When its parked in your garage, the Polestar 3 can now help you save on your electric bill.
The automaker is the latest to roll out bidirectional charging for its electric vehicles, making it possible to charge the SUVs battery when power is cheap and then use the vehicle to power your house when prices go up. The company partnered with Dcbel, a startup that makes technology that manages the flow of energy between the car and home.
“Most of our cars sit in driveways more than 80% of the time,” says Dcbel CEO Marc-André Forget. “Now, for the first time, if we think about it, cars start to be useful even when parked. This is transformational. It’s the second-largest investment for most family after the market of the home, and those assets are underused.”
The 2026 Polestar 3 [Photo: Polestar]
When you plug the car into Dcbel’s home energy station, called the Ara, artificial intelligence kicks in and analyzes energy prices, forecasts how much energy you’ll need over the next few days and how much you need for driving, and, if you have solar panels, it also predicts how much solar power you’ll be generating.
The device uses that data to decide, “Should I charge the car right now?” Forget says. “Should I supercharge the car? Should I wait and charge later? Should I use the energy from the car to power the house, to basically avoid buying energy from the grid at a very high price?”
When your house needs power, the equipment converts DC power from your car into AC for the wiring in your home. (The tech can also double as an inverter for solar panels, though if you already have a solar inverter, it likely doesn’t have the right software to work with an EV.)
[Photo: Dcbel]
Any EV could become bidirectional, but automakers need to develop software to make it work. Polestar spent 18 months working with Dcbel to design a seamless user experience. Users can track the system through an app, though it handles everything automatically. If the power goes out in the middle of the night, the car will wake up and start charging your house. If the grid is down over a long period, the car’s battery can charge an average house for 2.5 days, or as long as 10 days if you start rationing power.
The home energy system is pricey, starting at $5,000 for a base model. But in California, Dcbel won a grant that will provide customers with generous rebates: up to $8,100 for a full-featured version of the tech, up to $2,000 for installation, up to $200 for interconnecting to the grid, $1,000 to enroll in a dynamic rate utility program, and up to $2,500 toward a bidirectional EV like the Polestar 3. The rebates are first-come, first-serve, and decline over time. But for the first customers, the charging equipment could be nearly free.
“We chose to focus on California primarily because of the state incentives that are available,” says Peter Wexler, head of product for Polestar in North America. “They made a natural introductory plan for us.” Customers in other states can buy Dcbel’s charging system, but would have to front the full cost.
For utilities, this type of system can help stabilize the grid. Power demand surges at certain timeswhen everyone gets home from work in the evening, or when everyone turns on their AC during a heat wave. If enough EV owners use their batteries to power their house when demand is highest, it can make it possible for utilities to avoid turning to more polluting sources like gas power plants.
California also has some vehicle-to-grid (V2G) pilots that allow EV owners to sell power back to the grid at peak hours and make money, but that isnt yet widely available since the public utility commission still needs to finalize interconnection and compensation rules. Dcbels equipment will enable V2G charging as soon as utilities permit it.
Dcbel has developed and shared a new software standard for bidirectional charging that it hopes automakers will universally adopt; it’s currently working with eight automakers to add other cars to its system. Forget contends that more cars with this capability will likely roll out soon, noting, “I think we’re going to see lots of news about current cars becoming bidirectional over the next couple of months.
Working for myself was the goal. I did it. I made it. I work for myself. But it hasnt fixed my life. Im free to pursue anything I want. But achieving goals doesnt and wont make me complete. Theres a term for it: the arrival fallacy. Its the reason we sometimes still feel empty even when we achieve what we want. Achieving a goal rarely feels like arrival. Because its not the end we imagined.
You do everything you can to climb the ladder. But you get up there and then nothing. Or even worse, a disappointment. That happens because the end we expect doesnt necessarily solve our problems. Goals are meant to guide us. They can show you how much youve grown. How far youve come. And what you are capable of achieving. But they are not an end in themselves. Happiness is a by-product of getting things done.
Philosophers and psychologists have been saying it for years. But we forget because we want instant gratification. You want to experience what it feels like when you finally tell yourself you made it. The brain is in pursuit of happiness, and because the brain is much more concerned about the future than the present, it conceives happiness as the guarantee of an indefinitely long future of pleasures, wrote philosopher Alan Watts.
The hedonic treadmill
Goals are never done.
You are never done. The human mind is wired to adapt. You achieve one thing today, tomorrow you will find something else to focus on. Its called the hedonic treadmill. You think more money, a bigger house, a promotion, or a new project will make you happy. You get it. It feels good for a while, then your brain moves the target. You feel that weird emptiness again. It doesnt mean theres something wrong with you. Its just biology. Even the most successful people you know suffer from the arrival trap.
We are wired for pursuit, not possession. The feel good emotion is in the chase, not the results. The thrill is in the doing, the process, the almost-there. The minute you get what you want, the brain jumps ships. The fallacy becomes a trap because we assume a number, a title, or a single experience would fix our wiring. It wont. Accept it, and you stop beating yourself up. You will never be satisfied.
But theres a way around the arrival trap.
The solution
Focus on finding meaning and joy in what you do daily. Its the sides of the mountain that sustain life, not the top, says writer and philosopher Robert M. Pirsig. The point of life was never to tie our happiness to goals. Or arrive to feel joy. You are already on the mountain. You might as well find and enjoy what makes you come alive. Build meaning into your experiences, not the onetime milestone. Enjoy todays wins no matter how small. Notice your progress.
