While Silicon Valley argues over bubbles, benchmarks, and who has the smartest model, Anthropic has been focused on solving problems that rarely generate hype but ultimately determine adoption: whether AI can be trusted to operate inside the worlds most sensitive systems.
Known for its safety-first posture and the Claude family of large language models (LLMs), Anthropic is placing its biggest strategic bets where AI optimism tends to collapse fastest, i.e., regulated industries. Rather than framing Claude as a consumer product, the company has positioned its models as core enterprise infrastructuresoftware expected to run for hours, sometimes days, inside healthcare systems, insurance platforms, and regulatory pipelines.
Trust is what unlocks deployment at scale, Daniela Amodei, Anthropic cofounder and president, tells Fast Company in an exclusive interview. In regulated industries, the question isnt just which model is smartestits which model you can actually rely on, and whether the company behind it will be a responsible long-term partner.
That philosophy took concrete form on January 11, when Anthropic launched Claude for Healthcare and Life Sciences. The release expanded earlier life sciences tools designed for clinical trials, adding support for such requirements as HIPAA-ready infrastructure and human-in-the-loop escalation, making its models better suited to regulated workflows involving protected health information.
We go where the work is hard and the stakes are real, Amodei says. What excites us is augmenting expertisea clinician thinking through a difficult case, a researcher stress-testing a hypothesis. Those are moments where a thoughtful AI partner can genuinely accelerate the work. But that only works if the model understands nuance, not just pattern matches on surface-level inputs.
That same thinking carried into Cowork, a new agentic AI capability released by Anthropic on January 12. Designed for general knowledge workers and usable without coding expertise, Claude Cowork can autonomously perform multistep tasks on a users computerorganizing files, generating expense reports from receipt images, or drafting documents from scattered notes. According to reports, the launch unintentionally intensified market and investor anxiety around the durability of software-as-a-service businesses; many began questioning the resilience of recurring software revenue in a world where general-purpose AI agents can generate bespoke tools on demand.
Anthropics most viral product, Claude Code, has amplified that unease. The agentic tool can help write, debug, and manage code faster using natural-language prompts, and has had a substantial impact among engineers and hobbyists. Users report building everything from custom MRI viewers to automation systems entirely with Claude.
Over the past three years, the companys run-rate revenue has grown from $87 million at the end of 2023 to just under $1 billion by the end of 2024 and to $9 billion-plus by the end of 2025. That growth reflects enterprises, startups, developers, and power users integrating Claude more deeply into how they actually work. And we’ve done this with a fraction of the compute our competitors have, Amodei says.
Building for Trust in the Most Demanding Enterprise Environments
According to a mid-2025 report by venture capital firm Menlo Ventures, AI spending across healthcare reached $1.4 billion in 2025, nearly tripling the total from 2024. The report also found that healthcare organizations are adopting AI 2.2 times faster than the broader economy. The largest spending categories include ambient clinical documentation, which accounted for $600 million, and coding and billing automation, at $450 million.
The fastest-growing segments, however, reflect where operational pressure is most acute, like patient engagement, where spending is up 20 times year over year, and prior authorization, which grew 10 times over the same period. Claude for Healthcare is being embedded directly into the latters workflows, attempting to take on time-consuming and error-prone tasks such as claims review, care coordination, and regulatory documentation.
Claude for Life Sciences has followed a similar pattern. Anthropic has expanded integrations with Medidata, ClinicalTrials.gov, Benchling, and bioRxiv, enabling Claude to operate inside clinical trial management and scientific literature synthesis. The company has also introduced agent skills for protocol drafting, bioinformatics pipelines, and regulatory gap analysis.
Customers include Novo Nordisk, Banner Health, Sanofi, Stanford Healthcare, and Eli Lilly. According to Anthropic, more than 85% of its 22,000 providers at Banner Health reported working faster with higher accuracy using Claude-assisted workflows. Anthropic also reports that internal teams at Novo Nordisk have reduced clinical documentation timelines from more than 12 weeks to just minutes.
Amodei adds that what surprised her most was how quickly practitioners defined their relationship with the companys AI models on their own terms.
They’re not handing decisions off to Claude, she says. They’re pulling it into their workflow in really specific wayssynthesizing literature, drafting patient communications, pressure-testing their reasoningand then applying their own judgment. That’s exactly the kind of collaboration we hoped for. But honestly, they got there faster than I expected.
Industry experts say the appeal extends beyond raw performance. Anthropics deliberate emphasis on trust, restraint, and long-horizon reliability is emerging as a genuine competitive moat in regulated enterprise sectors.
This approach aligns with bounded autonomy and sandboxed execution, which are essential for safe adoption where raw speed often introduces unacceptable risk, says Cobus Greyling, chief evangelist at Kore.ai, a vendor of enterprise AI platforms. He adds that Anthropics universal agent concept introduced a third architectural model for AI agents, expanding how autonomy can be safely deployed.
Other AI competitors are also moving aggressively into the healthcare sector, though with different priorities. OpenAI debuted its healthcare offering, ChatGPT Health, in January 2026. The product is aimed primarily at broad consumer and primary care use cases such as symptom triage and health navigation outside clinic hours. It benefits from massive consumer-scale adoption, handling more than 230 million health-related queries globally each week.
While GPT Health has proven effective in generalist tasks such as documentation support and patient engagement, Claude is gaining traction in more specialized domains that demand structured reasoning and regulatory rigorincluding drug discovery and clinical trial design.
Greyling cautions, however, that slow procurement cycles, entrenched organizational politics, and rigid compliance requirements can delay AI adoption across healthcare, life sciences, and insurance.
Even with strong technical performance in models like Claude 4.5, enterprise reality demands extensive validation, custom integrations, and risk-averse stakeholders, he says. The strategy could stall if deployment timelines stretch beyond economic justification or if cost ad latency concerns outweigh reliability gains in production.
