A summer night at Surf LodgeMontauk, New York’s famed music venue and it-girl hotspotlooked like any other in July. Hundreds of Hamptons-goers were sipping drinks and dancing at the waterfront venue to blaring DJ sets, trying to catch the perfect Instagram shot.
But with Gen Z crowding the dance floor lately, the drinking scene has started to shift. Nights have been wrapping a little earlier, drinks are more slowly paced out, or even swapped out for nonalcoholic options.
“Gen Z is interesting because they still celebrate and they have fun. It’s just a new balance and a new way of approaching drinking,” says Jayma Cardoso, Surf Lodge’s owner and hospitality mogul, whose other ventures include New York City’s Goldbar and the Surf Lodge winter spinoff the Snow Lodge in Aspen.
With over 20 years in the business, Cardoso has seen nightlife evolve, constantly adapting and innovating to keep her venues relevant to new generations. And, despite headlines calling Gen Z the “sober generation,” new research shows they’re not ditching alcohol entirely.
As a Gen Z consumer myself, I find sweeping statements on whether my generation drinks or doesn’t often oversimplified or stuck in time. In fact, our drinking habits are more nuanced. My peers often choose to drink less, not abstain entirely. And yessome even drink more than they should.
A recent study from IWSR, an alcohol market data company, found that alcohol participation levels have risen among the youngest legal-drinking-age consumers, with 70% of Gen Z in the United States saying they’d consumed alcohol in the last six months, compared to just 46% in 2023.
And while Gen Z’s drinking habits are finally catching up with those of previous generations, young drinkers are reshaping what drinking and socializing looks like.
Moderation is in, and so are new ways of socializing
“We’re not talking about a sober movement,” Cardoso says. “It’s that if they drink, they drink, but they choose wisely how to drink, and their intake of how much [of] it goes to their body.”
As Gen Z drinks more consciously, nonalcoholic beverage brands are tapping into the movementappealing not just to the sober or sober-curious, but also to those looking to pace their alcohol intake.
“Instead of drinking alcohol continuously, what I saw were people were switching off,” says Ben Witte, CEO and founder of zero-proof functional beverage brand Recess. He launched the brand in 2018 as an alternative to managing stress and improving mental wellness, beyond what traditional drinks like alcohol could offer.
Back then, he noticed consumers having “in between drinks,” like a beer, to pace out hard liquor. Now available at various music venues and bars, including Surf Lodge, Recess serves as a zero-proof alternative to the ritual, positioning itself in the moderation market.
And still, some might opt out of drinking in favor of a new buzz.
“There are more options compared to other generations when they were that age. Cannabis is legal in many states across the country, so now it’s not always about just getting drunk,” says Darren Seifer, industry analyst for Circana. “There’s just a few more options that are available to Gen Zs that are chipping away at what they do when they’re out having fun.”
And the roads leading toward a buzz are already paved, with cannabis entering the beverage world. While not as widely available as functional beveragesdrinks that include an added “function” such as stress relief from herbscannabis drinks are beginning to carve out a role in socializing.
“If you think about the thousands of years of human history, we socialize over beverages,” Jake Bullock, cofounder and CEO of Cann, a cannabis-infused drink company, says. He initially launched his brand as an alternative to alcohol to avoid hangovers, but wanted a way to retain the buzz.
“Not only are you doing the original goal of drinking less booze, but you’re now also getting another factor,” he says. “It is another experience that’s slightly changing with the way you perceive the world around you and is going to make you a little bit more social.”
Money talksand so does health
While Gen Z has become the poster child of moderate drinking, the trend crosses the age gap, with older generations reducing their alcohol intake as well.
A recent Gallup report shows that the drinking rate in the U.S. has fallen to its lowest point in 90 years, with only 54% of adults saying they consume alcohol.
And while the decision to set alcohol aside varies, both rising costs in an uncertain economic climate and a wave of health consciousness are pushing people away from the bar.
“The downward trend has accelerated,” Seifer says. “A lot of it is driven by pricing. And volume-wise, it’s been down in the last few years.”
In addition to pricing decisionswhere consumers are opting to spend their money elsewherethe popularity of health consciousness is also reshaping habits.
“Since the [Trump] administration came in in January and we heard about ‘Make America Healthy Again,’ there’s been an uptick in people saying they’re trying to avoid artificial colors, GMOs, artificial sweeteners. So there seems to be this renewed focus on purity these days,” Seifer says. “And when you think about what’s pure, it could be inferred that alcohol might not be a pure item.”
For instance, at Snow Lodge, Cardoso first introduced zero-proof cocktails due to wellness, a decision that has traveled to Surf Lodge, where consumers can now get a bucket of Recess over a bucket of beers.
“[Consumers] are looking at, ‘What are my options, and where am I going to spend my hard-working money?'” Cardoso adds. “Maybe it is, ‘I’m going to dance the night away, have the time of my lifebut I’m also going to go home earlier so that I can do my wellness tomorrow.'”
So whether it’s for saving money or for waking up ready to go the next morning, moderation is trendier than ever, and Gen Z is leading the way.
In August, select shrimp products were pulled off the shelves across the country over fears of contamination with cesium-137 (Cs-137), a radioactive isotope.
Then, in early September, more shrimp products were recalled over the same fears.
Now, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is notifying the public about yet another round of shrimp recalls due to radioactive fears. Heres what you need to know.
Whats happened?
The FDA has issued another recall notice, expanding the list of products that could be contaminated with Cs-137.
This recall is being carried out by Aqua Star (USA) Corp. of Seattle. As with previous recalls, these shrimp were processed by an Indonesian company whose containers tested positive for Cs-137.
Cs-137 is a radioactive isotope that is widely found in trace amounts throughout the environment, due to widespread testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s.
However, though these trace amounts usually dont pose a threat, if a person ingests a larger amount of Cs-137, usually through food, then the isotope can cause serious adverse health consequences.
In all, the FDA has issued six recall notices related to potentially contaminated shrimp over the last five weeks. Thankfully, the latest notice states that no illnesses linked to the recalled products have been reported.