Find joy in the act of doing, not in checking boxes. By all means do what you must. Set the goal. Focus on the process of getting things done. But stop expecting life-changing happiness when you arrive. Completion is not necessarily fulfilment. Learn to enjoy the climb. That way, even failure feels like progress. Because it is. Youve learned what doesnt work. Youve become wiser. I start projects that bring out the best in me. That means I refuse to get attached to the outcome. I get my thrill from the process. Im only entitled to my actions, never to its fruits. Whatever I achieve is a bonus. Mahatma Gandhi said The path is the goal.
Shift your focus to finding meaning in the doing, not the having. Completed a small task of the project. Good. Celebrate the weird small stuff. Helped someone at work without waiting for praise? Great. These micro-wins can do wonders for our happiness. The arrival feeling you expect isnt the end. Its just one of many experiences to come. You may feel empty again. And thats okay. Thats normal. Accept it, and suddenly you stop fearing the emptiness. You stop blaming yourself.
Find joy in the climb
Goals will give you direction. But its the process that truly transforms you. Reaching a goal wont fill the existential emptiness. Start finding joy in the climb. Thats where you actually feel alive. Happiness isnt a place you arrive at. Its the quality of your attention along the way. Its the focus you bring to your work, the connection with your team. And the small improvements you notice along the way.
By all means set your goals. Pursue them. But remember, the finish line is just one of many in your lifetime. Pursue goals for growth. Thats where you actually feel alive. The real work is reaching the peak; its learning to enjoy the climb. The prize was never the point. The person you became while earning it was. Next time you achieve something and feel that strange emptiness. Its not a sign you are ungrateful. Its a sign youre human.
Below, coauthors Melissa Valentine and Michael Bernstein share five key insights from their new book, Flash Teams: Leading the Future of AI-Enhanced, On-Demand Work.
Melissa is an associate professor of management science at Stanford University, where she codirects the Center for Work, Technology, and Organization. Michael is an associate professor of computer science at Stanford, where he is a Bass University Fellow. Both have had their work featured in major publications, including The New York Times and Wired.
Whats the big idea?
Have you ever wished that you could assemble your version of the Avengers at work? Thats basically what it means to build a Flash Team. Bringing together the right set of experts at exactly the right time to tackle a tough, important job has become a realistic, repeatable goal for leaders todayunlocked by powerful new technological tools that enhance organizational strategy.
Listen to the audio version of this Book Biteread by Melissa and Michaelbelow, or in the Next Big Idea App.
1. There are experts everywhere, all the time
One of the biggest mindset shifts of flash teams is recognizing that expertise is abundant. Managers have been trained to think that hiring an expert takes weeks of job postings, interviews, and approvals. But whatever expertise you need, you can probably access it in minutes, not months.
A founder of a $35 million start-up told us that he had a client who needed to reimagine how to sell a beloved toy truck after their retail stores shut down. Using the flash teams approach, he quickly found a former McKinsey partner in retail, someone from Toys R Us corporate development, and a supply-side expert from Amazon. They had never met before, but they delivered so well that the client rehired them to manage execution.
Weve demonstrated that same speed in our classrooms. Ive asked students to hire a professional designer from Upwork and get a finished team logo in under 80 minutes. Every time, theyve done it.
Technology lowers the transaction cost of finding, vetting, and convening experts.
Leaders can stop assuming that talent is a bottleneck. Once you recognize expert abundance, you can start designing projects differently: taking on bolder challenges, experimenting faster, and pulling in expertise at the moment its needed. This shifts managers from fearing scarce or hard-to-find talent to orchestrating abundant talent.
This is possible because modern online labor markets and digital platforms are the infrastructure. They provide access to millions of professionals worldwide, reputation systems that help you assess quality, and fast contracting and payment systems that remove friction. Technology lowers the transaction cost of finding, vetting, and convening experts, so leaders can act on the abundance thats already available. We live in an economy of expert abundance. With the right mindset and tools, you can assemble the right people at exactly the right time.
2. AI can help you design teams and organizations
The amazing thing about having flash teams is that, because they are created using computing, you suddenly have the ability for AI to help design your organization: how to staff, how to work together, and when to adapt. As a result, we can solve lots of problems that are organizational and managerial blind spots. Were not talking about theory here, but about practical dials that managers usually leave on the table.
AI can influence how our teams and organizations are structured and function:
How should this team be collaborating?
Should we have horizontal leadership or enforce a steep hierarchy?
Who should even be on this team, or are right for this project?
Many of the decisions needed to build an effective team can be supported by AI insights. As people, we tend to under-explore. We dont try enough options. We try a couple different things, see what seems to work, and then we say, Yeah, seems good. But this is how we fall into a rut.
With AI plus flash teams, you instrument the basics and give the system permission to propose small experiments, such as:
Try a Directly Responsible Individual (DRI) for decisions this week.
Rotate one member for fresh eyes.
Shorten stand-ups and add a mid-week asynchronous check.
If it produces improvements, the AI learns to keep it; if it doesnt help, the AI might toss it. As people join or roll off, the recommendations adapt. These kinds of things give us managerial superpowers. AI-enhanced flash teams can make this possible.
3. Management classics are still classicjust reimagined.
In some ways, flash teams sound like something brand newon-demand experts, AI tools, dynamic org chartsbut the management classics are still classics. They just look a little different in this new world.
Take project management. In our research, we studied hundreds of flash teams. The best teams didnt succeed just because they had the right experts. They succeeded because a team manager made sure the pieces came together: synchronizing handoffs, keeping information transparent, and making sure the clients vision stayed connected to the teams daily work. One engineer told us bluntly, The PM (project manager) makes or breaks the team.