In January, Travelers announced it would deploy Claude AI assistants and Claude Code to nearly 10,000 engineers, analysts, and product ownersone of the largest enterprise AI rollouts in insurance to date. Each assistant is personalized to employee roles and connected to internal data and tools in real time. Likewise, Snowflake committed $200 million to joint development. Salesforce integrated Claude into regulated-industry workflows, while Accenture expanded multiyear agreements to scale enterprise deployments.
AI Bubble or Inflection Point?
Skeptics argue that todays agent hype resembles past automation cyclesbig promises followed by slow institutional uptake. If valuations reflect speculation rather than substance, regulated industries should expose weaknesses quickly, and Anthropic appears willing to accept that test. Its capital posture reflects confidence, through a $13 billion Series F at a $183 billion valuation in 2025, followed by reports of a significantly larger round under discussion. Anthropic is betting that the AI race will ultimately favor those who design for trust and responsibility first.
We built a company where research, product, and policy are integratedthe people building our models work deeply with the people studying how to make them safer. That lets us move fast without cutting corners, Amodei says. Countless industries are putting Claude at the center of their most critical work. That trust doesn’t happen unless you’ve earned it.
Many people spend an incredible amount of time worrying about how to be more successful in life. But what if thats the wrong question? What if the real struggle for lots of us isnt how to be successful, but how to actually feel successful?
Thats the issue lots of strivers truly face, according to ex-Googler turned neuroscientist and author Anne-Laure Le Cunff. In her book Tiny Experiments, she explores how to get off the treadmill of constantly chasing the next milestone, and instead find joy in the process of growth and uncertainty.
Youre probably doing better than you give yourself credit for, she explained on LinkedIn recently, before offering 10 telltale signs that what you need isnt to achieve more but to recognize your achievements more.
Are you suffering from success dysmorphia?
Before we get to those signs, let me try to convince you that youre probably being way too hard on yourself about how well youre doing in life. Start by considering the concept of dysmorphia. Youve probably heard the term in relation to eating disorders. In that context, dysmorphia is when you have a distorted picture of your body. You see a much larger person in the mirror than the rest of the world sees when they look at you.
But dysmorphia doesnt just occur in relation to appearance. One recent poll found that 29% of Americans (and more than 40% of young people) experience money dysmorphia. That is, even though theyre doing objectively okay financially, they constantly feel as if theyre falling behind.
Financial experts agree that thanks to a firehose of unrealistic images and often dubious money advice online, its increasingly common for people to have a distorted sense of how well theyre actually doing when it comes to money.
Or take the idea of productivity dysmorphia, popularized by author Anna Codrea-Rado. In a widely shared essay, she outed herself as a sufferer, revealing that despite working frantically and fruitfully, she never feels that shes done enough.
When I write down everything Ive done since the beginning of the pandemicpitched and published a book, launched a media awards, hosted two podcastsI feel overwhelmed. The only thing more overwhelming is that I feel like Ive done nothing at all, she wrote back in 2021.
Which means she did all that in just over a year and still feels inadequate. Thats crazy. But its not uncommon to drive ourselves so relentlessly. In Harvard Business Review, Jennifer Moss, author of The Burnout Epidemic, cites a Slack report showing that half of all desk workers say they rarely or never take breaks during the workday. She calls this kind of toxic productivity, a common sentiment in todays work culture.
10 signs of success
All together, this evidence paints a picture of a nation that is pretty terrible at gauging and celebrating success. The roots of the issue obviously run deep in our culture and economy. Reorienting our collective life to help us all recognize that there is such a thing as enough is beyond the scope of this column.
But in the meantime, neuroscience can help you take a small step toward greater mental peace by reminding you youre probably doing better than you sometimes feel you are. Especially, Le Cunff stresses, if you notice these signs of maturity, growth, and balance in your life.
You celebrate small wins.
You try again after failing.
You pause before reacting.
You take breaks without guilt.
You recover from setbacks faster.
You ask for help when you need it.
Youre kind to yourself when you make mistakes.
You notice patterns instead of judging them.
You make decisions based on values, not pressure.
Youre more curious than anxious about whats next.
A neuroscientist and a writer agree: Practice becoming
Writer Kurt Vonnegut once advised a young correspondent, Practice any art, music, singing, dancing, acting, drawing, painting, sculpting, poetry, fiction, essays, reportage, no matter how well or badly, not to get money and fame, but to experience becoming, to find out whats inside you, to make your soul grow.
In other words, artists agree with neuroscientists. Were all works in progress. Youre always going to be in the middle of becoming who you are. You may as well learn to appreciate yourself and the process along the way.
We often feel like we need to reach just one more milestone before we can feel successful. But the tme to celebrate isnt when youre arrived at successnone of us fully ever gets thereits at every moment of growth and wisdom along the journey.
By Jessica Stillman
This article originally appeared in Fast Company‘s sister publication, Inc.
Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
January arrives with a familiar hangover. Too much food. Too much drink. Too much screen time. And suddenly social media is full of green juices, charcoal supplements, foot patches, and seven-day liver resets, all promising to purge the body of mysterious toxins and return it to a purer state.
In the first episode of Strange Health, a new visualized podcast from The Conversation, hosts Katie Edwards and Dr. Dan Baumgardt put detox culture under the microscope and ask a simple question: Do we actually need to detox at all?
Strange Health explores the weird, surprising, and sometimes alarming things our bodies do. Each episode takes a popular health or wellness trend, viral claim, or bodily mystery and examines what the evidence really says, with help from researchers who study this stuff for a living.
Edwards, a health and medicine editor at The Conversation, and Baumgardt, a general practicioner and lecturer in health and life sciences at the University of Bristol, share a long-standing fascination with the bodys improbabilities and limits, plus a healthy skepticism for claims that sound too good to be true.
This opening episode dives straight into detoxing. From juice cleanses and detox teas to charcoal pills, foot pads, and coffee enemas, Edwards and Baumgardt watch, wince, and occasionally laugh their way through some of the internets most popular detox trends. Along the way, they ask what these products claim to remove, how they supposedly work, and why feeling worse is often reframed online as a sign that a detox is working.
