What really holds people back from stepping up as allies in support of their marginalized colleagues? For example, why dont more men say something when they see a colleague or a customer make a sexist remark about a female co-worker?
Our research, published in the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, suggests that people often hesitate to intervene when co-workers are mistreated because they themselves feel disempowered in their organizations and experience distrust and polarization.
Our findings run counter to the common assumption that people dont step up to support marginalized colleagues because they dont care or are unmotivated. Not seeing much action against inequity and injustice can drive this cynical idea. Its built into many diversity, equity and inclusion training programs that rely on motivational tactics of persuasion, guilting and shaming to get people to act.
We are psychology researchers interested in how people can use their strengths to effectively support others who are marginalized. We surveyed 778 employees in Michigan and 973 employees across all provinces of Canada, representative of urban and rural areas, working-class and professional jobs, and across all demographics, including gender, race, and sexual orientation. We asked them, What makes it hard for you to be an ally for underrepresented and marginalized people (e.g., people of color, women, persons with a disability) in your organization?
Low motivation represented just 8% of the barriers people cited. And lack of awareness that marginalized groups face inequities accounted for only 10% of the barriers people mentioned. Most diversity training money tends to be devoted to teaching employees about these topicssuggesting why many diversity training programs fail.
The most common barrier to allyship that our participants named was distrust and tension between people in their organization, which had them second-guessing themselves and self-censoring. People also reported feeling disempowered, like they didnt have the power, opportunity or resources to make a real difference for their colleagues.
Why it matters
Researchers, specialists and consultants alike approach issues of workplace inequity with the assumption that to drive action, they need to first unblock potential allies deep-seated resistance to change. For example, specialists assume that people need to become more motivated, more courageous, less biased or better informed about existing inequities in order to act as allies.
In this study, we temporarily set aside all preexisting assumptions and directly asked people what made it hard for them to be an ally, in their own words. Our goal was to identify practical roadblocks at the top of peoples minds that stop them from taking the first step, or the next logical step.
When popular messaging, like on social media, and organizational interventions misunderstand the causes of peoples inaction, they risk exacerbating frustration and tensions. Interventions need to account for their audiences true perspectives on what makes allyship difficult. Otherwise, theyll lack credibility, and people will likely be less receptive to program content.
What still isnt known
Wed like to further investigate the impacts of the specific barriers mentioned in our study. More insight could help workplaces focus interventions on addressing barriers that are the worst pressure points and avoid overspending on interventions that can move the needle only so much.
More than a quarter of respondents said they experienced no barriers to standing up for colleagues. Wed like to investigate whether these respondents simply didnt want to engage with our question, are uncertain about the barriers, or are already engaging in some form of allyship. Our teams previous research has shown that even loud allies who publicly call out bias often also engage in quiet allyship actions, such as privately checking in on how a victim of bias is doing and assisting in strategizing next steps.
Whats next
Our research team is investigating whether programs designed with this studys findings in mindstarting with building trusting relationships and helping people feel empoweredcan increase allyship action. When diversity programs built on inaccurate assumptions dont show the desired results, they risk having funding withdrawn or being halted altogether. Instead, as organizations take stock and pivot, evidence from our study and others can help them more effectively plan their next move.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Meg A. Warren is a professor of management at Western Washington University.
Michael T. Warren is an assistant professor of psychology at Western Washington University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Recently, I made myself a promise: I would not buy any more Lego for at least a year. That plan has quickly been foiled. Lego’s first-ever Peanuts set is just too good, too iconic, too beautiful (plus, my son loves Snoopy and Woodstock.) This perfect brick renditionwith the classic red doghouse and even the campfire and marshmallows to toastis too cool pass up.
Lego’s addiction to licensed intellectual propertythe company now sells 25 IP-based themes out of 45 total, often burying the open-ended, creativity-first sets that built the brandis still a problem, but this Snoopy’s Doghouse set proves exactly why these licenses work so extraordinarily well to burn your credit card.
[Photo: Lego]
The magnetism of that simple beagle silhouette, combined with Lego’s three-dimensional engineering and the bricks’ intrinsic attractive power, is a perfect formula to trash all my financial constraints. Plus, Charles M. Schulz created something so visually strong, clear, and emotionally direct that translating it into 964 plastic bricks feels less like exploitation and more like homage.
Snoopy debuted on October 4, 1950, just two days after Peanuts launched, and he spent decades evolving from a puppy shuffling on four legs into the anthropomorphic dreamer who sleeps on top of his doghouse and imagines himself as the Red Baron, a World War I flying ace. Schulz based him on Spike, his childhood black-and-white mixed breed who was unusually intelligent and could understand about 50 words.