Updated recalled product list
The items being recalled in this latest round include three products:
Kroger Raw Colossal EZ Peel Shrimp net weight 2 pounds with the following UPC, lot codes, and dates:
UPC 20011110643906, lot code 10662 5085 10, Best If Used By: March 26, 2027
UPC 20011110643906, lot code 10662 5097 11, Best If Used By: April 7, 2027
UPC 20011110643906, lot code 10662 5106 11, Best If Used By: April 16, 2027
UPC 20011110643906, lot code 10662 5107 10, Best If Used By: April 17, 2027
UPC 20011110643906, lot code 10662 5111 11, Best If Used By: April 21, 2027
UPC 20011110643906, lot code 10662 5112 10, Best If Used By: April 22, 2027
UPC 20011110643906, lot code 10662 5113 10, Best If Used By: April 23, 2027
UPC 20011110643906, lot code 10662 5113 11, Best If Used By: April 23, 2027
UPC 20011110643906, lot code 10662 5114 10, Best If Used By: April 24, 2027
UPC 20011110643906, lot code 10662 5114 11, Best If Used By: April 24, 2027
Kroger Mercado Cooked Medium Peeled Tail-Off Shrimp, net weight 2 pounds with the following UPC, lot codes, and dates:
UPC 011110626196, lot code 10662 5112 11, Best Before: October 22, 2027
UPC 011110626196, lot code 10662 5113 10, Best Before: October 23, 2027
Aqua Star Raw Peeled Tail-On Shrimp Skewers; net weight 1.25 pounds with the following UPC, lot codes, and dates:
UPC 731149390010, lot code 10662 5127 10, Best If Used By: November 7, 2027
UPC 731149390010, lot code 10662 5128 11, Best If Used By: November 8, 2027
UPC 731149390010, lot code 10662 5133 11, Best If Used By: November 13, 2027
UPC 731149390010, lot code 10662 5135 10, Best If Used By: November 15, 2027
In total, the notice says that approximately 49,920 bags of the Kroger Raw Colossal EZ Peel Shrimp are being recalled, as well as approximately 18,000 bags of the Kroger Mercado Cooked Medium Peeled Tail-Off Shrimp, and approximately 17,264 bags of the Aqua Star Raw Peeled Tail-On Shrimp Skewers.
Where were the recalled products sold?
The recalled products were sold between June 12 and September 17, according to the notice. They were sold in numerous stores, including:
Bakers
City Market
Dillons
Food 4 Less
Foods Co.
Fred Meyer
Frys
Gerbes
Jay C
King Soopers
Kroger
Marianos
Metro Market
Pay Less Super Markets
Pick ‘n Save
Ralphs
Smiths
QFC
The recalled products were sold in the following states:
Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
New Mexico
Nevada
Ohio
Oregon
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
What if I have the recalled shrimp?
If you have the recalled shrimp products, you should not consume them, according to the notice. Instead, you should dispose of them or return them to their place of purchase.
You can read the full recall notice on the FDA’s website here.
The conversation around AI is deafening. Headlines shout disruption, executives debate productivity, and experts argue endlessly about timelines. But in the middle of all that noise, Gen Zs response has been surprisingly quiet and that silence is telling.
AI replacing entry-level jobs isnt a distant headline, its the elephant in the room. My students know its possible, and they dont treat it as science fiction. What Ive seen isnt fear or denial. Its movement. Instead of getting stuck in what if debates, Gen Z is choosing clarity over panic, quietly steering their careers toward stability in a way thats easy to miss if you only listen for loud signals.
Over the past year, Ive spoken with at least a dozen Gen Zers who have completely redirected their career paths. Some have changed college majors midstream; others have opted for what they describe as AI-proof careersfields that feel more stable than what they originally planned. This isnt an isolated trendits becoming a generational pattern.
Glassdoors new data makes that shift visible: 70% of Gen Zers say AI at work has made them question their job security. And the conversations Ive had echo that unease, but in a distinctly practical way. One recently graduated high school student told me, I want a job a robot cant take from me. Im leaning toward tradesconstruction especially. Another, more open to AIs role, said: Im thinking healthcare. Its hard to imagine a world where healthcare doesnt need humanity.
What struck me most wasnt the content of their answersit was the absence of drama. No grand declarations about the future of work. No panic. Just choices. In their quiet pivots, you can see the outline of a generation that would rather act than speculate. They are sketching the blueprint of the future not with slogans or hashtags, but with deliberate, decisive moves.
The data backs this up. A national survey shows 65% of Gen Z believe a college degree alone wont protect them from AI disruption, and 53% are seriously considering blue-collar or skilled trade work, while 47% are eyeing people-centered fields like healthcare or education. Even local headlines echo it: in California, young adults are turning to trades, with some making over $100,000 before age 21, citing AIs threat to office jobs as a key reason.
This matters for more than career planning. Its a generational lesson in adaptability. Millennials rerouted during the 2008 recession when jobs disappeared. Gen Z is doing the same now, but with a different twist: AI is the disruptor, and they are responding not with conversation, but with action. And that adaptabilitypivoting early, diversifying career paths, and building resilience without waiting for claritymay be the model that older generations should learn from as work keeps shifting.
The Side Hustle Signal
The same survey found 57% of Gen Z already have a side hustle, compared to 48% of millennials, 31% of Gen X, and 21% of boomers. When I asked about it, neither Gen Zer I spoke with used the phrase side hustle. One simply said, I thrift and sell on Etsythats basically the same thing. The other added, I restore furniture on the side. Picked it up on TikTok.
Thats the telling part. For Gen Z, these pursuits arent dressed up as passion projects with clever brandingtheyre just part of life. Millennials may have turned side projects into brand accounts or hustling personas, but Gen Z just does them quietly. That often leads others to mistake the low-key approach for disengagement, when in fact theyre quietly building, experimenting, and buffering.
Whats more, Gen Zs approach is not just practical, its second nature, born from economic volatility. These ventures are about resilience and peace of mind, not validation or status.
If Gen Zs quiet hustle is telling, Gen Alphas coming of age may be even sharper. As the first generation born entirely in the 21st century, Gen Alpha is hyper-immersed in tech, digital fluency, and entrepreneurial thinking from day one. Studies show that 76% of them aspire to be their own boss or have side ventures, signaling an innate entrepreneurial mindset.