The episode also features an interview with Trish Lalor, a liver expert from the University of Birmingham, whose message is refreshingly blunt. Your body is really set up to do it by itself, she explains. The liver, working alongside the kidneys and gut, already detoxifies the body around the clock. For most healthy people, Lalor says, there is no need for extreme interventions or pricey supplements.
That does not mean everything labeled detox is harmless. Lalor explains where certain ingredients can help, where they make little difference, and where they can cause real damage if misused.
Real detoxing looks less like a sachet or a foot patch and more like hydration, fiber, rest, moderation, and giving your liver time to do the job it already does remarkably well. If youre buying detox patches and supplements, then its probably your wallet that is about to be cleansed, not your liver.
Strange Health is hosted by Katie Edwards and Dan Baumgardt. The executive producer is Gemma Ware, with video and sound editing by Sikander Khan. Artwork by Alice Mason.
Edwards and Baumgardt talk about two social media clips in this episode, one from 30.forever on TikTok and one from velvelle_store on Instagram.
Listen to Strange Health via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed, or find out how else to listen here. A transcript is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps.
Katie Edwards is a commissioning editor for health and medicine and host of the Strange Health podcast at The Conversation.
Dan Baumgardt is a senior lecturer at the School of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Bristol.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Grammy Awards return February 1 at a pivotal moment for the music industry, one shaped by trending Latin artists, resurgent rock legends, and even charting AI acts. To unpack what will make this years broadcast distinctive, the Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason Jr. shares how Grammy winners are chosen, and how music both reflects and influences the broader business marketplace.
This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by former Fast Company editor-in-chief Robert Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode.
This year’s Grammy Awards come at an intriguing inflection point for the music business. I mean, the music business is always changing, but I was looking at your Album of the Year nominees, which feature a bunch of mega artists: Justin Bieber, Tyler the Creator, Lady Gaga, Kendrick Lamar, Bad Bunny. How much do Grammy nominees reflect the marketplace?
The Grammy nominees are meant to reflect the marketplace, and that’s our hope, but it really reflects the voters will. And you don’t know what’s going to resonate with the voting body year over year. We have roughly 15,000 voting members. Those members are all professional music people, whether they’re writers or arrangers or producers or artists. So they’re the peers of the people that are being nominated. Sometimes they surprise you and they vote for something that I wasn’t thinking of and sometimes they are right down the middle. But the hope is that the nominations are a direct and unencumbered reflection of what the voters appreciate and want to vote for.
And in this sort of more fragmented media ecosystem . . . do the biggest artists have the same kind of cultural sway, or is the cultural impact more diffuse?
It’s debatable. . . . I’m sure everyone has an opinion, but the big artists are always going to be impactful and important and shift the direction of music. And there’s always going to be a new class of creators coming up.
KPop Demon Hunters [is] the animated band [from] this breakthrough filmthe most-watched movie ever on Netflix. But the [soundtrack] album charted No. 1 on Billboard also. Did that surprise you? Are there any messages in that about music and where it’s going in the future?
It didn’t surprise me, because it was really, really good. And the message that it sends is you can come from anywhere, any country, any medium. You can come off a streaming platform, off a show, off of a garage studio. And if your music resonates, it’s going to be successful. It’s going to find an audience. And that’s what’s exciting to me right now about music is the diverse places where you’re finding it being created and sourced from. And also, the accessibility to audiences. You don’t have to record a record and then hopefully it gets mixed and mastered and hopefully somebody releases it and markets it the right way. You can make something and put it out. And if it creates excitement . . . people are going to love it and gravitate towards it.
One of the bands that ended up putting up big streaming numbers was the Velvet Sundown, an AI-based artist. I’m curious, is there going to be a point where AI acts have their own Grammy category? Are there any award restrictions on artists who use AI in their music now? I know there was a lot of tumult about that with the Oscars last year with The Brutalist.
AI is moving so darn fast. . . . Month to month it’s doing new things and getting better and changing what it’s doing. So we’re just going to have to be very diligent and watch it and see what happens. My perspective is always going to be to protect the human creators, but I also have to acknowledge that AI is definitely a tool that’s going to be used. People like me or others in the studios around the world are going to be figuring out, How can I use this to make some great music? So for now, AI does not disqualify you from being able to submit for a Grammy. There are certain things that you have to abide by and there are certain rules that you have to follow, but it does not disqualify you from entering.
You’re a songwriter, you’re a producer. Are you using AI in your own stuff?
I am. I’m fine to admit that I am using it as a creative tool. There are times when I might want to hear a different sound or some different instrumentation. . . . I’m not going to be the creator that ever relies on AI to create something from scratch, because that’s what I love more than anything in the world is making music, being able to sit down at a piano and come up with something that represents my feelings, my emotions, what I’m going through in my life, my stories. So I don’t think I’ll ever be that person that just relies on a computer or software or platform to do that for me. But I do think much like auto-tune, or like a drum machine, or like a synthesizer, there are things that can enhance what I’m trying to get from here out to here. And if those are things that come in that form, I think we’re all going to be ultimately taking advantage of them.
But we have to do it thoughtfully. We have to do it with guardrails. We have to do it respectfully. What is the music being trained on? Are there the right approvals? Are artists being remunerated properly? Those are all things that we have to make sure are in place.
So, let me ask you about Latin music. I know the Latin Recording Academy split off from the Recording Academy 20 years ago or so. Do you rethink that these days? Latin music is all over the mainstream charts, and plenty of acts are getting Grammy nominations. Should Latin music be separated out?
The history of it is a little different. We were representing music, the Latin music on the main show, and the popularity of it demanded that we have more categories. In order to feature more categories and honor the full breadth of the different genres of Latin music, we created the Latin Grammy so they could have that spotlight.
Currently, members of the Latin Academy are members of the U.S. Academy. So we’ve not set aside the Latin genres. We’ve not tried to separate them. We’ve only tried to highlight them and lift those genres up. As you know, in the U.S. show we feature Latin categories, we feature many Latin artists, and that will be the same this year, maybe more so, especially with the Bad Bunny success. So in no way does that try to separate the genres. And I think we’ll see some more of that in the future as other genres and other regions continue to make their music even more globally known. It’s not just about music that’s made in one country, right? At least it shouldn’t be. It should be about music everywhere in the world.
