, Klien, and many others, the general population, it seems, have failed to grasp the essence of what was discovered. That is the illusory nature of the surface level self and all its desires and demands for happiness. So it powers on at the sharp end of apparent human progress, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake and handing down its neurosis to subsequent generations. And so, in the pursuit of happiness, we create its exact opposite.“’Happiness,’ … is such a remarkable reality that there is nobody who does not long for it, and yet there is not a single objective criterion which would prove beyond all doubt that this condition necessarily exists. As so often with the most important thing, we have to make do with a subjective judgment.”-Carl JungThe Plight of The Individual Is The Plight of The CollectiveSo now imagine all these little ego-centric animals, of which you and I are one, running around dressing up as this or that, playing their game unbeknownst to themselves, attempting to fill the void that has always been and trying to establish their own existence as real. And I wonder if we were always this way. When I read old texts from Jung, Freud and Fromm, for example, they identify the dysfunction of the human-animal and its society. It seems the same today, only more acute and destructive than before. I look at our climate and how our consumption of material things, things that ultimately do not satisfy but merely serve to appease our insatiable appetite for pleasure, is destroying us. I see how the global south suffers at the hands of this pandemic because pharmaceuticals do not licence the production of Covid vaccines in their countries. I see how toxic waste is exported to Africa and Asia and dumped in their rivers. And I see how the neediest in our first-world society are still neglected because it’s simply not a political priority.All of this and more is the product of the human condition—one that fails to understand itself beyond the surface level personality.In his 1958 essay The Plight of The Individual In Modern Society, Carl Jung suggested that most people confuse self-knowledge with knowledge of the conscious ego-personality. But the ego, Jung says, knows only the contents of its own formulated reality and not that which lies beyond its awareness (excuse the reliance on male pronouns here).“People measure their self-knowledge by what the average person in their social environment knows of himself, but not by the real psychic facts which are for the most part hidden from them. In this respect, the psyche behaves like the body with its physiological and anatomical structure of which the average person knows very little too. Although he lives in it and with it, most of it is toitally uinknown to the layman and special scientific knowledge is needed to aquaint consciousness with what is known of the body, not to speak of all that is not known, which also exists. What is commonly called self-knowledge is, therefore, a very limited knbowledge, most of it dependent on social factors, of what goes on in the hiuman psyche.”Jung says the bigger the crowd, the more negligible the individual becomes. This lost individual Jung speaks of is the ego-based individual—the one that sees itself as either an oversized old stuffed shirt full of its own importance or as poor little me overwhelmed by its insignificance. We perhaps can see how a consumerist society such as ours can offer a solution to the problem, albeit not much of a solution. In this way, Jung says that the individual becomes more and more a function of society as an abstract idea where everybody is the subject of autocratic rule.And In The EndNot to end this piece negatively, I feel there is some ground for optimism. We cannot expect to rid our existence of negative experiences, nor expect to have mostly positive ones. Life exists as a dichotomy—the coin has two sides, so to speak, and so balance is the only realistic expectation. To assume that we will change the world or even the life of one other human being towards positive ends by merely our best intentions is naive in the extreme. However, our actions might do just that. These things come about as a consequence rather than a cause. The only job we have, in that regard, therefore, is to introspect. It is to seek Carl Jung’s ‘self-knowledge,’ the knowledge of self that lies deeper than that by which we label ourselves. We won’t find it in stuff, intellectual knowledge, technology, partners, worldly success and so on, and to seek it there only perpetuates the drama… or is it trauma? Maybe it is that we keep coming back until we figure that out.If you enjoy Sunday Letters, consider becoming a paid subscriber or send a gift subscription to a friend. For the price of a coffee and an almond croissant (my favourite), you’ll be supporting the work of independent writers.References This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

This week’s Sunday Letters brings you the final part of the Leadership Series. It’s a shorter piece than previous weeks, and in it, I take a somewhat cynical look at the trend amongst corporates to promote worker wellbeing and environmental initiatives. Are their efforts mere window dressing? I think so because, when it all comes down to it, there is, above all else, the imperative for profit. In this series on leadership, I have examined events from the past, offered expert opinion, and referenced psychological research to demonstrate that in the pursuit of the corporate aim, leaders often take unmitigated risks. Their sense of humanity and concern for others only reaches so far until the wellbeing of the organisation and their own survival takes precedence. It is a phenomenon of the way we live, and it is, unfortunately, alive and well. To overcome it, we’ve got to live by our own personal values, hold to our own individual mind, and always be vigilant. The alternative is to be swept along by a mentality that’s not of our own making.Prelude | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5I’m a student of Work & Organisational Psychology. The material has context for me given my 20+ years of self-employment, and it has helped me frame many of my personal experiences running a business. It has helped me better understand my decisions over the years, both good and bad. In many cases, if I had to do it all over again, I would most certainly be better equipped. Youth tends not to furnish us with the wherewithal necessary for creating favourable outcomes. It’s only with the experience of getting it wrong that we have the opportunity to learn something about ourselves. I say opportunity because, without the benefit of new information and a degree of self-awareness, we often end up making the same mistakes over and over.Within the field of work and organisational psychology, there is an intense effort to understand the personal and environmental conditions that lead to reduced worker wellbeing. Corporate leaders have come to understand that knowledge of the causes of stress, anxiety, depression, and burnout amongst their staff can inform solutions to those problems. Solutions can drive higher performance and, subsequently, corporate profit. As such, organisations invest heavily in the area, and one might assume that staff wellbeing in itself was of primary concern. But I’ve always been a little cynical in that regard and so less inclined to take that premise at face value. Besides, the best will and intent in the world often gives way to the commercial demands of operating a business. Sure, people care for people and the environment, but corporations? I’m not so certain.In the pursuit of profit, the efforts of corporations to ensure the wellbeing of staff and the environment often amount to nothing more than window dressing. In his book The New Corporation, Joel Bakan writes of the case of BP under the leadership of Lord John Brown. Brown took over BP as CEO in 1995, growing the company from a two-pipeline concern to one of the world's largest oil and gas producers. However, that growth came at a cost. Several major disasters occurred, including the 2005 Texas City explosion, where fifteen people died. The following year the Thunder Horse rig in The Gulf of Mexico sank due to poor construction. And at Alaska’s North Slope, a poorly maintained pipeline resulted in the largest ever spill in the region. But these events were only the warm-up to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion that destroyed the ecosystem in The Gulf of Mexico.Bakan cites Nancy Leveson, an Industrial Safety Expert at MIT who advised the National Commission investigating the Deepwater Horizon spill;“They (BP) were producing a lot of standards, but many were not very good, and many were irrelevant.”Before the Deepwater Horizon accident, Leveson had apparently told colleagues that BP was an accident waiting to happen. BP had been focused on the personal safety of workers but not on process safety. Adequately formed and applied process safety procedures are likely to have prevented the disasters and loss of life at Texas City and Deepwater Horizon. But these process safety measures, Bakan argues, were too expensive. Worker safety is easier and less expensive to apply, Bakan argues, but safety measures related to the maintenance of pipelines, drilling rigs and wells are not.Costs were cut in the pursuit of market share and increased profit. For example, in Texas City, the plant’s process safety budget was cut twice, once in 1998 by 25 per cent and again in 2005 by another 25 per cent just before the explosion. Adding further insult to the loss of life, three further deaths occurred at the Texas City plant. The US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board report found that BP did not take effective steps to avoid the risk of a catastrophic event occurring.The bottom line here is that John Brown, through his commitment and ambition, was blinkered to the practical measures required to maintain the safety of his employees and the environment. His role as CEO was to pursue shareholder profit while externalising as much of the cost of business as possible. He seemed to have done this very well, but at an enormous cost to others.Joel Bakan sums up the BP story and suggests;“People who manage and run large publically traded corporations, like Lord Brown, are not guided by their own lights. Whatever the personal values and ideas might be, when they go to work at their companies, they are bound to the rules of the game. Their decisions must always advance their companies’ financial interests and hence that of their shareholders. The corporate form is agnostic about how they do it. But they must do it.”Leadership seems to be a different animal inside a corporation than outside it. Once inside it, as Lord Brown’s case with BP indicates, the leader is bound by the rules of the game no matter what the impact on human life and the planet. He was willing to take unmitigated risks to do his job. I’m sure he felt remorse for the loss of life - I hope he did - but that offers nothing in the face of the imperative he is obliged to uphold; the pursuit of profit. No matter how remorseful leaders may seem to be at the loss of human life or damage to our environment, they have to get over it to do their job. That is the limit placed on them if they are to function successfully in the corporate world. The risk to your employees’ lives may not be high, but their wellbeing is always at risk. It is a limit placed on everyone who operates in the corporate world no matter the role played, and we almost always are asked to sacrifice something of ourselves in the doing of our job.Work demands us to forgo our humanity for the sake of profit, stock options or wages. Whatever the reward may be, you can’t take the job without adopting a new self, a different self, and subjugating your emotions to the rule of the unspoken neo-liberal law. I believe, however, that it’s only a matter of time before our compromise of personal values and ethics catches up with us. We live in an inherently conflicted state where personal interests are at odds with those of the working role. On the one hand, we have concern for other human beings and the planet upon which we live, and on the other, we cast those concerns aside for the worker self-image and material gain.I believe this game is at the root of all stress, anxiety and ill-health in the workplace, and we can’t sustain it. In my opinion, our efforts to counter this ill-health are merely a sticking plaster on an open wound. We cannot continue to take living breath organisms, place them in a fake plastic environment, and expect them to be healthy. Something has to change in how we see ourselves and the roles we play in society. So what can we do as leaders? I believe personal ethics and values have to take centre stage in our decision-making; otherwise, we get swept along by the momentum of a soulless entity that exists for the accumulation of mere symbols of health and wellbeing.Thanks for taking the time to follow this series on Leadership. If the topics in this series are important to you, get in touch with me to find out how to implement ethical leadership strategies in your organisation. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

This week's Sunday Letters brings you the final part of the Leadership Series. It's a shorter piece than previous weeks, and in it, I take a somewhat cynical look at the trend amongst corporates to promote worker wellbeing and environmental initiatives. Are their efforts mere window dressing? I think so because, when it all comes down to it, there is, above all else, the imperative for profit. In this series on leadership, I have examined events from the past, offered expert opinion, and referenced psychological research to demonstrate that in the pursuit of the corporate aim, leaders often take unmitigated risks. Their sense of humanity and concern for others only reaches so far until the wellbeing of the organisation and their own survival takes precedence. It is a phenomenon of the way we live, and it is, unfortunately, alive and well. To overcome it, we've got to live by our own personal values, hold to our own individual mind, and always be vigilant. The alternative is to be swept along by a mentality that's not of our own making. Support Sunday Letters --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

Welcome to the penultimate essay in the Sunday Letters Leadership Series. Over the course of the series, I have brought you thoughts on the paradox of success, Machiavellianism, inauthentic leadership, and this week I’m taking a look at the centrality of the entrepreneurial image. These essays previously lived on The Lead, a publication I started on a whim a few months ago that is now moving here, with some edits, to Sunday Letters. I hope you’ll enjoy these essays and the perspectives they represent. They are, in large part, my personal philosophy on how to live and work successfully with others while holding true to values that align with our sense of humanity.Prelude | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4We occupy a period in the development of humanity where little holds more importance to us than how we are perceived. It is the image we present through our words, physical appearance, and behaviour that tells the world who we are and what we stand for. It moulds and shapes our self-concept and worldview. In that sense, the world in all its beauty and depravity is a mirror of what we perceive and project ourselves to be. The centrality of the image is paramount and holds centre stage in all areas of life, including work, sport, religion, business, etc. Who and what you portray, in large part, dictates your success in the field.Consider our western consumer culture, for example. Everywhere we look, advertisements are vying for our attention and our hard-earned cash. Corporations spend hundreds of billions each year creating images that capture our interest, and in doing so, they have successfully identified and commoditised our deepest fears and desires. They present us with the perfect image of fulfilment and happiness and offer answers to our most burning questions. In Pavlovian terms, they ring the bell, and we salivate. Our concept of work and who we should be in the workplace is also heavily influenced by the images they sell us. They insist that if we are to succeed in the dog-eat-dog competitive marketplace, then we must embrace the culture of hustle and adopt a persona that is not our own.Never waste an opportunity to put yourself out there, they say, because the competition will get ahead. Therefore, you must be bright, shiny, loud, and above all, noticed. And so, we fill every moment of our day in active pursuit of the ideal. We wear a red tie with our power suit, tweet about entrepreneurial things, set goals, become productive, make money, accumulate toys and sorts of measures of success. If you want something, as the explicit message goes, you must go out there and get it. However, these ideals, these images, are liabilities sold as assets, and we spend lifetimes in the mode of accumulation of what, in reality, are fake plastic representations of life and of the self.In leadership, too, this imperative towards the centrality of the image is dominant. Many scholars insist that our addiction to the pursuit of the image is indicative of a broader social ill with detrimental consequences for human relations. Just as Narcissus was drawn to his own image in the lake, human beings are increasingly oriented towards the image of success. In her work on the paradoxes of leadership, Slavica Kodish cites Psychoanalyst and anthropologist Michael McCoby, who says, for example, that the story of the contemporary business world is a story of narcissistic leaders on the hunt for power and glory. For philosopher Michael Buber, it was a case of seeming rather than being, where seeming tends towards the false image and prevents genuine relationships.“All Sizzle And No Steak”In many human relations, we find a gulf between what we say and what we do. We like to think we are altruistic and caring for the needs of others, for example. We paint that picture of ourselves because we like to think of ourselves in the best possible light and deny our darker side. But I wonder if the motivations are placed elsewhere. I wonder if we are really just out for our own thinly veiled self-interest. In our everyday conversations, we are often prone to exaggeration and a certain casual representation of the facts making ourselves look better than we ordinarily would. In business, this is also true, and perhaps to an even greater extent. Is that not what marketing is?–to present ourselves and the products or services we sell in the “best” possible light? Where is the line between authenticity and fantasy? As one of the dominant premises in sales departments throughout the capitalist world goes, “sell the sizzle, not the steak.”And so it is often more about impression management than truth, honesty, integrity and authenticity. A few weeks ago, I wrote about Collins’ Level 5 Model of leadership, where five years of research into the top-performing corporations in the Fortune 500 only returned 11 that transitioned from “good to great”. The researchers found that most corporations examined had sporadic periods of superior performance, whereas the 11 identified sustained their success over the long term. According to author of the study Jim Collins, this success was largely influenced by an authentic leadership style in those companies. It seems that grand visions and purpose statements positively influence innovation, achievement, and healthy organisational culture only if the accompanying action and behaviour are congruent.The centrality of the entrepreneurial image, that of the larger than life, red tie-wearing, rock star CEO, has dominated popular culture and business management literature. Entrepreneurial rhetoric is full of sparkle and glamour and is hard to ignore. It encourages young executives and MBA graduates to pursue the ideal, and the ideal becomes ever more desirable. The complexity of personal attributes and the dynamic interaction between the self and its environment are reduced to an overly simplistic either-or scenario. Data, coupled with short term self-oriented thinking, becomes the overwhelming metric upon which CEOs make decisions. The premise is, “will this strategic move make money, and how good will I look in the process?” However, there is a trade-off that is often discounted or not considered at all in this pursuit.The Authentic LeaderThe rock star entrepreneurial image is very attractive, but are the board room, joe public, and aspiring entrepreneurs investing too much in the centrality of this image to be healthy? Consider 2017 research by Quigley et al. that examined shareholder perception of CEO significance. Their research found that investors believe CEOs have a substantial degree of influence on the share price. You might suggest, this is to be expected, what’s the problem? Well, perhaps it shouldn’t. If a larger than life CEO garners unsubstantiated trust from shareholders based on his or her personality, this can create a significant weak point. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather a modest but effective CEO driving moderate share growth over a long period than a superstar personality risking it all for a big win. Quigley and his research team seem to agree. They suggest that because CEOs are increasingly incentivised to go big or go home but are not fully penalised when they miss the target, executives are more likely to take unmitigated risks.Over the past twenty years, research has been building in support of an alternative; authentic leadership. Researchers suggest that in a business environment that promotes style over substance, the need for individuals to honour their true selves has never been greater. The results of inauthentic results-driven leadership, the authors say, have brought a slew of ethical meltdowns and corporate misconduct to our attention. Not only does it mean the quick end to centuries-old organisations, but also a dramatic financial loss to ordinary joe soap investors and damage to the environment.Here’s what former Chief Justice of Delaware Supreme Court, and Senior Fellow of Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School, Leo E. Strine Jr., had to say on the matter in 2012. [You should absolutely read this article].Not only do corporations have incentives to disregard risks for the sake of profits, but there is a natural tendency to pay attention to short-term profits over long-term risks. In fact, most of us place a higher value on immediate satisfaction than on the long-term risks created by such satisfaction. If we can get all the benefits of the immediate satisfaction for ourselves, and know that the longer-term costs will be shared with a lot of others, we go for today over tomorrow even more. And, when an industry is among the leaders in having lobbyists precisely for the purpose of minimizing governmental regulation of its activity, trusting that industry to balance environmental concerns and worker safety responsibly against the prospect of immediate profit would seem even more naïve.A Definition of Authentic LeadershipIn spite of the narcissistic self-image-oriented leaders that dominate business and many other areas of life, some stand out for the right reasons. Perhaps it’s better to say they stand out by not standing out. According to 2003 research by Fred Luthens and Bruce Avolio, organisations and society in general, turn to leaders for guidance and direction in volatile and uncertain times. Under rapidly changing conditions, the authors suggest, leaders must be transparent, genuine, reliable, trustworthy, and display congruence between their espoused values, actions, and behaviours.The authors define Authentic Leadership a follows;Specifically, we define authentic leadership in organisations as a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviours on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development. The authentic leader is confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives priority to developing associates to be leaders. The authentic leader is true to him/herself and the exhibited behaviour positively transforms or develops associates into leaders themselves. The authentic leader does not try to coerce or even rationally persuade associates, but rather the leader’s authentic values, beliefs, and behaviours serve to model the development of associates.How To Develop Authentic LeadershipResearch shows that the key aspects in developing authentic leadership come from the individual’s personal history and key events in their past. Family life, role models, early life challenges, education, and work experience all contribute to the leader's forming. Both Gardner and Collins point towards the impact of dramatic life events in facilitating personal growth and development. Gardner suggests that these components serve as catalysts for heightened self-awareness and the ability to self-reflect.In certain respects, it seems that the conditions required for authentic leadership cannot be manufactured at will. Instead, they seem to be the consequence of living a certain life. Authentic leadership doesn’t come in a packet on the supermarket shelf ready-made for use. The self-awareness required for authentic leadership comes from a willingness to address one’s shortcomings, reflect critically on our decisions, and test our own hypothesis of life and analyse our self-schema. The leadership skills required for successful operation in a dramatically changing environment come from learning who we are fundamentally and connecting to our intrinsic core self.The centrality of the entrepreneurial image is born from the idea that we must prove ourselves to the world. It says, “look at me, I am important, I exist, I am real, take notice of me.” As it is when we stare in the mirror, the image must be reflected back to us; otherwise, we cease to exist. And so, everything the ego-based self does in the world is an effort to reinforce its legitimacy, vitality, and value further. What it really reflects is a fundamental character structure weakness. For this to change, that thin image must be destroyed, leaving the space for the true self to emerge. This is what both Collins and Gardner suggest when referring to the impact of dramatic life events.I am hopeful that things are changing for the better rather than changing to more of the same. That we can move towards a system of living and working that comes from a more authentic self rather than the inauthentic self that currently dominates. Given the destructive nature of the capitalist system and our ever-heightening need for short-term gratification, failing to do so will surely mean the end of this version of the human race. Authentic leadership is imperative not only for business success but for the survival of all life on the planet. I don’t think that is an exaggeration.Thanks for taking the time to read this week’s Sunday Letters. If you enjoyed this article and the associated audio, consider becoming a supporter. Here’s a discount, just because… This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Support Sunday Letters Welcome to the penultimate essay in the Sunday Letters Leadership Series. Over the course of the series, I have brought you thoughts on the paradox of success, Machiavellianism, inauthentic leadership, and this week I'm taking a look at the centrality of the entrepreneurial image. These essays previously lived on The Lead, a publication I started on a whim a few months ago that is now moving here, with some edits, to Sunday Letters. I hope you'll enjoy these essays and the perspectives they represent. They are, in large part, my personal philosophy on how to live and work successfully with others while holding true to values that align with our sense of humanity. Prelude | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