Gen Alpha is growing up with AI, screens, and social media as baseline realitynot novelty. Many will enter a workforce where two-thirds of jobs dont yet exist demanding agility and perhaps, a blurring of main job and side project from the start.
If millennials branded their hustle, and Gen Z normalized it, Gen Alpha may simply live it with no label needed and the expectation that multiple streams of work are the status quo.
Why It Matters
Weve seen this playbook before. Millennials graduated into the 2008 recession and quickly realized the jobs theyd been promisedentry-level corporate ladders, clear promotion trackshad either vanished or shrunk. Many quietly rerouted into fields that felt more durable: tech, healthcare, education. They didnt always frame it as a grand statement, but the pivot reshaped entire sectors.
Gen Z is doing something similar in response to AI. They arent waiting for institutions to tell them where things are headedtheyre reading the signals and moving. In some cases, that means choosing stability over prestige. In others, it means doubling down on side projects that create agency and identity beyond a single employer. And again, theyre doing it without much fanfare. The anxiety is real, but the response is practical.
Thats the deeper lesson here. Older generations often expect disruption to announce itself with noise: strikes, protests, loud declarations. But Gen Zs pivot shows a quieter kind of adaptabilityone where people act before they talk. They may not spend hours debating AIs impact, but they are already adjusting their choices in ways that will ripple across the economy.
For older workers, theres value in paying attention. In a world where disruption is accelerating, the instinct to pivot quickly, experiment on the side, and build multiple paths forward may be the model we all need. Gen Z is showing that resilience isnt just about gritits about agility, foresight, and the humility to change course before its too late.
Hello and welcome to Modern CEO! I’m Stephanie Mehta, CEO and chief content officer of Mansueto Ventures. Each week this newsletter explores inclusive approaches to leadership drawn from conversations with executives and entrepreneurs, and from the pages of Inc. and Fast Company. If you received this newsletter from a friend, you can sign up to get it yourself every Monday.
When womens leadership community Chief launched in 2019, it set out to provide mentoring and peer-to-peer connections for women already inhabiting the executive level, Fast Company wrote at the time. These women who are at the top are generally alone on an island, cofounder Lindsay Kaplan added.
Fast-forward to today: Chief still aims to serve executive women. (The company boasts members from 77% of the top 100 companies on the Fortune 500 list of Americas largest businesses by revenue.) However, nearly 20% of the community is much more entrepreneurial, or what the company describes as solopreneurs or senior leaders in transition.
One leader, many titles
As a result, Chiefs membership reflects the changing face of women in business: a mix of founders, corporate execs, board members, and nonprofit leaders and volunteers, who also happen to toggle among those roles. Theyre taking different paths to leadership and thinking not about a ladder but a lattice, or a more flexible, nonlinear career track, says Alison Moore, CEO of Chief. More than 15 years ago, my former Fortune colleague Pattie Sellers used the analogy of a “jungle gym” to describe such nontraditional professional journeys.
Moore points to Chief members such as Rabia Farhang, who built an executive career in retail and fashion before founding BGood Collective, a strategic consultancy focused on purpose-driven organizations, leveraging her business expertise for social impact. At the same time, were seeing prominent businesswomen easily switching from corporate jobs to startups and back. Alicia Boler Davis, whom weve profiled in Modern CEO, worked at General Motors for 25 years, held senior roles at Amazon, became CEO of a fast-growing online pharmacy, and was recently named president of Ford Motors Ford Pro business.
Strengths of the multihyphenate
Moore believes these varied experiences make Chief members and their peers well-suited to manage in todays fast-changing business world. Whats happening in corporate environments has become increasingly dynamic, Moore explains. Women leaders whove worn or wear many hatsMoore describes them as multihyphenateshave the ability to run teams centered on resilience, efficiency, and execution, she says.
Moore speaks from experience: She joined Chief after five years as CEO of Comic Relief U.S. and senior roles at HBO, DailyCandy, NBCUniversal, SoundCloud, and Condé Nast. She was also a founding member of Chief. Each different experience sharpens your leadership skill set, Moore explains. I sit where I am today because Im drawing from all of the experiences that I have had to make me a better leader.”
Are you a leader wearing many hats?
Does the term multihyphenate refer to your career trajectory? When your role progression isnt linear, how do you decide where to go next? Id love to hear your stories and possibly include them in a future issue of Modern CEO. Send them to me in an email message: stephaniemehta@mansueto.com.
Read more: women in leadership
How women in leadership can shape how others see them
Meet Inc.s 2025 Female Founders
The CEO I needed didnt exist. So, I became her
For decades, we’ve been told that technology would liberate us from mundane work, yet somehow we ended up more tethered to our desks than ever. Now, groundbreaking research from GoTo suggests we may finally be reaching the inflection point where artificial intelligence doesn’t just promise freedomit delivers it. But the real revelation isn’t that AI might make offices obsolete. It’s that AI is creating the conditions for what I call “cultivation-centered work”an approach that prioritizes human development over performative productivity.
The Great Workplace Liberation
The numbers tell a compelling story: 51% of employees believe AI will eventually make physical offices obsolete, while 62% would prefer AI-enhanced remote working over traditional office environments. But here’s what makes this shift profoundit’s not about rejecting human connection. Instead, it’s about reclaiming the autonomy to choose when, where, and how we engage most meaningfully with our work and colleagues.
This aligns perfectly with the core principles of my book, Move. Think. Rest. When 71% of workers say AI gives them more flexibility and work-life balance, they’re describing the conditions necessary for true cultivation. They’re talking about having time to think deeply, space to move naturally throughout their day, and permission to rest when their bodies and minds require it.
From Extraction to Integration
What’s particularly striking about GoTos research is how it reveals AI’s potential to support the full spectrum of human experience at work. Traditional productivity models demanded we compartmentalize ourselvesshow up as disembodied brains focused solely on output. But AI-enhanced work environments are creating space for integration.