Instead of narrowing, you might have . . . additional or supplemental academies or projects so that you have tat expertise in those new and growing areas across the globe?
Absolutely. We’re going to have to continue to expand our membership. In order for us to honor all the different music that’s being made now, which is more than ever and music coming from more places than ever, our membership has to be reflective of that. Just like, I don’t know what type of music you’re a fan of, but I wouldn’t ask you if you didn’t know everything about classical to go into the classical categories and say, “What did you think was the best composing?” [There are] so many categories you wouldn’t be able to evaluate other than say, “Oh, I recognize that name. Let me vote for that.” And that’s what we can’t have. We have to have people that know the genres. And you’re seeing K-pop, you’re seeing Afrobeats, you’re seeing Latin, you’re seeing growth in the Middle East, you’re seeing growth coming out of India.
There are so many great artists and so many great records. And you’re hearing a blend of genres where you’re seeing Western artists interact or collaborate with artists from different parts of the world. That’s what’s happening. You can’t argue it. You can’t deny it. You can’t pretend that it’s not what’s going on.
Its 7:45 a.m. in the office. Someone bounces in, already back from the gym, already through their emails. Cheerfully asks if everyone’s “okay” because its so quiet and people seem a bit tired.
Around the office, people clutch coffee like a life raft, waiting for their brains to come online and cursing the 8 a.m. meeting. And the cheerful colleague. But at least they got in early enough to find parking and grab coffee before it ran outthis time.
Now: which person are you? The early riser, or the one watching them, wondering why you can never feel that awake at this hour no matter how hard you try?
Those clutching their strong brews are probably not just tired, they are socially jet-lagged. Up to 80% of the workforce uses alarm clocks to wake earlier than their body is primed to. That’s not a discipline problem. That’s a design problem.
That coffee isn’t a character weakness. And the fact that most humans require chemical and digital intervention to function at socially mandated hours should tell us something important about those hours.
Neurodiversity and Chronodiversity
What comes to your mind when people mention neurodiversity at work? Many people have heard that neurodiversity refers to ADHD or dyslexia, or they equate it with cognitive diversitydifferent ways of thinking or processing information. However, these interpretations are narrowand insufficient for supporting neurologically friendly environments.
Neurodiversity is neurological diversity: the full range of ways human nervous systems can be wired. It encompasses cognition, emotion, sensory processing, motor coordination, speech, and crucially, circadian regulation: how our nervous systems manage sleep-wake timing, energy fluctuations, and daily rhythms. But the latter is rarely discussed in the context of talent processes in organizationsand hardly ever in the context of neurodiversity.
Neurodiversity and chronodiversity are as central to human life as biodiversity to life on Earth. Maximizing the thriving of human talent at work requires understanding of many ways diversity manifests itself and impacts the ways we work.
Normativity and Its Enforcement
The parallel between neurodiversity and chronodiversity is that societies and cultures treat forms of neurological wiring and time orientation as normative, and others as aberrant. While neurodiversity and chronodiversity are biological facts, neuronormativity and chrononormativity are the social enforcement of what is deemed to be “normal.”
Chrononormativity expresses itself in workplace assumptions and behaviors that are rarely questioned:
Early arrival is equated with ambition and commitment
Morning responsiveness is read as professionalism
Meetings default to early hours those with more power prefer
Leadership visibility clusters in morning time
Performance reviews implicitly reward temporal conformity
Just as neurodivergent individuals often feel pressure to mask, performing neurotypicality to appear “normal,” chronodivergent individuals simulate morningness with sheer grit and coffee.
This comes at a cost.
The Current Reality: The Difference Tax
Most organizations are yet to achieve meaningful neurological inclusion. The few that have begun addressing neurodiversity typically focus narrowly on its cognitive aspects or communication styles. And most organizations continue to operate as if everyone’s internal clock were identical.
The timing structures of modern workearly meetings, fixed hours, morning-centric performance expectationswere inherited from agricultural and industrial time systems. But they were never designed for biological realityand those whose bodies do not fit cultural models pay a significant price not only in fatigue, but in mental (e.g., depression) and physical health (cardiovascular risks, metabolic dysfunction). The healthcare cost of this preventable damage also adds up.
Population-scale research reveals that chronotype follows a normal distribution, with approximately 30% early chronotypes, 30% intermediate types, and 40% late chronotypes. Among specific populations, the distribution skews laterstudies of young adults consistently find the prevalence of evening types.
The chronic misalignment between biological and social timesocial jet lag that most of us feelproduces accumulating sleep debt, cognitive function loss, and increased health risks. Chrononormativity produces what might be called the chronodiversity paradox: a biological majority is treated as a cultural minority. When late chronotypes struggle with early starts, they are labeled unmotivated and lazy, while mismatches with the system are ignored.
Neurodivergent populations are disproportionately impacted. Research consistently demonstrates that adults with ADHD exhibit delayed circadian rhythm phase, with up to 7578% showing significantly later timing of physiological sleep readiness and preferred sleep-wake schedules compared to neurotypical peers. Autistic individuals also frequently experience irregular or delayed sleep-wake patterns.
These are not poor behavioral choices or signs of insufficient discipline. They are neurological realities stemming from genetic, neurological, and hormonal processes.
A Holistic Inclusion Framework: Where Chronodiversity Fits
Early-morning meetings exclude late chronotypes from social participation. Fixed schedules ignore cognitive performance variations across the day. Forcing temporal conformity produces emotional exhaustion. Misaligned timing creates physical stress through chronic sleep disruption.
Early risers can suffer from misalignment too – night shifts, late-night email expectations, commutes that devour their best creative time. Without attention to chronodiversity, everyone suffers.