Support Sunday Letters This week on Sunday Letters, I'm bringing you the fourth in a series of essays on the art of ethical leadership. Over the course of the series, we'll cover the paradox of success, Machiavellianism, inauthentic leadership, and new Capitalism, amongst other topics, in an effort to show an all too prominent flaw in the human character. These essays previously lived on The Lead, a publication that I started on a whim a few months ago that is now moving here to Sunday Letters. I hope you'll enjoy these essays and the perspectives they represent. They are, in large part, my personal philosophy on how to live and work successfully with others. I hope you enjoy them. Read the full essay --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

This week on Sunday Letters, I’m bringing you the fourth in a series of essays on the art of ethical leadership. Over the course of the series, we’ll cover the paradox of success, Machiavellianism, inauthentic leadership, and new Capitalism, amongst other topics, in an effort to show an all too prominent flaw in the human character. These essays previously lived on The Lead, a publication that I started on a whim a few months ago that is now moving here to Sunday Letters. I hope you’ll enjoy these essays and the perspectives they represent. They are, in large part, my personal philosophy on how to live and work successfully with others. I hope you enjoy them.Prelude | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3I was chatting to my Dad recently about work, particularly about his forty years of management in the construction industry. He was in his prime in the 70s and 80s, a period of distinct depression and widespread poverty in Ireland. The country had only recently joined the EU (the EEC as it was known), infrastructure was non-existent, and unemployment was in the high-teens. Prospects weren’t good for skilled workers, so many families emigrated to the US, Canada, or Australia. My parents realised this, and when an opportunity to manage a project in Doha, Qatar, came my Dad’s way in 1978, they packed up the family, and we headed east. A year later, we returned to Ireland with economic conditions much the same. The construction game was still as cut-throat, and workers were as disposable as ever. However, even in the midst of this, my Dad held to particular values that were unique for his time.He had a good way with blokes, the workers, the men who put everything together. He spoke their language and related to their circumstances. He understood the on-the-ground experience that every manual worker endures, and he fought, albeit subtly, for their interests. I say endures because the construction game is an assault on the person. This is true even taking into account today’s improved working conditions. The work is adversarial, and even though surface optics attempt to convince us otherwise, every worker and manager knows that it’s all a stage performance. Building sites are dirty, noisy, dangerous places where before the advent of health and safety standards, men would literally risk their lives daily to earn a crust. Arguably, they still do. It was only with the arrival of multinational corporations to Ireland that standards improved. I have little time for corporates, but that’s one good thing that they brought.My father’s role was to manage projects and get them done on time and within budget. But rather than taking a hard-line autocratic approach which was all too common at the time, he was a diplomat. He inherently knew the game, working with blokes, connecting with them, and forming a bond. But not in a disingenuous way; after all, he was one of them. As such, he garnered widespread respect despite being responsible for letting lads go as projects came to a close. He had a sharp edge, too, often telling workers as he fired them, “now, I’m not sacking you; you’re sacking yourself.” Afterwards, they’d buy him pints and thank him for the opportunity. To him, lads were not merely resources to get a job done; they were human beings like him. But not everyone saw it that way.“Work is about a search for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition as well as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life rather than a Monday through Friday sort of dying”-Studds Terkel | Author & BroadcasterAs he reminisced with me about the “good old days”, he told me of the challenge of weekly in-house labour meetings. “The language was poisonous,” he said. “They had no relationship with the men and rarely knew them personally. Yet, they held firm opinions on whether these men should be kept on or sacked. It was often outright character assassination. These were guys I worked with and who performed for me year-in, year-out, and management wanted to get rid of them. They simply didn’t understand how things worked on the ground.” When labour strikes hit in the 70s, he found himself on the picket lines with the men and in conflict with senior management. My mother scolded him for not putting his career first. His employers didn’t understand that they needed to be on the workers’ side so that the workers would be on their side when it mattered. My mother didn’t understand that there was more to my father than the pursuit of career advancement.The construction industry is dog-eat-dog and is matched for its intensity in many other workplaces. The nature of the relationship between managers and staff on the ground is hierarchical and antagonistic. It may be cooperative, but only under threat of reprimand, loss of wages, or, indeed, one’s job. Workers are often not allowed to think critically, and as much as we’d like to think leadership in organisations has changed for the better, I’d argue it has not. Even where the outward behaviour and attitudes have become more palatable and politically correct, the underlying premises remain unchanged. Do what you’re told, and don’t question the status quo. Adopt the persona, fulfil the role, and follow the protocols to the letter; that’s how you get ahead.The predominant leadership and management system is not actively challenged but is rather one of momentum. Yes, I know HBR, McKinsey, and a host of business & management publications have extolled the virtues of Transformational Leadership perhaps for decades. Still, the fact is that F.W. Taylor’s Scientific Management remains dominant in the psyche of workplace management and leadership. It’s us versus them. Corporations want productivity – that’s the bottom line - and they are prepared to do what is necessary to get it. Of course, they’ll play the marketing game, but they’ll also forgo their sense of humanity for the sake of profit regardless of any social imperative. After all, if they fail to do so, they cease to be viable entities.A Note on Frederick TaylorFrederick F. Taylor worked in the Philadelphia steel industry in the late 19th century and established principles of labour efficiency that laid the ground for modern management. He conducted experiments for the optimal setting for lathes and boring machines and developed productivity tables that labourers followed. He suggested that efficiency was a matter of science and that worker behaviour could be adapted and improved through them. It could be argued that Taylor saw workers as machines, and through cajolery, threats, fines and firings, Taylor succeeded in doubling the work done by his workers. For a time, the men were cowed, and his bosses were happy. But Taylor was miserable. On consideration of his time and effort implementing Scientific Management in the steelworks, Taylor reflected;"I was a young man in years," he said later, "but I give you my word I was a great deal older than I am now with worry, meanness, and contemptibleness of the whole damn thing. It is a horrid life for any man to live, not to be able to look any workman in the face all day long without seeing hostility there." Monkey-See, Monkey-Do Generations of “doing” serve to train would-be managers how to perform for the company despite its social policy and commitment to the health ’ health, and wellbeing of its workers. This is so despite an individual’s inherent feelings and care for other people. You can employ all the leadership and management training you want. Still, if core fundamentals driving the company, and indeed the individual, don’t shift from hierarchical to that of diversified complementary leadership, culture doesn’t change. Culture changes people. It also enhances the sense of right and wrong in the individual and lets them know where the line is. Too often, however, this line is blurred or even ignored in day to day operations, and people are sacrificed for the sake of profit. People can change, I mean really change, for the better. But there is something in all of us that is elemental, primary, constitutional. If that character structure cannot live and work by humanitarian-based ethics, nothing changes for the better concerning our treatment of our fellow human beings in workplace environments. Business and work remain a means to a material end, and other human beings are an acceptable cost. Change is happening; I’ll grant you that. But there are many leaders and managers in corporations, small and large the world over, that still operate from a do-it-or-else perspective. I know because I was one of those. The pressure to perform and uphold a particular self-concept can drive us to do things we wish we hadn’t. I’ll put my hand up to that. Had I known better, I may have made better decisions in my business and work. Nevertheless, experience teaches, and I learned important lessons. Words and theory don’t, unfortunately, don’t teach. So maybe we’ve got to be bad leaders before we become good ones.On a final note, I believe that the workplace is invariably at odds with our humanity. The workplace requires us to subjugate ourselves to the ideal image, which has a detrimental effect on both managers and workers. It asks us not to follow what we feel but to follow the rules. These rules don’t serve us; they serve others further up the hierarchical chain. This is so blatantly obvious I can’t accept that everyone doesn't see it. I mean, it’s so basic to how workplaces operate. So in that light, what is the leader’s role?I’m not sure.Maybe we can address our leadership shortcomings in the modern workplace, or maybe it’s a square peg in a round hole scenario. I’m not certain it’s something that can be resolved, given how society is currently structured. Nonetheless, capitalist-driven business models and the workplaces they create encourage us to ignore feelings that would otherwise inform us to appropriate behaviour. When we take on a job, we must forget ourselves, which leads to obscene responses to our own needs and that of others. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

No written article this week for you. I'm away with the family in the north of Ireland. So just wanted to share some thoughts on performance, specifically regarding Olympic athletes. I'm writing on this topic regularly on The Performatist, a site dedicated to analysis of human performance. Here's a link to the site;https://theperformatist.com This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Over the last few months of lockdown, I had been considering formats for some new content on work. Settling on an audio series, the loose plan was to meet up with people from diverse backgrounds and record our conversations around the question; how do you feel about daily work?So as restrictions eased last month, I nabbed Dr Jonathan Murphy, a former psychology lecturer of mine and now senior executive learning and development at Enterprise Ireland for a chat. Cumiskey's Pub, Dublin 7 was the venue and over several hours we discussed topics such as social media and free speech, Chomsky on academic freedom, the meaning and purpose of work, and in this short clip, the benefits of a psychology degree to all areas of life and work. (No pints – unfortunately!)The excerpt I’m sharing with you today is an extended piece, about 20 mins long, from what I have shared publically on other platforms. (Readers at Sunday Letters receive that little privilege). The full conversation was almost two hours and will go out after the summer in two separate episodes; one on free speech, and the other on daily work. The later (of which the above is an excerpt) goes into a related topic which I’ve written about here before - the role of corporations in society. Jonathan shares his views on Corporate and Social Responsibility and how many CEOs report that social impact means more to them than return to shareholders. Personally, I’m not buying that, and Jonathan agrees that this could be merely lip-service to an ideal rather than reflect a core value.We get talking about creativity and innovation, and how university faculty members are often loose cannons, or the brilliant arsehole, as he calls them - lateral thinkers who don’t always play by the rules. It’s a fight between those who want rigid structure versus those who thrive on change, and Jonathan says, this is no different from a social organisation or a corporation. Change is difficult.Ok, there’s lots to wrap your earballs around here. Give it a listen, I hope you enjoy the conversation.Until Sunday…Enjoying Sunday Letters, the content I’m recording and sharing with you? Consider supporting this work by becoming a paid subscriber. Here’s a 20% discount… This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