Or leadership. In one of our experiments, when a client suddenly changed requirements mid-project, the teams that thrived werent those with the flashiest experts. They were the ones where a leader stepped in to integrate different perspectives, rebalance priorities, and help the group adapt quickly. Leadershipthe ability to inspire, coordinate, and adaptstill matters, maybe more than ever.
Flash teams give new life to timeless management skills.
And integration. Even with great role clarity, unexpected complexity shows up every day. Someone doesnt deliver, or two roles conflict, or the work comes in messy. Thats the residual complexity that only managers can resolve. In one case, a team writing poems for a card game had beautiful but mismatched outputs. They quickly elevated one person into the role of Chief Poetry Officer for a dayjust long enough to integrate the parts into a coherent whole. Thats hierarchy reimagined: temporary, lightweight, but crucial.
With flash teams, digital tools support classic management functions. Platforms like Slack or project dashboards give managers real-time visibility across the whole team. AI-enabled systems can help leaders spot when handoffs are slipping, recommend worflow adjustments, or even simulate different team configurations before you commit. The human arts of leadership, integration, and project management get amplified.
Flash teams give new life to timeless management skills. The tools may be modern, but the fundamentalsclear leadership, good coordination, thoughtful integrationare still what make or break a team.
4. AI org simulations and organizational what-ifs.
Flash teams open this incredible opportunity to have a what-if machine:
What if we organized the team this way? Would the team work better or worse?
What if we brought this person onto the teamwould it help?
What if we split up into two smaller units? Would we move faster and make better decisions?
Imagine being a manager and getting a fast, concrete preview of what might happen: what could go wrong, whats likely to improve, and what might get worse. This is possible through the clever application of large language models, such as ChatGPT. We can use this new generation of AIs to create lightweight simulations of your organization. Imagine digital twins: little digital copies of everyone on your team that act and behave roughly the same way that they do. With those simulations, you could put the digital twin of your team or org into different configurationsreconfigure the team, change collaboration rules, and moreand see if they coordinate more smoothly.
This is possible through generative agents. These are AI agents that simulate people based on a bit of knowledge about them. Maybe you run a little interview with everyone in the team and use that to create a digital twin of them, or maybe everyone agrees to use a slice of your historical Slack or email to create digital twins of your team. Once you have that, your team can become this dynamic, queryable object: you ask a question, run a quick scenario, and watch how it plays out. Its a rapid, plausible rehearsala what if.
This is possible through the clever application of large language models, such as ChatGPT.
In this way, we can also catch early warning signs for a team. It allows leaders to flag whether a team is likely to fractureto stop wanting to work togetherby using about 60 to 90 seconds of their chat. A tiny glimpse into how people communicate and coordinate can reveal surprisingly strong signals. Suddenly, we can predict whether this team will work as great long-term partners, or if we should reconsider them. Its almost like organizational speed dating.
Imagine having the superpower to create organizational what ifs. It gives you this amazing managerial sandbox. Flash teams turn your org into a safe, queryable what-if machine, so you can prototype structure before you commit to it.
5. You already have a flash teams toolbox
You dont need to have a PhD in artificial intelligence to do these things. You can do it today, without any custom software. All you need is the idea and access to a modern large language model like ChatGPT. It turns out that everything we had to spend months coding manually can be generated on the fly by an LLM if you can just be specific about what you need.
AI can help you design or refine your team. One option is to get an advanced degree in computer science and learn about networks of multi-armed bandits, then build it internally. But the other option is to just keep a spreadsheet where youve been keeping track of how things are going, and the management decisions youve been making so far. Input that into GPT-5, ask it to implement this approach, and it will do all the math for you.
Enjoy our full library of Book Bitesread by the authors!in the Next Big Idea app.
This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Meta allegedly stopped internal research on social medias impact on people after finding negative results, a court filing released Friday claims.
The filing took place in a Northern California District Court, as a group of U.S. state attorneys general, school districts, and parents launched a suit against Meta, Google-owned YouTube, TikTok, and Snap.
The court documents allege that Meta misled the public on the mental health risks to children and young adults who excessively use Facebook and Instagram, even though its research showed that the social media apps had demonstrated harm.
“The company never publicly disclosed the results of its deactivation study,” the lawsuit says. “Instead, Meta lied to Congress about what it knew.”
The research, code-named “Project Mercury,” took place in 2020. Meta scientists worked with survey firm Nielsen to see what impact deactivating Facebook had on people. According to internal documents, people who stopped using Facebook for a week reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison.” According to the filings, instead of pursuing more research, Meta dropped the project, claiming that participants feedback was biased by “the result of the existing media narrative around the company.
Politico reported that in a sealed deposition earlier this year, Metas employees expressed concern about the research’s findings. Oh my gosh, y’all. IG is a drug, Shayli Jimenez, a Meta senior researcher, is quoted as saying in internal documents. In response, another employee allegedly said, Were basically pushers.” The Politico story reported that Jimenez said in her deposition that the comments were made “sarcastically.”
In a statement, Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said: “We strongly disagree” with the allegations, which rely on cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions in an attempt to present a deliberately misleading picture.” Stone continued: The full record will show that for over a decade, we have listened to parents, researched issues that matter most, and made real changes to protect teenslike introducing Teen Accounts with built-in protections and providing parents with controls to manage their teens experiences.”