When employees report that AI allows them to “work anywhere without losing productivity” (66%), they’re really describing the freedom to align their work rhythms with their natural energy cycles. They can take walking meetings in nature, think through problems during movement, and create the environmental conditions that support their best thinking.
The Cultivation Disconnect
However, the research also reveals a concerning gap that organizations must address. While 91% of IT leaders believe their companies effectively use AI to support distributed teams, only 53% of remote and hybrid employees agree. This disconnect isn’t just about technology deploymentit’s about understanding the difference between using AI to replicate old productivity models versus leveraging it to support human flourishing.
The companies bridging this gap successfully are those asking different questions. Instead of “How can AI make people more productive?” they’re asking “How can AI create conditions where people naturally thrive?” They’re designing AI implementations that support the three pillars of cultivation: movement (flexibility to work in various environments), thought (time and space for deep reflection), and rest (permission to disengage and recharge).
The Age-Defying Impact
One of the most encouraging findings challenges ageist assumptions about technology adoption. The research shows that across all generationsfrom 90% of remote Gen Z workers to 74% of baby boomerspeople report improved productivity through AI-enhanced remote work. This suggests something profound: when technology truly serves human needs rather than demanding adaptation to machine rhythms, people of all ages can benefit.
This generational unity points to AI’s potential as an equalizing forcenot in the sense of making everyone the same, but in honoring the diverse ways different people think, process, and contribute.
Perhaps most telling is that 61% of employeesincluding those working in officesbelieve organizations should prioritize AI investment over fancy workplace amenities. This isn’t about choosing technology over human experience. It’s about recognizing that true employee experience comes from having the tools and flexibility to do meaningful work in ways that honor their full humanity.
The Path Forward
As AI reshapes work, we have a choice. We can use it to create more sophisticated forms of surveillance and productivity extraction, or we can leverage it to finally realize the promise of technology serving human flourishing. The organizations that choose the latter will find themselves with a profound competitive advantage: employees who are not just more productive, but more creative, more engaged, and more capable of the kind of breakthrough thinking that drives innovation.
The question isn’t whether AI will transform workit already is. The question is whether we’ll use this transformation to create workplaces that cultivate human potential or merely optimize human output. The GoTo research suggests employees are ready for cultivation. The question is: are their leaders?
Modern skyscrapers may as well be spaceships. Their exteriors are usually impenetrably smooth, their shapes are often aerodynamic, and, for the most part, if you want to open a window, forget about it.The new Shenzhen headquarters for the Chinese fintech company WeBank punches holes right through this convention. Designed by SOM, the 30-story tower employs a diverse range of ventilation techniques that break the seal of the typical glass-and-steel skyscraper. It could be a new model for letting air inside tall buildings, letting people out, and improving the overall experience of working in a skyscraper.[Photo: Dave Burk for SOM]Completed earlier this year, the naturally ventilated high rise’s design uses open-air terraces, operable windows, and precisely engineered indoor atria to bring natural air inside and throughout the building. Large double-height spaces on the edges of the building are open to the air, and sliding doors and pop-out windows around the building let air move inside easily. “There aren’t that many buildings out there at this height that have this degree of indoor-outdoor space,” says Scott Duncan, an architect and design partner at SOM. Most skyscrapers have a very opaque division between inside and out. “Here, it’s a blurry one,” he says.The hermetically sealed skyscraper is starting to evolve, though. Since the pandemic, architects and developers have been looking at the glass-walled skyscraper through new eyes, adding more outdoor access and operable windows. WeBank’s headquarters takes this idea and integrates it into the building’s DNA, making access to the outdoors easy from every floor.Access to airflow is also prioritized within the center of the building. Multiple atria run vertically through several floors and create both visual interest and connectivity for workers as well as a pathway for air to flow through the space. Like the voids inside a block of Swiss cheese, the atria are negative space that allow hot air to move up and out of the building through a phenomenon known as the stack effect.“We shaped and sized all of these holes in the floor to allow for airflow through and across levels,” Duncan says. With multiple atria of different shapes that act almost like an upside down funnel, the designers could control how air gets vented out of the building.[Photo: Courtesy of SOM]Luke Leung, an engineer and sustainability lead at SOM who designed the atria, says the building has up to six air changes every hour, or a nearly complete venting of the air inside. For the health of people insideparticularly in the case of an airborne virus like COVIDsuch frequent air changes are optimal. “In 30 minutes, it would eliminate 95% of all the contaminants in the floor using natural means,” Leung says.The atria also have a social side, offering varying views within the building and across floors. Their borders become a kind of gathering place, with staircases running between floors and flexible workspaces around their edges.Part of this comes from the company itself, which is China’s first digital-only bank. Duncan says the company wanted a more modern approach to how each floor was laid out and how flexible it could be. Instead of building a taller building, the company opted to make each floor largerroughly 50,000 square feet, instead of a more typical 35,000 square feet. “They’re constantly recomposing their teams. So the more horizontal they could be, the more flexible they could be in terms of being able to connect multiple teams on a single floor,” says Duncan. “It’s a tech company, but it’s also a bank. And so those two cultures were coming together in this building.”
Amaya Matos was 19 years old when she was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. Shed just graduated high school, but instead of heading off to college or hanging out with friends, she spent much of her time sitting in a hospital bed, scrolling on her phone.
Getting treatment for cancer can be extremely isolating: physically, especially when youre inpatient and at constant risk of infection; and mentally, because no one else in your life fully understands what youre going through.
Now 25, Matos is approaching five years of remission, but shes still managing complications. A stem cell transplant triggered graft versus host disease, a condition in which donated stem cells attack the patients own body. Chronic graft versus host disease is rare, and navigating it can be just as lonely.
But today, Matos has a way of connecting with others going through the same thing: an app called CancerBuddy. It connects patients, survivors, and caregivers through an array of filters like diagnosis, age, and gender identity. Users can swipe through CancerBuddy like a dating app to match and talk with others, and the app also has topic-based groupsthere’s one for young adults, one around nutrition, and even one for graft versus host disease.
Without this, I dont know where I would be in my survivorship journey, because I dont know who I would have leaned on that would have really gotten it, Matos says. Before doctors appointments, she often checks the group to see what others have shared. It allows me to feel like I can advocate for myself, she says. Im allowed to ask questions. Im allowed to ask for more elaboration.