The name Snoopy came from Schulz’s mother, who once suggested it as a good name for a future family dog. (Fun note: Schulz had considered Sniffy before remembering her advice). Over 75 years, Snoopy became more than Charlie Brown’s pethe became a vehicle for fantasy, playing shortstop on Charlie Brown’s baseball team, typing novels as the World Famous Author, and strutting around as Joe Cool. He ascended the cultural ladder enough that even NASA adopted him as a mascot, naming the Apollo 10 lunar and command modules after him and creating the Silver Snoopy Award for astronaut achievement in 1968.
[Photo: Lego]
Woodstock, the small yellow bird who first appeared in 1966 but wasn’t named until June 22, 1970, cemented Snoopy’s status as a character who operated in his own emotional universe. Schulz named Snoopys avian pal after the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival, whose logo featured a bird perched on a guitar. The origin story is pure Schulz sentiment: A mother bird built a nest on Snoopy’s belly, then abandoned it, leaving Snoopy to raise the hatchlingsone of whom became Woodstock. Schulz never specified Woodstock’s species (fans guess canary or goldfinch), and he once drew a strip where Snoopy gave up trying to identify him.
Like many of us, Atlanta-based designer Robert Becker is a die-hard fan of the characters, so he spent about a year developing the concept before submitting it to Lego Ideas, the Danish companys program that accepts designs made by anyone who signs up for an account and submits a build. Submissions get considered for mass production after they receive 10,000 votes by other Ideas members. Thats when they may get approval by a company committee to be refined by Legos own designers in a long collaborative process.
[Photo: Lego]
“This set has so much character, Monica Pedersen, marketing director at the Lego Group, says in the sets press release. We were delighted that the Snoopy Campfire product idea received over 10,000 votes on the Lego Ideas platform. Im glad, too, Monica.
At 964 pieces and a $90 price tag, the set also hits the Lego complexity-affordability-granularity sweet spot, unlike many of the huge sets the company has produced in the past few years. Snoopy legs and neck are adjustable, letting you pose him and Woodstock in multiple display positions. The red doghouse opens to reveal a typewriter inside, which you can move anywhere. And the campfire scenewhich can also be hidden inside Snoopys homeis set against a starry sky backdrop. The set is already available for preorder; it will be sold in stores starting June 1.
And yes, my kid and I will be counting the days till it ships to us.
If youre a manager today, your job may well be changing. That is, if it hasnt already.
As companies continue to compress their org charts and axe layers of middle management, a new role is emerging: the supermanager.
Leaders are finding themselves responsible for significantly more direct reports and broader responsibilities. And in many industries, the trend shows no sign of slowing.
A Gallup survey published in January, citing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found that the average number of reports managers have increased from 10.9 in 2024 to 12.1 in 2025. The share of managers overseeing 25 or more employees has also grown in the past year, with 13% now supervising teams that large.
This long-term increase in managerial span of control has been described as part of the Great Flattening. It is being driven by several forces, including leadership churn, layoffs targeting middle management layers, and the AI boom, and organizations increasingly see fewer reasons to maintain multiple management layers.
Some workplace experts argue the shift is overdue, pointing to years of bloated management structures. Others warn the trend is backfiring, leaving employees lost in the noise and saddled with unrealistic demands.
Either way, the supermanager is becoming commonplace across countless industries.
When bigger teams lead to burnout and turnover
The role is changing, Jennifer Dulski, the CEO and founder of the AI-assisted team performance platform Rising Team, tells Fast Company. Every manager can now become a supermanager.
Michele Herlein, a former senior HR leader turned leadership expert who holds a doctorate in business administration, tells Fast Company that slimming down an organization can have immediate benefits, like reducing costs, and speeding up decision-making. But when organizations increase spans of control without redesigning the role itself, the consequences ripple quickly.
When people are reactive instead of proactiveputting out fires instead of preventing themchaos follows, Herlein says. When one megamanager is burnt out, the entire department feels it.
Leena Rinne, vice president of leadership, business, and coaching at Skillsoft, tells Fast Company that companies are effectively creating a new leadership role without acknowledging it.
If you’re going to have a flat organization and a lot of direct reports, you better be thinking about what the skills are that that leader needs and equipping them with those skills, Rinne says.
She believes the supermanager era can workbut most organizations are skipping that step, she says.
Rinne experienced the shift firsthand, managing 80 direct reports in one previous role. It was very different from managing eight: She needed absolute clarity on her vision and strategy rather than filling her time with individual one-on-one meetings.
The problem, she argues, is that many organizations are flattening their structures, but not evolving how they support managers.
Organizations think, oh, if we just put more pressure on them, they’ll figure out how to do it more effectively, she says. Then they don’t give them the training, the tools, the skills, the clarity, the visionall of these things that should come from higher levels of leadership.
The model isnt necessarily brokenbut the support often is
Dulski, who previously held leadership roles at Yahoo, Google, and Facebook, agrees that the supermanager era can work if companies rethink what management is for. Before the flattening, she argues, many managers oversaw too few people.
My personal view is that five to seven has been the right zone, she says. And with the right tools, we can probably get to 10 or 12 fairly easily.
