 |
|
|
|||||
Matt outworked his peers and risen a rung too high on the career ladderat least, too high for the good of anything but his insecure ego. Constantly fearing his bluff would be blown, he overcompensated by striving to impress upward while leading from fear. His anxiety seeped through his management team, then filtered into the ranks beneath, chipping away at everyone’s courage. He micromanaged, filtered feedback, and pushed out anyone who challenged himthe best, brightest, and boldest. When crisis hit, his “play not to lose” mentality magnified while competitors gained ground Chances are youve met someone like Matt. They’re crushing every deadline, exceeding every target, climbing every ladder. But look closer, and you may also see fractured relationships, disenchanted colleagues, and toxic team dynamics in their wake.Meet the “insecure overachiever”exceptionally capable people whose deep-seated insecurities override their nobler aspirations. These aren’t garden-variety workaholics. They’re high performers driven by a gnawing fear of not being enough: not smart enough, valued enough, worthy enough. The distinction between healthy ambition and insecure overachievement is deceptively subtle. Both deliver results. But healthy ambition stems from wanting to contribute value and build connection, while insecure overachievement is fueled by the need to prove worth and alleviate anxiety. Why The Best Workers Can Destroy The Most Value What makes this pattern problematic is that organizations often reward the dysfunction. Insecure overachievers stay later, work harder, say yes faster, and consistently over-deliver. Those in power generally love themuntil the hidden costs surface: toxic cultures, talent loss, and teams that become competitive battlegrounds rather than collaborative ecosystems. The warning signs can be subtle. Wins bring only fleeting relief before anxiety about the next goal kicks in. They sacrifice essentialssleep, health, relationshipsfor work extras. Self-worth becomes dangerously intertwined with output: a bad day at work equals being a bad human. Here’s where it gets destructive: insecurity rarely stays contained. Insecure overachievers often shore up fragile egos by diminishing others. When your worth feels constantly threatened, making others feel smaller provides temporary relief. Axios cofounder Jim VandeHei put it bluntly “Nothing destroys more relationships, teams, or companies than insecure people in power, he warned. It’s an insidious form of cancer.” Breaking Free Without Breaking Down Recognizing yourself in this pattern? The good news: breaking free doesn’t mean abandoning ambition. It means realigning it from proving something to improving something. Find Your Summon Bonum. Roman philosopher Cicero coined this phraseLatin for “the highest good”believing everyone should aspire toward it. Until we’re more committed to a positive future outcome, our actions will be governed by fear of a negative one. Trade proving for improving. When all your energy focuses on impressing others, it’s taken from improving yourself and tapping into your creative faculty to bring smarter solutions. The irony? Shifting from external validation to personal growth and contribution creates more sustainable successand greater respectover time. Instead of “What did others think?” ask “What did I learn?” Schedule non-negotiable recovery. Treat rest like any other crucial meeting. Organizational psychologist Adam Grant’s research demonstrates that meaningful contributionnot endless outputdrives long-term well-being and sustainable performance. Practice radical self-compassion. Talk to yourself like you would a trusted friend facing the same struggles. Dr. Kristin Neff’s research shows self-compassion actually improves performance by reducing the fear that fuels over-functioning. Embrace the insecure part of yourself; befriend that younger version who learned that achievement equaled love. Leading Insecure Overachievers If you manage these high performers, resist the temptation to simply enjoy their output while ignoring their patterns. Left unchecked, their behaviors can poison entire teams. Spot the early warnings. Notice team members who rarely delegate, constantly seek reassurance despite competence, take more credit than due, or obsess over managing upward while neglecting their own teams. Like Matt, they create competitive rather than collaborative environments. Have direct conversations about workload and help them see how their drive affects team dynamics, not just individual metrics. Recognize effort, not just results. Focus on contribution over competition. Acknowledge people for who they are, not only what they produce. Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety shows that when people feel safe to be imperfect, teams become more innovative and resilient. Model healthy boundaries. If you’re sending midnight emails and working weekends, you’re reinforcing the very behaviors you want to change. Demonstrate that rest and boundaries are professional strengths, not weaknesses. The Path Forward Organizations need ambitious, competitive, and driven professionals. But the healthiest ambition comes from being committed to outcomes that transcend self-interest and insecurity alleviation. Organizations whose leaders are more committed to purposeful growth over impression management will ultimately outperform others. The real question isn’t whether you’re achieving enoughit’s whether you’re achieving for the right reasons, and whether your drive lifts others up or tears them down. Sustainable success isn’t about proving your worth at others’ expense. It’s about expressing your potential while helping others do the same. Don’t be a Matt. The world has enough insecure overachievers already.