A workplace that insists everyone perform on the same schedule harms people and limits the expression of their full talent. But applying the holistic and intersectional inclusion principles developed in Ludmilas book, The Canary Code: A Guide to Neurodiversity, Dignity, and Intersectional Belonging at Work, can make much difference. Here are some suggestions for what this might look like:
Participation: Include employees in designing schedules rather than imposing “flexibility” designed by morning-normative managers. Those who experienced social jet lag firsthand understand the impact a 9 a.m. “optional” meeting has on the rest of their day. Designig for people without their input produces policies that look inclusive on paper while excluding in practice. Even when shift work is required, having a choice makes all the difference.
Focus on Outcomes: For most jobs, productivity has no timestamp. If an employee delivers exceptional analysis submitted at 3 a.m., does it matter they weren’t visible at 8 a.m.? When performance evaluations reward “responsiveness” measured by morning email reply speed, or when “commitment” is assessed by early arrival, we evaluate temporal style rather than substance. Review your criteria: do they measure what gets accomplished, or when someone is seen accomplishing it?
Flexibility: Remove arbitrary temporal barriers. Genuine flexibility means examining every time-bound requirement: Must this meeting be synchronous? Must it be morning? Must everyone attend the same session? Expanding flexibility to include schedule self-determination supports the vast majority of employees. Both larks and owls can thrive when design is thoughtful and work is aligned around meaning.
Organizational Justice: Examine schedules and policies from the justice perspective. Are scheduling procedures applied consistently, or do senior leaders get flexibility denied to others? Are decisions free from bias, or do early risers receive more favorable evaluations? Are parking, food, and workspaces available for people of later chronotypes?
Transparency: Make temporal expectations explicit. Many organizations claim flexibility while maintaining hidden norms: the unspoken understanding that “real players” attend the 8 a.m. leadership meeting, that promotion requires visibility during executive hours, that working remotely in the afternoon signals lower commitment. Make expectations explicitand make them job-relevant.
Valid Tools: Stop using temporal proxies for personal qualities. Early arrival doesn’t indicate dedication. Visible presence during specific hours doesn’t measure performance. These shortcuts embed chronotype bias into talent decisions. Valid assessment examines what someone produces, not when they produce it.
Moving toward chrono-inclusive practice requires organizations to recognize that morningness is cultural, not biological, and remove stigma around biological timing differences. Normalizing chronotype differences can help develop systems that offer meaningful flexibility and create infrastructureparking, food access, workspace availability, and chronoleadership approaches developed by Camillato address temporal bias.
Talent thrives when organizations practice holistic inclusion. And holistic inclusion requires neurological and time rhythm inclusionneither is optional if relying on coffee, alarm clocks, and fumes to function is to stop being a default.
Corporate America likes to believe its moved past bias. But it still has a very specific idea of what authority looks like, and its deeply masculine. This is a complex issue most men contend withand its even murkier for gay men. Especially for those who are out at work.
For gay men, workplace success has always been contingent on performing the right kind of gayness. The palatable kind; one that blends easily into existing leadership culture: Clean-cut, composed, confident without being expressive, and careful never to appear too gay in how one speaks, dresses, or leads. In short, masculine.
This dynamic is shaped by unstated cultural hierarchies of sexuality. These hierarchies are informal, powerful ideas about which kinds of gayness are seen as professional, authoritative, or leadership-ready, and which arent. Recent DEI program rollbacks, rising anti-LGBTQ sentiment, and record levels of hostile legislation exacerbate this existing tension.
Being openly gay is a complicated minority experiencelargely because many people arent openly out. Experts estimate that 83% of those who identify on the LGBTQ spectrum keep their orientation hidden.
Being out at work is even more complex. If you’re out, you’re more likely to be discriminated against than you’re not outabout three times more, says Brad Sears, distinguished scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles and founder of its School of Law Williams Institute, which researches policy around sexuality and gender. Research from 2024 reports that nearly half of LGBTQ employees are not out to supervisors, and that 47% of LGBTQ workers have experienced harassment or discrimination of some sort because of their sexuality.
The type of discrimination hes talking about isnt often overt homophobia. Its a subtle barrier known as the gay glass ceiling: the unseen force that limits advancement for out gay men, quietly favoring those who perform the right kind of masculinity.
Implicit Bias in Action
This past summer, Jerry was up for a managerial promotion at what he thought was a progressive tech company, where he still currently works. After several years, strong reviews, and a good rapport with leadership, he assumed hed be a shoo-in. Instead, a younger colleague who had been there only two months became his manager. (Jerry spoke to Fast Company under a pseudonym to protect against potential retaliation.)
Jerry did get a promotion of his own soon after, along with higher pay and responsibilities, but organizationally it was a lateral move, which was disappointing. I was excited to finally get some managerial experience, Jerry says.
He suspects this choice was due to his sexuality. He doesnt identify as particularly feminine, but assumes others see him that way. Im what youd call flamboyant, he deadpans. People know Im gay when I open my mouth.
Jerrys a self-assured man whos exactly what were told we should beourselvesbut has since worried this means people dont take him seriously.
That concern was validated when a C-suite leader told Jerrys colleague, Laura (also a pseudonym), that while they all liked Jerry and valued his contributions, they wanted someone more authoritative. Laura has worked closely with Jerry for four years. Hes a strong, decisive leader, she tells me.
Unfortunately, research supports Jerrys hypothesis. A 2023 study published in the journal Sex Roles found that both heterosexual and gay men prefer masculine-presenting men, regardless of their sexuality, for leadership positions. That probably shouldnt be surprising, especially in our current society, which increasingly prizes a very narrow view of traditional masculinity.
Society seems to assume that a higher degree of masculinity equates to a leader, says Ryan Federo, a lecturer at Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona in Spain, who has studied LGBTQ related topics in the upper echelons of business.
Gay men aren’t the only LGBTQ+ workers running into a similar roadblock at work, either. Federo published a blog in July 2024 identifying a rainbow glass ceiling that prevents LGBTQ individuals from reaching top corporate positions, including board membership. He pointed out how in 2023, out-LGBTQ+ individuals occupied less than 1% of available board seats.