But the benefits arent automatic. To make it work, supermanagers should spend less time on administrative tasks and more time on what Dulski calls the two Cs: clarity and compassion.
That means prioritizing fewer, clearer goals and using systems to replace constant supervision and micromanagement, which some have relied on to climb the traditional career ladder.
Great managers are like great sports coachesthey show clearly what winning looks like, have everybody clear on what their role is, and then they step back, she says. Managers are not doing a good job when you put very little support into helping them understand their role and training them to be good at it.
AI can help with this, but technology alone wont solve everything, Dulski warns.
Its counterintuitive to a lot of people, Dulski says, but the success of future managers and leaders lives at the intersection of deep human connection and AIone without the other will no longer be enough.
When a supermanager hasnt been given the time and resources to develop those skills, burnout follows. Gallup data has already shown that the workforce is disengaged, so piling additional responsibilities on top of people and expecting them to simply deal with it is only going to compound the problem.
As Rinne says: You cant flatten your way to growth.
How to survive and succeed as a supermanager
The Great Flattening is likely to continue, fueled by hybrid working, cost pressures, faster decision cycles, and the reduced need for oversight enabled by AI tools.
It looks like supermanagers are becoming the norm as a result, so those suddenly thrust into this role should try to make it work, but only if their organization is implementing the model thoughtfully and intentionally, rather than out of panic.
The supermanager era will be defined about leading differently, with clear goals, transparent communication, and leadership development to make it a sustainable one, experts say.
I think most organizations don’t invest in their leaders enough, period, Rinne says.
Herlein agrees, adding that a lot of supermanagers are stuck on a hamster wheel, not advancing, because theyre running on fumes.
It’s not that the model is broken, Herlein says. They just can’t do it without the broader organizational support and resourcesthey cant do it alone.
Thriving as a supermanager means distinguishing between the two paths ahead: embrace this new way of leading, or recognize when the environment isnt sustainable, and jump ship.
Do women board members make a company more innovative or risk-averse? The answer is both, according to our recent study. It all depends on how the company performs relative to its goals.
Professors Małgorzata Smulowitz, Didier Cossin and I examined 524 S&P 1500 companies from 1999 to 2016, measuring innovation through patent activity. Patents reflect both creative output and risk-taking. They require significant investment in novel ideas that might fail, disclosure of proprietary information and substantial legal costs. In short, patents represent genuine bets on the future.
Our findings revealed a striking pattern. When companies performed poorly in relation to their goals, they produced fewer patents after more women joined their boards.
However, companies exceeding their performance targets saw increased patent output as their number of women directors grew. Similarly, when companies were financially flush, there were more patents generated when their boards had more women.
The situation changed when we examined radical innovations, those patents in the top 10% of citations. For these high-risk, high-reward innovations, the risk-averse effect of women board members dominated.
When a companys performance fell below aspirations, there were fewer radical innovations as its board gained female members. We found no corresponding increase in radical innovations when performance exceeded goals.
One finding surprised us. We predicted that boards with more women would reduce innovation when companies approached bankruptcy. Instead, it was the opposite: Boards with more women actually increased patent output as bankruptcy loomed. This suggests that women directors may fight harder for a companys survival through innovation when facing existential threats.
Why it matters
Between 2000 and 2024, the number of women on S&P 500 boards increased from 27% to 34%. But previous research has painted conflicting pictures on the effect that women board members may have. Some studies showed that women reduce corporate risk-taking, while others demonstrated they increase innovation and creativity. Our work suggests both perspectives are correct under different circumstances.
For companies and regulators pushing for greater board gender diversity, this research provides practical guidance. Companies performing well can expect increased innovation by adding women to their boards. These directors can bring diverse perspectives, improved decision-making and better resource allocation that translate into more patents.
Conversely, poorly performing companies can expect boards with more women to focus on stability over risky innovation. This isnt necessarily negative.
Research shows that banks led by women were less likely to fail during the financial crisis, and companies with more women directors experience less financial distress. Reduced innovation during tough times may reflect prudent risk management rather than risk aversion.
Traditional theories predict that poor performance triggers risky searches for solutions. But boards with more women appear to prioritize organizational survival over uncertain innovation when performance suffers. They may assess that failed innovation attempts could worsen an already precarious situation.
This research also speaks to the glass cliff phenomenon, where women often join boards during crisis periods. Our findings suggest these directors may bring exactly what struggling companies need: careful risk assessment and focus on survival rather than potentially wasteful innovation spending.
What still isnt known
We measured innovation through patents, but many innovations never become patents. How women directors affect other forms of innovationsuch as copyrights, trade secrets and first-mover advantageremains unclear.
What are the mechanisms driving the differences? Do women directors actively advocate for different innovation strategies? Do they change board discussion dynamics? Do they influence CEO and management team decisions indirectly? Future research needs to open the black box of boardroom decision-making.