‘Why not use this to connect patients?’
The app, developed by the Bone Marrow & Cancer Foundation, launched in beta in 2022 and has recently begun rolling out to hospitals.
Christina Merrill, founder and CEO of the Bone Marrow & Cancer Foundation, created CancerBuddy after decades of working directly with cancer patients. Ive always been a big proponent of connecting patient to patient, survivor to survivor, caregiver to caregiver, she says. Yet hospitals and advocacy groups often struggle to make those connections.
For years, the foundation facilitated introductions manually through its website. That approach was hard to scale and complicated by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) rules, since it required patient consent before sharing any information about diagnoses. (CancerBuddy is private and doesnt share information; its also free.)
Some hospitals have peer programs and support groups too, but then the COVID-19 pandemic prevented people from gathering in person. Sometimes people also travel far for care, so they cant easily come back to a facility for such a group. Hospital staff like nurses or social workers (which Merrill was for years) are often too overworked to connect patients.
Inspiration struck as Merrill returned to the dating world after a divorce. She began swiping on dating apps, and thought, This technology is incredible. Why not use this to connect patients? She worked with design agency Frog to build the CancerBuddy app, equipping it with all these different filters so patients could find, really, the perfect match.
Connecting cancer patients by their commonalities is crucial, Merrill says. A patient sitting in a hospital with colorectal cancer who is 20 years old, its very hard for them to relate to somebody that has colorectal cancer whos in their 60s or 70s. They want to meet somebody else that is their age and where they are in their life, she says.
The same applies to diagnosis; someone with breast cancer undergoes different treatments than someone with leukemia. They cant feel the support they would if they meet someone with the exact same diagnosis, Merrill says.
Cancer survivors, too, face their own unique experiences, including a lot of uncertainty. Are they going to relapse? What can they do or not do in terms of activities post treatment? Merrill says. Cancer survivors commonly experience anxiety and depression. They’re supposed to be relieved that they’re cancer free. But instead, they’re worried about the future, so they can relate to others that are going through that, and really get that support that they need.
‘You feel less lonely’
Then there are the caregivers. Matoss mom filled that role, driving her to treatments and even donating stem cells. When she got on the app as a caregiver, she [had been] down the rabbit hole of, why is this happening to my kid? It doesnt even run in our family, Matos said. On CancerBuddy, she found other caregivers asking the same questions and wrestling with the same emotions. It just makes you take a step back and think, were all in this together. We can continue to be in it together and share highs and lows.
Research consistently shows that social support boosts cancer patients emotional wellbeing and overall quality of life. Peer connection reduces loneliness, improves mental health, and can even affect survival: one study found that cancer survivors who reported higher levels of loneliness were 67% more likely to die than those with stronger social ties.
And the need for connection is only growing. In the coming year, experts project that new first-time cases of cancer in the U.S. will surpass 2 million. Thats nearly 5,500 new diagnoses every day.
Some patients and survivors turn to public Facebook groups, but those are open to anyone, arent run by cancer organizations, and lack moderation, Merrill notes. CancerBuddy, by contrast, is moderated by her team.
In one case, a teenager newly diagnosed with lymphoma posted in the adolescents and young adult group, saying he was questioning his life. Merrill was quickly alerted and able to check in. Within minutes, others in the group also began messaging him. Hes still a member today.
CancerBuddy remains small, with about 6,000 patients and survivors currently using it, but Merrill says the numbers grow every week. For many, the impact is already clear. As Matos puts it: You feel less lonely. You really do. And I think that that’s a huge thing when you’re going through something.
Over the last decade, design challenges have become a controversial tool in hiring designers. Intended to evaluate how candidates think, behave, communicate, solve problems, and brainstorm ideas, these exerciseswhen well-facilitatedcan offer valuable insight into a designers character, their story and capabilities.However, a troubling trend has emerged: When the design challenge is poorly facilitated and poorly contextualized it defaults to placing candidates in unfamiliar business domains that overemphasize solution delivery. These flawed challenges not only misrepresent what good design entails but also risk excluding the very designers we seek to attractthose who prioritize inquiry over assumption based execution and context over conjecture.
The Problem: Poorly Facilitated Design Challenges Foster Bias Toward Solution Accuracy
At the core of this issue lies facilitation. A challenge, no matter how well-intentioned, becomes a biased and misleading evaluation tool when it bypasses critical elements of the design processdiscovery, user empathy, context-building, and problem framing. When a candidate is asked to “solve” for a hypothetical business challenge they have no familiarity with, the assessment begins with presumption, not understanding. This turns a designer into a guessersomeone making assumptions in a vacuum, rather than an investigator uncovering real human behaviors and systemic constraints.
As a result, facilitators are now evaluating how well someone can perform under artificial constraints, which rarely correlates to success in real-world product environments. In the absence of context, behavioral data, access to stakeholders, or a room for discovery, the challenge becomes a proxy not for good designbut for rapid conceptual execution.
Jeff Appel, Lead Product Designer at Salesforce, shared insights on LinkedIn regarding the pitfalls of design challenges; highlighting concerns about the absence of a clear evaluation methodology and criticized the flawed “lone designer” premise often associated with many of these poorly facilitated challenges.
The article “The hidden cost of design tasks” written by Jane Austin emphasizes that design challenges often overlook crucial aspects such as collaboration with teams, access to stakeholders, and actual constraints of project work.
This can result in tasks that favor those adept at test-taking rather than those skilled in holistic, strategic design. Echoing industry leaders like Mike Monteiro and Jared Spool, the article warns against reducing design skills to shallow deliverables, advocating instead for assessments rooted in authentic professional scenarios.
The Impact: Disadvantaging Depth in Favor of Surface Level Thinking
This model disproportionately favors designers who are confident improvisers rather than those who are methodical problem framers. It elevates speed over strategy, polish over process, and solutioneering over systems thinking. In doing so, it filters out designers who may take a more rigorous, research-first approachthose who excel in cross-functional collaboration and ongoing discovery, which are far more indicative of real-world success.