The Trickle-Down of Acceptable Gayness
In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination. On paper, the question of whether gay men can work without bias is settled. But theres a concept in play here called hegemonic sexuality: the dominant, idealized, and often unquestioned norms for sexual orientation, behavior, and identity within a culture.
If youve ever heard someone described as being too gay, you already understand the concept of hegemonic sexuality, explains sociologist Travis Speice, who studies sexuality and gender.
This hierarchy is entirely subjective, yet over repeated interactions, groups of people come to agreeoften implicitlyon which forms of sexuality are socially desirable. Gay men and straight men police one another. Whether theyre consciously aware of it is almost beside the point. The key thing is that it happens.
It shows up in vague performance feedbacksomeone being told theyre not quite leadership material, that they lack gravitas, or that they should be more polished, without anyone ever naming what, exactly, needs to change.
Because research shows that ideas about professionalism and masculinity often go hand in hand, he says, expressions that are seen as too gay are also more likely to be labeled unprofessional. This is precisely what Jerry believes happened to him, even at a progressive company that hasnt rolled back its DEI programs.
We’ve often looked to the federal government as a strong protector for workers’ rights to be free from discrimination and harassment, says Sears. But that has shifted significantly in the first year of the Trump administration.
When President Donald Trump came into office for his second term, one of his first executive orders was rescinding Obama-era Executive Order 13672, which had explicitly prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for federal employees and contractors.
Still, there seems to be somewhat of a concerted effort from the administration to paint itself as LGBif not necessarily LGBTQfriendly. A New York Times feature ntitled Donald Trumps Big Gay Government highlights the gay men who have successfully climbed the administrations corporate ladder. At first glance, it telegraphs that you can be gay and successful. Upon closer inspection, the pattern is striking: they are overwhelmingly white, conventionally masculine, and visually coded as authoritative.
Close cropped haircuts. Windowpane suits. Golf shorts, the article states. Theyre not the type to be telling anyone their pronouns or using the word queer.
Its the corporate version of masc-for-masc: you can be gay, as long as youre still reliably a man.
Individual Success Doesnt Equal Structural Equity
I asked many gay men on social media and in professional groups whether being gay had hindered their careers. Some, like Jerry, said yes. Others insisted that success is about performance, not sexualitythat being gay doesnt matter as long as you deliver results.
On the surface, that belief is sincere: it reflects some mens individual lived experiences of advancement and resilience. But, as Speice explained to me, it can also obscure broader patterns. Job performance is often measured against traditionally masculine normsauthority, restraint, and credibilitythat shape whose work is taken seriously in the first place.
Its often easier to embrace the American bootstraps success story than to acknowledge the historical and structural barriers that shape peoples opportunities, he says.
I think this becomes clearer if we replace the word gay with another marginalized identity, Speice continues. Saying Im successful despite being gay starts to sound a lot like Im successful despite being a woman, or despite being Black, or despite having a disability. An individual person can absolutely succeed, but the broader pattern still shows that these identities are treated as obstacles rather than neutral or valued traits.
This made me think back to a 2014 Time magazine piece, written by an executive who said being gay hadnt held him backbut he also acknowledged his advantages: a supportive family, coastal geography, being male, and being white. But he also looked the part: conventionally masculine, composed, and culturally legible in a way that made his sexuality unlikely to challenge authority. The headshot reinforced the point: a conventionally masculine visage that doesnt ruffle any feathers.
Broadening Masculinity . . . and Leadership
When advancement depends on performing the right kind of gaynessshaped by hegemonic sexual normsorganizations dont just hamper individual workers. They also limit the range of leadership styles available to them. They trade collaboration, creativity, and psychological safety for a more rigid exercise of authority.
But awareness matters. Understanding how these implicit machinations, cultural expectations, and political currents shape perceptions of leadership can help us challenge them. It can invite us to value diverse expressions of masculinity, create space for diverse voices, and recognize that anyone can wield authority effectively, so long as they have the right skill set.
Employers should ensure that all workers feel a genuine sense of belonging in the workplace. Conducting annual staff surveys can help surface how employees experience their work environment. But leaders must be prepared to truly listen and make responsive changes based on what they hear, Speice says.
He also suggested auditing company policies to see whether they require workers to fit into narrow boxes or unintentionally marginalize some team members, as well as examining how bias can creep into hiring and promotion practices. This goes beyond what is written in policy documents, Speice says. Talking the talk without walking the walk does not cultivate belonging.
The question isnt whether gay men can succeed at work. Many do.
The question is whether we can broaden our definitions of successand allow a broader range of people, perspectives, and leadership styles to thrive.
A lawyer for the immigration officer who shot and killed Renee Good dropped out of the Minnesota governor race Monday, breaking with many fellow Republicans and calling President Donald Trumps immigration operation in the state an unmitigated disaster.
Chris Madel’s surprise move comes amid growing calls from Republicans to investigate federal immigration tactics in Minnesota after a U.S. Border Patrol agent fatally shot Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday.
Madel went a step further than most Republicans in his video, saying that while he supports the goal of deporting the worst of the worst from Minnesota, he thinks the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operation in the Twin Cities has gone too far.
I cannot support the national Republicans stated retribution on the citizens of our state, Madel said. Nor can I count myself a member of a party that would do so.
Madel said that U.S. citizens, particularly those of color, live in fear.
United States citizens are carrying papers to prove their citizenship,” Madel said. “Thats wrong.
Madel said he personally had heard from local Asian and Hispanic law enforcement officers who had been pulled over by ICE.
I have read about and I have spoken to help countless United States citizens who have been detained in Minnesota due to the color of their skin, Madel said.
He also said it was unconstitutional and wrong for federal officers to raid homes using a civil warrant, rather than one issued by a judge.
Madel was among a large group of candidates seeking to replace Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, who dropped his reelection bid earlier this month. Other Republican candidates include MyPillow founder and chief executive Mike Lindell, an election denier who is close to Trump; Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth; Dr. Scott Jensen, a former state senator who was the partys 2022 gubernatorial candidate; and state Rep. Kristin Robbins.
Democratic U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar has filed paperwork to run, but has yet to publicly launch a campaign to succeed Walz.