Finally, the long-term consequences need examination. We measured patent output, but not whether the patents translated into commercial success or competitive advantage. Understanding whether the innovation patterns we documented ultimately benefit company performance would provide crucial insights for decision-makers.
The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.
Stephen J. Smulowitz is an assistant professor of strategic management at Wake Forest University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Rob Shaver is a 49-year-old retail worker who recently had a streak of running at least 1 mile every day for three years. Hes also been living with Stage 4 bone and lung cancer for more than 20 years.
Shavers commitment to living in spite of illness is chronicled in the short film The Life We Have, which uses his life as a lens through which to examine questions at the heart of the human experience: What gives life meaning when time feels fragile? How do we keep moving forward when suffering feels endless?
Though profoundly sad, the film, directed by Sam Price-Waldman, is also thoughtfully inspiring. We see Shaver on his good days, running and spending time with his brother and mom. We see him on his bad days, at the hospital for chemo, or pulling out his hair at home as a result of his treatments. Smiling on the road. Crying at the kitchen table. Its a quiet film, built on moments of happiness and hardship.
Perhaps one of the most surprising aspects of the project is that its produced by REI, and Shaver works at the outdoor retailers San Antonio store (as do his mother and brother). Up until now, The Life We Have has been screened only at film festivals, but on February 18 the brand is launching the film on its website and YouTube channel.
Paolo Mottola, VP of brand marketing at REI, says Shaver and his store manager just cold-called him a few years ago. They liked what REI Studios, the brands content division, had been doing and thought they had a story to tell.
While REI Studios has done more traditional outdoors action-based work, its also produced more narrative-based work like Frybread Face and Me. Executive produced by Taika Waititi, the comedy-drama is about a boy who spends a summer with his grandmother on a Navajo reservation. REI Studios also put out Canary, a documentary feature that follows adventurer and climate scientist Lonnie Thompson.
We want to tell human stories that people can empathize with and resonate with, says Mottola. This story [The Life We Have] isn’t about achievement or accomplishment in the traditional outdoor sense. This is an achievement and an inspiration by someone doing something really, really hard in a hospital bed, or getting out of their own bed to just jog a mile. Its about that connection to each other and that connection to the outdoors and how we’re better people for that.
[Photo: REI Studios]
Life worth living
Director Price-Waldman and producers at Wondercamp have been documenting Shavers story since mid-2023. Joe Crosby, REIs director of brand and content marketing, says that based on initial conversations REI Studios wanted to make the film, even if it would be viewed only by the brands roughly 15,000 employees.
That was inspiration enough for us to tell the story, Crosby says. As Wonder Camp plugged in, they were embedded, and his health circumstance was changing while they were producing the film. It took on a different life through the production and execution of the film into what you’re seeing now, and it will now see a wider audience than our employee community.
[Photo: REI Studios]
Over the course of the 25-minute film, Shavers illness recedes from and steps into the spotlight, conveying the unpredictability of his everyday life. The role of running, even if its just a mile, in affirming his purpose and providing him with joy is clear.
Everyday, be thankful for your body, be thankful for your mind, he says.
Over the past year the film has received numerous awards, including Best Short at the AmDocs Film Festival, the Audience Choice Award at the Telluride Mountainfilm Festival, and Best of the Fest at the 5Point Film Festival.
[Photo: REI Studios]
REI challenges
The film lands at a time when REI could use an inspirational story of its own. Its faced financial declines in the past few years, with sales down 2.4% in 2023 and 6.2% in 2024. In October 2025, the company announced it would be shutting down its Soho store in Manhattan, as well as locations in Boston and Paramus, New Jersey.
CEO Mary Beth Laughton joined REI a year ago to help right the ship that has been rocked by employee unrest over the companys reported efforts to slow unionization, as well as a damning internal report on racial equity within the company.
Mottola says the brands broader film work is not just a marketing effort, but also a way to advocate for the best parts of the companys internal culture. He sees work like The Life We Have building on REI Studios consistency oftelling employee stories like 2020s The Mighty Finn, about Cleveland store manager Ethan Sheets and his 7-year-old son Finn.
Our role is to build the brand and keep people excited about it, and keep audiences and our members engaged in the brand, Mottola says.
Evolving studio
As hyped as brand entertainment is these days in marketing circles, REI was in relatively early on establishing an internal division devoted to content and entertainment. Originally launched in 2021, REI Co-Op Studios has projects on Netflix and Hulu, and produces everything from short films to weekly podcasts and an online newsletter.
Mottola says the strategy has shifted based on those early experiences. The brand is being more selective in the long-form projects it chooses to invest in, and is focused on retaining distribution control. It’s been a huge learning curve for us the last few years, he says. But I think we found the partners we like to work with, understand the ecosystem we need to work in, and the time we need to take to get a story from concept to audience.