And in a series of posts on BlueSky, Stone also pushed back against the idea that Meta was trying to bury the results of the terminated study with Nielsen, noting that the study found that people who believed using Facebook was bad for them felt better when they stopped using it. “It makes intuitive sense, but it doesnt show anything about the actual effect of using the platform, Stone wrote.
However, the latest uproar over Meta’s research is hardly the first time the company’s impact on children’s mental health has been questionedeven by its own employees. In 2021, former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen leaked hundreds of internal company documents to the government, which referenced risks to children. Haugen said the company’s leadership knows how to make Facebook and Instagram safer but refuses to “because they have put their astronomical profits before people.”A growing body of evidence, outside of the company’s own research, has long pointed to the harm that social media may have on children’s mental health. A 2019 study found that teens who spent more than three hours a day on social media may be at heightened risk for mental health problems, particularly internalizing problems.” Likewise, research shows that mental health disorders among today’s youth are at an all-time high and growing.
In response to growing concern around children’s mental health, in a 2023 report, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on social media companies and policymakers to act, rather than to place the entire burden of limiting kids’ time on social media on parents.
We have reached the moment white collar workers have feared for months. Has AI finally come for my job? Companies like Salesforce claim they need fewer human employees to do the work AI can tackle, after laying off thousands. Klarna claims the company was able to shrink its headcount by about 40%, in part because of AI. Duolingo said last spring it will stop using contractors for work that AI can handle. Overall, companies have announced a staggering 700,000 job cuts in the first five months of 2025, an 80% jump from the previous year.
The irony is almost poetic. For years, the tech industry assumed robots would come for factory workers first. Amazon’s leaked documents once suggested the company could replace half a million warehouse jobs with automation. Instead, just weeks ago, Amazon laid off 14,000 middle managers while planning to hire 250,000 seasonal warehouse workers for the holidays. The AI revolution, it turns out, is hollowing out the corporate ladder before it touches the warehouse floor.
The narrative around artificial intelligence and the job market is challenging for white-collar workers right now. Yet while Silicon Valley sends warnings over which desk jobs AI will consume next, we’re missing an equally important question about the future of AI: What about everyone else?
The AI application bubble nobody’s talking about
We are currently in an AI application bubble. The last few years of AI innovation have focused almost entirely on white-collar productivity: workplace efficiency tools, revenue-optimization platforms, and communication automation. Many of the major AI innovations from the past two years have been designed for someone working a 9-5 desk job from a laptop.
Meanwhile, the people who make up 60% of the American workforce are stuck completing manual onboarding processes, sorting through countless texts to find the right shift, calling in when they need a shift swapped, clocking in on physical time clocks, logging in to web-only portals, and waiting for biweekly paychecks. Were talking about warehouse crews, janitors, delivery drivers, nurses, and game day parking attendants. These are the people who have been largely forgotten when it comes to how AI can transform their day-to-day jobs without risk of eliminating their roles. Every day, millions of shift-based workers keeping hospitals running, concerts staffed, and factories moving are dealing with broken, archaic systems. They’re waiting for shift confirmations, digging through emails for schedules, and calling managers just to ask, “When am I working next?”
By focusing almost all of AIs potential on the white-collar economy, weve left out the workers who are irreplaceable. Building accessible, intuitive tools for non-tech-savvy users has the potential to narrow the global inequality gap while creating a more resilient foundation for technological progress and a more resilient economy.
Only 40% of American workers say they have a “quality job”
While office jobs dwindle, demand for human workers continues to grow. Restaurants need servers. Construction sites need carpenters. Hospitals need nurses. And in turn, the people doing these jobs need shift accessibility, work-life flexibility, and the ability to get paid quickly after shifts so they can continue to participate in the shift work economy and keep the world moving.
The human cost of not having a better way to work is striking. A recent Gallup and Jobs for the Future study found that just 40% of U.S. workers have what they define as a “quality job.” The rest face unstable schedules, limited growth opportunities, and financial insecurity. Not because they lack motivation or work ethic, but because the systems that support frontline work haven’t kept pace with the demands of modern life.
When workers play significant roles, have preschedules, and receive fair pay, they’re more engaged, more productive, and lead higher quality work lives.
What we learned building technology for Uber drivers
We know what’s possible when technology is actually designed for frontline workers, because we’ve lived it. While leading product development for the Uber for Drivers app, the two of us spent years focused on the driver experience. Drivers had to navigate complex processes: onboarding, completing background checks and vehicle inspections, selecting preferences, and receiving payments. Uber’s success was powered by a phenomenal self-service app that gave drivers the agency, control, and flexibility they needed in their lives.
That experience taught us that technology has the potential to dramatically improve frontline work, and the emergence of AI gives us an opportunity to do that once again. Tools like smarter scheduling systems that account for worker preferences and availability, AI-powered training programs that adapt to individual learning styles, communication platforms that actually work for teams that don’t sit in front of computers all day, and predictive systems that can optimize logistics and reduce physical strain. The technology exists. The investment, however, is still lacking.
Irreplaceable
The Essential Economy that we are talking about includes sectors like construction, manufacturing, transportation, etc., and represents $7.5 trillion in output per year, which is 27% of Americas GDP, equating to 52 million jobs and two million businesses. If you were to add healthcare, retail, and all public servicesconsidered by many to be critical, hourly work sectors of the economythe size jumps to $12 trillion of GDP, 95 million jobs, and three million businesses.
Without people to fill these roles, not only are essential services not being provided, but the US economy also suffers greatly.