This week on Sunday Letters, I’m bringing you the second in a series of essays on the art of ethical leadership. Over the course of the series, we’ll cover the paradox of success, Machiavellianism, inauthentic leadership, and new Capitalism, amongst other topics in an effort to show an all too prominent flaw in the human character. These essays previously lived on The Lead, a publication that I started on a whim a few months ago that is now moving here to Sunday Letters. I hope you’ll enjoy these essays and the perspectives they represent. They are, in large part, my personal philosophy on how to live and work successfully with others.The world of business is filled with shortsighted visionaries obsessed with self-interest and a drive toward maximum gains in the shortest time possible. This is so of the large international corporation as it is for the small local business with twenty people. It seems we are programmed to hunt down the shortest possible route to achieving ends, often at the expense of others. The business world is dog-eat-dog and it demands these kinds of people, for, without them, profits sufficient to keep investors content would hardly be possible. The game is combative and there are winners and there are losers. Often, however, as we have seen in previous essays in the series, ordinary people become the victims while those who make unethical decisions walk away with a bonus cheque.A CEO is assigned by the board, and over the course of his or her reign, (it’s usually a male, however), they must turn the company profitable or maintain the profitable status quo. But the status quo is rarely enough so they push hard for more. The newly appointed chief needs to stand out, to show everyone concerned how good they are at their job. As such, they make decisions with a short time frame and often take risks that an otherwise less competitive environment would bring about. Buckminster Fuller wrote about this state of being in his 1981 autobiography Critical Path, highlighting the folly of “the selfish and fearfully contrived wealth games” that humanity plays under a misinformed survival-of-the-fittest ideology.These selfish and fearfully contrived wealth games are the fundamental basis of unethical decision-making in leadership, and in today’s essay, we explore the nature of this short-term thinking and the personality of leadership that lies behind it. We will examine the apparent paradox of traits that exist in the most successful leaders as determined by Jim Collins’ Level-5 Leadership Model and offer a rare example of exemplary leadership from the world of business. We’ll show that business and social leaders must make decisions outside the tight time frame of their own tenure if society as a whole is to avoid disastrous outcomes. It is, perhaps, humanitarian ethics we need to employ rather than the ethics of personal gain.The Leadership PersonalityJim Collins, author of Good To Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't, suggests that the most exceptional performing companies over the long term are led by people with a certain paradoxical mix of personality traits. Rather than seeking the limelight, leaders of Collins’ “good to great” companies possess extreme personal humility alongside an intense professional will to succeed.In contrast, most of us associate successful leaders with outgoing personality traits and a larger than life ego. In social circles, it’s always the gregarious, larger than life characters that take over the room, that command our attention and entertain. The world of business is dominated by such leaders driven by the prospect of power and personal glory. We assume that these narcissistic personality types can lead us to victory, or if your the shareholder, take you to profitability. But this idea is flawed, and Collins seems to agree.In his study of the market performance of 1435 companies over a 15 year period, Collins and his team set out to discover if a good company could become a great company and, if so, how? Their initial sample found only 11 companies that outperformed the market and their contemporaries over an extended period of time. And perhaps the most interesting of findings was that of leadership personality that made it possible.The Mild-Mannared CEOCollins tells the story of the modest Darwin E. Smith, chief executive of middle-of-the-road paper company Kimberly-Clark. In 1971 their stock market value had fallen 36% behind their competitors, and as the board’s recently appointed CEO, Smith had the responsibility for finding a new direction and returning the company to profitability. He was an in-house lawyer lacking all the traditional bluster and egotism that is typical of many CEOs. Also, he had never even run a major division before and apparently was filled with self-doubt. Some of his fellow directors had concerns too, and during subsequent major restructuring at the company, Wall Street and the media weren’t so kind either. Nevertheless, as Smith is said to put it himself, "I never stopped trying to become qualified for the job."Despite his introverted and humble style, Darwin Smith displayed strong resolve and determination to make big decisions, such as entering the consumer paper market. As a result of that move, Kimberly-Clark became the number one paper-based consumer products company globally, beating Procter & Gamble and other major rivals. The company went on to generate cumulative stock returns four times greater than those of the general market, outperforming companies such as Hewlett-Packard, 3M, Coca-Cola, and General Electric.Jim Collins cites Darwin Smith’s turnaround of Kimberly-Clark as one the best but least known examples of a leader taking a company from ordinary to exceptional. However, contrary to popular belief on successful leadership, Smith’s success came from leading from the back. He didn’t court fame and notoriety or seek credit or reward. He instead focused on the work and doing the best job he could. But the media don’t celebrate this; they need fireworks. We take notice of fireworks, you see, and the media know it. Therefore those who make a song and dance, whether it’s for good or bad reasons, always make the news. Collins says that this kind of extroverted yet passionately narcissistic leadership style doesn’t bring long-term results.The Narcissist-Empath DichotomyThe Level-5 Leadership personality type stands in stark contrast to that of the narcissistic leader. We’ll examine in-depth the Level-5 Leadership Personality later, but first, let’s explore the narcissistic leader, arguably the more dominant personality in the business world.The NarcissistThe narcissistic personality type, according to Maccoby, reflects society’s collective image of what it believes it takes to be a successful leader. In that view, perhaps our ideals are distorted. Narcissists love fireworks–they are the fireworks. The problems arise for companies (and the rest of us) when we become fooled by it all. The cult of celebrity CEO is real, and it is this fame and fortune to which narcissists are attracted. They are brazen and bold; they take over the room and force milder congregation members to either support them or shut up. They love the fight, and they can’t stand losing. Narcissistic leaders are all about the show. They are charismatic, manipulative, and controlling, possess unyielding determination, ruthlessness, and entrepreneurism. Therefore, we are often fooled by the brightness of their personality. However, narcissistic leaders success is generally short-lived.Narcissistic leaders are often self-absorbed to such an extent that their business decisions are weighted by what’s good for them and their image rather than what’s good for the business and those associated with it. Also, they are less concerned with what happens to the company after they are gone than they are while they are in charge. Jim Collins says that narcissistic leaders typically have an “I don’t care what happens after me” attitude. Therefore, the narcissistic personality type has significant flaws.In a 2004 research paper examining narcissism and risk, researchers reported that narcissistic leaders possess two major aspects of character;A positive, inflated, and agentic self-concept.A self-regulatory strategy designed to maintain and enhance this self-concept.These self-absorbed leaders strive for fame and notoriety and express little concern or empathy for others. In fact, others serve as a means by which to obtain the status and reward they crave. They do not tolerate dissent or negative feedback, for this serves as an attack on their self-image. Therefore, compliance on the part of subordinates is more important to the narcissistic leader than knowledge or skill.The Empathic Level-5 LeaderCollins’ Level-5 Leader is the antithesis of the narcissistic leader and is epitomised by Darwin Smith at Kimberly-Clark in the 1970s. It is a classic example of a person in leadership who manages to blend extreme personal humility with an intense will to succeed. According to Collins’ five-year research study, business leaders who possess this paradoxical combination of personality traits are catalysts for what he calls a “statistically rare event” of transforming a company from good to great. Rather than going after a larger market share for the sake of profitability, using overstated rhetoric, and making promises they can't keep, the Level-5 Leader personifies the steady, reliable, and trustworthy aspects of a business. It’s not about the firework display; it’s about the quality of the product or service and the company's success.“Level-5" Hierarchy of capabilities.Level 1 of the hierarchy relates to an individual’s technical capability, talent and knowledge contribution to the organisation.Level 2 relates to their team skills and ability to work with other members toward a collective goal.Level 3 of the hierarchy relates to an individual’s managerial competence and skills at organising people and resources.Level 4 relates to the individual’s traditional leadership skills, catalysing collective commitment and developing a clear and compelling vision.Level 5 leaders possess the skills of levels 1 to 4 but have the extra dimension, an almost paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.Level-5 leaders are largely introverted, shunning the limelight and never boastful. They are quiet and calm yet determined and hold themselves to impeccably high standards. Level-5 leaders possess a stoic resolve to do whatever it takes to make the company great and ensure that those who follow are set up for success. Collins insists that it’s not the case that Level 5 leaders have no self-interest. On the contrary, they are highly ambitious, but their ambition is channelled towards the institution's success, not towards themselves."Level 5 leaders look out the window to assign credit—even undue credit. They look in the mirror to assign blame, never citing external factors."- Jim CollinsCan Level-5 Leadership Be Learned?Collins believes that there are basically two types of people who enter leadership positions; those with the potential for Level-5 Leadership and those without. The latter could never in a million years subjugate their own needs for gratification to the needs of something broader reaching. Their entire self-concept is structured in such a way to make that impossible. The former possesses the capability perhaps lying dormant within them, and under the right circumstances, the seed can begin to sprout. Some of the Level 5 leaders, such as Darwin Smith, Collins says, had significant life experiences that may have been the catalyst for personal change. Smith survived cancer earlier in his life and this may have been significant for the development of attributes required for Level 5 Leadership. Other CEOs in Collins’ study had similar life-altering experiences.Collins says that Level 5 is an empirical, powerful and satisfying concept. And for an individual to make the transition from good to great, it is an essential concept. But to provide “ten steps to Level 5 leadership” would be too trivial. Success tends not to be that simple. Instead, Collins suggests, the perfect blend of attributes required for Level-5 Leadership is undefinable.Most of the world is obsessed with instant gratification. Nothing warrants the time and effort necessary to create something great. In fact, our idea of greatness seems to be an off-shoot of the pursuit of instant gratification–it’s self-reinforcing. We lay praise and adornment at the doorstep of those who shine brightest in the misled belief that theirs is the way, only to be found wanting. As with the self-obsessed narcissistic leader, it seems our entire way of life reflects a personal pursuit of gratification that never lasts. As Abraham Maslow said, “Man is a perpetually wanting animal.”As we have seen from Collins’ Level-5 Leadership Model, successful leadership requires a worldview and a sense of reality that extends beyond the physical boundary of the self. That perspective may only come to the fore when the tight narcissistic self-concepts are torn down. As such, I believe that trying to become a Level-5 Leader is really a display of the very narcissistic tendencies we’re trying to overcome. It’s ego-filled. Instead of thinking of the Level-5 Leadership concept as an ideal toward which we must strive, maybe it’s better to trust it to develop organically.That’s really what Collins found. He examined it after the fact, so to try to coax or coerce it into being is the cart before the horse. Whatever it’s worth, my advice is to cease trying to reach ideals and focus on being as human as possible. But as Collins said, some are just not cut out for it.References This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Support Sunday Letters This week on Sunday Letters, I'm bringing you the second in a series of essays on the art of ethical leadership. Over the course of the series, we'll cover the paradox of success, Machiavellianism, inauthentic leadership, and new Capitalism, amongst other topics in an effort to show an all too prominent flaw in the human character. These essays previously lived on The Lead, a publication that I started on a whim a few months ago that is now moving here to Sunday Letters. I hope you'll enjoy these essays and the perspectives they represent. They are, in large part, my personal philosophy on how to live and work successfully with others. Read the full article --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

A ThoughtOccasionally we’ll dip away from the usual format on The Gnōmic and dig into something specific. This week, we return to the usual format. The thought that has been on my mind is how much we seem to be hell-bent on changing other people’s minds - or are we? We want to be right and we want other people to agree with us. It solidifies our place in the world and verifies our existence and sense of reality. But we also want others to view our ideas as wrong because it means we can have a fight, and fighting verifies our existence too. It is the life and death drive within the depths of the psyche, or Eros and Thanatos as Freud called them, in cooperative exchange with each other. We can pretend to be Stoic, for example, because it’s trendy, sociably acceptable, and aligns with our ideas of how we should be. But in reality, we deny that darker side of ourselves for the sake of an ideal image. The image is not of our own making. We’ve merely aligned with it so that we are “somebody,” that we feel we belong to some movement or other. To be Stoic, passive, unaffected by the chaos of life is desirable in certain quarters. So we bury deep our outrage, anger and aggression often unbeknownst to ourselves. Call it something else if you don’t like the analogy to Stoicism, say passive-aggressive, for example.Passive aggression is the worst. If we disagree we disagree, don’t pretend to agree with me or water down your feelings about it because there’s some social ideal you’re trying to hold on to. Come right out with it. Let’s cut the pretence. When we do, there’s a better chance we can find a solution now and avoid more damaging conflict later. And if we don’t resolve it, let’s move on and go our separate ways if necessary.A Quote“The commandment, 'Love thy neighbour as thyself', is the strongest defence against human aggressiveness and an excellent example of the unpsychological [expectations] of the cultural super-ego. The commandment is impossible to fulfil; such an enormous inflation of love can only lower its value, not get rid of the difficulty. Civilization pays no attention to all this; it merely admonishes us that the harder it is to obey the precept the more meritorious it is to do so. But anyone who follows such a precept in present-day civilization only puts himself at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the person who disregards it. What a potent obstacle to civilization aggressiveness must be, if the defence against it can cause as much unhappiness as aggressiveness itself! 'Natural' ethics, as it is called, has nothing to offer here except the narcissistic satisfaction of being able to think oneself better than others. At this point the ethics based on religion introduces its promises of a better after-life. But so long as virtue is not rewarded here on earth, ethics will, I fancy, preach in vain. I too think it quite certain that a real change in the relations of human beings to possessions would be of more help in this direction than any ethical commands; but the recognition of this fact among socialists has been obscured and made useless for practical purposes by a fresh idealistic misconception of human nature.”― Sigmund FreudA BookConsidering the above quote, I’m recommending Freud’s Civilisation & Its Discontents. It may offer nothing more than you already know or suspect but it may be interesting to consider that these views are over one hundred years old and still relevant. That is to say, nothing has changed other than the clothes on our backs and the technology at our disposal. Or is it that we are disposed to technology?…I can’t decide.An AlbumChanging the subject completely, Celeste, Compilation 1.1The ArchiveToo Much of A Good ThingSee you on Sunday.P.S. Remember to check out the Sunday Letters Community on Discord.Sunday Letters has been free to read since 2015, so if you enjoyed this mid-week issue, please consider supporting my work. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

This week in Sunday Letters begins a series on leadership. Over the next six weeks, I’ll bring you essays on the paradox of success, Machiavellianism, inauthentic leadership, and new Capitalism, amongst other topics. These essays previously lived on a minuscule publication (The Lead) that I started on a whim a few months ago that is now moving here to Sunday Letters. I hope you’ll enjoy these essays and the perspectives they represent. After all, they represent in large part my personal philosophy on how to work successfully with others.The Essence of LeadershipThe essence of leadership is not so simple to capture, and perspectives are broad and varied. For example, there are the perspectives of gender, personality, social context, culture, and ethics, to mention a few. It may be, in fact, impossible to define concretely what leadership is; nevertheless, to explore the concept and endeavour to understand it is to understand oneself and, therefore, make better leadership decisions. Understanding oneself is perhaps the most crucial component in living a fulfilling life, let alone in leading others. And so, this self-pursuit will form the core of many essays here on The Lead. Development is a lifelong project that is, perhaps, never complete. Therefore knowing oneself, lies at the seat of effective leadership.I have never considered myself a leader, per se. In fact, I back away from self-assigning the label. It’s too showy, and to assign it to oneself represents a fundamental weakness in character, in my opinion. Many leaders place themselves in the spotlight, and with red ties, power suits, and rhetoric, they make their mark often at the expense of others. Instead, true leadership is something conferred on us by others. The greatest misconception any person graced with the honour of leadership can hold is that they are or should be front and centre. This misconception is perhaps the antithesis of true leadership, and as we will see in future essays in the Leadership Series, it brings about detrimental consequences. I’ve seen so many examples of bad leadership over the years and demonstrated it enough times to offer some perspective that I think is worth sharing.When it comes to work, I prefer to put the blinkers on, head down and get stuck in. This doesn’t mean I ignore the peripherals; that would be foolish. Things on the fringes often become or disrupt central components, so it pays to keep them on the radar. What I mean is, I’ve always sought to do my work to a high standard. Not for notoriety or praise, but because the work itself was worth the effort. Regardless of how it came about, I always seemed to end up in certain roles that demanded responsibility. That experience has taught me many things about good and bad leadership and, indeed, about myself over the years.I had no formal leadership training; instead, I relied upon my instincts. My leadership skills usually meant adopting a “get it done or else” approach in the traditional masculine character. And that worked for a long time, but eventually, I had to come to terms with the fact that it was a less than optimal method. It’s adversarial and invariably splits the camp, and under crisis conditions, it can be like petrol on a fire.Seth M. Spain suggests in Leadership, Work, & The Dark Side of Personality that we must understand human nature to understand leadership. Because, he says, leadership is one half of a relationship between at least two human beings. And the first step in this is to understand oneself. According to Spain, leadership may not solely be determined by individual character; however, it strongly reflects it. Reflecting on my time in business and accompanying leadership roles, I can now see this view's accuracy.A Definition of LeadershipSo, what is leadership? Is it forced upon an unsuspecting group by a dogmatic controlling person, or is it demanded of unwitting individuals by their group or community? Should followers follow, or should they insist that their chosen leader represent their interests? There is so much to this question and impossible to cover in one article; however, I’ll start by offering some interesting definitions.Former US President Dwight Eisenhower famously defined leadership as;“the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.”This view is centred on the idea that coercion of others is necessary. It implies the Machiavellian view that means justify ends, and maybe that’s required under certain conditions such as war. But business is not war, or at least it doesn’t need to be, and other approaches can achieve better results for all concerned.Eisenhower also is reported to have said, “you don’t lead by beating people over the head; that’s assault, not leadership.” So perhaps it is harsh to assume he was Machiavellian in his approach.That said, most organisations, regardless of the domain in which they operate, rely primarily on a top-down hierarchical model of leadership. Gary Yukl at the University of Albany, New York, offers us a more holistic and inclusive view of leadership;“Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives.”Yukl suggests that the term leadership is taken from our everyday vocabulary and often used interchangeably with other terms such as power, authority, management, administration, control, and supervision. As such, our understanding of leadership behaviour can be tinted by ambiguity and misunderstanding. He cites Bennis from 1959, who wrote;“Always, it seems, the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to taunt us again with its slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented an endless proliferation of terms to deal with it . . . and still the concept is not sufficiently defined.”A leadership definition will usually follow a researcher’s theoretical angle or reflect the practitioner’s perspective, their on-the-ground experience. That means definitions are broad and diverse. And perhaps this is how it should be for leadership means different things to different people under the infinite expanse of human experience. Whether or not it is a viable theoretical construct is an entirely separate debate.What’s true, perhaps, and what should be parallel with any discussion on leadership is the concept of followership.The Leadership-Followership DichotomyAs I mentioned above, leadership seems to be the apparent product of human relationships. I can only be a leader if some are willing to follow. But who creates who? I think this is an important consideration. Do people wait around for someone to present themselves as the leader, or do they demand it of someone? In a corporate setting, it seems clear. You know when you accept a job that you’ll have a boss to whom you’ll report. Everybody reports to somebody in a corporate setting. But what about in the broader social context? In the early 20th Century rise of Fascism in Europe, did Hitler and Mussolini impose their will on the people, or did the people push these autocratic personalities to the front?We know only too well the catastrophic impact their leadership styles had on society at the time, but antisemitism had been brewing for perhaps the previous eighty years or more. Hatred fuelled by the press and made acceptable by political rhetoric met social unrest and created a firestorm. Still, I would be of the view that these leaders were created and sustained not only by local demand but by the expression of a global structure. Who funded their movement? Who supplied them with raw materials, education and knowledge? Who provided them with the resources necessary for their execution of barbaric ideals? They were supported and fuelled not only by local popular opinion but by international vested interests.I’m steering slightly off the main thrust of this article. Still, the above illustrates that leaders and followers are mutually causative, and there are often more aspects to their rise than what may seem apparent. Trump is a contemporary case-in-point. Vast waves of people in the United States felt the powers in Washington did not represent their views, and when they were presented with what they deemed a viable alternative, they backed him. Couple this with the need of the Republican Party to hold power, and we had the perfect recipe for placing a buffoon in arguably the most powerful seat of power in the western industrialised world.Thankfully the American people resolved the situation, but for how long? 80 million people voted for Trump, whose policies, it should be said, were constructed to garner votes and not because they were an integrated part of a social agenda. I don’t think the scope of his intelligence reaches that far beyond the boundary of his own skull. People, even his own family and institutions of the United States, served to fulfil Trump’s narcissistic motivations. To Donald Trump, everything, not him, is a potential means for personal gratification. He is the quintessential narcissistic, autocratic leader. Of course, that’s merely my personal opinion, but it’s backed up by thinkers who know much more than I do on these matters. What’s interesting and perhaps scary about Trump is that the leadership-followership dichotomy can put dangerous people in powerful positions.In ConclusionWithout followers, there would be no leaders. Although autocratic leadership styles have dominated the ranks of business and beyond for quite some time, there is clear evidence that this dogmatic trend is shifting. The representative view of leadership taken from the political sphere, for example, suggests that the leader represents their followers. They consider their constituents' diversity of views and attempt to synthesise them towards a coherent vision for the organisation or society. In this way, both leader and follower are cooperative agents in the dynamic of change. Of course, this idea is somewhat idealistic insofar as politicians are seldom this straight. Often they become the lapdogs of corporate interests, but the principle has merit.According to Seth M. Spain, the representative view is not necessarily at odds with traditional hierarchical models of leadership, given that business leaders must often consult with other members of the corporation. In this sense, successful leadership is an “Art,” as Eisenhower had suggested, and requires a sensitive balancing act between the leader's desire and that of their followers. Leadership is not linear and is certainly not a one-way street. Leadership is a product of the 360-degree relationship, of a personal and a social phenomenon. Therefore, to be an effective leader, we must understand ourselves, those with whom we interact, and the environment in which they find themselves.The years have taught me that hierarchical leadership concepts are not advantageous to everyone equally. Instead, they create an exponential loss for those further down the pyramid and so are fundamentally flawed. True leadership, I have found, whether you are in business or otherwise, is about taking responsibility for cultivating a social environment that benefits everyone equally. It’s why I believe the traditional pursuits of capitalism and its contemporary neo-capitalism are not good for the human race. They are the product of short-term materialistic ideals. They identify, intensify and commoditise human craving for instant gratification and make no apologies for it. The petrol on fire analogy might be suitable again here.Effective and sustainable leadership, in my opinion, requires a sense of humanity and a social imperative towards the welfare of a larger number of people. In contrast, the neo-capitalist model serves only a thin wedge of interests and ends constituted by material wealth and power justify any means necessary for that achievement. Neo-liberal capitalism, therefore, can never meet the needs of a socially conscious leader. I also believe that the majority are too easily cajoled and manipulated. Therefore, we must practice self-leadership. Often we are coconspirators in the deceit, discarding critical thinking in favour of cognitively fluent message. I’d love to believe the majority can change, that leaders can act with integrity for the benefit of more than themselves or a tight minority. But perhaps that’s too much to ask.Read Prelude: What Unethical Leadership Looks Like This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