This week, the brand is launching a nationwide Run for Rob screening tour with regional run clubs and raising funds for local nonprofits including Cancer Support Community. Screening events have already been hosted in New York, Los Angeles, and Seattle, and the tour continues in Denver on March 1 and additional cities in the coming weeks.
Its not often (or ever) that brand content can be described as profound, but Shavers story and how hes able to articulate his journey certainly qualifies. Its a message any viewerand the brand itselfcan take to heart.
Its about so much more than running, Shaver says in the film. Its about making a choice every day to live deeply and thoroughly. And with beautiful effort. Not for results. Not for money or fame or lifestyle. But for the richness of being alive.
Ive worked remotely since 2006 (way before it was common). However, my days were filled with calls to colleagues and DMs to chat about everything from work to what we had planned for the weekend.
Now Im a solopreneur. I have occasional calls with clients, but theyre rare. Most of my days are spent working alone. In many ways, this is great since I have the freedom to work however and whenever I want. But staying motivated when its just me requires being really thoughtful about how I work.
According to a 2025 report by Leapers, nearly half of self-employed professionals feel lonely occasionally or some of the time. One in five feels lonely or isolated often or always. It can be really hard to stay motivated when youre working in isolation. You have to create your own structure and find ways to keep going without other people around.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/11\/work-better-1.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/11\/work-better-mobile-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Work Better\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Thoughts on the future of work, career pivots, and why work shouldn\u0027t suck, by Anna Burgess Yang. To learn more, visit \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/www.workbetter.media\/\u0022\u003Eworkbetter.media\u003C\/a\u003E.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/www.workbetter.media","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91457605,"imageMobileId":91457608,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Design your own workday
Traditional 9-to-5 hours don’t always make sense when you work alone. You don’t have to start at 8 a.m. just because that’s when your clients start working. You can work when you’re most productivebut you have to make sure you actually get stuff done during that time.
For example, I still mostly follow a traditional workday schedule because I have kids, and thats when theyre in school. However, I also find that Im incredibly productive early in the morning, before anyone else is awake. I have the least energy in the evenings, so my day often ends at 3:30 or 4 p.m.
Time-blocking helps create structure, even when no one is holding you accountable. I block off chunks for deep work, admin tasks, and meetings. Seeing my calendar filled in is like making an appointment with myselflike I have somewhere to be (even if that somewhere is my home office).
If you’re not sure when you do your best work, track it for a week. Note when you feel focused versus when you’re dragging. Then build your schedule around when you have the most energy, not traditional working hours.
Create a work mode environment
When your home is also your office, it’s really easy to blur boundaries. The dishes and laundry are right there. Creating separationeven artificial separationcan help signal to your brain that it’s time to focus.
Small rituals work surprisingly well. For me, its making a cup of coffee, closing the door to my home office, and putting on a specific playlist to start my morning. These are my mental switches to get into work mode. I do work only at my desk (unless Im traveling).
If you don’t have a dedicated workspace, find other ways to create that boundary. Some solopreneurs work in a specific corner of a shared room or use only certain apps during work hours. You can use headphones to block distractions. The ritual is the important part, not the specifics.
Work alongside other people
When you work for an employer, you have some outside accountability to get your tasks done. Whether its your manager or a teammate, you know that other people are watching you (either in an office or metaphorically).
When you work alone, you have to actively find ways to be around other people. Working with others can improve your focus, increase your motivation, and reduce procrastination (a concept known as body doubling). If you find it hard to stay on task while running your solo business, body doubling can make a huge difference.
Virtual coworking has become popular for this reason. Platforms like Flow Club or FLOWN let you work alongside other people on video for a specific period of time (one hour, two hours, etc.). I’ve also done casual video calls with fellow solopreneurs where we just work together silently. If you join a virtual coworking session, come with a specific project or task that youd like to complete during the allotted time.
If virtual coworking isn’t your thing, try working from a coffee shop, library, or coworking space occasionally. Even once a week can break up the isolation and give you a change of scenery. You still get the benefit of body doubling when youre in a room with other people, even if theyre not connected to you in any way.
Make working alone work for you
Working solo means you dont have a lot of external cues. You dont realize how much you rely on other people and your work environment to keep you motivated until youre on your own. Suddenly, its a random Tuesday at 10 a.m. and you have no desire to workeven with a looming client deadline.
When you intentionally design your workday and find small ways to simulate accountability, motivation will follow. Youll realize that you dont need a boss, coworkers, or an office to stay on track. You just need systems that work for you.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/11\/work-better-1.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/11\/work-better-mobile-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Work Better\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Thoughts on the future of work, career pivots, and why work shouldn\u0027t suck, by Anna Burgess Yang. To learn more, visit \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/www.workbetter.media\/\u0022\u003Eworkbetter.media\u003C\/a\u003E.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/www.workbetter.media","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91457605,"imageMobileId":91457608,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
The business worlds most exclusive club has always been the boardroom. For decades, it has operated as a roped-off circle of experience, where pattern recognition, war stories, and collective gut instinct guided the biggest decisions. But the most recent quarterly earnings calls and 2026 spending projections across industries from tech to finance make it clear: That era is ending.
