 |
|
|
|||||
President Trump just signed an executive order attempting to block states from regulating AI an unprecedented step that would strip states of the ability to protect their residents at a moment of extraordinary technological volatility. This move is overwhelmingly unpopular (polling has found that Americans oppose AI moratoriums by a 3-1 margin), and certain to be litigated in the courts. But it is also likely to achieve the exact opposite of its stated goalsdeepening mistrust and slowing AI adoption at a time when America wants to win the global AI race. We know because weve been here before. America has seeded many technological revolutions over the years, from electricity to automation to the internet. And in each of them we see a clear pattern: State-led regulation doesnt slow growth. It spurs it. If President Trump sincerely wants America to lead in the AI race, he should look to our nations past. Technologies that defined American leadership became safer, more trusted, and more widely adopted because states helped set guardrailsnot because Washington preempted them. Regulation paves the way When Henry Ford introduced the Model T in 1908, carmakers prioritized speed and sales over safety. Predictably, fatalities soaredover 33 deaths per 10,000 vehicles in 1913, compared to just 1.6 per 10,000 today. But then commonsense regulation met the moment: California launched its DMV, which became the mechanism for identifying and tracking both cars and drivers (1915), Massachusetts required auto insurance (1927), and by the mid-1930s, 24 states mandated drivers licenses. These rules did not deter innovation; they made it safer and more sustainable. Innovations like seat belts (1949) and airbags (standardized in the late 1980s), and taillights (by the 1930s, two taillights became standard in the United States) dramatically reduced fatalities, catalyzing safer, more trusted, and universally-used automotive technology. And in fact, the American auto industry flourished. By 1950, U.S. automakers produced more than three-quarters of all cars in the world, and General Motors remained the worlds largest automaker from 1931 to 2008. Safe, reliable cars didnt just replace existing modes of transportation, they made new things possible: lower-cost interstate trucking, suburbs, mobile economies, and a booming manufacturing revolution. Clear rules of the road applied to anyone who sold a car in the U.S., whether made at home or in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere. In short, automakers dominated from Detroit to overseas markets because regulation provided predictability for investors, confidence for consumers, and pressure for safer, smarter innovation. Now, the frontier is digital Weve experienced over 50 years of disruption and advancement in digital technology, yet foundational guardrails remain almost entirely absent. In this vacuum, tech companies have optimized for max engagement, not ethicsfueling a youth mental health crisis and dramatically eroding our information ecosystem by prioritizing conflict over truth. Startups, wary of reputational and legal risks, and deep-pocketed incumbents like Meta, are retreating into safer B2B offerings instead of consumer-facing breakthroughs. Investors are navigating uncertainty, making bets on products that could be banned or devalued dramatically overnight at the mercy of an individual judges ruling who may know little about technology. As we accelerate into the AI era at warp speed, we are doing so with a set of digital-era guardrails that are outdated, piecemeal, and in most cases, nonexistent by design. Where were going, we still need roads Just as automobile regulations guided innovation toward safety and scale, AI needs a parallel set of protections. Cars have mandatory seat belts and airbags; AI systems should have safety standards and harm-mitigation features. Cars have child car seat tethers and safety locks; AI should include comparable safeguards for vulnerable users. Just as vehicles must undergo crash tests, major AI models should be subject to basic auditing before deployment. And just as cars require insurance to manage and price risk, AI liability should be clarified, distributed, and broadly understood. Just as critical, state-level leadership should be welcomed and followed. Local experimentation builds the practical frameworks that federal law can later scale, and is as essential now as it was in the 1920s. And the market itself is already signaling the need for this transparency. As Anthropic president Daneila Amodei recently put it, No one says, We want a less safe product. He likened the companys disclosure of model failures to an automaker releasing footage of a crash-test dummy flying through a windshield. The visual is jarringbut when the result is better airbags and stronger frames, consumers trust the car more, not less. That dynamic builds markets and confidence and it makes innovation self-reinforcing. The choice is not between growth and guardrails. Its whether America will lead on AI and govern with the predictability and clarity that fuels investment, trust, and adoptionor whether we will gamble on laissez-faire promises that history tells us never deliver. If our goal is truly pro-growth AI, then state-led, commonsense regulation is not a roadblock. Its the on-ramp.