Madel, in his Monday video posted on the social platform X, described himself as a pragmatist, and said national Republicans have made it nearly impossible for a Republican to win a statewide election in Minnesota.
Madel did not immediately return a text message seeking comment.
Madel, 59, was a political newcomer making his first run for public office. He got into the race on Dec. 1.
Madel brought 30 years of experience as an attorney to the race, including cases taking on corporate corruption. Madel also defended law enforcement officers, including the 2024 case of a Minnesota state trooper who fatally shot a Black man after a traffic stop. Prosecutors dropped charges against Trooper Ryan Londregan in the killing of Ricky Cobb II, saying the case would have been difficult to prove.
Madel often referenced that victory in his brief campaign for governor, including in his video dropping out.
Republicans were expecting the race for governor to be focused on Walz, who at the time was seeking a third term amid questions about how his administration handled welfare fraud. But the race shifted dramatically on Jan. 5 when Walz dropped out.
That same week, the Trump administration sent thousands of federal officers to Minnesota. ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Good in Minneapolis two days later on Jan. 7.
Madel agreed to offer pro bono legal advice to Ross, although no criminal charges or civil lawsuits have been filed. Madel said he was honored to help Ross, particularly during a gubernatorial campaign.
Justice requires excellent legal representation, Madel said.
Madel announced his decision ending his candidacy two days after a Border Patrol officer shot and killed Pretti on Saturday in Minneapolis.
By Scott Bauer, Associated Press
For todays young people, online content isnt a backdrop to daily lifeit is daily life. Streaming platforms, short-form video, and social media dont just entertain; they influence how young people see themselves, their health, and what behaviors are seen as normal or aspirational. Movies, television, and streaming content still have influence, but as the digital ecosystem expands, so does its power to shape choicesfor better and for worse.
Take smoking, for example. The notion of cigarette nostalgia has unwittingly sparked a slew of recent news stories about the perceived increase in smoking on screens. The impact of that imagery? Tangible.
While celebrities like Charlie XCX and Jeremy Allen White may not fully grasp the influence that their content is having on young viewers, research shows that when smoking is glamorized, it directly shapes youth attitudes and behaviors around nicotine, ultimately putting young audiences at heightened risk of addiction.
IMAGERY MATTERS
Our recent report offers that out of the top films in 2024, more than half include tobacco imageryan increase of 10% over the year prior. And nearly 17 million young people were exposed to tobacco imagery through popular streaming shows just in 2023.
This imagery isnt without consequence. It can triple a young persons likelihood of starting to vape and make it harder for those already addicted to nicotine to quit successfully.
Often dubbed the JUUL Generation, e-cigarette use is greatest among 18-24 year-olds. For Gen Z, the stakes are high, with one in five now risking long-term addiction.
THE SCALE OF MEDIA CHANGED
One thing that makes this moment different from past media eras is scale. Streaming platforms release entire seasons at once. Algorithms surface content repeatedly. Scenes dont disappear after a weekly airing. Instead, they live on through clips, memes, and edits that circulate far beyond their original context. A single portrayal can echo across platforms and get amplified in ways that creators or producers never anticipated.
The impact isnt just for substances like nicotine, either. Similar outcomes have been seen among this generation when it comes to topics like body image and eating behaviors, violence, mental health narratives, and gambling or sports betting. Exposure to the portrayal of these issues can increase the likelihood of imitation and the effect can be life-altering.
WE PLAY A ROLE
The takeaway is that digital platforms, entertainment companies, and creators all have a role to play in protecting young audiences. The influence they wield on culture can shape norms on a population level. With that influence comes opportunity.
Society has seen tremendous success by putting warnings on content containing domestic violence or suicide references, while making resources available to viewers. These practices should be used for tobacco tooincluding offering resources to help young people quit. Creators should not be unpaid spokespersons for the tobacco industry, or any other issue they are inadvertently promoting. Equally, platforms should have content that reflects reality: Addiction isnt beautiful, and quitting is difficult, but more achievable with support.
Today’s youth are shaped by scrolling, streaming, and sharing. The question isnt whether online content influences behavior, but whether were willing to use that influence intentionally.
This next generation deserves stories that inspire, transparency on issues that matter, and solution-forward thinking. At the end of the day, they deserve a digital landscape that takes ownership of the imagery it puts forward. And it should be done in a way that advances the healthier futures the next generation says they want, but also one mindful of the vision for the future that theyre being offered.
Kathy Crosby is president and CEO of Truth Initiative.
We have been taught to segment people into neat design personas: young versus old, able-bodied versus disabled, patient versus caregiver. Those categories may help on a spreadsheet, but they rarely reflect real life. Ability is not a fixed identity. It is a state that shifts across hours, seasons, and decades.
Most people are not disabled or able bodied. They are navigating a continuum. A parent carrying a toddler, a traveler pulling luggage, a cook with wet hands, someone recovering from surgery, a person with arthritis on a cold morning, an older adult managing fatigue at the end of the day. These are not edge cases. They are the mainstream experience of modern life.
If design is meant to serve people, then the next step is clear: Stop designing for categories and start designing for fluidity.
FLUIDITY IS THE NEW ACCESSIBILITY
Accessibility is often framed as a feature set for a specific group. That framing keeps it stuck in the margins. A better lens is to treat accessibility as the practical reality of everyday variability. Peoples abilities change with context. Lighting changes. Noise changes. Energy changes. Hands get full. Attention splits. Stress rises. Injuries happen. Bodies age. Life intervenes.
Once you design for that reality, the business case becomes obvious. Products that work across more conditions work for more people. They become relevant in more moments, which increases adoption, satisfaction, and repeat use.
DESIGN FOR ABILITY STATES, NOT DEMOGRAPHICS
A useful shift is to map ability states instead of user categories. Ask not only who the user is, but the condition they are in when they use the product.
Consider a few common states that literally affect every body:
One-handed use, because the other hand is full.
Low vision use, due to glare, darkness, or fatigue.
Low dexterity use, due to cold, arthritis, injury, or stress.