As business complexity explodes and competitive cycles compress, those old methods are showing their limits. Artificial intelligence is exposing blind spots, surfacing inconvenient truths, and rewriting how boards govern, challenge, and lead.
The transformation goes beyond adding new tools and technologies to the boardroom playbook. AI is changing how directors think, what they question, and how they hold management accountable. And as AI matures, its transforming boardrooms from bastions of intuition into engines of continuous intelligence.
Here are three ways that shift is unfolding, and how forward-thinking boards are adapting.
Data Finally Beats Anecdotes
In my experience doesnt cut it anymore. AI can process customer behavior patterns, market signals, and competitive shifts faster and more accurately than any human can. When a director recalls how a similar situation played out 15 years ago, AI can instantly test whether that approach worked then, and whether it would still work today.
Leading boards are now requiring management to back up claims with AI-driven analyses alongside traditional reports. Gut instinct still has a role, but its being paired with evidence-based validation. Boards and leaders must learn to partner with AI’s analytical horsepower, even (or especially) when it feels unnatural or risk being left behind.
Predictive Intelligence Forces Long-Term Thinking
Boards often fall into the trap of short-termism, reacting to the last quarter rather than anticipating the next disruption. AI changes that.
Predictive models can now forecast churn months in advance, identify market shifts before they appear in analyst reports, and simulate how strategic moves might play out under different scenarios.
This pushes boards to engage in true foresight: asking whats next, not what happened. It extends the time horizon of governance from postmortem analysis to strategic anticipation.
New Skills Are Redefining Who Belongs in the Boardroom
Board composition must evolve. The traditional mix of former CEOs, financial experts, and industry veterans, valuable as they are, is no longer sufficient.
Boards now need directors who understand data governance, algorithmic bias, and digital operating models. That doesnt mean replacing experience with youth, but pairing wisdom with fluency.
Forward-thinking boards are addressing this through structured approaches: creating dedicated AI oversight committees, partnering long-serving directors with AI-savvy advisors, and requiring all directors to complete AI governance education programs. The goal isnt to turn every director into a technologist, but ensure that every director can think critically about AIs strategic and ethical implications.
Whats Next?
Boards have always made decisions based on databut until now, that data arrived slowly, selectively, and often filtered through human bias. AI changes the tempo and texture of governance. It challenges assumptions in real time.
Companies whose boards resist this shift will find themselves making yesterdays decisions about tomorrows challenges. Those who embrace it will lead with sharper foresight, faster adaptation, and deeper accountability.
The choice isn’t whether to embrace AI in governanceit’s whether boards will use it to lead or follow.
At its core, public health is about driving healthy behavior changes by building awareness, meeting people where they are, and offering solutions that are accessible and grounded in evidence. Throughout my career, I have worked on issues ranging from foster adoption and drunk driving prevention to tobacco prevention and cessation, always with science as our foundation. But the media landscape, and how people engage with information, has changed dramatically. To remain relevant and effective, public health must evolve. That means rethinking not just what we communicate, but how we motivate, engage, and sustain healthy behaviors.
WHY ITS IMPORTANT TO LEAN IN
Gamification, using elements of game design in an existing digital product or intervention to engage users and change behavior, has become an increasingly common approach in public health. It can reframe intimidating goals like exercising more, managing stress, and quitting nicotine into smaller, achievable steps that feel tangible and motivating. When implemented effectively, gamification can improve user engagement by supporting intrinsic motivation, learning and skill development, social interaction, and a sense of accomplishment.
In many ways, public health cant afford to ignore gamification. Addiction is already gamifiedand its winning. As one example, smart vapes now feature screens, rewards, animations, and puff tracking. These high-tech devices have become top-selling products, with 32% of youth and 33% of young adults reporting using vapes with screens, games, or Bluetooth connectivity in the past month. These products are applying the same engagement strategies used in consumer tech to drive repeat use and ultimately sustain addictive behavior.
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS
Mounting evidence supports gamification use in public health. As an example, some randomized trials show that socially incentivized gamified interventions can significantly increase physical activity, compared with non-gamified approaches. Similar approaches have been used to improve medication adherence, chronic disease management, and preventive health behaviors. Participants assigned to team-based challenges or friendly competition sustain healthier behaviors longer than those receiving traditional prompts alone. Progress you can see becomes behavior you repeat.
Interventions using gamification share some core principles: making health interactive, trackable, or social. Many effective gamified health interventions align with self-determination theory, which identifies three drivers of motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE BACKING IS NEEDED
Well-designed programs dont just reward outcomes; they reward effort, consistency, and resilience. In public health, that distinction matters, because change rarely happens all at once. It happens through daily re-commitments. Public health succeeds when it rewards persistence and practicenot perfection.