With each technical revolution, we’ve always seen that collaboration with the technology yields better results than we can without it, or it can without us.
Instead, what if AI innovators asked, How can we use AI to make these jobs better, safer, and more productive while also making workers’ lives easier?
Consider a warehouse worker trying to swap shifts to attend a child’s school event. In most facilities today, this involves a series of text messages, phone calls, and manual approvalsa process that might take days and often fails. AI could handle this in seconds, reaching out to available workers who have relevant experience and required certifications, sharing shift details, and filling the shift.The worker doesn’t lose their job; they gain flexibility and dignity.
Consider a nurse who needs more hours as bills are adding up. He signs up with a new staffing agency so he can pick up extra shifts here and there. Today, onboarding entails manual back-and-forth with the agency and waiting days for assignments. AI can dramatically speed up his time to first shift, verifying his license instantly after he uploads it, offering digital onboarding tailored to the units where hell be picking up shifts, and matching him with shifts that work for his busy schedule. Instead of frustration and delays, the nurse begins with confidence and is able to start earning and covering his bills faster.
Applying AI to the roles that need it today
As the tech industry grapples with shifts toward white-collar jobs and AIs role, we have an opportunity. The same sophisticated AI systems that can automate corporate reporting can be adapted to optimize shift schedules. The same machine learning that powers chatbots can improve safety protocols. The same natural language processing that summarizes emails can help workers with limited English proficiency better understand their rights and benefits.
The current moment of disruption in white-collar work is painful for millions of people, and that pain deserves recognition and resolution. At the same time, it also creates an opening to ask bigger questions about where AI should be applied and who it could serve.
The AI revolution isnt going away anytime soon. This is our opportunity to choose how we use it, and who benefits.
I feel itthe strain, the fractured attention. The constant tug to check, scroll, click. Everything we want is a tap away. Yet when we chase it all, something essential slips through our fingers. I see it clearly in my own world of conferences and events. These are spaces meant for connection, yet people often leave feeling overwhelmed and oddly under-connected.
The truth is that genuine engagement is rare. According to Gallup, only 21% of employees are fully engaged. Most are simply going through the motions. Its a similar story at large-scale events and webinars, where participation beyond passive listening has long been the exception, not the norm. Thats exactly why we need to get smarter about how we bring people in.
The paradox of our time is this: We can be anywhere, tuned into everything, and still not truly show up. For business leaders, thats a high-stakes dilemma. In a landscape full of options, youre not just competing with the next brand, youre competing for the attention of someone juggling hundreds of emails, dodging spam, and scrolling past a world in crisis.
THE CHALLENGE TO SHOW UP
None of this is breaking news. The battle for attention is well-documented. But whats less discussed, and just as urgent, is that not all engagement is equal.
True participation is more than clicking, liking, or even showing up. It means contributing, influencing, shaping. And it can be the difference between relevance and irrelevance for a brand. Over the years, Ive sat through countless keynotes and meetings where success was measured in metrics that looked good on paper but meant little to those in the room. Still, many businesses chase the easy numbers: impressions, clicks, headcount. These are visible, measurable, and falsely reassuring. But they often track activity without meaning. And mistaking visibility for vitality is a dangerous error.
The deeper challenge, and opportunity, is to create environmentsdigital or physicalwhere participation asks people to show up fully, as themselves. To risk being seen. To give shape to the thoughts and questions theyve been carrying but havent had the space to voice.
The problem is that much of what we call participation today is extractive. It looks active on the surface. People give their time, energy, and attention, but get little in return. Extractive participation puts people to work: in classrooms, meetings, projects, or jobs, but it leaves them drained.
Its not always intentional. Often, it stems from a legacy mindset, treating participation as a metric, not a meaningful exchange. Most places arent designed to make people feel seen, challenged, or changed. Participation is treated as performance. Its become about optics, a signal of engagement, not the real thing.
IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY
Ive seen this in my own field.
Many well-produced industry events make this mistake at scale. They spend millions to bring people together, flying them across countries or continents, yet fail to foster real participation. Attendees sit through polished keynotes and panels without speaking to the person beside them, someone who might be wrestling with the very same challenges they have. They leave with pages of notes, but no real connections nor any transformation. The best questions in the room go unasked or unanswered. The most valuable ideas stay buried, not for lack of brilliance, but because no one created the space for them to emerge.
But it doesnt have to be that way. The rooms we gather inphysical or virtualcan do more than host content. They can become engines of energy, curiosity, and exchange. In my own work, Ive seen whats possible when spaces are designed to welcome vulnerability and invite true dialogue. The energy shifts. The space transforms the people in it. Thats when participation changes, from extractive to generative. People begin asking better questions. They challenge each other more openly. And they stay engaged.
GENERATIVE PARTICIPATION
Generative participation creates mutual growth and it happens when three things are present:
Reciprocity: People are not only consuming, they are also giving and receiving in equal measure.
Amplification: Contributions build on one another, creating outcomes no single person could reach alone.
Transformation: Participants leave different than they arrived, more connected, more capable, more inspired.
In the right space, a single question can shift a strategy. A personal story can upend assumptions. A simple idea can spark a new product, a partnership, a path forward. People dont leave drained but energized. They leave with notes scribbled in the margins, names to follow up with, and ideas they cant wait to bring to life.
The difference is simple, but it changes everything. Extractive spaces take more than they give. Generative spaces turn contribution into creation and connection, both with others and with oneself. Thats the difference between engagement that feels like a performance and connection that feels like a life force.