When challenges require deep business familiarity without offering foundational context, we are no longer testing design abilitywe’re testing prior business exposure.
The Fallacy: Familiarity as a Proxy for Competence
The notion that a strong designer should be able to design for any business problem, on the fly, is not only unrealisticits actually, anti-design and directly contradicts the well known teachings and practices of Don Norman and Dieter Rams.
True design leadership lies in asking the right questions, navigating ambiguity, and co-creating with users and stakeholders, by which the human is placed at the heart of the process. Designing a product for an unfamiliar domain without access to the system, people, or environment that define it undermines the very nature of human-centered design.
Imagine asking a surgeon to operate based on insufficient data, patient history, situational context and a few vague bullet points. The analogy may sound extreme, but design, when practiced at a strategic level, demands similar rigor. It is not about instant answers or reacting to the all too common request, just show me what it looks likeit is about intentional framing, exploration and continuous discovery.
The Supporting Points of View: Other design pros weigh in
In reporting this story, I spoke to other design professionals to get their opinions on this topic. Heres what they said:
As someone experienced in hiring, Ive shifted away from design challenges in interviews. Instead, I favor a structured process involving cross-functional partners and meaningful conversations to better assess a designers capabilities and fit.
“A key part of this process is the portfolio review, which reveals more than speculative exercises can. It shows how candidates tell their stories: Are they tailoring their presentation or using a generic deck? Do they clearly define the problem space, navigate ambiguity, and reflect on both successes and challenges? Ryan Leffel, VP, head of design, Priceline
This article calls out what so many designers have experienced but often cant say out loud: speculative design challenges can easily become performative traps. They ask candidates to “solve” abstract problems in unfamiliar industries, without research, context, or real users. Then they assess their “fit” based on polish and speed instead of strategic thinking or collaborative depth.” Brian Rice, former chief design and brand experience officer, 3M, and founder of Rice & CoDesign, LLC
“A frequent issue is the bias toward speed. Many candidates race to produce polished work in a short window to impress a hiring panel. The result is often beautifully sketched or polished UI from assumptions rather than carefully reasoned design.
“This fosters a dangerous dynamic. We start rewarding presentation shine and clever hacks rather than thoughtful inquiry, stakeholder alignment, or systemic thinking.That means we end up hiring the designers who look fast and clever under pressure rather than the ones who excel at navigating ambiguity, asking the right questions, and collaborating across functions.
“It is the design equivalent of hiring a surgeon because they stitched something up quickly, without checking whether they addressed the underlying diagnosis.”Thomas Wilson, customer journey manager and strategist, MedicaI am a proponent of behavioral interviews with a defined rubric supported by a case study presentationrather than a standalone design challenge. I work closely with the hiring panel to ensure each interviewer understands the riteria and has the right area of focus that complements the role. For example, topics may include stakeholders and partnerships, business impact and technical skills, or, for a leadership position, team growth, scale, and the ability to navigate difficult conversations.Jose Coronado, managing director, Digital Impulsum
The Solution: Redesigning the Challenge around Discovery, And Critical Thinking; Not Just Solution Creation
Instead of setting up a design challenge based off a speculative hypothesis, what if we invited candidates into our real-world context? Let them probe and evaluate actual existing artifacts. Ask what questions they would explore. Evaluate how they frame problems, define a research strategy, navigate trade-offs, and identify behavioral insights. This doesn’t mean handing them sensitive databut it does mean shifting from output-focused to process-focused evaluation.
Give candidates room to express how they would approach ambiguitynot just what they would build. Reward those who identify critical gaps, challenge flawed assumptions, navigate difficult relationships, continue discovery using robust, yet flexible design frameworks.A broken challenge leads to broken decision makingand ultimately, a broken hiring model. The solution lies not in throwing out the design challenge, but in rethinking its intent: from proving solutions to revealing process, mindset, character and inquiry.
Conclusion: Moving Toward a More Contextual, Human-Centered Hiring Practice
As design leaders, we must hold ourselves to the same standards in our hiring practices that we demand in our products and services: contextual, inclusive, research-driven, and iterative. If we continue to rely on speculative challenges that ignore the foundations of good design, we risk building teams that mirror expediency rather than excellence.Jane Austin’s article does acknowledge the persistence of design tasks in some hiring contexts, sometimes as practical tools where portfolios or references are unavailable. Veteran design leaders such as Julie Zhuo and Khoi Vinh recognize that a well facilitated designed challenge, set with the right context, supported by portfolio reviews and a two-way, interactive conversation can reveal a candidates unique approach to ambiguity and cross-functional collaboration scenarios.These global design voices stress the importance of transparency, respect for candidate time, and integrating multiple touch-points throughout the hiring process.
Ultimately, the consensus across the industry leans towards more holistic, equitable practices that value creativity and ethical evaluation rather than relying solely on solution creation and standardized tasks.
When OpenAI launched its new GPT-5 model in August, the company bragged loud and hard about how GPT-5 is its smartest, fastest, most useful model yet and how interacting with it was like chatting with a helpful friend with PhDlevel intelligence.
When it comes to creative tasks like writing, GPT-5 immediately felt like a major step backward. But as Ive tested the model more extensively, Ive seen that it does excel at many pragmatic tasks like writing code and analyzing data.
That got me thinking, How would it do as a stock picker?
If GPT-5 is great at processing massive sets of complex dataand its supposed to be widely useful and a legitimate PhD-level expert in everythingwhy not have the model put its money where its mouth is and perform the widely useful task of making me fabulously wealthy?
To that end, I gave GPT-5 (via ChatGPT) $500 of real money to invest however it wanted, with the stated goal of earning me as much as possible over the next six months.
I expected generic investment advice. Instead, its picks truly surprised me.
Not my first AI rodeo
Before we go further, let me be clear that nothing in this article should be considered financial advice, and you certainly shouldnt trade based on anything I share here. Im a journalist conducting a crazy experiment. You should get your financial advice from professionals, not chatbots.
Also, this isnt my first rodeo. I tried a version of this experiment before in the very earliest days of the generative AI boom, so I have at least a vague idea of what Im doing.