Campaigns, which often complement an intervention, can also be gamified. The campaign itself can inspire behavior change, while also encouraging sign-up for the specific health intervention. The collective result: stronger outcomes.
The approach can be especially relevant for younger generations, who may expect things like daily check-ins, streaks, and digital accountability as part of their digital experiences. We are infusing some gamified elements into EX Program from Truth Initiative, our free, digital nicotine-cessation resource developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic. By implementing elements that mirror gamification principles like check-ins, milestones, progress encouragement, virtual rewards, and social reinforcement, we help participants stay engaged with quitting behavior. These features are designed to reward effort and participation rather than outcomes alone. We know that every try makes you stronger the next time.
APPLY GAMIFICATION BEYOND TRADITIONAL HEALTH TOOLS
We have also tested creator-led digital experiences that reflect how young people already motivate one another online. As part of You Got This Day, a national moment designed to reframe Quitters Day as an opportunity to recommit after relapse, Truth Initiative worked with Gen-Z creators to create and launch a Snapchat augmented-reality lens called 30 Day Challenge.
Developed through Snap Academies, the lens encourages young people trying to quit nicotine to focus on making it one more day without using nicotine, through visual progress tracking, supportive messaging, and social accountability. Rather than relying on financial incentives or competition, the experience emphasizes encouragement, persistence, and community, reinforcing evidence-based support through EX Program.
For Gen Z, platforms like Snapchat and TikTok arent channelsthey’re cultural fluency. Designing health interventions that live there brings gamification to young consumers where it already resonates.
REASONS FOR CAUTION
Evidence points to important caveats to consider when moving toward a more gamified public health approach. Over-reliance on competition can discourage people who fall behind. Extrinsic rewards can crowd out internal motivation, or risk trivializing an important topic for participants. And without strong privacy protections, data-driven health tools can run the risk of eroding trustparticularly among individuals who are already wary of surveillance and misuse.
Theres also a risk of superficial engagement. Points without purpose dont change lives. The most effective interventions are grounded in evidence, are culturally relevant, and are responsive to users real-world challengesnot just their attention spans.
THE PROMISE
Despite these challenges, the promise of gamification in public health is real. This novel approach for public health can become a catalyst for measurable health behavior change. By recognizing how people already engage with technology and then designing public health tools that feel supportive, human, and achievable, were turning participation into progress. In a world where screens dominate attention and traditional health messaging can struggle to break through, gamification can complement proven public health strategies that support sustained behavior change. The future of public health isnt louder messaging, its smarter engagement.
Kathy Crosby is CEO and president of Truth Initiative.
If you haven’t read the book The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman, youre probably at least familiar with the idea behind it: that people give and receive care in different ways. Some value words, others actions. Some want quality time; others want gifts or closeness.
Problems arise when two people in a relationship give and receive care differently. Even the best intentions dont land if theyre expressed in a way the recipient doesnt recognize.
This dynamic is well-established in personal relationships, but I’ve also seen a version of it play out between leaders and their teams. Very often, what leaders see as performance issues are really a mismatch in leadership languages.
As a leader, I consider it my job to enable people around me to be their bestboth at work and beyond. Applying the idea of leadership languages to these relationships gives me a practical framework for doing that.
LEADERSHIP IS EXPERIENCED, NOT DECLARED
Just as in personal relationships, leadership is not measured by what you mean to convey, but by what the other person experiences. As leaders, we care deeply about our teams. Yet even the best intentions can get lost in translation when theres a leadership language mismatch.
Like there are leadership styles, there are followership preferences. Some people want clear guardrails; others want autonomy. Some value frequent feedback; others prefer independence. When leadership and followership styles align, work feels energizing. When they dont, even talented people struggle.
These disconnects often show up as performance problems. But at a deeper level, they are translation problemsmoments when a leaders way of showing support or direction doesnt align with what a team member needs to do their best work.
Ive seen this pattern repeatedly, and Im sure you have too: A strong hire struggles. Communication becomes tense. Projects and initiatives stall.
Often, a leaders instinct is to treat the problem as a performance issue and institute more structure, clearer expectations, and tighter oversight. But that makes the situation worse, because the problem isnt capability. Its that the leader and team member speak different leadership languages.
5 LEADERSHIP LANGUAGES
Every leader Ive met has a unique leadership style, but Ive seen common patterns that lead me to believe we all default to one of these five leadership languages. They all have their advantages, but they also all have the potential to be misunderstood by people who work best with a different leadership language:
Direction and controlCharacterized by: Centralized decisions, detailed guidance, and close involvement.
How its received: For some, this creates clarity and confidence; for others, it feels like micromanaging.
Inspiration and visionCharacterized by: Emphasis on purpose, narrative, and momentum over day-to-day execution.
How its received: Motivating for mission-driven teams, but frustrating for those who want clear direction.
Empathy and presenceCharacterized by: Leading through listening, availability, and emotional attunement.