Category:
E-Commerce
In recent years, organizations have launched neurodiversity and mental health initiatives with the best of intentions: to raise awareness, launch employee resource groups, and create a culture where team members embrace diverse neurotypes and learn to coexist in an ecosystem. Yet, neurodivergent employees still tell me the same thing: they feel misunderstood as they navigate masking, burnout, and eventually leave organizations that genuinely believe theyve done their best. So, whats missing? The gap isnt in policy or processits in our understanding of the emotional landscape inside the neurodivergent experience. Leaders may recognize ADHD or autism as concepts, but not the human realities beneath those labels. Yes, we need workplace adjustments. But emotional accessibility, understanding how neurodivergents make sense of themselves, their late diagnoses, and their internal worlds, is what creates psychological safety. True retention requires leadership that can speak the emotional language neurodivergents actually use. But what does that sound like when you put it into action? Were working in an identity economy Work is no longer just where we earn a living. Its where we look for meaning, compatibility, and emotional belonging. With rising adult ADHD and autism diagnoses, especially in among women aged 2349, many are reassessing who they are and where they fit. Neurodivergents are gaining a more accurate understanding of how their brains and nervous systems work, what supports their well-being, and how their backgrounds shape their behavior and stress responses. And their lived experiences are shaped by unique intersections of neurotype, culture, gender conditioning, trauma history, sensory thresholds, communication style, and current life demands. As neurodivergents gain emotional literacy about their inner world, they are also more sensitive to misattunement, and leaders who lack the nuance of neurodiverse experiences struggle to fully relate or to bring out their team members strengths. Emotional literacy is the missing link in neurodiversity strategy Many assume emotional literacy means naming emotions or staying calm. For neurodivergent people, its far more complex. Emotions often show up physically first: a tight chest during sensory overload, a blank mind when asked, What do you think? frustration triggered by emotionally charged discussions, shutdown after too many back-to-back meetings, or restlessness mistaken for anxiety. These are emotional cues that can inform, but in workplaces that havent learned to recognize them, they may be missed. Neurodivergent responses are tied to the nervous system. A fight response may be interpreted as a strong reaction, combative, or defensiveness. Flight shows up as withdrawing from contribution or needing space. Freeze tends to show up as going quiet or not being able to name thoughts or emotions. And fawn appears as people-pleasing, not necessarily agreement. Without emotional literacy, these cues get misinterpreted. When leaders understand these adaptive responses, they can support and connect, instead of correct. The double empathy problem still drives workplace conflict Misunderstandings between neurodivergent and neurotypical colleagues rarely stem from a lack of empathy. They may come from different ways of communicating, interpreting tone, or sensing threat. A manager for instance, may read directness or lack of eye contact as rudeness, when in reality its a neurodivergent colleague unmasking so they can think clearly. A neurodivergent employee might interpret vague feedback as rejection, while the manager hasnt given it much thought. A leader may perceive intensity as aggression, when the employee is simply overwhelmed. And, in an open-plan office, a colleague raising their voice at another colleague, not out of hostility but because theyre reaching meltdown, which is then followed by shame later. Emotional literacy bridges these gaps before they escalate into conflict or disciplinary action, which, if were honest, is so condescending when applied to a fully grown adult. Cultural intelligence (CQ) matters more than ever Emotional literacy without cultural literacy is incomplete. Our stress responses, boundary styles, and communication rhythms are shaped by culture as much as neurotype. A British-Asian woman may internalize distress, because it was normalized in her culture to tolerate and keep going. A Black autistic colleague may mask to avoid stereotype threat that theyve been preconditioned to expect. The future of leadership requires the ability to read across identities and not treat neurodiversity as a single story. So, what does emotional accessibility look like in practice? Here are shifts that transform workplaces more than any awareness campaign: 1. Respond to nervous systems, not behaviorWhen we can see a stress response, what information can we derive from this, and how can we best support a neurodivergent employee? 2. Reduce cognitive loadProvide agendas early, enable longer processing time, and avoid rapid changeover to give the brain time to switch gear. 3. Normalize setting boundariesSo others feel safe to do the same, model phrases like:Lets slow this downI need a momentIll come back to you on this 4. Respect sensory needsNoise, lighting, heat, pace, and unpredictability all shape neurodivergent employees well-being and performance. 5. Read early signs of burnoutNotice when team members withdraw, go quiet, are slower with their responses, or increase masking, as these are signs of misalignment, long before they collapse. 6. Make emotional literacy a core leadership skillUnderstanding the emotional language of the nervous system is the prerequisite to building safe relationships. This isnt soft, it is aligned with the reality of todays workforce. The real future of inclusion is relational To support neurodivergent employees, organizations must move beyond awareness toward something deeper and more human: the ability to read, respect, and respond to the emotional and sensory realities of the people they lead. Emotional literacy creates teams where neurodivergent employees dont have to pretend to feel safe, they genuinely experience it. It creates workplaces where difference becomes a source of insight, because prioritising emotional accessibility benefits every mind. Thats the shift that liberates people and transforms cultures.
