Sunday Letters

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here. Many thanks for your support!On Tuesday, I wrote about the false promise of the future of work. I highlighted, amongst other things, that education helps school us towards direct paid employment or waged slavery, according to some, and not towards the freedom of self-employment, for example. Self-employment is too risky, it seems. If we take the chance and fail, we’ll lose everything we’ve earned. In this, we accept the prison of our employment over the freedom of the unknown.The structure of the workplace provides us with a degree of certainty. But what if this apparent ground of our belief was not factual but something the system taught us? Maybe it is the pursuit of hedonic pleasure and the avoidance of pain that keeps us there. wrote this week that the philosopher Karl Marx believed work was a natural thing human beings seek to do, and in this need to express ourselves, we are manipulated by capital. In contrast, Plato and Aristotle believed manual work was of the lower order and not for sophisticated men. They also believed that slavery was right and proper, so perhaps not the best judges on these matters.The question remains: Do we work to attain the means to live or merely survive, or do we seek fulfilment of a deeper, more innate human need? What would we do if we didn’t need to work to meet those basic needs? What would we do with our time? Is contemporary work designed to line the pockets of the capitalists, and do we comply through blind habit? That’s several questions, yes, but you get the picture.Let us know your thoughts in the comments. Get full access to The Sunday Letters Journal at sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

I mentioned on Monday that change was afoot; well, here’s the story…Welcome to the relaunch of the Sunday Letters Podcast. It has been some time since the last episode, and recently, I felt the urge to get this thing operational again. In doing so, I’ve managed to convince my learned friend and philosopher, to join me here and help build this thing out. Over the years, we have conversed privately on many topics we cover here on Sunday Letters, so the partnership seemed like a natural choice. Sunday Letters reflects how we both feel about and see the modern workplace - a fake plastic environment that, despite its best efforts to the contrary, seems incompatible with human welfare. This forms the basis of our forthcoming discussions on work.I will publish new written content on Tuesdays on the Future of Work. Dmitri will publish the general topic of the week on Thursdays. New podcast episodes will be published weekly on Fridays with a full (but raw) conversation transcript. We will cover the issues affecting people's working lives and the role work plays in global politics, economics, and broader social issues. Work, after all, is so intertwined with all human affairs; it’s hard not to connect it with what’s happening in the world. From pollution and the global climate crisis to the conflict in the Middle East to the mistreatment of the vulnerable in society and the abuse of workers in the Global South, our jobs and our daily work play no small part.In case you missed the hint, The Sunday Letters Journal is firmly on the Left—we are for people first, organisations second… at best. One of the most challenging problems in society today is that the interests of organisations often come before those of the people and the environment. A misalignment of values and motivations is at its core, and we think there’s something we can do about that.Alright, thanks for being here. We’re looking forward to engaging with you in the comments, and if you’d like to support this work, become a subscriber today and get 20% off forever. Get full access to The Sunday Letters Journal at sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here. Many thanks for your support!You might be wondering where the several hundred older episodes of Sunday Letters have disappeared. Well, I have drafted them all. I did so primarily because most of them were pure shite and also because things like intros, titles, and formatting were quite inconsistent. The best move available was to take them down and republish the best of them under new titles. I’ll be going through those over the next few weeks and months.In the meantime, check out episode 001 for more on what to expect from the new Sunday Letters. Get full access to The Sunday Letters Journal at sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/subscribe

My wife walks the dog, that’s her job. It's a job in the sense that she feels obligated to do it, but it’s not really a job because she likes to walk for 4 or 5 km with the dog whenever she can. For me, I feel I could be more productive with my time than aimlessly walking for an hour. My dominant thought is that I could achieve a lot in my work with that time so it’s a bit of a waste.I’m a bit of a utilitarian in that sense.How did I get this way?Am I unique in this line of thinking?At the same time, I like to take my time with certain things. I like to sit in the kitchen in my chair with a cup of coffee and stare out the window for thirty minutes. I like to take an hour to chill out after the gym on a Saturday morning. So in my own way, I “waste” time too.But it’s not wasted, is it? (rhetorical question).This morning, my wife is working so couldn’t take the dog on her usual 5 km walk. So I suggested that I’d do it after I walked our youngest to school. It was rather a run around in an enclosed space in the park than a lengthy walk, but the dog enjoyed itself and that’s better than nothing. Even so, the voice in my head said, you’ve work to do. You could be using this time to get things done.So I fought my worky brain and walked the dog.In doing so, there was a mild sense of enjoyment, of just taking time to do something that didn’t have an end in mind—an ulterior motive. I met a fella I know too, he was walking his dog. We chatted about things, random stuff like the temperament of each dog, kids’ football and the local club, working from home and so on.The point is that doing things as we’ve always done them means we’re likely missing out on the ordinary everyday encounters that give life colour and make it enjoyable. We’re too caught up in utility, in achieving objective things, attainment, and material wealth and all the while we’re missing out on human wealth.According to Richard Ryan and Ed Deci’s Self Determination Theory of human motivation, these human experiences are the nutriments of life, without which, human beings become ill and suffer. It is through the overbearing pressure to produce, to meet the demands of the market and the workplace that we begin to deteriorate.Through these practices of just walking for the sake of it, of meeting people by chance and having one-to-one conversations about our lives we make connections and build relationships. These, in turn, fuel our needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness; the three legs on the stool of motivation and well-being.It’s a constant battle with oneself but it’s one worth having.Oh, she says well, you're not a poor man. You know, why don't you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope.I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know...And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore.- Kurt VonnegutThe 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

We leave ourselves open to ridicule. We have no observable sense of direction by all external means of assessment. We flip-flop between ideas and try many things, some of which work and most of which don’t. What do we mean by “work”? Is it to be commercially successful? Is it to be recognised by our peers? Regardless of the subject matter and its perceived objective success or otherwise, we drop what we are doing and move to something else.I did some drawing a while ago — a portrait in charcoal. It was my first effort, took me ages and it was good. I enjoyed the process and the result and I learned something universal that words find hard to convey. I shared it on social media and the response was very positive, to say the least. My family said I should draw more, I was “talented” apparently. I took a stab at a few other portraits but I dropped the practice pretty much completely. The easel I made sits fragmented in the shed, my charcoal and drawing tools sit in a drawer in my office, and attempted portraits lay tucked into a gap between the wall and a bookshelf in my office.So what was the point of even trying?Why bother if you drop whatever it is for something else on merely a whim?Would you not just stick to one thing and perfect that?Well, for me and others like me, there is the thrill of trying new things. Objective externally measured success means little. Ok, I get a short-term thrill from recognition, but the truth of the matter is that I run a mile from it. I really don’t like attention, and that’s a bit of a problem, because like most people, at the same time it’s nice to be recognised. We are social animals after all, and without community and relatedness, we fragment completely and die. And so there is an internal fight with oneself. Freud said we (das Ich) are not masters in our own house. This is true, it seems. But recognised or not, the value of the work must be in the doing of it for its own sake, for the inherent challenge and enjoyment we receive from it. Because the doing of it is our life and we live that now. Expectation takes us out of now, out of our hearts and into our heads. Now is the only place we can be effective. Regardless, the recognition of others doesn’t last. 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 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 d

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 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

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