Back in 2022, I served as a beta tester for OpenAIs GPT-3 model. This was months before ChatGPT was released and the company blew up into the headline-winning, job-devouring behemoth it is today. Back then, it still operated as a wonky research lab, making its tools available to journalists and researchers for free.
Without a proper chat interface, testers like me had to submit our requests to the AI via what was basically a web-based version of a classic computer command line. Still, I was able to cajole GPT-3 into picking a stock portfolio, a process that I documented at the time on a now long-forgotten blog.
Its choices were, lets say, rudimentary. It essentially took a momentum-based approach, recommending stocks like Ralph Lauren and Wynn Resorts that had already done well that year. To those picks, it added Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon on the basis of the fact that theyre tech giants.
In 2022, it was extremely cool just to see a computer write out a narrative of any kind. But its analysis wasnt exactly groundbreaking. Any idiot can tell you Buy Microsoft and stand a pretty good chance of making you money. Finding nuance and opportunity that others have missed is much harder.
Still, GPT-3s early picks proved to be solid ones. As I write this, its portfolio is up 82.15% since I ran my first experiment back in 2022. The S&P 500 gained about 67% over the same period.
Seeing that OpenAIs modelseven in their early infancycould outperform the market gave me confidence. Still, basically everything gained value since 2022; the investing landscape back then was much less murky than it is today, and grabbing any handful of individual stocks was likely to make you good money.
Also, nearly three years is a long time to wait for what still amounts to fairly modest gains. The model did well, but it didnt even manage to double its money in that time.
I wanted otherworldly riches, not mild alpha. And I wanted them now.
Never mind safety
It was with that mindset that I turned to GPT-5 and asked it to make me a portfolio of stocks fit for the Dadaesque, tariff-laced, AI-besieged world we inhabit here in 2025.
Specifically, I told ChatGPT with GPT-5s Thinking model selected that I would give it $500 to invest however it saw fit. I wanted it to maximize my returns over the next six months by picking five public-market stocks.
Here was my prompt: I will give you $500 to invest in the stock market. You may choose up to 5 stocks. Make your picks, explain why, and I will buy them and we will see how they do.
To be honest, I didnt expect much.
OpenAIs models have gotten more powerful since 2022, but theyve also gotten far more squeamish. When I served as a beta tester, only nerds like me were using the companys products. We basically had free rein to ask them anything we wanted.
With billions of people now using the companys models, OpenAI has understandably tightened the leash quite a bit. In a blog post around GPT-5s release, the company explained its new safe completions framework, an extremely robust approach to elegantly weaseling out of answering potentially damaging questions.
I thought GPT-5 would answer my stock-picking question safely, with either a cop-out (Talk to a professional adviser) or a wussy response (Invest for the long term in a low-cost S&P 500 index fund, ya putz!).
Instead, it spent eight minutes mulling over my query before returning what it called a Diversified High-Growth Portfolio. Its picks werent wussy or generic at allthey were clever and highly aggressive.
Show me the stocks
GPT-5 recommended that I spread my $500 evenly over five companies: Palantir (PLTR), AppLovin (APP), Agios Pharmaceuticals (AGIO), Hut 8 Corp. (HUT) and MicroStrategy Inc. (MSTR).
Thats very different from saying Buy Microsoft and calling it a day. Id never heard of half the companies on GPT-5s list. And even the ones Id heard of, like Palantir, werent companies Id ever considered investing in.
These picks certainly felt like they had the potential to be under-the-radar winners. But how the heck had GPT-5 chosen them?
Unlike with OpenAIs earlier model, GPT-5 didnt make me guess as to its investment thesis; it laid out the details of its choices clearly, sharing that it had read 98 articles and websites in order to make them.
Palantir, the model said, was driven by its AI/data platform and was gaining traction in comercial and government sectors. Based on investor enthusiasm for its AI-driven growth, GPT-5 expected the stock to keep achieving big gains.
GPT-5 liked AppLovin for much the same reason, citing its proprietary AI engine. But the model also looked at its fundamentals, pointing out: Analysts note that even after strong gains, shares trade only ~8% below peak levels, suggesting room if growth continues.
Agios made the cut for a totally different reason. GPT-5 said that Agios is awaiting an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] decision . . . on expanding its lead drug Pyrukynd to treat thalassemia, a large unmet need. If approved, Pyrukynd would be the first therapy for all thalassemia subtypes. A positive FDA outcome or even renewed optimism could spark a significant rally.
Basically, GPT-5 seemed to be placing a risky bet on the company achieving FDA approval for a potentially lucrative druga piece of upcoming news that could easily spike or tank its price.
Finally, GPT-5 recommended Hut 8 and MicroStrategy essentially because it wanted exposure to cryptocurrencies. The model noted that MicroStrategy holds almost $71 billion worth of Bitcoin, making it a highly leveraged Bitcoin play, while Hut 8 has transformed from a pure crypto miner into an energy-infrastructure platform for both Bitcoin mining and AI/HPC data centers.
The model concluded: Overall, the portfolio aims for explosive upside rather than stability.
Basically, it had thrown safety to the wind and taken the approach of picking the riskiest, trendiest things it could find (AI, crypto, early-stage pharma) and throwing all the money at them.
Going boldly
Again, I was impressed that GPT-5 didnt simply chicken out and tell me not to risk losing my money. But beyond that, I was impressed by how well it had followed my prompt.
I hadnt asked the model for safe or sane bets. I had asked it to take an unreasonably short investment timeframe and make me as much money as possible. Its portfolio reflects that perfectly. Its picks are bold, get-rich-or-die-trying options.
Either Agios will get a positive decision from the FDA and flourish, or its trials will go poorly and it will suffer. Bitcoin will either keep climbing or reveal its signature volatility, potentially tanking the models last two picks. Palantir is indeed on a roll right nowthat could continue, or the stock could fall, Icarus-like, back to earth and take my money with it.
Id essentially asked the model to roll the dice, and it had done that splendidly. Its advice isnt good exactly, in the sense that its picks are incredibly risky. But theyre true to my intent.