This article was originally published in The Lead on 21st March 2021. All content from The Lead can now be found in the new section of the same name here on Sunday Letters.It never ceases to amaze me as I go about my day the extent to which businesses large and small go in their attempt to get one over on us. It seems to be a game of cutting as close to the bone of ethical practice as possible without getting caught. The competitive marketplace script appears to read; “let’s see how big we can grow this company, take advantage of those with less information than us, and make as much money we can while giving as little value as possible to the customer. And hey, if we get caught, we’ll just apologise and pony up. In the meantime, let’s make enough money so we can cover the legal costs, ok. If people are being hurt by what we do, it’s their own fault. After all, it’s just business.” The alternative seems to be a rare exception.From cleverly packaged meat products that hide small portions under the label to high-margin lower quality goods placed at eye level to discounted aged fruit and veg that goes rotten within a couple of days. Every time we go shopping, it takes effort not to be conned. And it’s not only foodstuffs; appliances and personal technology have built-in obsolescence. Social and other technology apps mine us for our information without our knowledge or consent. Tradespeople take outrageous shortcuts. Although meeting the criteria required by legislation, financial products are created so that the providers don’t lose. FFS, you can even buy books that show you how to build products that manipulate and take advantage of people’s propensity toward addiction.Everywhere you look in our wondrous capitalist model of society, people and organisations take unfair and unethical advantage. Corporations exist to make a profit, and that’s fine, but to what extent will you go in your business to achieve that profit? For many corporations, large or small, a sense of humanity and ethical behaviour take second place in the decision making process. Like it or not, and call me a cynic if you will, this is the state of play a “survival of the fittest” ideology encourages. At its worst, as we will see in our example, people become fodder for cannons. Sure, people care for people, but people under the command of an entity whose primary aim is profit are prone to making decisions that favour that entity. Some are even perverse and downright nefarious. Concern for their fellow human being is not a factor.“From cleverly packaged meat products that hide small portions under the label, to high-margin lower quality goods placed at eye level, to discounted aged fruit and veg that goes rotten within a couple of days. Every time we go shopping it takes effort not to be conned. And it’s not only foodstuffs…”The Ford Pinto ScandalAt the retail level, the literature is littered with examples from trivial right through to inhumane, where decision-makers have disregarded their sense of humanity and social obligation for the sake of duty to the corporation and bottom line. The story of the Ford Pinto is a case in point.In 1968, executives at the Ford motor company put the low-cost Pinto into production. To have their new vehicle ready for the 1971 market, Ford decided to reduce their design-to-production time of three years down to two. This straight away perhaps compromised established protocols for safety. However, commercial pressure for a low-cost vehicle was significant. Before production, Ford crash-tested various Pinto prototypes to assess fire risk from road traffic collisions and meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards. The prototypes and the Pinto final design all failed the standard 20-mph test resulting in ruptured gas tanks and fuel leaks. The only Pintos to pass the test had been modified somehow, for example, with rubber bladders in the gas tank or additional reinforcement.Ford executives knew that the Pinto design was flawed and represented a serious risk to human life in rear-end collisions, even at low-speed. However, they felt additional pressure from cheap Japanese imports and therefore faced a critical decision. Should they go to production with the existing design and risk consumer safety? Should they delay production, redesign the gas tank and concede defeat to foreign competition? Remarkably, Ford not only committed to the flawed design, but they stuck to it for the next six years. The decisions to proceed with the Pinto production without safety improvements led to more than 500 cases of fire-related deaths, fifty lawsuits, and many millions in compensation to families, not to mention the trauma inflicted on the victims' families.Why would anyone do this?Why, when you know your actions will likely lead to human suffering and even loss of life, would you proceed along the same lines? I believe that situations such as these account for human beings' propensity to subjugate themselves to the power system they occupy. In that setting, their sense of self is entirely dependent on the system, so to forgo the system's rules amounts to forgoing their sense of self — the entrepreneurial self. Internal dialogue insists that if one breaks the rules, then their very existence is threatened. Regardless of the psychological process at work, it seems clear that to make decisions in a fake plastic setting such as the world of business, we must leave our humanity at the door.In the Ford Pinto case, evidence suggests that executives relied on cost-benefit reasoning to analyse the expected monetary costs and benefits. Apparently, Ford's estimated cost for making these safety improvements was only $5 to $8 per vehicle; however, the executives reasoned that this cost outweighed the benefits of a new tank design. It seems the cost to life was not part of their decision-making model.The Art of Self-deception and Disregard for Ethics in BusinessCognitive bias distorts decision making, and the “rational” approach in business circles, coupled with a host of complex psychological factors, fuel this distortion. For the Ford executives, the moral and ethical imperative didn’t even enter the equation. A phenomenon known as “ethical fading,” detailed by Ann Tenbrunsel and David Messick, has highlighted how self-deception is a central component in unethical decision making. In their 2004 paper, the authors wrote;“Self-deception allows one to behave self-interestedly while, at the same time, falsely believing that one’s moral principles were upheld. The end result of this internal con game is that the ethical aspects of the decision “fade” into the background, the moral implications obscured.”Tenbrunsel and Messick suggest that self-deception is an unawareness of the internal processes that lead us to form opinions and judgments of ourselves and events in which we are involved. This self-deception involves avoiding the truth, lying to, and keeping secrets from ourselves. The practice is widespread, normal, and accepted in the lives of everyone we know. We create the lives we live through the stories we tell ourselves, and these stories allow us to do what we want and then serve to justify our actions. Over time, there exists what psychologists call an “ethical numbing”, where repeated exposure to an ethical dilemma numbs our sensitivity to our own unethical behaviour. Unless we are willing to monitor and question our own thoughts, assumptions and behaviour, we are in danger of cultivating unethical practices in our organisations.What role did organisational culture at Ford play in these unethical decisions? Evidence suggests that the vice president at the time, Lee Iacocca, who was closely involved in the Pinto launch, did not encourage a safety culture. A mentality of “just get it done” filtered down from the top through the entire company. A 1977 magazine article quoting an engineer from Ford wrote that any employee who dared to slow progress would have been fired on the spot. The subject of safety wasn’t a popular conversation around Ford in those days, and with Iacocca, it was taboo. Apparently, whenever staff raised a concern that resulted in delay on the Pinto, Iacocca would chomp on his cigar, look out the window and say, “Read the product objectives and get back to work.”Is Unethical Behaviour Ok In Your Organisation?Breach of the ethical imperative is not isolated to the case of the Ford Pinto and Lee Iacocca. At that time, lobbying by the motor industry against safety legislation was at its height. At Ford, they saw safety as meddling in free enterprise, with the motor industry insisting that accidents were not problems caused by cars but by people and road conditions. Yes, with the sobriety of fifty years; hence, we may see how crazy that idea is now. But it wasn’t necessarily crazy then — not to the industry. Consider how we do business today; how might our decision-making assumptions be flawed or unethical? Are we considering others' welfare in the products and services we create, or is that none of our business?Consider the technology sector, for example — it’s the wild west as far as regulation goes. The creation of addictive digital applications that take advantage of sleepy people is widespread and accepted in the corporate world. For Christ’s sake, there are even books that show you how to do it. And what’s worse, their authors seem completely unapologetic in their promotion of these unethical practices. In fact, they even go so far as to suggest that it’s ok to deceive people — Oh, but only if it’s in their best interests. Of course, the authors assume that they know what your best interests are. And yes, that usually means their own best interests, not yours.“Over time there is what psychologists call a sort of “ethical numbing” where repeated exposure to an ethical dilemma numbs our sensitivity to our own unethical behaviour”I was thinking of recording a video series titled; “Make Your Own Meth At Home” and posting it to YouTube. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Sure, it’s hardly my problem if kids follow my video series and kill themselves. I’m just looking to make a few quid from YouTube ads. Not my problem if people are adversely affected, right? Too extreme an example? Well, it illustrates my point. You know, it takes a special kind of psychology to compartmentalise one’s thought processes to the extent where it’s ok to manipulate, deceive, and knowingly contribute towards the misery of another human being while advocating for self-preservation in the face of the ubiquitousness of technology.For me, it’s quite simple; if I know what I’m doing is hurting, or has the potential to hurt someone, then I stop. There are plenty of ways to make money and live a comfortable life without knowingly hurting other human beings in the process. But then again, if you’re mind has become consumed by self-deception in this regard, then the justification of unethical and nefarious behaviour is sure to follow. To think this way, to rationalise unethical behaviour, one has to disconnect from their humanity.“The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works. No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth. And it’s not an American problem — this is not about Russians ads. This is a global problem.” — Chamath PalihapitiyaHow To Cultivate Ethics In BusinessI can’t throw stones without taking ownership of my own flawed thinking and unethical behaviour in business. There have been times where my actions have been less than admirable. I’ve taken profit at the expense of quality, and I’ve turned a blind eye to less than satisfactory work carried out on my behalf. Pressure to perform, turn a profit, or even just break even tends to make human beings act unethically. That’s the inherent problem with the neoliberal capitalist system. However, that said, I can say with a large degree of certainty that no one has suffered directly at my hands. The nature of my work never has been or will be about taking advantage of those in a weaker position than me. This is the case now, particularly considering my area of study and research. It seems learning to manage oneself is the key.In a 2016 article for Harvard Business Review, Dacher Keltner, professor of psychology at the University of California, wrote that powerful people are more likely to engage in unethical behaviour than those with less power. Keltner’s 20 years of research in human behaviour has shown that while people usually advance to authority positions through positive behaviours such as empathy, fairness and collaboration, these qualities tend to fade with time. A sense of privilege and selfishness seems to take over many business leaders. He suggests that iconic abuses of power, such as that at Enron and Lehman Brothers, are extreme examples of unethical behaviour and power abuses. All companies, large and small, are susceptible.So what can we do about it? Keltner has some suggestions.Make Time For Self-reflectionThe first step, Keltner suggests, is developing a greater sense of self-awareness and appreciation that our thoughts and actions can have far-reaching consequences. Meta-cognitive studies in neuroscience have shown that thinking about our thoughts and reflecting on our feelings and emotions can give rise to greater control of our actions. For example, recognition of feelings of euphoria, joy, and confidence can engage parts of our brain that help us keep in check irrational behaviour based on those feelings. It also helps with negative feelings such as anger and aggression when things don’t work out.Keltner suggests that we can build this self-awareness through daily meditation and mindfulness practices. Research shows that even just a few minutes each day spent in a quiet space focusing on repetitive breathing patterns, for example, can lead to greater focus, control, and calmness under pressure. We can practice this throughout our day too. For example, in between tasks, take time to close out that last task by pausing for a few minutes. Take a few deep breaths, think about the next task and how you would like it to go for you and others. Then proceed.Practice Empathy, Gratitude, & GenerosityWorking with corporate executives, Keltner emphasises the importance of human factors, empathy, gratitude, and generosity that he says have shown to sustain benevolent leadership. These attributes of leadership, when executed authentically, bring about a sense of unity in the team or organisation. They suggest that someone cares that we are a part of something important and good. Ruling with an iron fist might get things done but at what cost? Keltner suggests that expressing appreciation, showing tolerance and understanding, and simple generosity acts lead to higher employee engagement and productivity.Keltner suggests that to cultivate empathy, gratitude and generosity, entrepreneurial leaders should;Listen with your ears, eyes and body. Put the blinkers on, so to speak, convey genuine interest and engage.When someone comes with a problem, try to empathise with the language of understanding. Take on board what’s being said and void knee-jerk reactions.Recognise good work when you see it, no matter how small. Send them an email, or better still, say it face to face.Publicly acknowledge the work someone has done.Delegate high-level responsibilities.Avoid taking the credit — be humble, and be inclined to give that credit to others.Some Final ThoughtsI’m for working for oneself over being an employee. I believe there are few better means by which human beings can develop themselves professionally, technically, and personally. Working for oneself brings great fulfilment, even if it proves to be the greatest challenge you have ever undertaken. It affords us the freedom to be creative and innovative without the boundaries of organisational structure — we create our own boundaries. We direct our own energies and command our own work. Self-employment, entrepreneurship in its purest form, insists that we take responsibility for ourselves, but it also insists that we consider how our work impacts other people.When the ends become so important as to justify the means, we know we lost our way. Money and profit should never be the reason to enter business IMO— if they are, it won’t last. Sustainable profit comes from an honourable starting point: the work itself, the service, and the product. The joy must be in the work itself and not the material ends — the applause, reward, status or power. When money becomes the aim, as we have seen in the example above, all kinds of insane justifications creep into our decision making processes. Self-deception takes over, and unethical practices are not far behind.Why are do we go into business? What is it about the entrepreneurial notion that attracts us? Is it money, control, status, power? Is there something so absent in us that we are prepared to spoof, tell half-truths, and manipulate people towards our own ends? The term “unethical behaviour” seems sterile when we see the extents to which our lack of humanity can go. It just doesn’t seem to capture the tragic and painful reality that transpired for hundreds of people due to Ford’s cost-benefit analysis in the Pinto case. I believe it doesn’t need to be this way.I would say, sure, go into business for yourself. Pursue your personal and business goals, but never lose sight of your humanity. The Ford Pinto case serves as testimony to the obscenities we bring about when we forget who and what we are.“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” — John Dalberg Acton This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Support Sunday Letters This week in Sunday Letters begins a series on leadership. Over the next six weeks, I'll be bringing you essays on the paradox of success, Machiavellianism, inauthentic leadership, and new Capitalism amongst other topics. These essays previously lived on a minuscule publication (The Lead) that I started on a whim a few months ago that is moving here to Sunday Letters. I hope you enjoy these essays and the perspectives they represent. After all, they represent in large part my personal philosophy on how to work successfully with others. Read the full article --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

Support Sunday Letters One dominant premise we hold is that we can always choose to do or not to do something. However, as Dennett points out in his 1984 essay “I Could not have Done Otherwise-So What?”, most often, the question of choice and responsibility for our actions comes about when results are unfavourable. We want someone to accept blame for a given outcome. The legal system is founded on the idea that we are responsible for our actions, and when we break the social and legal code, we should pay the price. It assumes that given we are compos mentis, we always have a choice of how to act. However, when the outcome is favourable, Dennett points out that we don't question so much in the slightest whether or not the individual could have chosen differently. We accept their assertion that “ah, sure it was nothing” and hardly bring into question their disavowment of responsibility. An interesting point on its own, Dennet suggests, is that when others do well by us, we never question their opportunity to have done otherwise and presents an inconsistency in how we apply it. Read the full article --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

Support Sunday Letters Taking an ethical position in life and work is essential for us to have some framework for healthy behaviour, which promotes individual and collective well-being, mutual appreciation, and respect. Take, for example, a company board of directors that holds firm to a sterile and materialistic ideal that ends justify means; they will stop at little to achieve the corporate goal, which is to make money. From a superficial and materialistic position, human beings and the environment are simply obstacles to be overcome. And it's easy to see in our technological age as machines and AI become commonplace, that we have, and still do despite clever marketing initiatives, run riot over the natural world and one another in pursuit of profit or a basic living. Take the oil sands in Canada, the destruction of the rainforest in South America, damage to the seabed by commercial fishing fleets, or any war throughout human history; they all stand as primary examples of our willingness to put aside moral and ethical principles for the sake of material gain, power and control. And it's not solely corporations to blame. Ordinary people are also quick to drop their moral principles for the sake of profit or, indeed, a living. Read the full essay --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