Limited mobility use, due to pregnancy, pain, aging, or recovery.
Cognitive load, because the user is rushed, distracted, or overwhelmed.
These states are not rare. They recur daily. Designing for them creates better products for everyone without forcing people into a label.
MAKE ADAPTABILITY FEEL INVISIBLE
One risk is that designing for everyone can become code for complicated. The goal is not to add settings and switches. The goal is to build adaptability into the form and interaction so it feels natural.
Good examples are usually quiet:
A handle that invites multiple grips without looking specialized.
Controls that are intuitive without requiring instruction.
Packaging that opens cleanly without brute force.
A product that communicates how to use it through shape and touch.
The best inclusive design feels obvious, not assistive.
THE STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE
Fluidity is also a brand strategy. When customers feel a product keeps up with them, it earns trust. It becomes the object they rely on through different phases of life. That is a deeper form of loyalty than preference. It is dependency in the best sense of the word.
The future of inclusive design is not about creating more categories. It is about removing the need for categories altogether. If products are designed for life in motion, they will work for every body, more often, and for longer.
Ben Wintner is CEO of Michael Graves Design.
The enterprise world is awash in AI optimism. Boardrooms buzz with talk of transformation, and budgets swell to accommodate the latest platforms and AI assistants.
Today, nearly three-quarters of companies report using generative AI regularly in a core business activity, according to recent McKinsey & Company research. But if you look past the headlines, a familiar pattern has emerged that reminds me of the dot-com era, when companies rebranded overnight, and investors chased the next big thing, often with little regard for a tangible way forward.
Today, talk of an AI bubble isnt just a matter of market speculation or start-up hype. Its unfolding inside organizations, where the pressure to do something with AI drives rapid procurement and internal investment. The fear of missing out (FOMO) is palpable. Leaders, wary of being left behind, greenlight projects that promise automation, insight, and competitive advantage.
But heres the sobering reality: Most AI initiatives fail to deliver meaningful results, and the graveyard of underutilized tools and proofs of concept or pilots that dont pan out is growing.
THE ANATOMY OF THE AI BUBBLE
The pitfalls are easy to spot, especially in hindsight. Companies rush to build bespoke AI solutions, convinced their needs are unique, only to watch those features become commoditized by vendors months later.
Others buy off-the-shelf platforms, expecting plug-and-play magic, but end up mired in costly customization and integration. Some grant AI agents sweeping permission, only to recoil at the risks when their chief information security officers (CISOs) push back.
While its completely speculative, if the bubble bursts, it will be driven by a flood of AI projects without clear use cases that fail to generate revenue, productivity gains, or measurable cost savings. That doesnt mean every AI project is doomed, or that companies should stop investing in AI. It just means you need to tweak your approach.
THE PRAGMATIC PLAYBOOK
What separates the AI survivors from the casualties is discipline. The most successful organizations approach AI with a pragmatic, four-step framework.
1. Assess with brutal honesty
Is the problem unique, or is it a feature waiting to be bundled into next years subscription? The build versus buy decision is not just technical; its existential. Too much building leads to wasted effort; too much buying without adaptation leads to disappointment.
Leaders need to ask themselves if their processes are so distinctive that custom development is warranted, or if a trusted third party is likely to deliver the needed capability as a feature in one of their offerings.
2. Pilot before you leap
Small-scale experiments, tightly scoped, reveal both the functional and business value of a solution. Pilots arent proof of concept. Theyre proof of value.
Ive seen instances where the value looked to be there in the pilot but disappeared in a larger scope. So, resist the urge to roll out enterprise-wide until the groundwork is solid. Use pilots to continue to verify the value and readjust as needed as you scale the project.
3. Verify real impact
Does the AI do what was promised? More importantly, does it make or save money?
Functional success is meaningless without business impact. Continual verification means demanding evidence that the solution delivers measurable value. Ensure it remains a part of the process even after you roll out your AI, because bolting on the need to continually verify wont end well.
4. Scale with caution
Prioritize quick wins and expand with measured steps. Only after value is proven does scaling make sense. Organizations that scale AI use prematurely often find themselves burdened with tools that fail to deliver on their promise.
AVOID THE COMMON PITFALLS
All too often, I see my peers fall into the same traps. Heres my advice:
Dont overestimate AIs ability to automate complex workflows. Many projects fail because organizations expect too much, too soon.
Beware of internal FOMO because rash decisions driven by fear of being left behind often lead to wasted investments.
Recognize the value of traditional AI. Not all innovations are generative or agentic. Mature, proven AI solutions can deliver immediate value.
Guard against giving AI agents more autonomy than is reasonable. The risks are real, and your CISO is justified in being overly cautious.
THE DISCIPLINE TO THRIVE
AI is not a panacea, nor is it a guaranteed path to transformation. Its power lies in the hands of organizations that approach it with rigor, clarity, and strategic intent. The bubble will burst for those who chase hype over substance, mistake activity for progress, or fail to align investments with business strategy.
The leaders who will thrive are those who move deliberately and rationalize every decision, demand real value at every turn, and recognize both the limitations and the possibilities of AI. Success comes from understanding where AI can deliver immediate, tangible benefits and where it remains a work in progress. It means balancing ambition with pragmatism, and performance with transformation.
Much like the dot-com boom, opportunity will outlive the initial hype and early failures of AI. Every company needs to lean into the potential, but every opportunity also needs the right framework to thrive and grow. That means setting the right foundation: modernizing your data estate, determining where your data should livewhether in the cloud, on premises, or a hybrid of bothand then ensuring your networking, compute, storage, and security infrastructure can support it all.
Equally important is recognizing the growing role of the edge. Whether its a retail floor, remote offices, a factory, or the device in an end users hand, every edge has the potential to drive AI use cases from cloud-connected services to local inference.
The future belongs not to those who move fastest, but to those who move smartest. Step back, challenge assumptions, and invest in AI with discipline and foundational purpose. In doing so, your next AI initiative will be the one that outlasts the hype to deliver lasting value for your business.
Juan Orlandini is the CTO, North America for Insight Enterprises