The ability to contribute meaningfully isnt a nice-to-have. Its a strategic asset. The challenge is, its hard to measure. You cant showcase it on a slide like attendance numbers or social impressions. But when its missing, you feel it: classrooms where students check out, communities that cant mobilize, businesses full of talk but starved for clarity. And when its there, you feel that too: Teams move with purpose, networks grow stronger, and ideas dont just echo, they spark action.
GIVE UP SOME CONTROL
True contribution thrives in environments that signal safety, openness, and curiosity. But creating that kind of space goes beyond making people feel comfortable. It means loosening your grip, letting go of control so others can step in, speak up, and shape what happens next.
Because heres another truth: Real participation involves giving up some control.
We spend plenty of time and energy trying to generate engagement, a phrase that sounds like progress but often sidesteps the harder work of inviting real contribution. True participation is rarely tidy. Creating space for it means welcoming the unexpected. Because the unplanned and the unpolished often create the conditions for something more powerful to emerge. Thats where shared meaning, surprising insight, and the breakthroughs our organizations and our world need most begin to take shape.
Christine Renaud is CEO of Braindate.
As a physician at Duke, I often saw how women, especially those juggling chronic illness, caregiving, and limited healthcare access, faced delays in getting the right care. What stood out wasnt just the complexity of their conditions, but how predictable the barriers were.
Women face unique challenges in getting timely access to the care they need. Many care options are simply inconvenient and often do not meet patients where they are. For example, forcing a busy working mom to take the day off work, driving 30 minutes for a routine screening can be a challenge if having to juggle a 9-5 and childcare too. Many women are caregivers for aging parents or children, compounding the challenge of taking care of oneself.
To make health more equitable, women require convenient options to engage in their health and readily participate in research. Recently, a landmark 40-year study of beta-blockers, one of the most common medications prescribed, demonstrated that adverse effects on women, when taken after specific types of heart attacks. This flew in the face of what I was taught in medical school, though at that time there werent enough studies with women participants and the information just wasnt available. For years, women have been prescribed these medications, based on study designs that didnt adequately represent them.
Its not just that women are underdiagnosed or left out of research; its that we’remissing a massive opportunity to advance health by elevating options for women. Women are the most frequent healthcare decision makers, but also the longest consumers of healthcare (i.e. women live longer than men!) in the economy. While women account for 80% of healthcare decisions, they also make up 65% of the healthcare workforce. They experience more chronic disease, and spend more out-of-pocket, not including maternity costs. They use more prescriptions, attend more appointments, and shape family health behavior.
If youre building a product, launching a trial, or setting a research agenda, the reality is simple: Youre already in the business of womenshealth, whether you know it or not.
WOMENS HEALTH IS MORE THAN BIKINI MEDICINE
For too long, womens health has been conventionally categorized by the body parts covered by a bikinireproductive care, breast cancer screenings, and obstetrics related topics. This is instead of what it truly involves: the whole body. Several studies show women are consistently and disproportionately affected by stroke, cardiovascular disease, neurocognitive disorders such as dementia, and more. Women are the cornerstone of the entire healthcare market,whichcan boost the global economy $1 trillion annually by 2040. Bikini medicine has left care gaps in everything from heart disease to chronic pain.
On the biopharma side, just 4% of R&D spending targets medical research specific to women. And yet in 2024, female-focused startups received only 8.5% of digital health funding, down from nearly 15% in 2020. This isnt about a lack of innovation. Its about a lack of prioritization.
WHEN WOMEN ARE LEFT OUT, EVERYONE PAYS
There are real costs when women are left out of the data:
Clinical risk: Women are twice as likely to experience side effects and we arent sure why. Potentially, its because trials skew male.
Economic drag: Women spend 25% more of their lives in poor health compared to men. That results in billions in lost productivity and missed potential.
Reputational fallout: In a consumer-driven world, building products that dont work well for half the population is a fast way to lose trustand market share.
Getting women into research is not a nice-to-have. Its critical for safety, quality, and return on investment, and to develop therapies that work well for over half of the people they are prescribed to.
CLOSING THE GAP COULD UNLOCK $1 TRILLION A YEAR
McKinsey estimates that improving outcomes for women could add $1 trillion to the global economy annually, by 2040. Thats not wishful thinking. Its rooted in simple interventionsbetter diagnosis, smarter data, faster access to care.
Consider this: Half of all women in the U.S. Half of all women in the U.S. each year skip or delay care, often due to costs, scheduling issues, or a lack of trust in the system. Couple this with clinical research historically, and there is less substantial womens data available to train AI models powering the future of care, even though women take more medications and manage more chronic conditions.
This is where the opportunity lies. Build for the real world, and you build a better business.
DESIGNING FOR WOMEN DOESNT MEAN EXCLUDING OTHERS
Theres a common fear that focusing on women somehow limits your market. But the opposite is true. Solutions that meet womens needslike care navigation, chronic disease support, and flexible benefitssolve for a broader population, too.
What makes womens health complex is also what makes it valuable. If your product or trial can work for women across life stages, it can be used to inspire solutions for anyone.
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT
If we want to change the trajectory of womens health, we need to:
Make convenient options for women to improve access to resources and research participation.
Fund more companies prioritizing women in their design and leadership.
Follow the January 2025 FDA guidance for trials and datasets to reflect real-world populations, like menopausal status and menstrual cycles.
Expand benefits that meet womens needs beyond reproductive care.
Build tools that understand female physiology and behavioral patterns.
This isnt just a moral imperative. Its a competitive one.