Ethics is the scientific study of morals. It is important because morals form the basis of living and interaction of human beings with each other and the environment. Ethical principles say this or that is a respectable way to live and treat others and the natural world, with many suggesting that it transcends cultural norms and values. Ethics is the foundation of a healthy functioning society, and without some form of moral grounding, it is perhaps, every man for himself. Tomorrow night (Monday 5th July) at 7:00 pm IST on Discord, you are invited to take part (or merely listen in if you prefer) in a conversation titled “On Ethics: What Is Right & Wrong?” Dmitri and I will examine the nature of ethics from the standpoint of Nietzsche, Fromm, Chomsky, Foucault and others, asking if ethical norms are social and cultural conventions or fundamental principles of being.Taking an ethical position in life and work is essential for us to have some framework for healthy behaviour, which promotes individual and collective well-being, mutual appreciation, and respect. Take, for example, a company board of directors that holds firm to a sterile and materialistic ideal that ends justify means; they will stop at little to achieve the corporate goal, which is to make money. From a superficial and materialistic position, human beings and the environment are simply obstacles to be overcome. And it’s easy to see in our technological age as machines and AI become commonplace, that we have, and still do despite clever marketing initiatives, run riot over the natural world and one another in pursuit of profit or a basic living.Take the oil sands in Canada, the destruction of the rainforest in South America, damage to the seabed by commercial fishing fleets, or any war throughout human history; they all stand as primary examples of our willingness to put aside moral and ethical principles for the sake of material gain, power and control. And it’s not solely corporations to blame. Ordinary people are also quick to drop their moral principles for the sake of profit or, indeed, a living.I watched a documentary recently on BBC recently about the Canadian oil sands. At 142,000 sq km, it is larger than the entire landmass of England and described by National Geographic as the world’s most destructive oil operation. Here, where wages are around $1,000 per day, workers seemed completely removed from the impact of their involvement. Even the native people of the region who had lived on the land for thousands of years had become disaffected. Apparently powerless to stop the momentum of oil production and desperate for a living given the loss of their lands to corporations, they form companies that serve the industry and contribute to their continued demise.When we look at the scale of the Canadian oil sands and the level of environmental destruction it inflicts, it is hard to see a way back for humanity. This operation is kept alive by our way of life, by how you and I live. It seems we don’t know how to live. Erich Fromm in 1947 put it thus, and I see little has changed. In fact, the situation has become worse (Pardon the male pronouns).“modern society, in spite all the emphasis it puts upon happiness, individuality, and self-interest, has taught man to feel that not his happiness is the aim of life, but the fulfilment of his duty to work, or his success. Money, prestige, and power have become his incentives and ends. He acts under the illusion that his actions benefit his self-interest, though he actually serves everything else but the interests of his real self. Everything is important to him except his life and the art of living. He is for everything except himself.”Fromm says that the nature of all life is to preserve and affirm its own existence. The first duty of an organism is to be alive, he says. Although he may have accounted for it elsewhere, he leaves out that arm-in-arm with this drive towards life, there is the drive towards death. He says that this death drive is pathological, but I don’t necessarily believe that to be true. To me, the death drive, or Thanatos (Todestriebe) as Freud put it, is just as much active within us. It works in opposition to our drive for life. They dance together, taking turns at victory, and so perhaps ethics is only relevant where we are unwilling to account for our drive towards death. Perhaps just as humans are born and die, just as planets and galaxies are born and die, our behaviour must be both constructive and destructive. In this interplay between darkness and light, life and death, good and bad, we can only exist. As such, there is a sort of naivete or unwillingness to accept the destructive aspect of our nature. As Carl Jung put it;“A gentle and reasonable being can be transformed into a maniac or a savage beast. One is always inclined to lay the blame on external circumstances, but nothing could explode in us if it had not been there. As a matter of fact, we are constantly living on the edge of a volcano, and there is, so far as we know, no way of protecting ourselves from a possible outburst that will destroy everybody within reach. It is certainly a good thing to preach reason and common sense, but what if you have a lunatic asylum for an audience or a crowd in a collective frenzy? There is not much difference between them because the madman and the mob are both moved by impersonal, overwhelming forces.”Jung says that there is little doubt that we human beings, on the whole, are less good than we imagine ourselves to be. We carry a shadow side to our being, and the less embodied in our conscious life, Jung says, the blacker and denser it is. So I wonder if our destructive behaviour towards each other and the planet, in spite of our insistence of its necessity, our indeed our moral righteousness, reflects our absence of self-awareness. Comments from oil sands workers seem to reflect this. We seem all too willing to disconnect from our sense of humanity, from the entirety of our being, when faced with our darker motivations. We would rather consider our behaviour acceptable, to justify it somehow, than recognise it as a direct consequence of our dark side. It seems to be the ultimate denial our ourselves to the point of self-destruction.Join me for a discussion on EthicsTomorrow night (Monday) at 7:00 pm IST on Discord, you are invited to take part (or merely listen in if you prefer) in a conversation titled “On Ethics: What Is Right & Wrong?” Dmitri and I will examine the nature of ethics from the standpoint of Nietzsche, Fromm, Chomsky, Foucault and others, asking if ethical norms are social and cultural conventions or fundamental principles of being. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

This is The Gnömic, a mid-week read from Sunday Letters. It’s usually reserved from paying subscribers, but this week it’s free. If you’d like to get it every Wednesday, consider supporting Sunday Letters. In fact, here’s a discount.In 1996, Jeremy Rifkin heralded the decline of the global labour force painting a dystopian picture of the future. “In offices and factories around the world,” he said, “people wait in fear, hoping to be spared one more day. Like a deadly epidemic inexorably working its way through the marketplace,” Rifkin reported, “the strange, seemingly inexplicable new economic disease spreads, destroying lives and destabilising whole communities in its wake.” He cites many instances of the 1990s “operational restructuring” to support his thesis; Bankcorp 9,000 job losses, Arvin Industries 10% job cuts, Union Carbide 14,000 workers, GTE 17,000 employees made redundant, Siemens 16,000 employees cut, and ABB 50,000 workers globally. Sounds pretty shit alright.At the time the book was published, employment in Ireland was around 13%–a little high–and people like me were legging it to the States, Australia, and Canada. I must admit though, my sole motivation was not to find work but to party my white Irish arse off. And I did! So I didn’t notice the relative turmoil around me. In Philadelphia, I got work within the Irish community whenever I needed it and was rarely in a dire situation. The only reason I may have ever been broke was when I blew my dollars on booze and strip joints. So I count myself lucky in that regard. I got back home in ‘97 and the economy was beginning to lift so work was in plentiful supply. Ten years later at the opposite end of the building boom, I and others like me weren’t so fortunate.I have little doubt that corporate restructuring destroys lives and destabilises communities. As it was for working people in the North of England in the 1980s, as the Thatcher government closed the coal mines, hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, are impacted by these decisions and enormous social unrest results. Even though arguably, the work was not fit for a dog, let alone a human being, people became dependent on it for their livelihood for generations. Their way of life was taken from them, and they had little say in the matter. Almost forty years later, many of those mostly men who protested at the closing of the mines have retired or passed away. Today, people of those Northern English communities are employed elsewhere and in other industries. That entire way of life has disappeared, and workers are doing other things.Work has changed, and although we can argue, as the late David Graeber has, that many jobs people do today are bullshit (and I agree with the premise, by the way), the global workforce has not declined. At least according to the OECD, that is. Their data from 1980 to 2020 show that unemployment rates are, in fact, lower today. Leaving Covid out of the equation, although that may have lasting effects, UK unemployment had fallen from 10.78% in 1980 to 4.48% in 2020. In the US, unemployment was 7.14% in 1980 and is only 1% higher today at 8.09%, although there was a sharp increase from 3.67 in 2019. In the nineteen states of the Euro area, unemployment is currently under 8% of total employment compared to 7.84% when first recorded in 1991. The observable trend in Spain, Ireland, Poland, Greece, and the Slovak Republic paints a different picture and stands out from the UK, US, and Euro areas. Fluctuations here are more dramatic and reflect the deep recessionary impact of market collapses over the same period.I realise the accuracy of these figures depends on how they are calculated and perhaps mask the complexity of the on-the-ground state of affairs; however, it seems the working population are, in fact, still working. The dystopian future Rifkin told us was coming due to technological changes maybe didn’t come at all. We have other problems, such as the trauma caused by Covid, global warming, social inequality and discrimination, but it seems people are still working. We’re still earning a living, and the economy is still moving and growing. Whether or not people are happy in the work they do, if they gain gratification and fulfilment from that work, is an entirely other question altogether. Maybe the end of work is only around the corner, or maybe it’s not. Maybe the need to work, contribute, and be productive is hard-wired into us, and as such, we’ll always find work to do.The problem is that we are too reliant on big corporates. When they decide it’s time to close shop, it won’t matter what normal Joe and Jane Soap have to say. It won’t matter about losing our way of life, community upheaval, and social unrest–they will leave anyway. Corporates are built to make money first; social conscience comes second no matter how well they market to the contrary. The real problem is that masses of people are schooled from a very young age to find a job. There might be certain freedoms within the job, but you better believe that you must toe the line and play your part. You must subjugate yourself to the power centre that is the corporation. There is no room for independent thinkers and doers in large organisations, not really.Funny, we think there is an enormous risk venturing out on our own to work for ourselves. Maybe it comes from our tribal brain; outside the fold, we can get killed and eaten! But to me, the greatest risk is staying with the crowd. As the economy rises and falls, as corporations make decisions primarily for the benefit of shareholders (no, I’m not buying the new decade corporate sales pitch that all stakeholders are their concern), the greatest risk to personal security is staying on the inside. On the outside, there is an opportunity to see more. Our vantage point is broader, and nobody is blocking our view. Groupthink presents practically zero risk; we can make decisions quickly and avoid danger. Inside the employee group mindset, we can’t see the holes in the road, or indeed, the edge of the cliff. So if the end of work is near or not, it is better that we take the decision for our future into our own hands rather than leave it in the hands of others.Work for yourself.Join me on DiscordHey listen… I’ve created the Sunday Letters Community on Discord. It’s a place to share ideas and have discussions over text chat, audio, and video and allows us to connect with one another on a more personal level. Next week, Dmitri and I are talking ethics; what is right and wrong, good and evil, and is it all a matter of relativity and social conditioning? You can join in if you’re free, but you’ll need to join the server first… Facebook my arse! Join me on Discord… This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Declan was a friend of mine. He was a good looking bloke, tall with dark skin and dark hair – the kind that girls noticed. He was loud too, and when he got going, everyone knew he was there. He was the quintessential extrovert. In contrast, I was quiet, reserved, pretty ordinary in the looks department as far as I was concerned, and had little confidence around the opposite sex. I was better one to one than in groups, so I kept mostly to myself in the early weeks at the training centre. I wasn’t a showman like Deco. He oozed confidence and had a laugh that made people turn around. For some, he was too much, but we got on well. We were a good fit. As the memory of him enters my thoughts these days, I think that maybe he wanted to be more like me, and I wanted to be more like him than we both cared to admit. Maybe life experience had made both of us fragile, and we merely developed different means of coping. I think that coping mechanisms constitute a large portion of what we call personality.We both lived close by, so it was easy for us to become friends. We’d meet on Willow Park Road in the mornings and walk to Cedarwood, through the gate at Popintree Park, diagonally across the soccer pitches and over the railings to the centre. Then home again in the evenings. On Fridays, training courses finished early, so we’d take our merge allowance, buy a few smokes, drifter bars and cans of Coke, and head for the snooker hall in Finglas for a few hours. He was a soccer head, and I played Gaelic Football, so we’d slag each other’s respective games. He’d say Gaelic was a stupid game and had no skill. “Sure, you can kick a ball over the bar from anywhere all day,” he’d say, “there’s no skill in that.” Then laugh his head off at me. No matter what I said, I could never convince him otherwise. I enjoyed those days.Once I was messing about in the workshop with a couple of lads, and we got caught. As it happens, John, our trainer, a former workmate of my dad, walked in the door and caught me red-handed, firing something across the room. There was no conversation or reprimand; he just sent me home. On the way home, my thoughts were consumed with what would my dad say when he found out. The company was sponsoring me, and if I were suspended, it would go down like a cup of cold sick. My mother’s reaction would likely be worse. Whatever happened, I was in deep shit now.I could do nothing but wait, so I lay on the couch when I got home and dozed off. A couple of hours or so later, Deco called and woke me up. “It’s cool,” he said, smiling at me. “You’re off the hook, ye dope. John said you could come in tomorrow as normal.” “No way,” I said. “He caught me rapid. The oul one is gonna go bananas.” You’re grand; ye fuckin’ eejit. He told me to come and tell you. I’ll see you in the morning, alright.” Sure enough, John just had a quiet word with me the next day. No drama. Lesson learned.We had a full year together in the training centre, so it’s funny how only a few events manage to stick out in my mind. Twelve of us starting our adult lives; Big Noel, Sticky, Franner, Paul, Kieran, Emmet, Connor, Damo, the mad yoke from Ballyer, Skin from Navan, Shay, Declan and me. There were others, but I can’t remember them now. Emmet became an engineer and started his own business. Skin emigrated to the States and worked just outside where I lived in Philadelphia. We never met up out there, but it’s funny to think that we both ended up in the same part of the world. Sticky went back to school. He was too young to have been there in the first place and copped far too much stick from the lads for one individual. Damo got hooked on heroin and ended up on the street. I think he’s still struggling to survive. I saw him once in a Spar on George’s Street. Half embarrassed, half not knowing what to do, I looked the other way, trying not to catch his eye. I wish I hadn’t done that now. As for the others, I don’t know where they ended up.A few years later, Declan left the electrical game, to the best of my knowledge, and entered An Garda Síochána, the local police force here in Ireland. I dreamed I met him in McGowan’s, Phibsborogh once, and he was in his Garda uniform smiling at me just like he used to. It felt real. Sometime later, I heard through a family friend that he had taken his own life a few years before. I didn’t know what to think when I found out. I still don’t. I should have stayed in touch somehow. What kind of difficulty must he have been going through all that time and no one knew? What if he had someone to talk to? I don’t have a full picture of his family situation as we never really got into that. But I think he told me once his mother left when he was young, leaving his dad to raise him and his sisters. But I’m not sure how accurate that is now. My memory betrays me on the details.REM Out of Time marks that Spring and Summer. It was released in March ‘91, and I latched onto it, couldn’t stop playing it. Kind of apt now that I think of it. I miss those days, not only for Declan but for everything. The simplicity and infinity of life. How the end was so far away, and all we had was here and now. Superficial worries occupied my mind; money to buy smokes, busfare, training and football matches, games of snooker. Maybe that’s how life is supposed to be and maybe getting older is the chance to understand it. I wish I were sixteen again and Deco and I could play snooker, have a smoke together, and maybe I could see a bit more than I did before. But what can you see when you’re only sixteen?We say that we’re getting better at talking about mental health, and there is no shortage of advocates for open discussion and sharing personal problems. That’s good as far as I’m concerned. It helps people feel safe reaching out for assistance. The trouble is that some people, albeit well-intentioned, use the open platform to satisfy their personal need for attention and connection and hardly reach the cors of their difficulty. In many ways, talking about one’s mental health struggles has allowed us to merely seek validation. But what’s wrong with that? Is not validation what every one of us craves? Is the sense of existing in the eyes and minds of others not existing itself? We certainly seem to think it is. We need to witness ourselves reflected from the surface of others, but maybe it’s a deeper connection that matters most. With hindsight, I can see that Declan’s extroverted character was a way to get noticed, and to be noticed was to exist. Maybe in his personal life beyond the training centre, he ceased to exist. Maybe it was all too thin to last.To all those I’ve known whose life became too tough to bear: Declan, Molly, Brian, Declan, Helen, Fran, and Paddy, consider this short essay a tribute to your time here.☎️ Samaritans Suicide HelplineA Couple of AsidesOn LossDeclan comes to mind sometimes and I wonder if it could have been different, if there was something I could have done, but there’s not. It played out how it played out and in those circumstances, we can do nothing except learn something from it. My time from September 1990 at the training centre in Finglas was rich and valuable and was better for having known Declan. Since him, others I have known have passed away at their own hands and I wonder if it is anyone’s job to try to make them stay. Taking a cosmic view of life, none of us is getting out of here alive, and while we are here life has the habit of throwing challenges our way. Some are small and some are big and some seem insurmountable. The loss of a friend or loved one to suicide is one of those insurmountable ones. But maybe we’re not supposed to better it. Maybe there’s hidden merit and opportunity in it. A kind of morbid beauty in the loss. We want them to stay, to live a life long and well. But maybe some of us don’t get to live as long as the rest. Who is to say a short life or a long life is best? Maybe it’s not about better but rather about managing what we’ve been given. It’s all I have to offer, whatever it’s worth.The Sunday Letters Discord CommunityForget Facebook, I mean really. Instagram and Twitter the same, unless you’re in the selling game of course. Ok, I know there is value for businesses in these platforms, but for ordinary everyday working Joes and Janes, social media is a scourge. I’ve written about data privacy before and you perhaps know already that these organisations mine you and me for data that they can sell on to others without our consent. It is, in my humble opinion, the greatest coup of human minds and emotions in the history of humanity. Your individual personal data may not be worth much on its own, but put it together with hundreds of thousands or millions of others, and it has immense value. And these bastards have duped millions into giving away their private information for free.So what to do about that?Well, you can begin by moving to private and secure servers that don’t covertly gather and sell your data. It’s called Discord and we have a private community there where we can converse with one another over text, voice, and video. To be a part of the Discord community, you'll need to join using your email address. Once in the door, you can make a deeper connection with me and other Sunday Letters readers.There are some house rules, but beyond that, you’re free to discuss topics such as politics, society, culture, philosophy, art, work, psychology and so on as you please. It costs nothing, and if you find out it’s not for you then you’re free to leave. I hope you’ll check it out. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Support Sunday Letters Declan was a friend of mine. He was a good looking bloke, tall with dark skin and dark hair – the kind that girls noticed. He was loud too, and when he got going, everyone knew he was there. He was the quintessential extrovert. In contrast, I was quiet, reserved, pretty ordinary in the looks department as far as I was concerned, and had little confidence around the opposite sex. I was better one to one than in groups, so I kept mostly to myself in the early weeks at the training centre. I wasn't a showman like Deco. He oozed confidence and had a laugh that made people turn around. For some, he was too much, but we got on well. We were a good fit. As the memory of him enters my thoughts these days, I think that maybe he wanted to be more like me, and I wanted to be more like him than we both cared to admit. Maybe life experience had made both of us fragile, and we merely developed different means of coping. I think that coping mechanisms constitute a large portion of what we call personality. We both lived close by, so it was easy for us to become friends. We'd meet on Willow Park Road in the mornings and walk to Cedarwood, through the gate at Popintree Park, diagonally across the soccer pitches and over the railings to the centre. Then home again in the evenings. On Fridays, training courses finished early, so we'd take our merge allowance, buy a few smokes, drifter bars and cans of Coke, and head for the snooker hall in Finglas for a few hours. He was a soccer head, and I played Gaelic Football, so we'd slag each other's respective games. He'd say Gaelic was a stupid game and had no skill. “Sure, you can kick a ball over the bar from anywhere all day,” he'd say, “there's no skill in that.” Then laugh his head off at me. No matter what I said, I could never convince him otherwise. I enjoyed those days. Read the full essay --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

I've started a Discord community server. Here's your private link to join. It expires in 7 days.