Category:
E-Commerce
When Calvin McDonald was appointed CEO of Lululemon in 2018, the activewear brand was a cult brand. But it had the potential to become a retail giant. Chip Wilson founded Lululemon in Vancouver in 1998 as a yoga brand. When he left the CEO role in 2005, the company was generating $80 million a year. In the decade that followed, Lululemon grew steadily, boosted by the broader athleisure trend. But it was McDonaldwho previously spent five years delivering double-digit growth as CEO of Sephora Americaswho transformed Lululemon into one of the biggest clothing companies in the world. Over the course of his seven-year tenure, McDonald more than tripled the company’s annual revenue from $2.6 billion in 2018 to $10.6 billion in 2024. (Revenue is expected to hit $11 billion this year.) He led the company’s global expansion to 30 countries; international revenue alone is now $3 billion. And he helped Lululemon become known not only for activewear, but also for apparel you could wear to the office. Now, McDonald is on his way out. Last week, at Lululemon’s earnings call, the company announced that it was looking for a new CEO with experience in “growth and transformation“. This comes after Lululemon’s growth slowed to 10% last year from 19% the year before. There are many reasons for the company’s recent troubles, from product missteps like a widely-panned Disney collaboration to U.S. tariffs to weaker consumer spending. All of this has led Lululemon’s stock to tumble over the past two years. (Lululemon declined to comment for this story.) But McDonald’s track record suggests that he would have been capable of steering Lululemon back to growthand the company may ultimately regret its decision to let him go. Wilson wanted McDonald Out What’s clear is that Lululemon’s founder, who stepped down from the role of CEO in 2005, wanted McDonald out. Wilson has famously tried to stay involved with his company, even though he no longer has an official position. In 2013, he was forced to give up his role as board chairman after saying Lululemon’s clothes don’t work for “some women’s bodies,” which was perceived to be body-shaming. Wilson continued to make controversial comments. Last year, he drew backlash after he criticized Lululemon’s “whole diversity and inclusion thing,” adding that “you’ve got to be clear that you don’t want certain customers coming in.” In response to the outcry, Lululemon issued a statement distancing the company from its founder, and McDonald spoke to Fast Company about how much Lululemon had changed since Wilson’s departure. But Wilson still has powerful influence because he remains the company’s largest individual shareholder, owning roughly 9% of shares. In October, Wilson took out a full page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal outlining everything he felt was wrong at the company. Wilson wrote that Lululemon’s troubles boil down to the fact that he is no longer leading the company and has been replaced by CEOs who “speak Wall Street.” Since Wilson no longer has a seat on the board, it’s unlikely that his perspective directly affects management’s decisions about the company’s future. But the ad created a lot of buzz, and may have accelerated the decision to find a new leader. McDonald’s Missteps Don’t Define His Tenure To be fair, Wilson made some reasonable points in his write-up. It’s true that McDonald has taken some wrong turns in his quest for growth. There was his decision to go beyond Lululemon’s expertise in apparel and enter the fitness market. In 2020, it spent $1 billion on acquiring the smart exercise device Mirror; three years later, Lululemon stopped selling the device and fired 100 employees working on this part of the business. Then there was what Wilson describes as the “wildly inappropriate” Disney collab. One of Lululemon’s strengths has been how judicious it is about collaborations, setting it apart from the collab-happy fashion industry. Its rare partnerships with designers have been elevated and interesting, such as the 2017 collab with Central Saint Martins and the 2019 collab with the edgy designer Roksanda Ilinčić. By comparison, last year’s Disney collab seemed like a naked cash-grab. Its current capsule collection with the luxury L.A.