LETS SHIFT THE CONVERSATION
Equity in healthcare is an imperative focus of health innovation and personal to many of us, but theres a business case thats been hiding in plain sight. Women are the health economys chief consumers, workers, and unpaid labor force. Failing to invest in women is failing to invest in the market.
Joy Bhosai, MD MPH is founder and CEO of Pluto Health. Jessica Federer, MPH is the managing director of the Womens Health Fund, and an investor in Pluto Health
Leading the Exceptional Women Alliance gives me a front-row seat to how accomplished women lift each other through mentorship and growth. Joanna Dodd Massey is a corporate board director and Fortune 500 executive with expertise in risk, governance, and crisis leadership. She has a PhD in psychology and advises boards and executives navigating high-stakes challenges and organizational change.
Q: Why do family conversations turn so tense during the holidays?
Massey: Alcohol and forced family fun play a role, but underneath it all is our biology. Human beings are one of those species that cant survive alonewere hardwired for connection because our survival depends on belonging to a tribe.
When someone attacks our beliefs, the automatic part of our brain reacts as if were in danger. It doesnt know the difference between a tiger in the wild and a relative on a rant.
That reactionwhat we call the fight, flight, or freeze responseshuts down the rational part of the brain that handles logic and self-control. Its why calm people suddenly get intensely defensiveor disappear into the kitchen.
Q: The minute someone mentions politics at dinner, most of us reach for the wine or change the subject. Is there a better way?
Massey: YesI teach an easy three-step process: (1) honor yourself, (2) honor your neighbor, (3) share your story.
Our country was founded on the idea that all people are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights, including freedom of thought and expression. When you stand in that liberty, you dont need others to agree with you. If someone mocks or shames you, thats just their opinion.
These three steps are an easy way to remember that disagreement doesnt exile you from humanity. In fact, having disagreements amicably shows that Americans can respect differences and still break bread togetherjust like we did at the first Thanksgiving.
Q: Tell us about those three steps. How do they work?
Massey: Step 1: Honor yourself is about keeping yourself grounded and your rational brain in the drivers seat.
First, notice whats happening in your body before you open your mouth. If your heart rate spikes, your jaw tightens, or your shoulders creep toward your ears, thats your survival system signaling that its about to take controland once it does, theres nothing you can do to stop it.
When you notice those signs, take some deep breaths or use a breathing technique, like 4-square breathing. It distracts your mind and floods your cells with oxygen.
With your rational brain still online, remind yourself theres nothing to winyou arent changing them, just like they arent changing you.
Step 2: Honor your neighbor is about helping the other person stay in their right mind.
When we feel attacked, defenses go up. The moment you shift the conversation from condemning to curiosity, everything changes.
We all have a story that has shaped us, so say to the other person: Thats an interesting point that I hadn’t thought of. Can you tell me more about how you came to that understanding?
When people feel heard, their survival system doesnt worry about being kicked out of the tribe.
Step 3: Share your story is exactly what it saysyoure sharing your story, not your opinion.
The automatic brain doesnt care about facts, data, or statistics, so using them wont change anyones mind.
What can people here? Vulnerability. When you talk about your own experience, an argument turns into connection. Simply put, the answer to our differences is to humanize them, not politicize them.
Q: So, we should just nod and agree with everyone?
Massey: Not at all. These steps arent about agreeingthe goal is to have a conversation, not a confrontation. Think of it as dinner-table diplomacy.
Q: That sounds nice in theory, but does it really work in practice?
Massey: Yesand theres a great example from the pandemic. Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, a respected conservative, joined a podcast where infectious disease experts debated anti-vaxxers, but no one was convinced. Then Christie told a personal story.
He said he got vaccinated because his aunt and uncle died of COVID, and hed had a severe case himself. He said he got the vaccine because he didnt want to diebut also told them they didnt have to, because this is America and thats their right.
What happened? He was calm and confident in his position (Step 1). He listened and respected their opinion (Step 2). He didnt try to convince them; he shared a very personal story (Step 3).
Q: Whats the biggest takeaway for people heading into holiday dinners this year?
Massey: Remember that everyone at the table has an internal Book of Life According to Mea lifetime of experiences that shaped their beliefs. You dont have to agree, but you can honor the humanity behind those differences.
Larraine Segil is founder, chair and CEO of The Exceptional Women Alliance.
Changing an organisms genome is a profound act, and the tools you use to make the changes don’t alleviate the need for responsible regulation.
Since bursting onto the scene in 2012, CRISPR technology has been used to modify dozens of species from bacteria to livestock to plants, and even human embryos. Many countries have put ethical guardrails in place to prohibit creating designer babies. However, in agriculture, gene-edited crops are largely exempt from regulatory oversight, creating a “Wild West” where anything goes and edited crops are free to enter the food supply.
Unlike traditional genetically modified organisms (GMO)used since the 1990s to create Roundup Ready seeds and many other widely used productsediting doesnt involve inserting transgenic DNA from other organisms. Instead, it tweaks the genes that already exist. As such, proponents claim its a safer approach: no Frankenfoods, just selective breeding on steroids.
Following a massive industry lobbying campaign, such arguments have gained traction around the world. In Europe, regulators are forging ahead with a two-tier regulatory system for modified crops. While traditional GMOs remain heavily regulated, gene-edited crops are being given a free pass, with no oversight or labeling required. (Some heavily edited crops will still undergo a degree of scrutiny, though far less than GMO crops.)