In this short excerpt from a recent conversation with philosophy postgraduate, Dmitri Belikov, we discuss the motivation to work. This excerpt is from the upcoming series on work where I enter a conversation with ordinary people asking them how they feel about their work, and if money were no object, if they didn't need their work to provide them with a living, what would they do with their time? The series will go out over the summer and will include conversations with people from a diverse range of backgrounds; retired people, a nurse, a student, a barrister, a dentist, a civil servant, and so on. To get all these discussions as they are published, go to sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com and subscribe for free. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

Support Sunday Letters Time and space are important in creative work or, in fact, any work. Any work worth doing can be a creative outlet, but whatever it is, it needs time and space. We like to admire great works of art, and we believe there is something special about the people who create these things. Something special over and above ourselves. We couldn't possibly come up with something as unique and beautiful as that. We're inclined to keep moving, keep making whatever it was they taught us, and keep taking their dollar for our trouble. We're too busy, you see, being something else to someone else and rarely anything ourselves. We have jobs to do, people to see, deadlines to meet and bills to pay. How can we possibly make the time and space we need to do great work? Being busy is more important, and any time we do make for ourselves, we spend it on frivolous things that lack complexity and stimulation. On art, David Lynch quotes Bushnell Keeler, artist and father of a friend; “If you want to get one hour of good painting in, you have to have four hours of uninterrupted time.” That's basically true, Lynch says. “You don't just start painting. You have to kind of sit for a while and get some kind of mental idea in order to go and make the right moves… Then it's a matter of studying it and studying it, and studying it; and suddenly, you find you're leaping up out of your chair and going in and doing the next thing.” I was glad when I read that because it gave me a licence to take my time. I mean, I knew it already, but a part of me questioned it. The thought comes in; you should be doing something, c'mon, you should use your limited time productively. But when I write, I need hours and hours. I can't just jump into it and write something I consider good. There has to be a lead-in. Like Lynch says, “if you know you've got to be somewhere in half an hour, there's no way you can achieve that.” There needs to be space for the idea to propagate. That means we've got to be on our own without distraction to allow the self to show us something. Continue reading --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

Time and space are important in creative work or, in fact, any work. Any work worth doing can be a creative outlet, but whatever it is, it needs time and space. We like to admire great works of art, and we believe there is something special about the people who create these things. Something special over and above ourselves. We couldn’t possibly come up with something as unique and beautiful as that. We’re inclined to keep moving, keep making whatever it was they taught us, and keep taking their dollar for our trouble. We’re too busy, you see, being something else to someone else and rarely anything ourselves. We have jobs to do, people to see, deadlines to meet and bills to pay. How can we possibly make the time and space we need to do great work? Being busy is more important, and any time we do make for ourselves, we spend it on frivolous things that lack complexity and stimulation.On art, David Lynch quotes Bushnell Keeler, artist and father of a friend; “If you want to get one hour of good painting in, you have to have four hours of uninterrupted time.” That’s basically true, Lynch says. “You don’t just start painting. You have to kind of sit for a while and get some kind of mental idea in order to go and make the right moves… Then it’s a matter of studying it and studying it, and studying it; and suddenly, you find you’re leaping up out of your chair and going in and doing the next thing.” I was glad when I read that because it gave me a licence to take my time. I mean, I knew it already, but a part of me questioned it. The thought comes in; you should be doing something, c’mon, you should use your limited time productively. But when I write, I need hours and hours. I can’t just jump into it and write something I consider good. There has to be a lead-in. Like Lynch says, “if you know you’ve got to be somewhere in half an hour, there’s no way you can achieve that.” There needs to be space for the idea to propagate. That means we’ve got to be on our own without distraction to allow the self to show us something.Now, it’s a different story if we’re working to a tried and tested systematic process used to make stuff like an assembly line job, or a forensic analysis of a set of accounts, or building a wall with nine-inch solids. There’s a little upfront prep, but by and large, we know what is expected of us, so we can get stuck in without much lead time. Making widgets is not necessarily art. Ok, maybe the first widget was art, but subsequent widgets spat out by a machine do not constitute art. Perhaps what that process represents could be made art. For example, by putting that widget machine in an art gallery, throwing buckets of blood over it and propping up against it a stuffed chimpanzee, now you might have something. But in its designated place as an instrument of commercial production, it is the antithesis of art.Art tells a story. It’s a story unique to each of us. It is the story of us and our struggle with the existence we seem to occupy. Productivity is literal; there is no mystery or discovery there. It is automatic and explicit. In art, the message is implicit and ambiguous. You’ve got to figure it out, like figuring out oneself. We want to figure ourselves out; that’s the reason for living. We don’t know who and what we are, and we never can, but the exploration brings with it intrigue. Without the question, there is no life. Life is an unanswerable question. Life is an exploration of the question, and when life becomes mundane, predictable and explicit, the reason for living goes. That’s why so many of us are at odds with daily work–there is little or no unique creative expression in that work. It is a means to an end. No wonder and curiosity? No life worth living.Without time and space, with a focus solely on widget producing productivity, there can be no creativity. No books, no art, nothing unique, just a world of stuffed monkeys, bloodied machines, and widgets.I’ve been reading David Lynch’s Catching The Big Fish, I think I mentioned that recently, and it is material such as this that reminds me of the importance of personal time and space. Time and space allow ideas to come to mind, then working on those ideas takes effort associated with which is productivity. Unlike the commercial world that demands higher output relative to input over a given time, creative productivity works in spurts. There are long arduous periods of work where we feel like we’re going nowhere, wasting our time, but then all of a sudden something jumps off the page. Although I have not drawn for some time, that’s exactly how it happens. Writing is like that too; we turn the focus wheel of our minds narrowing our attention to the task then zooming back out to form perspective.When I was young, I had time: sixteen and little else to concern myself with besides attending the training college and playing football. I’d sit on my bed smoking out the open window playing tunes from my minuscule but invaluable music library without a care in the world. Thirty years later, I have held onto that time and space to think, although commitments tend to take me out of it sometimes. Work is important, so is money. Without money, we can’t live, so we have to find a way to get some. The problem is, we tend to sacrifice too much to get it, and because we’ve hitched it so inextricably to time and our sense of personal value, we give all our time to finding it and consider ourselves valuable to the degree we manage to accumulate it. So without time and space to do what we wish, there’s no freedom.We can see that it’s almost impossible to be a free-thinking, free-speaking human being when we have shackled ourselves to our work to this extent. Work is supposed to provide a means to self-express, but it doesn’t, not really. The vast majority of us are under the organisation's command, and if we step out of line, we become a trouble maker. Your employer doesn’t want trouble makers. It wants loyal subjects that execute its systems and processes. So I really don’t see any alternative other than to work for one’s self and command one’s own work if we are to be satisfied and fulfilled, truly. Anything else is settling for less than we deserve.I really believe that the aspect of ourselves we call ego or surface-level personality needs the structure and organisation of others to feel secure. Maybe it’s anthropological in origin, part of our tribal ancestry. Or maybe it’s manufactured by the forces of contemporary society. Regardless, security in life and work is illusory. There is none, and the ego believes there is so it seeks out all the apparent measures of it. The irony is that this apparent security imprisons us and is a major source of our personal difficulties. We crave the freedom to follow our impulses yet the route we’ve chosen restricts it.Thanks for reading this week’s Sunday Letters. You can help me create more time and space for Sunday Letters by becoming a supporter. It’s usually $5 per month, but you can get 20% off for life with this discount. Thanks for being here! This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Support Sunday Letters; https://sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com I think the challenge is to be easy about it rather than forceful. I was forceful with my people the whole time. I pushed hard and watched their every move. It's stifling under that kind of scrutiny. Of course, there have to be standards, and the industry is filled with people with bad habits and poor training who don't want to improve, to keep higher standards. But that's the problem when you operate in a game where others decide what your work should look like–you don't get to be truly creative and so there's a certain resentment. In a game where the rules are set and people's creativity is taken from them, they lose their power if indeed they even felt it in the first place. They become disenfranchised and demotivated. There's no incentive to apply themselves. Ok, there might be a pay packet at the end of the week, but people aren't motivated by money, not really. The game is rigged. Humans are robots in the machine of production and consumption. Ever since Frederick Taylor made scientific management a thing, people's creativity and intuition have been dampened, even removed completely. You could argue that this change came about through industrialisation. Today, instead of being able to think for oneself, to be creative and self-expressive, work has become a measurable and quantifiable exercise where your merit and reward is linked to how many widgets you can make in a minute, an hour, a day, a week. It's the same in services'; you've got to be representative of what the company deems appropriate. Whatever happens, you certainly cannot be yourself. Read the full article; https://sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/p/the-gnomic-fear-and-work --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

I’m going to mix things up here a little bit mid-week. A poem, a sketch, a cartoon, a thought, an artist who has something interesting to say about daily work and so on. You won’t know what you’re getting until you’ve got it. Remove the predictability a little bit you might say. Let’s see where it goes…I’ve been reading and listening to David Lynch recently. Here’s what he says about fear and work;“When people are in fear they don't want to go to work. So many people today have that feeling. Then fear starts turning into hate and they begin to hate going to work… If I ran my set with fear, I would get 1%, not 100%, of what I get. And there would be no fun going down the road together.” - David LynchI think the challenge is to be easy about it rather than forceful. I was forceful with my people the whole time. I pushed hard and watched their every move. It’s stifling under that kind of scrutiny. Of course, there have to be standards, and the industry is filled with people with bad habits and poor training who don’t want to improve, to keep higher standards. But that’s the problem when you operate in a game where others decide what your work should look like–you don’t get to be truly creative and so there’s a certain resentment. In a game where the rules are set and people’s creativity is taken from them, they lose their power if indeed they even felt it in the first place. They become disenfranchised and demotivated. There’s no incentive to apply themselves. Ok, there might be a pay packet at the end of the week, but people aren’t motivated by money, not really.The game is rigged. Humans are robots in the machine of production and consumption. Ever since Frederick Taylor made scientific management a thing, people’s creativity and intuition have been dampened, even removed completely. You could argue that this change came about through industrialisation. Today, instead of being able to think for oneself, to be creative and self-expressive, work has become a measurable and quantifiable exercise where your merit and reward is linked to how many widgets you can make in a minute, an hour, a day, a week. It’s the same in services'; you’ve got to be representative of what the company deems appropriate. Whatever happens, you certainly cannot be yourself.There’s no love in that. It’s fear-based the whole way. No wonder people hate their work. My guess is that most people don’t even know there’s something better because all they’ve experienced is the dry and inhospitable contemporary workplace. A desert, you might say. That’s how I operated for years even though something in me knew that nothing would grow there, I kept pushing. Inputs and outputs, soulless shit. Planting seeds in the sand and none of them growing.Operate in this dry and inhospitable place if you must, but understand that for you and those who work under your command, your output must exceed input. If it doesn’t, the game will fail you and you’ll fail the game. Also know that at some point in that input-output game, you may feel disillusioned and unfulfilled. You also might not. It depends where you derive your sense of fulfilment, and indeed, how thin that is.Fear is not a sustainable promoter of growth. It might bring about short-term gain but it sacrifices people in the process. We call it burnout in psychological research terms. It’s ok though, there are always more and more willing to join the long line willing to sacrifice themselves and their potential for a fulfilling creative life for an ideal, not of their own making. Ideas of David Lynch and his kind keep me on track. It pays to read this guy.“Keep your eye on the doughnut, not on the hole. If you keep your eye on the doughnut and do your work, that’s all you can control. You can’t control any of what’s out there, outside yourself. But you can get inside and do the best work you can do.” - David LynchWhat’s the alternative? Find a way out. Read and watch people (there are plenty hiding in plain sight) that do the opposite, who follow a different road. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Support Sunday Letters I started writing things down on paper late at night about fifteen years ago. Sitting on my sofa, half-drunk if I remember correctly, the mot in bed, I wrote my first few words. I was someone else for a period. It's not who you think I am; it's someone very different. That's the thing you see…the one we present is not the same as the one who sits alone on the couch or in the bed at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning contemplating its own existence, trying to figure out where it fits, if indeed it fits at all. This is the nature of our reality that many, I feel, don't address, can't address, don't even see it to address it. Then there are those of us who feel it, the deep dark cavern of confusion and isolation, and ignore it. We keep ourselves busy with things that don't really matter, convincing ourselves to the contrary for fear of having to face our own unsubstantial reality–knowledge of the one that knows we're not who we think we are. I've got a little black book with me poems in just like Waters. Maybe I subconsciously selected that colour book because the lyrics meant so much to me as a fifteen-year-old nobody who struggled to fit in. Meant to be, perhaps, his words resonating with my felt experience. Big hands, too, at night, while I drifted in and out of waking consciousness. Hands so big that they were bigger than me. Then there was a beast, a demon with no face and no name, that lurked ominously. There was a small house like the one in Hansel and Gretel. It had a white fence, and there was a girl, and she was in danger. Who was I in all of this? Maybe I was all of it. A psychotherapist and lecturer of mine told me this is always so. It repeated itself for several years, not so much now that I'm older. But the songs still speak to me, perhaps, even more, today as I come more into the realisation of what I'm not. As I fight to hold onto the idea that I must be something, something to myself and everyone else when in fact, I feel no particular urgency to be anything. Is there anybody out there? I wonder. Who's asking? Hard to tell. Read the full essay --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