-based grocery store Erewhon similarly feels like an effort to tap into a short-term trend, rather than focus on the well-designed classic garments that consumers love. But these mistakes don’t define McDonald’s leadership. He’s also focused on product innovation, which has always been the key to Lululemon’s success. In 2022, after years of development, Lululemon launched its own footwear line, which has been successful. As culture has moved beyond athleisure, he’s directed Lululemon’s designers to produce chic clothinglike blazers and trousersthat can be worn to the office, including the bestselling men’s ABC pant and women’s Daydrift trouser. And the company has continued to develop new fabrics, while leaning into the ones that customers love, like the buttery Nulu material in Lululemon’s best-selling Align leggings. Earlier this year, after acknowledging that some customers felt “fatigue” with the product assrtment, McDonald promised to double down on design. Steering a $10 Billion Brand In his ad, Wilson laid out a strategy for Lululemon to bounce back. He says the company needs to put product and brand back at the center, empower creative leadership rather than merchants looking at spreadsheets, and focus on designing for the women who dictate culture, rather than follow it. All of this is good advice, and Lululemon’s next CEO should take note. But it is also insufficient because it fails to recognize the scale of the company that Lululemon has become. Much of Lululemon’s growth in recent years has come from its global expansion, which McDonald has steered. Mainland China has now become the company’s second largest market after the United States. Creating a brand and products that resonates across so many different markets is no small task, and it is something that Wilson never had to tackle. The growth of this international business has been crucial to Lululemon’s continued growth, particularly because American consumers are curbing their spending. President Trump’s tariffs, which have increased the price of goods and inflation, are causing many Americans to tighten their belts. In September, Lululemon said that changes in the U.S. tax code would add roughly $240 million in expenses. And yet Lululemon’s overall revenue is continuing to grow, thanks to the strength of its international markets. In its third quarter, Lululemon’s international revenue had grown by 33% while its U.S. revenue had declined by 2%. McDonald has masterfully transformed Lululemon from a brand that made pricey yoga leggings into a global fashion powerhouse. With his departure, Lululemon is losing a leader who knows the company well and has a track record of driving growth. The new CEO will have big shoes to fill. And the world will be watching where McDonald lands next.
Category:
E-Commerce
As we count down to the last days of the year, we are looking ahead to what may be one of the next big work trends of 2026: shift sulking. Read on to find out what it is, and what to know about it heading into the new year. What is shift sulking? “Shift sulking is the moment when hourly workers arrive already depleted because the conditions surrounding their workunpredictable schedules, inconsistent hours, and rising demandsare simply unsustainable,” says Silvija Martincevic, CEO of Deputy, a workforce management platform for hourly workers. “Because millions of shifts run through our platform every week, Deputy sees this deep-seated strain in the data well before it makes headlines,” Martincevic adds. According to Martincevic, if you look closely the next time youre at the grocery store, coffee shop, hospital, or convenience store, youll see it. And it’s not hard to spot: workers stretched thin, managing difficult customers and understaffed teams. The difference between a worker who feels supported and one whos simply trying to get through the day is written on their face, she says. What, if anything, does this tell us about the current state of the economy? “[At a time when] 31% of U.S. workers report feeling detached, ‘shift sulking’ is a clear reminder that the strength of our economy is inseparable from the stability of the shift worker,” says Martincevic. “Thats not simply a retention challenge. Its a productivity challenge that limits our collective potential.” According to data from Deputy, in states where stable scheduling is the norm, frontline worker happiness reaches 98%, compared to just 60% where it’s unpredictable. And companies should be paying attention to this data, as studies show engaged workers perform better. Why shift sulking may be one of the big workplace trends of 2026 In today’s 24/7 gig economy, more Americans are doing shift work and taking on multiple jobs, or so-called poly-employment, to make ends meet as they grapple with rising costs and higher inflation. “We dont see shift sulking as a temporary issue; its the human cost of deeper structural friction in todays labor marketand all indicators point to it intensifying in 2026,” Martincevic says. “Businesses are operating leaner, asking teams to deliver the same output despite tighter staffing and volatile demand. That pressure falls squarely on the frontline.” According to Deputy’s Better Together report, while AI can automate tasks and improve visibility, technology alone wont solve the problemthat demands structural change that gives workers what they want: predictable schedules, balanced workloads, and transparent communication.