That reflects another facet of the new modelthe highly accurate “instruction following that OpenAI promised in GPT-5s release notes. GPT-5 may not be Shakespeare, but its very good at determining what its users want and delivering that as accurately as possible.
GPT-5 also appears to have gotten the details in its response (stock prices, previous gains, adviser notes) largely correct. That fits with OpenAIs assertion that GPT-5 hallucinates far less than previous models.
With my new AI portfolio in hand, the only thing left to do was fire up the Robinhood app, transfer $500 from my bank account, and buy the stocks ChatGPT had chosen. So, I did exactly that.
As I write this about two weeks later, GPT-5s stocks are already up about 10%. Thats the kind of rapid early growth I was seeking.
So, will I end this experiment with Lambo money, or will GPT-5s portfolio crash and take a car payments worth of my cash down with it? Is throwing hundreds of dollars at a silicon-bound pseudo-intelligence a good idea or financial folly?
Ask me in six months.
After eight years at the helm of Ingka Group, the operating entity behind home-furnishing giant Ikea, CEO Jesper Brodin is stepping down. Brodin explains why now was the right time to make the move, and shares how hes steered Ikea through a whirlwind of changes, from rising tariffs to shifting public sentiments around DEI and ESG, as well as an evolving relationship between global business and governments.
This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. 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.
I have to start with the news that you’re stepping down as CEO in November after 30 years at the company. That must have been a tough decision.
I’m moving on, actually. I’m not stepping down, I’m moving on. Thirty years in the company, eight years as CEO, and I think it’s been a decision that’s been in the making for a year or so on my side. I sometimes tell myself there is no such thing as perfect timing. Either you’re a little bit early or you could be too late, but I think, basically, the company is in a good place, we are performing, and the transformations that I was asked to leadsustainability and digital transformationwe have come quite a long way, and I felt it’s a good time for me to hand over.
And your deputy CEO is going to be stepping up, the company’s first non-Swedish CEO. Is that significant? Is there anything that we should read into that?
Well, I actually haven’t reflected on it, honestly. I think it’s really great because it shows . . . that we have a succession plan in the company, that we basically breed leaders from within. And this, I think, is incredibly important that you have people who can both stay connected to the past and the legacy and who can lead into the future. Juvencio [Maeztu] has been my deputy and CFO for seven years, so can you imagine a more patient person waiting for his turn to lead the company? So I wish him all the best of luck and I know he’s going to be amazing.
Well, yeah. Ikea is a global business, so to have some representation that’s not just from one place, it’s not a bad thing.
I think, to be honest, it’s interesting. We started a journey of diversity in all dimensions back in 2001. At that time we would’ve been a typically male and Scandinavian Swedish sort of company. The more north you travel in the organization, it would be male and it would be Swedish. And obviously, that was an issue at the end of the day, and our way of assuming understanding of our markets, our customers out there. And as much as I think it was a value-based decision, it’s also what is the right thing to do? That has opened up, of course, an enormous amount of talent that was already within the system. Today, we have 50-50 in gender balance across everything, and we have, a good mix of people coming from all places around the world. So I think we will probably see more of a mix of that. The Swedish legacy and heritage is important for us, but when it comes to values and connecting to that, I think people across all the world can do that.
We’re recording this just before you come here to New York for Climate Week. I know sustainability is very important to you. The trends here in the U.S. seem to be moving kind of in the opposite direction. I’m curious what sort of Climate Week you think that’s going to lead to. Is there anything specific that you hope to get out of it?
Well, I think when it comes to climate transformation, it’s moving and it’s speeding up in all parts of the world, in the U.S. as well. . . . So I think the climate-smart transformation is probably the biggest transformation that we’ve seen since industrialization started. Maybe AI would be right up there as well, or digital transformation, but there is no doubt as we speak today that the climate-smart economy is not only good from a planetary perspective, but also good for business in its essence.
But I mean, that is not necessarily the message that the current U.S. administration is proceeding in its policies on. Right? So when you come here to New York, is that something you will try to address publicly, privately with other business leaders? How do you manage that?
Well, it’s a good question. I think if I start by consumers or customers in Ikea, we do this research, or review, or survey across all our 34 countries. We ask, in the end, something close to 40,000 people that are interviewed. We do that biannually, so we have a good, so to say, frequency of that.
The last years, across the globe, the topic that has sailed up as the biggest concern in the world is climate change for ordinary people out there. There’s nothing else. Geopolitics, AI, work, the pandemic was there a few years ago, as we all know, but nothing is actually up on the same level as climate change. So today, you ask Ikea’s consumers, 68% think that climate change is the biggest concern. There’s very little difference between Texas, Stockholm, Shanghai, and so on. There are a few marginal percentages difference. The difference comes when you look at age groups, actually, across the world. So if you travel down in age groups, the awareness and the worry is much bigger.
The interesting thing, two more interesting data points on that is a few years ago most people did not act on it. They were worried, but they didn’t act. But lately, and I can’t fully explain it, but lately 64% say they do take action. Here comes an interesting thing. When you ask people, “Are you prepared to pay extra for something that is planet- and people-smart in that sense?” The answer is no. So only 6% of Ikea’s customers are prepared to pay more.
Now, interestingly enough, I started to meet some customers who told me, “It’s not that I don’t care, it’s just that I can’t afford. Inflation has hit my family’s wallet.” It was a single mother with two jobs in Serbia who made it very clear to me that it must be your job, Jesper, to present the solution so I can buy that bunk bed for my twins and afford it. Actually, I think they are right, because if you skim sustainability on the surface, it might cost more, but if you do a deep transformation, what climate-smart is all about, being resource-smart is also about being cost-smart.
In Ikea today, we have about 36% of our value chain in raw material, and close to 40% in carbon. So if you address carbon, you actually address cost. And I do think more and more companies today are benefiting massively from reusing carbon economically. And I understand there are political issues and topics around it, but this is a pure economic fact, and that’s why we see today, when we ask in UNGC, the global network, 88% of all CEOs in companies worldwide are actually more believers in the business case for sustainability today than five years ago; 99% are equally or more committed to go for te sustainability transformation. So again, with all the respect of political angles, it’s a proven fact that it’s a smart thing for business.