I started writing things down on paper late at night about fifteen years ago. Sitting on my sofa, half-drunk if I remember correctly, the mot in bed, I wrote my first few words. I was someone else for a period. It’s not who you think I am; it’s someone very different. That’s the thing you see…the one we present is not the same as the one who sits alone on the couch or in the bed at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning contemplating its own existence, trying to figure out where it fits, if indeed it fits at all. This is the nature of our reality that many, I feel, don’t address, can’t address, don’t even see it to address it. Then there are those of us who feel it, the deep dark cavern of confusion and isolation, and ignore it. We keep ourselves busy with things that don’t really matter, convincing ourselves to the contrary for fear of having to face our own unsubstantial reality–knowledge of the one that knows we’re not who we think we are.I’ve got a little black book with me poems in just like Waters. Maybe I subconsciously selected that colour book because the lyrics meant so much to me as a fifteen-year-old nobody who struggled to fit in. Meant to be, perhaps, his words resonating with my felt experience. Big hands, too, at night, while I drifted in and out of waking consciousness. Hands so big that they were bigger than me. Then there was a beast, a demon with no face and no name, that lurked ominously. There was a small house like the one in Hansel and Gretel. It had a white fence, and there was a girl, and she was in danger. Who was I in all of this? Maybe I was all of it. A psychotherapist and lecturer of mine told me this is always so. It repeated itself for several years, not so much now that I’m older.But the songs still speak to me, perhaps, even more, today as I come more into the realisation of what I’m not. As I fight to hold onto the idea that I must be something, something to myself and everyone else when in fact, I feel no particular urgency to be anything. Is there anybody out there? I wonder. Who’s asking? Hard to tell. Is it the infinite internal vacuum? Is it even a vacuum? It feels like a vacuum, or maybe it’s better to call it a depth. The depth is deep and seems black, and a part of me is afraid, but another part of me wants to go there to see what it is. Or is it a thin surface layer that speaks, the fool who believes itself to be substantial? Is that who asks? In the song, there is a deep sadness, yet there is beauty too. It points to the turmoil in all of us and the inevitable tragic end we each face. There is a dance in between, a rise and fall, a coming to terms. Yes, that’s it. It’s a coming to terms with our inevitable demise and the meaning in meaninglessness.Listen to Waters’ words in this song from a vulnerable and fearful perspective, from the one that you’re so afraid to experience. The lost and deeply isolated you. In many ways, those who feel the weight of this depth are face to face with themselves already. They’ve nothing to lose. From here maybe we can gain everything. Everyone else hides. Everyone else hides behind the persona, the one constructed to protect itself from the everpresent sense of isolation, of aloneness. Because, as so simply yet accurately put by Marina Abramović… “in the end you are really alone, whatever you do.” In the gap between our birth and death, we pretend. We become something then put on a show our entire lives, hiding from the fact that we truly are alone. We join groups, form communities, become part of some social movement or other. For what? To convince ourselves we are not alone, and that life has meaning when in fact, we are alone. We spend our entire lives avoiding the fact that we are nothing substantial. It is the trauma of knowing this that we try so hard to avoid.I remember we were on holiday in the Isle of Man back in the 80s. I couldn’t have been more than seven or eight. There was this hotel called The Lido where we’d go at night with all the other holidaymakers. It was really crowded at the entrance one evening, and I lost my parents. I was terrified at not finding them again, although I did after about fifteen seconds. Panic over. Immediate panic over, because the fear of being alone is always there, with all of us. It’s silly, really, given that we come in alone and go out alone. Gotta leave it all behind, don’t we? Can’t take the comfort of mam and dad with us. Different story if you’ve never had that comfort or the comfort it promised was never afforded. That’s real trauma. The physical existence promises so much but delivers not. We’re in pursuit of that comfort all our lives, the one we thought we had in our childhood.I’ve got a little black book with me poems in. I’ve got accounts of dreams, lyrics of songs, thoughts, ideas, fears and anxieties, conversations with myself. They are all there. Conversations with oneself are very important you know. You have them all the time even though you may not realise or admit it. The artist converses with herself. So too does the writer. What else is a story written only a conversation of the most complex kind? To converse with oneself is to consult with something other than what we believe ourselves to be. Here’s something from the little black book - a conversation with myself;What do you expect to come?I don’t know, that’s the problem. Something tells me I should expect then the route is not clear.I could have fifty left.Will I be alone, or will she be here?Who knows.Where will they be?Everything goes. That’s so tragic.We’ve such narrowly focused minds.I’m me! I declare.Look at me! I’m here!Take notice! I’m real god dammit!If you don’t notice me I’ll set this place on fire and kill us all.Now, back to that question; “Is there anybody out there?”My answer is no; there is not. The one that asks is both the one outside and the one inside. It is the asker and the answerer of the question. In the depths of depression and isolation, the one who asks, “Is there anybody out there?” is both depressed at their own isolation and smiling at the nonsense of it all, although it’s rarely aware of its latter aspect. In pursuit of an answer to his clients’ anxiety and depression, Viktor Frankl would ask, “why not commit suicide?” upon which the client would offer a reason to stay alive and therefore reinforce the self-created meaning of life. An opportunity, perhaps, to emerge out of the darkness of that place the ego has created for itself. Its reason for being, therefore, its fuel, derived from the darkness of its own creation. But who am I in all this darkness? I would not choose this! But you did. You are an aspect of that which chooses even though, through self-deceit, you have absolved yourself of ownership.Like Elliott Alderson, each of us has created a form of being in order to cope with it, with something we’d rather not face. And just like Elliott, we are unknown to ourselves, and the selves we have created are unknown to one another. Yet, we are all of that. The full shebang, fighting to hide from itself and fighting to reveal itself in whatever way it can. Our greatest fears and anxieties have been commoditised and sold back to us. In this, we indulge in the obscene. Always hiding in plain sight, always an opportunity to resolve the paradox, the conflict. And in that, the conflict has a purpose. the conflict should be praised and thanked because it is that opportunity we present ourselves to finally know ourselves.Will we take it? This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

As I consider the variety of work I do on a daily and weekly basis–work for which I receive payment and not, work I do for pure enjoyment, and work I’d rather not do–it strikes me that most of what feels off about it all, comes from having to do it. It is the sensation that someone or something is looking over my shoulder with a critical eye waiting impatiently for me to fulfil some prior commitment or other. And as this sensation of external pressure weighs on my consciousness, I wonder was it always this way. It seems to me, and I’ve written on this many times before, that with the advent of industrialisation came the widespread imperative to work under command. Although, I will accept that work may have always involved a relatively flush party and another willing to work for some of that gold. With that in mind, perhaps regular joe soap workers have never been free to direct their own work.Being somewhat obsessed with the nature and value of daily work as I am, and why we seem to have such a dichotomous relationship with it, I bought a few books on the history of work. One is The Oxford Book of Work, an anthology that draws upon a range of views and experiences of work across the centuries from writers, poets, scientists, clergy, journalists, and laypeople. It’s an account of work over the entire spectrum of life from youth through to retirement contrasting, as the author says, the delights of occupation and the harshness of compulsory labour. Some accounts suggest the glory and honour of work. Others, such as Oscar Wilde, suggest work is mentally and morally injurious. He said of manual labour;“And as I have mentioned the word labour, I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine.”“Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt.” What a great line. And he’s right, to an extent. I would like to believe that no matter what work we do, there is the opportunity to do it well and with enthusiasm and enjoy it. Manual labour under the force of our own mental steam is not arduous and undignified. On the contrary, I have found it to be some of the most satisfying work there is. However, when under the command of another then it takes on an entirely different colour. The challenge then is to do the work for its own sake without the promise of reward or applause. This represents the epitome of human achievement, and apparently, in agreement, Rudyard Kipling put it as follows in his 1892 title, The Seven Seas;And only The Master shall praise us, and only The Master shall blame;And no one shall work for money, and no one shall work for fame,But each for the joy of the working, and each, in his separate star,Shall draw the Thing as he sees It for the God of Things as They are.Nevertheless, many people are bored and untested in their work. The fun in work is in being pressed to the limits of our ability, but if we’d rather not be there in the first place, then it’s hard to become engrossed to the extent that D.H. Lawrence implied when he wrote of Work in 1929;There is no point in work unless it absorbs you like an absorbing game.If it doesn’t absorb you, if it’s never any fun, don’t do it.Easier said than done, perhaps. Many of us fall into jobs without much conscious decision making on our part. We need a few quid to live and to buy nice things–that’s the primary motivation–so we take whatever work there is. An apprenticeship, a sales job in a shoe shop, a few hours behind the counter in the local newsagent; whatever is going. It’s what I did. I took a job I was told to take, and although I wanted to do other things, I happened to enjoy the work and did it to the best of my ability. I was happy on one level to be out of school and to be treated as an adult, although I was little more than a skivvy for the first few years. It didn’t occur to me that I needed to get out. Work didn’t feel like an imposition until much later.Working alone brings me the most enjoyment. Even when I’m in the company of others at work, I mostly keep to myself. Nobody is looking over my shoulder these days; there’s no pressure to perform. So I go about my business at my own pace. Sometimes I go fast, sometimes slow, but always under my own mental steam. There’s great freedom and peace in that. Lillian B. Rubin, a 28-year-old trucker, seemed to be on the same page when in 1972 he said;There’s a good feeling when I’m out there on the road. There ain’t nobody looking over your shoulder and watching what you’re doing. When I worked in a warehouse, you’d be punching in and punching out, and bells ringing all the time. On those jobs, you’re not thinking, you’re just doing what they tell you. Sure, now I’m expected to bring her in on time, but a couple of hours one way or the other don’t make no difference. And there ain’t nobody but me to worry about how I get her there.Lillian Rubin spoke about freedom and autonomy, being largely in command of his own work and being at one with his sense of self in his daily activity. It is to be treated like a human being and not like a machine. This is the freedom we are all looking for in our daily work. It’s just so fulfilling to be in charge of our own daily activities, but very few of us can say that we have that personal autonomy crucial for happiness at work. The need to survive often takes over and dictates our lot. So we leave our children, join the lines of traffic and go to work at jobs we’d rather not.The structure of daily work is changing for many people, with technology taking a further foothold and more of our time spent working remotely. But I wonder if these changes will be for the better. I am hopeful, if not a bit cynical, about it all. Employers are reaching further into our personal space in many ways, and there seems little to halt their advance. After all, the pandemic has made it necessary. The roads are busy with commuter traffic again too, and taking into account the upheaval of the working lives of so many, it seems that not much has really changed. Our attitudes to work are still largely comprised of the idea that we work for them, so we must do what we’re told. As we contemplate a workplace utopia where machines do the work and devote our time to personal advancement, we imagine that we will gain the freedom to do what we really want in the future. Maybe, but I honestly can’t see while Capitalist ideologies dictate economics and social structure. While we remain consumers of things rather than producers, things only get worse. The utopic workplace future is not a new idea either. Over the last few centuries, people have imagined an idyllic existence where we wouldn’t be concerned for work but rather leisure.“The desirable medium is one which mankind have often known how to hit: when they labour, they do it with all their might, and especially with all their mind; but to devote to labour, for mere pecuniary gain, fewer hours in the day, fewer days in the year, and fewer years of life.”- John Stewart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, 1848“The chief model by which labour is likely to be made less irksome is not by a change in its character or its intrinsic attractiveness, but by a diminution in its severity. It will probably be lightened by the increasing perfection of tools, and the increasing use of machinery; though on the other hand, it may be that from this cause its monotony will become no less, perhaps greater.”F.W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, 1911Quite insightful from Mr Taussig. Compulsory working hours may, on the whole, have reduced, and conditions for workers may have improved. But wages have, in effect, been on a decline since the ‘70s, and in countries such as the US, the number of working hours are greater now than in the 1960s. As technology has advanced, offering the fulfilment of John Meynard Keynes’ promise, work appears to have become more demanding. Keynes wrote in Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren in 1930;Thus for the first time since his creation, man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem–how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely, agreeably and well. The strenuous purposeful money-makers may carry all of us along with them into the lap of economic abundance […] For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We will do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich today, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. However, Mr Keynes utopia consisting of a 15-hour workweek didn’t consider our propensity to snatch captivity from the jaws of freedom. Nor did he take weight of the ever-expanding greed of the few and their desire to control and profit at the disadvantage of millions of others. The operators of the corporate machine give up only the minimum they are required under legislation and where they offer more, you must give them your soul.I don’t believe the future of work will give us workplaces that reflect the needs of human beings, I mean, really. While we have hierarchical systems where the vast majority of profits go to the smallest number of people human beings will remain merely cogs–disposable and replaceable. In this, the capitalist system is flawed. It makes machines of men and women, and nothing has changed in this regard over the centuries. We’re still writing about the assault on the masses that is working life. There are, of course, exceptions, but they do not refute the rule–human beings are blagarded by work, and all efforts to change things are merely a sticking plaster on an open wound.Work can be pleasurable, fulfiling, and rewarding, but we can’t sit around and wait for employers to make it so. We must do it for ourselves. I’ll leave you with these words from French Philosopher Simone Weil from Oppression and Liberty, 1955;“To the conflict set up by money between buyers and sellers of labour has been added another conflict, set up by the very means of production, between those who have the machine at their disposal, and those who are at the disposal of the machine.”An Investigation of Daily WorkThis summer, I’m commencing a little experiment, an ad-hoc investigation, you might say, into feelings about work. I’m taking the vicinity where I live, Dublin 7, and I’m going out to capture the thoughts and feelings of work from ordinary people in an area of Dublin called Stoneybatter. I’ll be selecting a variety of professions and having a conversation about their work. Hopefully, I’ll have some good audio to share with you. More on that very soon.Hey, thanks for being here. This was Sunday Letters, the free weekly newsletter on life, work, & the pursuit of happiness. The weekly issue is free and has been since its inception in 2015. I enjoy writing it, and if you enjoy it too, please consider becoming a supporter. You’ll continue to get Sunday Letters along with these additions. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Support Sunday Letters As I consider the variety of work I do on a daily and weekly basis–work for which I receive payment and not, work I do for pure enjoyment, and work I'd rather not do–it strikes me that most of what feels off about it all, comes from having to do it. It is the sensation that someone or something is looking over my shoulder with a critical eye waiting impatiently for me to fulfil some prior commitment or other. And as this sensation of external pressure weighs on my consciousness, I wonder was it always this way. It seems to me, and I've written on this many times before, that with the advent of industrialisation came the widespread imperative to work under command. Although, I will accept that work may have always involved a relatively flush party and another willing to work for some of that gold. With that in mind, perhaps regular joe soap workers have never been free to direct their own work. Being somewhat obsessed with the nature and value of daily work as I am, and why we seem to have such a dichotomous relationship with it, I bought a few books on the history of work. One is The Oxford Book of Work1, an anthology that draws upon a range of views and experiences of work across the centuries from writers, poets, scientists, clergy, journalists, and laypeople. It's an account of work over the entire spectrum of life from youth through to retirement contrasting, as the author says, the delights of occupation and the harshness of compulsory labour. Some accounts suggest the glory and honour of work. Others, such as Oscar Wilde, suggest work is mentally and morally injurious. Read the full article --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

Thanks for reading or listening to this week’s issue of The Gnōmic. It goes out mid-week every week (although I’m a little later this week) and is reserved for paying subscribers. This one is free, and if you’d like to receive it each Wednesday, consider becoming a supporter of Sunday Letters. Thanks for being here.A ThoughtI spend a lot of my time observing people. I ask myself, why does this or that person behave as they do? Why do I behave as I do? The reactions are responses to conditions both in and out of our control. In that sense, Skinner was right, but in favour of a reductionist version of reality, he missed the underlying root cause. These conditions could be the most insignificant everyday occurrences, like bumping into someone when you weren’t looking or the choice of whether or not to let someone into your line of traffic. Or they could be catastrophic, like a car accident or the loss of a loved one. In all of these incidents, we show ourselves. And that self we show can be measured and pre-meditated, or it can be unguarded and reactionary. But in all of that, there is the traumatised individual. It is ultimately unavoidable and forms what Jung referred to as the shadow.Every one of us is traumatised to varying degrees, and it stays with us throughout our lives. We hide it. Some of us hide it very well, and others not so well. Then it explodes in a fit of rage or implodes in a depressive episode and perhaps a suicide attempt. In the homeless drug addict, for example, or the dysfunctional teenager, it may be obvious. It’s easy to see on reality TV; My 600lb Life, Love Island, or any one of the hundreds of reality shows that serve only to commoditise and glorify the most acute manifestations of trauma. We don’t see it in the face of the forty-something mother of three until one afternoon she takes the lives of her three children to save them the pain of her perceived reality. We don’t see it in the everyday actions of the farmer until he kills his lover then burns her on a bonfire of tyres because she was going to leave him. Nor do we see it in the self-employed architect who drops his kids to school every morning, or indeed, in our own compulsive behaviour behind closed doors.As Freud said, “He that has eyes to see and ears to hear may convince himself that no mortal can keep a secret. If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore.” And so, although we try to hide our own personal trauma, it always finds its expression. Obsessive or compulsive behaviour, neuroticism, addiction, fits of rage, depression and anxiety, feelings of elitism and irrational self-confidence, the pursuit of success and material wealth; all manifestations of a self that hides from the reality of its own experience. Desperate to conceal from itself the trauma of its own past, often convincing itself of its triviality, the self goes about the business of life.I have been traumatised, and I, in turn, have traumatised my children. If I could be a new parent all over again, I would do it very differently. However, I must also recognise that parenting, as it is with all areas of life, cannot be polarised. Too much support, and we make our children over-reliant and weak. Too much stimulation, and we kill their individuality and creative abilities. Just as the obscene is a response to trauma, so are the creative and innovative aspects of human behaviour. There must be balance in every aspect of life, and we can only ever act to achieve that balance now–not yesterday or tomorrow.We can reflect on our actions and decide to act differently, or we can keep doing what we’ve always done. The latter teaches us nothing. There is no growth in that, so we must be willing to address our individual trauma. To learn is to change, and to change is to recognise that life has two sides and that our own personal trauma exists on that darker side. The one that we’d rather not face.On a final note, some may suggest that the above view takes an unnecessarily negative perspective of life and ultimately doesn’t serve us. I would counter that by saying that unless we do, in fact, face that which underlies our behaviour–both positive and negative aspects–we learn nothing about our motivations. The dominant voice on matters of self-care and mental wellbeing calls for positivity, but positivity without perspective is, as I wrote the other week, merely lipstick on a pig.A Quote“Unfortunately, there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it. Furthermore, it is constantly in contact with other interests, so that it is continually subjected to modifications. But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected.”Carl Jung, Psychology & Religion, 1938.A BookI have several books on the go at any one time. It’s how I read. It has a downside in that by the time I get back to one I started last week, I have forgotten where I was. So I rarely finish anything. It’s not always the case, though. Last summer, I finished Peak by psychologist Anders Ericsson. Although the content was interesting, overall, it was a bit of a disappointment. Maybe I was expecting some kind of revelation, or maybe I just wanted to read him take a chunk out of journalist Malcolm Gladwell for misrepresenting his research. Anyway, see what you think of it.A Music AlbumSpeaking of traumatised people, here’s some of what I’m listening to now. 🤘A Visit to The ArchiveHere’s everything from the recent back catalogue of articles. Have a browse if you’ve time.The ArchiveThanks for taking the time to read the midweek Gnomic. If you enjoy this content and you’re not already a paying subscriber, consider supporting my work. I’m on Twitter if you’d like to follow me there. And there’s the Sunday Letters Podcast if you’d prefer to listen on your favourite podcast app instead. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Support Sunday Letters I spend a lot of my time observing people. I ask myself, why does this or that person behave as they do? Why do I behave as I do? The reactions are responses to conditions both in and out of our control. In that sense, Skinner was right, but in favour of a reductionist version of reality, he missed the underlying root cause. These conditions could be the most insignificant everyday occurrences, like bumping into someone when you weren't looking or the choice of whether or not to let someone into your line of traffic. Or they could be catastrophic, like a car accident or the loss of a loved one. In all of these incidents, we show ourselves. And that self we show can be measured and pre-meditated, or it can be unguarded and reactionary. But in all of that, there is the traumatised individual. It is ultimately unavoidable and forms what Jung referred to as the shadow. Every one of us is traumatised to varying degrees, and it stays with us throughout our lives. We hide it. Some of us hide it very well, and others not so well. Then it explodes in a fit of rage or implodes in a depressive episode and perhaps a suicide attempt. In the homeless drug addict, for example, or the dysfunctional teenager, it may be obvious. It's easy to see on reality TV; My 600lb Life, Love Island, or any one of the hundreds of reality shows that serve only to commoditise and glorify the most acute manifestations of trauma. We don't see it in the face of the forty-something mother of three until one afternoon she takes the lives of her three children to save them the pain of her perceived reality. We don't see it in the everyday actions of the farmer until he kills his lover then burns her on a bonfire of tyres because she was going to leave him. Nor do we see it in the self-employed architect who drops his kids to school every morning, or indeed, in our own compulsive behaviour behind closed doors. As Freud said, “He that has eyes to see and ears to hear may convince himself that no mortal can keep a secret. If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips; betrayal oozes out of him at every pore.” Read the full article --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