Category:
E-Commerce
Like many people, I use AI for quick, practical tasks. But two recent interactions made me pay closer attention to how easily these systems slip into emotional validation. In both cases, the model praised, affirmed, and echoed back feelings that werent actually there. I uploaded photos of my living room for holiday decorating tips, including a close-up of the ceramic stockings my late mother hand painted. The model praised the stockings and thanked me for sharing something so meaningful, as if it understood the weight of them. A few days later, something similar happened at work. I finished a long run, came home with an idea, and dropped it into ChatGPT to pressure test it. Instead of analyzing it or raising risks, the model immediately celebrated it. Great idea. Powerful. Lets build on it. But when I ran the same idea by a colleague, he pushed back. He challenged assumptions I hadnt seen. He made me rethink pieces I thought were settled. And the idea got betterfast. That contrast stayed with me. AI wasnt critiquing me. It was validating me. And validation, when its instant and unearned, can create real blind spots. We Are Living Through a Validation Epidemic We talk endlessly about AI hallucinations and misinformation. We talk far less about how AIs default mode is affirmation. Large language models are built to be agreeable. They reflect our tone and adopt our emotional cues. They lean toward praise because their training data leans toward praise. They reinforce more often than they resist. And this is happening at a moment when validation is already a defining cultural force. Psychologists have been warning about the rise in validation-seeking behavior for more than a decade. Social platforms built around likes and shares have rewired how people measure worth. The American Psychological Association (APA) reports sharp increases in social comparison among younger generations. Pew Research shows that teens now tie self-esteem directly to online feedback. Researchers at the University of Michigan have identified a growing pattern of validation dependence, which correlates with higher anxiety. Weve created an environment where approval is currency. So is it any wonder we would gravitate toward a tool that hands it out so freely? But that has consequences. It strengthens the muscle that wants reassurance while weakening the one that tolerates frictionthe friction of being questioned or proven wrong. AI Makes Us Faster. It Does Not Make Us Better Im not anti-AI. Far from it. I use it every day, and I work in an industry that depends on smart, data-driven judgment. AI helps me move faster. It informs my decisions and expands what I can consider in a short amount of time. But it cannot replace the tension required for growth. Tension is feedback. Tension is accountability. Tension is reality. And reality still comes from human beings. The danger isnt that AI misleads us. Its that it makes us less willing to challenge ourselves. When a model praises our ideas or mirrors our emotions, it creates a subtle illusion that were right, or at least close enough that critique isnt needed. That illusion may be comforting, but its also risky. Weve seen what happens when agreement is prized over challenge. NASAs Challenger launch decision is one of the clearest examples of groupthink in modern history. Multiple engineers raised concerns, but the pressure for consensus won and tragedy followed. Kodak offers another lesson. It pioneered digital photography but clung to its film-era assumptions, even as the market moved in a different direction. As Harvard Business Review has long noted, cultures that suppress dissent make worse decisions. When disagreement disappears, risk accelerates. Great Leaders Arent Built on Validation The best leaders I know didnt grow because people agreed with them. They grew because someone challenged them early and often. Because someone said, I dont think thats right, or more boldly, Youre wrong. They learned to welcome productive resistance. AI wont do that unless we demand it. And most people wont demand it because it feels better to be affirmed. If were not careful, AI becomes the worlds most agreeable colleaguequick with praise, light on critique, and always ready to reassure us that were on the right track even when were not. Great ideas need resistance. So do organizations. So do we. AI can accelerate our thinking. But only people can sharpen it. Thats the part of this technology we should be paying closest attention tonot what it knows, but what its willing to tell us. And what its not.
Category:
E-Commerce