How its received: Builds trust and a sense of belonging but can slow decision-making.
Results and accountabilityCharacterized by: Relentless focus on outcomes, metrics, and performance.
How its received: Drives excellence in some people and burnout in others.
Servant leadershipCharacterized by: Prioritizing growth and enablement.
How its received: Builds long-term capability but requires clarity and boundaries to work well.
None of these approaches is inherently good or bad. It’s important for leaders to understand that their preferred style may not match what their team members need.
CLARITY IS A LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY
Before diagnosing an issue as a performance problem, ask:
Has this person succeeded in similar roles before?
Does the friction feel procedural? Or does it feel more personal?
Are you responding with more of what isnt working?
Would this person describe your leadership the way you intend it?
Do you see a pattern across multiple people you manage?
Taken together, these questions help distinguish true performance gaps from leadership that’s lost in translation.
Its on us as leaders to be explicit about how we lead. People should not have to figure out our leadership styles through trial and error.
That clarity starts in the hiring process. I’m direct with candidates about how I lead. I even encourage them to talk with people who have worked for me to learn about my leadership style. A leadership language fit is too important to leave to assumption.
It may seem like this level of transparency could limit the candidate pool or make people feel excluded, but my goal is to give them agency. My primary leadership language is servant leadership. That works wonderfully for a lot of people. But for people who want more direction and control, Im probably not the best fit. And thats okay. Better to know early on and make decisions accordingly.
WHAT TO DO MONDAY MORNING
Of course, no organization can have only one leadership language. There will always be mismatchesand leaders can address them with clear assessment and communication:
Name your default leadership style. Be explicit about how you lead when youre not consciously adjusting.
Ask your team what they need. Ask what helps them do their best work and what gets in the way.
Create a simple translation guide. Note how each direct report prefers to communicate, receive feedback, and operate day to day.
Revisit strained relationships. Before escalating performance concerns, have a direct conversation about working styles and expectations.
Make alignment part of onboarding. Share your leadership language early and invite new hires to do the same.
Small moves like these wont change who you are as a leader, but they can change how people experience your leadership.
Leadership alignment is one of the most underutilized tools in building high-performing teams. You may be the worlds best leader, but that doesnt mean much unless the way you lead helps the people around you do their best work.
Chris Ball is the CEO of 6sense.
Monday night’s episode of The Late Show With Stephen Colbert was missing somethingan entire interview. But viewers weren’t left in the dark about whyhost Stephen Colbert told his audience that CBS didn’t air his interview with Texas state Rep. James Talarico due to concerns it could run afoul of shifting Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules.
“We were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert said on the air Monday.
That didn’t stop him from calling out the move in the episode and poking fun at FCC Chair Brendan Carr and CBSand it didn’t stop him from uploading the entire interview to YouTube. But the incident offers a look at how networks are responding to Trump administration pressure in the wake of ABC’s sidelining of Jimmy Kimmel for six days last fall.
Shifting FCC rules
According to Colbert, CBSs lawyers were acting in compliance with a recent letter from Carr about the FCC’s equal time rule. It says that a broadcast station granting airtime to a legally qualified candidate for public office must offer the same amount of time to all other candidates for the same office.
The January 21 letter suggested that late-night showswhich have been exempted from the rule as bona fide news interview programs (aka, nonpartisan, regularly scheduled newscasts)no longer fit that definition and could be subject to the equal time rule. The FCC has not formally changed how it classifies late-night shows.
In a statement to Fast Company, CBS said it did not prohibit the show from airing the interview, but offered legal guidance that airing it could trigger the FCC equal time rule for Talarico’s opponents in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat currently held by Republican John Cornyn.
“The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled, the statement said. The Late Show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal time options.
An online loophole
As CBS’s statement said, The Late Shows solution was to post the interview with Talarico to its YouTube channel rather than air it live on CBS. In the interview, Colbert highlighted that Talaricos recent appearance on The View also prompted the FCC to open a probe into the daytime talk show. Do you mean to cause trouble? Colbert joked.
I think that Donald Trump is worried that we’re about to flip Texas, Talarico replied. This is the party that ran against cancel culture, and now they’re trying to control what we watch, what we say, what we read. And this is the most dangerous kind of cancel culturethe kind that comes from the top.
On his show Monday, Colbert pointed out that the FCCs bona fide news exemption for late night hasnt been revoked yet; Carr has merely implied he intends to eliminate it.
He hasn’t done away with it yet, but my network is unilaterally enforcing it as if he had, Colbert said.
That was the element of the story that caught the attention of FCC commissioner Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat at top of the agency.
“CBS is fully protected under the First Amendment to determine what interviews it airs,” she wrote. “That makes its decision to yield to political pressure all the more disappointing. Corporate interests cannot justify retreating from airing newsworthy content.”
The FCC did not respond to Fast Companys Tuesday afternoon request for comment by press time Tuesday evening.