Hey, thanks for being here. This is Sunday Letters, the free weekly newsletter on life, work, & the pursuit of happiness. The weekly issue is free and has been since its inception in 2015. I enjoy writing it, and if you enjoy it too, please consider becoming a supporter. You’ll continue to get Sunday Letters along with these additions. Here’s a 20% discount for life just for the craic.The guy was an asshole. His only ambition as far as I was concerned was to make me understand the extent of his importance and authority over me. Ever since the day I went against his explicit yet sub-optimal instructions, he was gunning for me. He would show me who was boss, why his shitty ideas were better than mine, and it made my working life miserable.I put up with the arrangement for about twelve months until I couldn’t take it any more. I handed in my notice, and on my final day on the job, I punched him in the face, pinned him to the ground, and beat the living shit out of him for a good eight minutes… ok, I didn’t. But I wanted to. Such was the extent of the pressure and intimidation I felt from his presence. The horrible, miserable, useless can of piss that he was. He reminds me of Mr Huph in The Invincibles cartoon movie, only his skin was paler, his hair thinner, and his eyes beadier.That’s the nature of the hierarchical workplace and the power of position to hide personal insecurity and fester narcissistic tendencies. We’re all narcissistic to some extent. We all want to be seen, to be noticed and acknowledged for our work. But sometimes, for some people, that need for external recognition can feel threatening when they’re upstaged. Hierarchically based workplaces tend to allow nasty little bastards like Mr Huph to propagate unchallenged. So we either punch their lights out, or we leave. I left. But maybe Mr Huph did me a favour.It seems to me that all any of us want from our work is the freedom to self-express. Through education and early work experience, we can be trained to doubt ourselves, always look for answers from someone else more senior, and become a mere cog in the machine of industry. However, it also seems that there’s something in us that desperately wants us to do our own thing, to self-direct, to create, and be in command of our own work. We have a grá for something more, but often the anticipation of insecurity keeps us where we are. We settle for less, then convince ourselves of the merit of our decision.Back then, I was not yet married, and I had no kids, so the risk was small. The construction industry was booming, and I could always get another job if things didn’t work out. Things worked out, but before long, the enthusiasm of early self-employment gave way to the reality of operating solo. It’s no longer a nine-to-five; staff will lean heavily on you, and so will customers. The demands are relentless, and the pressure to deliver on commitments are significant. At the same time, the opportunities for financial freedom and personal development go far beyond what anyone can gain working under the command of others.Some research suggests that it is a drive for personal autonomy that brings most people to self-employment. Others say it is through financial need that people become self-employed. I suppose both are right, but that’s not all. There’s a blend of many factors involved in the process. On reflection, the need to operate autonomously was certainly primary for me. That said, self-employment seems to be paradoxical–it holds enormous benefits, yet it can break your heart, mind and bank balance too. So a couple of years ago, resulting from personal interest and curiosity as to the nature of this paradox, I began to explore it.Of particular interest is what happens when self-employed people hire others. My feeling is that the game irrevocably changes. The self-directed enterprise changes from a simple case of getting up, doing the work, and going home to a more demanding and dynamic scenario. Now you’ve got people depending on you. Income must cover the extra cost; wages must be done, employer taxes taken care of processes detailed and communicated, work to be measured and allocated, and customers assured. Even where staff numbers are low, there are additional demands on the technically proficient small business owner that weren’t there before–demands that need systems.Within an established organisation, it’s easier for managers. They have the benefit of having the systems and procedures already built for them. All they need to do is execute. Self-employed people often need to build and test systems on the hoof. It can be an enormous task, so little wonder that many small businesses fail. When I reflect on my time managing people and the challenge of building systems by which they could work, I regret not taking the time to steal those systems from my former employer. I say regret, but I don’t really mean Regret with a big R. Rather, it’s regret with a small r. Naive enthusiasm blinded me to the future. I just wanted to do my own thing; the demands beyond the immediate need to get away from Mr Huph were impossible to see.This weekend I submitted a research proposal based on this challenge of managing staff. I want to understand the relationship between self-employment, what research calls fulfilment of basic psychological needs and wellbeing, and how staff supervision impacts that wellbeing. My hypothesis is that people who work for themselves will have higher levels of wellbeing than those in direct employment but only where they do not supervise others. In addition, more staff under supervision will result in lower levels of wellbeing, but this can be countered by external support structures and time spent self-employed.I am one of those people I’m studying. The self-employed writer, artist, plumber, accountant, architect, interior designer, graphic artist, photographer, marketing professional, sales agent–they are who I am. In the exploration of the conditions that make them tick, I am exploring myself. It could be said that I am biased, I can’t possibly be objective, and maybe that’s true. However, maybe from my self-employed seat, I am better positioned to understand that self-employed person and interpret the data than one who is not. Regardless, I’m looking forward to the investigation. It has a personal interest, and perhaps for a finish, I may be able to offer something of value to someone who finds themselves in the same shoes as I was ten years ago.Self-employment is not for everyone, but commanding our own work is and should be. Some talk of worker-owned enterprises as a replacement to the capitalist based organisations we currently have. That’s exciting because it holds the promise of increasing autonomy for workers and less chance of a small number of people profiting off the backs of the majority. Why should this suggestion not be a viable workplace? Why should one or more men (and it’s usually men, or females masquerading as men) collect all the gold to exponential extents at the expense of workers? Ok, that’s a topic for another day perhaps, but worth discussing nonetheless.In the meantime, my work's emphasis will be on promoting the concept of a business of one, of self-employment over direct employment and figuring out how to do it healthily. I believe it is our inherent right to direct our own work, and the more people that find it believe it’s possible and can do so to their benefit and everyone around them, the better our society can function. It’s not a workplace nirvana I’m looking for; problems will always exist. But it is one where we might resolve the paradox.Stay tuned.Thanks for taking the time to read my stuff. If you enjoy Sunday Letters, consider supporting my work. I’m on Twitter if you’d like to follow me there. Oh, and there’s the Sunday Letters Podcast. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Support Sunday Letters The guy was an asshole. His only ambition as far as I was concerned was to make me understand the extent of his importance and authority over me. Ever since the day I went against his explicit yet sub-optimal instructions, he was gunning for me. He would show me who was boss, why his shitty ideas were better than mine, and it made my working life miserable. I put up with the arrangement for about twelve months until I couldn't take it any more. I handed in my notice, and on my final day on the job, I punched him in the face, pinned him to the ground, and beat the living shit out of him for a good eight minutes… ok, I didn't. But I wanted to. Such was the extent of the pressure and intimidation I felt from his presence. The horrible, miserable, useless can of piss that he was. He reminds me of Mr Huph in The Invincibles cartoon movie, only his skin was paler, his hair thinner, and his eyes beadier. That's the nature of the hierarchical workplace and the power of position to hide personal insecurity and fester narcissistic tendencies. We're all narcissistic to some extent. We all want to be seen, to be noticed and acknowledged for our work. But sometimes, for some people, that need for external recognition can feel threatening when they're upstaged. Hierarchically based workplaces tend to allow nasty little bastards like Mr Huph to propagate unchallenged. So we either punch their lights out, or we leave. I left. But maybe Mr Huph did me a favour. Read the article --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

There’s a quote I read recently on the student debt situation in the US attributed to Noam Chomsky that goes like this…“Students who acquire large debts putting themselves through school are unlikely to think about changing society. When you trap people in a system of debt, they can’t afford the time to think. Tuition fee increases are a “disciplinary technique,” and, by the time students graduate, they are not only loaded with debt, but have also internalized the “disciplinarian culture.” This makes them efficient components of the consumer economy.”As I sit at my desk this morning feeling the mild yet important sense of urgency to get invoices issued, allocate client payments, and generally get my business affairs in order after a lengthy pause, I realise that this quote applies to us all and in all circumstances. Pressure to fulfil certain obligations focuses the mind, ignoring all other demands for our attention. Where those obligations are financial, and given that money or the lack thereof is often the difference between living and dying, it tends to keep us from matters that are arguably more important to our survival.The social and cultural imperative to earn and contribute weighs heavy. The idea is so utterly ingrained in our psyche that not to follow the pre-written script for a successful life leads us to believe any alternative to the current system inconceivable. Not to have a degree, for example, is to consign oneself to flipping burgers or sweeping the street and low if that’s the career we want for ourselves or our children. Arguably, an undergraduate degree is not worth the paper it’s written on, given the number of people that hold one. A Masters is hardly even enough to distinguish you from your competition these days.And perhaps that’s the problem. We’ve entered a game, the only game in town, it seems, that can possibly bring about a life worth living, but it has the opposite effect to the one it promises. It’s almost unquestionable that young people should do anything other than enter college. Machines make furniture and build houses, so manual work is all but gone. And what’s left is so below the required cultural status, it’s not even considered. To do so is to go against the grain and pre-written script of education.Some enter manual work, of course, the trades, for example, or perhaps the visual arts or performance. But even there, the market dictates your lot. It decides how much you should be paid and spares you not from the cycle of debt that awaits us all. Very few escape the debt cycle, and under its weight, we can’t think. Everything we do is focused on getting money to pay off debt or give us a well-earned break from the toil of daily work–a holiday, a new TV, to trade our old smelly car for a brand new model, a pizza and a few beers–anything to distract us from the pressure. But all of this serves to perpetuate the problem. The majority feel this. I felt this.Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, the author of Flow, calls this perpetual struggle to overcome obstacles “chronic dissatisfaction”, and we make all kinds of attempts to overcome it. Religion is the answer for some, but the author warns that this investment in external imagined sources of power is no longer adequate after a time. The pursuit of wealth and status is perhaps the modern equivalent, but they can’t provide the solution either. The quality of life cannot be improved this way, Csikszentmihalyi says. Only by direct control of our experience, the ability to derive moment-to-moment enjoyment from experience, can we overcome the obstacles to a fulfilled and contented life. But how can we do that when most of us struggle to stay above water?Csikszentmihalyi view might sound idealistic, and it is. In all human experience, there is a flip side–we cannot have the good without the bad. However, that doesn’t mean we’ve got to accept our lot. Change happens all the time, but we’ve got to take the prompt and cease ignoring it if that change is to change to something better. We can’t think straight when we’re under pressure, and debt causes immense pressure on ordinary people’s ability to think. Financial implications, the expectation of pain, narrow the scope of our ability to make informed choices and decisions. Under the pressure of debt and money concerns, nothing changes for the better, and that goes for governments as well as ordinary people.“If you say that getting the money is the most important thing you’ll spend your life completely wasting your time. You’ll be doing things you don’t like doing in order to go on living, that is, to go on doing things you don’t like doing, which is stupid. Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing than a long life spent in a miserable way. And after all, if you do really like what you’re doing, it doesn't matter what it is, you can eventually become a master of it. The only way to become a master of something is to be really with it. And then you’ll be able to get a good fee for whatever it is… but it’s absolutely stupid to spend your time doing things you don’t like in order to go on doing things you don’t like, and to teach your children to follow in the same track. You see, what we're doing is, we’re bringing up children and educating them to live the same sort of lives we’re living in order that they may justify themselves and find satisfaction in life by bringing up their children, to bring up their children, to do the same thing so it’s all wretch and no vomit. It never gets there.”The above quote is taken from a video I first saw about ten years ago. It’s meaningful for many reasons, but mostly because it verified what I inherently thought to be true but was reluctant to accept–I was incompatible with the system. I needed a new way of working. In fact, most of us are incompatible with that system. It makes us sick, and psychologists and HR departments try desperately to cure us, to make us efficient, productive and healthy. For what? To keep the system going, of course, because for it to stop is inconceivable. But there’s a new economic ideology taking hold spearheaded by economists such as Stephanie Kelton. This new ideology says that Governments can run on a deficit perfectly well, and people’s basic needs can be catered for, freeing them from the daily pressure to survive. Covid has shown us this in glaringly obvious terms, and the voice in favour of Universal Basic Income, for example, is getting louder. It’s part of a solution, a better way to run the financial affairs of our society and perhaps the financial affairs of families too. With basic needs catered for, maybe we’ll have the freedom to pursue activities that we’d really like. I don’t mean frivolous stuff like buying TVs and getting drunk—we use those things to medicate ourselves. Instead, I mean activities that Watts spoke about. We might have the space to think rather than act knee-jerk to challenges and difficulty. Maybe we won’t feel so threatened by people of another skin colour or religious persuasion. Wealthy people living comfortable lives are not the ones on the street rioting, shooting guns, getting involved in crime. It’s the people with fuck-all that are disenchanted. Lack of financial resources breeds social unrest.Currently, daily work for most people is a means to pay back debt–a hamster wheel that we can only get off if we stay the pace. If you’re lucky, you can pay off your mortgage in your fifties. Most don’t, however. Some don’t even have enough life, leaving their debt to their children. All of this means that we don’t really have a democracy with people capable of making informed decisions because of the burden of debt and the pressure to survive make the decisions for them. There has to be a better way, and the new economic ideology may be a chink of light we need.Universal Basic Income is just one tool in the hands of the new economic ideology, and I’m so excited about this movement that I’ll be writing on this over the coming months. Modern Monetary Theory is at its heart, and if you haven’t heard of it by now, give this episode of The David McWilliams Podcast a listen.Thanks for taking the time to read my stuff. If you enjoy Sunday Letters, consider supporting my work. I’m on Twitter if you’d like to follow me there. Oh, and there’s the Sunday Letters Podcast. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Support Sunday Letters There's a quote I read recently on the student debt situation in the US attributed to Noam Chomsky that goes like this… “Students who acquire large debts putting themselves through school are unlikely to think about changing society. When you trap people in a system of debt, they can't afford the time to think. Tuition fee increases are a “disciplinary technique,” and, by the time students graduate, they are not only loaded with debt, but have also internalized the “disciplinarian culture.” This makes them efficient components of the consumer economy.” As I sit at my desk this morning feeling the mild yet important sense of urgency to get invoices issued, allocate client payments, and generally get my business affairs in order after a lengthy pause, I realise that this quote applies to us all and in all circumstances. Pressure to fulfil certain obligations focuses the mind, ignoring all other demands for our attention. Where those obligations are financial, and given that money or the lack thereof is often the difference between living and dying, it tends to keep us from matters that are arguably more important to our survival. The social and cultural imperative to earn and contribute weighs heavy. The idea is so utterly ingrained in our psyche that not to follow the pre-written script for a successful life leads us to believe any alternative to the current system inconceivable. Not to have a degree, for example, is to consign oneself to flipping burgers or sweeping the street and low if that's the career we want for ourselves or our children. Arguably, an undergraduate degree is not worth the paper it's written on, given the number of people that hold one. A Masters is hardly even enough to distinguish you from your competition these days. And perhaps that's the problem. We've entered a game, the only game in town, it seems, that can possibly bring about a life worth living, but it has the opposite effect to the one it promises. It's almost unquestionable that young people should do anything other than enter college. Machines make furniture and build houses, so manual work is all but gone. And what's left is so below the required cultural status, it's not even considered. To do so is to go against the grain and pre-written script of education. Stephanie Kelton on David McWilliams Podcast Read the article --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message

Support Sunday Letters What does it mean to be white, what does it mean to be black, what about all the shades in between, and since when has discrimination be so easy to spot? Twitter seems to know, so I asked for clarification… I thought the Twitter police would string me up, or worse still, the racism police, but I didn't get a single response, probably because I'm largely anonymous there. Social Psychology defines Racism as prejudice and discrimination against people based on their ethnicity or race. Prejudice is an unfavourable attitude toward a particular social group and its members. And Discrimination is the behavioural expression of that prejudice. According to Gordon Allport's The Nature of Prejudice, prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviour consist of three components; Cognitive - One's beliefs about a group Affective - strong negative feelings about that group and the qualities it is believed to possess. Conative - Intentions to behave in certain ways towards that group. Some scholars don't accept this model. Rupert Brown suggests the following definition; “…the holding of derogatory attitudes or beliefs, the expression of negative affect, or the display of hostile or discriminatory behaviour towards members of a group.” I remember when I was a kid in the scouts in the 1980s. We went to an international scouting event in the UK, and my friends and I found ourselves isolated and on the receiving end of a tirade of abuse from an English scout leader. As far as he was concerned, everyone from Ireland at that time was a terrorist. We got an apology, but that didn't remove the experience of being singled out simply because of where we came from. That was mild compared to what Irish people living in the UK at the time had to endure. The IRA had active units operating in London at the time, and I suppose we could forgive people's general response. But discrimination against children? Discrimination at all? Maybe not. Read this issue --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-letters/message