Category:
E-Commerce
The results are in. McDonald’s latest earnings report sheds light on the growing divide among U.S. consumersas the wealthiest Americans continue to spend and eat outwhile lower income families are making less trips to the Golden Arches as they battle the rising cost of living, skyrocketing food prices, grocery inflation, and stagnate wages. A look at McDonald’s third quarter earnings, released Tuesday after the closing bell, shows the fast food giant’s U.S. same-store sales increasing 2.5%, over the same period last year, (up 3.6% globally,)but missing analyst expectations with adjusted earnings per share (EPS) coming in at $3.22, ten cents under expectations of $3.32, on $7.1 billion in revenue. Shares in McDonald’s (MCD) were up nearly 3% in afternoon trading on Wednesday, at the time of this writing. Dig deeper and the numbers show the growing economic disparity among Americans customers. We continue to see a bifurcated consumer base with [quick-service restaurant] traffic from lower-income consumers declining nearly double digits in the third quarter, a trend thats persisted for nearly two years, Kempczinski said during Wednesday’s earnings call. In contrast, QSR traffic growth among higher-income consumers remains strong, increasing nearly double digits in the quarter. In an effort to deliver sustainable growth in this “challenging environment, Kempczinski said “the company would be delivering everyday value and affordability, menu innovation, and compelling marketing that continue to bring customers through [the] doors. To that end, Kempczinski said on the earnings call McDonald’s has been bringing back extra value meals; with a $5 Sausage, Egg & Cheese McGriddles meal, and an $8 10-piece Chicken McNuggets meal, in November. Last month, McDonald reintroduced Monopoly in the U.S., for the first time in nearly a decade, with a focus on digital engagement.
Category:
E-Commerce
Key Supreme Court conservatives seemed skeptical Wednesday that President Donald Trump has the power to unilaterally impose far-reaching tariffs, potentially putting at risk a key part of his agenda in the biggest legal test yet of his unprecedented presidency. The Republican administration is trying to defend the tariffs central to Trump’s economic agenda after lower courts ruled the emergency law he invoked doesnt give him near-limitless power to set and change duties on imports. The Constitution says Congress has the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argues that in emergency situations the president can regulate importation and that includes tariffs. Justice Amy Coney Barrett grilled the government on that point. Has there ever been another instance in which a statute has used that language to confer the power? she asked. Justice Neil Gorsuch also questioned whether Trumps position would hand too much congressional power to the president. Is the constitutional assignment of the taxing power to Congress, the power to reach into the pockets of the American people, just different? he asked. And its been different since the founding?” Questions from Chief Justice John Roberts also suggested he might not be convinced. With the court’s three liberal-leaning justices seeming deeply dubious, the tariffs challengers could win by swaying two conservatives. A decision in the case could take weeks or months. Trump has called the case one of the most important in the countrys history and said a ruling against him would be catastrophic for the economy. The challengers argue the 1977 emergency powers law Trump used doesnt even mention tariffs, and no president before has used it to impose them. A collection of small businesses say the uncertainty is driving them to the brink of bankruptcy. The case centers on two sets of tariffs. The first came in February on imports from Canada, China, and Mexico after Trump declared a national emergency over drug trafficking. The second involves the sweeping reciprocal tariffs on most countries that Trump announced in April. Multiple lawsuits have been filed over the tariffs, and the court will hear suits filed by Democratic-leaning states and small businesses focused on everything from plumbing supplies to women’s cycling apparel. Lower courts have struck down the bulk of Trump’s tariffs as an illegal use of emergency power, but the nations highest court may see it differently. Trump helped shape the conservative majority court, naming three of the nine justices in his first term. The justices have so far been reluctant to check his extraordinary flex of executive power, handing him a series of wins on the court’s emergency docket. Still, those have been short-term orders little of Trumps wide-ranging conservative agenda has been fully argued before the nations highest court. That means the outcome could set the tone for wider legal pushback against his policies. The justices have been skeptical of executive power claims before, such as when then-President Joe Biden tried to forgive $400 billion in student loans under a different law dealing with national emergencies. The Supreme Court found the law didnt clearly give him the power to enact a program with such a big economic impact, a legal principle known as the major questions doctrine. The challengers say Trumps tariffs should get the same treatment, since theyll have a much greater economic effect, raising some $3 trillion over the next decade. The government, on the other hand, says the tariffs are different because theyre a major part of his approach to foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the president. The challengers are also trying to channel the conservative justices skepticism about whether the Constitution allows other parts of the government to use powers reserved for Congress, a concept known as the nondelegation doctrine. Trumps interpretation of the law could mean anyone who can regulate can also impose taxes, they say. The Justice Department counters that legal principle is for governmental agencies, not for the president. If he eventually loses at the high court, Trump could impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act. The aftermath of a ruling against him also could be complicated, if the government must issue refunds for the tariffs that had collected $195 billion in revenue as of September. The Trump administration did win over four appeals court judges who found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, gives the president authority to regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations. In recent decades, Congress has ceded some tariff authority to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum. Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||