GENE EDITING NEEDS OVERSIGHT
In the U.S., the USDAs SECURE Rule had, since 2020, similarly exempted most edited crops from regulatory oversightuntil it was ruled arbitrary and capricious and struck down last December by a California judge. For now, the USDA has reverted to its pre-2020 rulebookfull of red tape, but at least even-handed in the burdens imposed on agtech innovators.
The issue here isnt that theres anything wrong with gene editing. One of us (Randall) spent several years leading gene editing research at numerous companies, including Inari, Arcadia, and Monsanto (now Bayer), and we can tell you that CRISPR is an incredible tool. Its already being used to create amazing new productsfrom bananas that wont go brown to rice thats resistant to destructive viruses. Researchers are also developing vitamin-packed tomatoes, carbon-sequestering strains of rice, and high-yield wheat. They should be applauded: Well need all these innovations, and more, to grow healthy, tasty, and affordable food for billions of people in a warming world.
But while there isnt anything uniquely dangerous about gene editing, there isnt anything uniquely safe about it either. With both gene editing and transgenic methods, youre rewriting the genomeand what matters is the impact of the new genetic content, not where the underlying DNA letters came from. Whatever methods are used, genetic engineering can deliver enormous benefits, but brings real risksand requires proper oversight to ensure safety and maintain public confidence.
THE GMO BACKLASH
However, the current bifurcated approach that gives gene editing a pass creates a significant risk that regulators are sowing the seeds of a future backlash against genetic engineering. Paradoxically, GMO crops have one important benefit over gene-edited crops: Precisely because they contain transgenic genetic information, they can be easily detected using simple lab testing. Gene-edited crops, on the other hand, are typically indistinguishable from conventional crops, so if an edited crop were found to have harmful traits, it would be extremely difficultand unimaginably expensiveto verifiably remove it from the global food chain.
The approach also distorts the marketplace by creating incentives for gene editing at the expense of future innovations using proven GMO technologies that farmers and consumers already rely on.
Unfortunately, by downplaying the need for meaningful oversight of edited crops, we risk playing into the hands of the least scrupulous market participants. In China, gene editing techniques have already been misused to unlawfully edit the genomes of unborn babies, and Chinese firms are racing to create gene-edited medical treatments in ways that have raised eyebrows among Western regulators. Now, China is actively promoting gene editing for crops and livestock, too, in a bid to end its reliance on U.S. soybeans and other farm exports. Want to place a bet that no corners will be cut along the way?
Were no Luddites, with Randall spending his career using genetic techniques to improve crops. Genetic engineering, encompassing both transgenic methods and gene editing, is the defining technological breakthrough of our time (sorry, ChatGPT). But its also among the most misunderstood, and certainly the most maligned, of modern technologies. Crop innovators, burned once by the demonization of GMOs, are understandably eager to avoid tarring gene editing methods with the same brush.
A BACKDOOR APPROACH
But in the rush to wave through gene editing technologies, were falling into the same trap. The industrys arrogant dismissal of safety concerns turned an entire generation against GMOs. Now, instead of being forthright with consumers about the power and potential of gene editing, the industry is trying to sneak it in by the back door as simply an extension of selective breeding methods used since the dawn of agriculture.
The reality is more nuanced. Theres no need to panic about gene editing methods. But theres also no scientific basis for casting GMO crops as bad and edited crops as good. Both gene editing and genetic modification are incredibly powerful toolsand the novel plant traits they enable should be welcomed. But they should also be regulated, carefully and effectivelyand regulated as products, based on their own unique attributes, regardless of the processes used to create them.
Its time to move away from process-oriented regulations and focus instead on creating a level playing field for both transgenic and gene-edited crops. We need an honest conversation and clear-eyed regulations of both technologies to protect the safety of the food chainand ensure that vital new agtech breakthroughs continue to develop in safe, transparent, and sustainable ways.
Shely Aronov is CEO and cofounder of Innerplant. Randell Schultz, PhD, is vice president of research and development at Innerplant.
Dicks Sporting Goods (NYSE: DKS) announced it will close select Foot Locker stores and raised its full-year year outlook, in its third quarter earnings report on Tuesday.
While Dick’s has not disclosed how many locations it will shutter (Fast Company has reached out for confirmation), it is part of a larger restructuring effort, according to executive chairman Ed Stack who spoke with CNBC.
Dick’s acquired leading footwear and apparel retailer Foot Locker for $2.5 billion back in September, according to its latest earnings release. As of November 1, the company was operating 3,230 store locations across the combined Dick’s and Foot Locker businesses globally.
Shares in the Pittsburgh-based sports retailer were up about 1% at the time of this writing by late afternoon on Tuesday.
“[Dick’s] is taking strategic actions to address unproductive assets, including the optimization of inventory and the closure of underperforming stores,” Dick’s said in its earnings release. “The company believes these actions will lay the groundwork for the success of the Foot Locker Business starting in 2026.”
Once it optimizes inventory and shutters those underperforming stores, Dick’s said it expects Q4 2025 operating profit for Foot Locker to be just “slightly negative.”
Dick’s third quarter revenue came in at $4.17 billion beating expectations of $3.59 billion; and reported earnings per share (EPS) of $2.78 adjusted versus $2.71.
Dick’s is working to offset declining traffic, (Q3 foot traffic was down 2.6% year-over-year) by deepening digital engagement through its Game Changer app, (which had 7.4 million unique active users last quarter) expanding its House of Sport locations, and is betting on its recent Foot Locker acquisition to drive in-store growth, according to Placer.ai.
