 |
|
|
|||||
On a recent flight, I watched a woman try to sneak an oversize briefcase and suitcase onto the plane. When challenged, she waved her boarding pass at the gate agent and declared, Do you see what that says? pointing to her top-tier status. That means I get to do what I want. Her sense of entitlement was staggering, but familiar. Leaders of organizational transformation, such as major digital/data analytical capability overhauls, or launching a new set off offerings across the globe, often cling to equally delusional rationalizations. And just like that traveler, their self-justifications backfire. The odds of transformation success are already dismal: 70% to 80% of efforts fail. While external forces can derail even the best-laid plans, more often its leaders self-inflicted fallacies that undo their own initiatives. Ive identified five particularly destructive fallacies that appear again and again. Recognizing them is the first step. Choosing better responses is the only way through. 1. The Myth of the Mandate: Repeating Yesterdays Wins Justification: Ive done this before, and I was hired to do it again.Reality: Past victories offer wisdom, not formulas. Many leaders believe their résumé is a ready-made solution. They assume that because a strategy, campaign, or turnaround worked once, it should work again. A consumer-products executive I advised had saved a skincare brand with a precise campaign. When he joined a tech firm, he tried to cut-and-paste the same formula. The market, customer base, and competitors were different, and the approach failed miserably. The danger of this fallacy is that it hides behind genuine strength. Leaders should use their experience, but if they impose it as a mandate, they miss the nuances of the new context. Teams sense the mismatch, and enthusiasm drains as people see yesterdays playbook failing on todays field. The antidote: Treat mandates as invitations, not marching orders. Start by studying your new environment as if you were an anthropologist: walk the halls, ask questions, listen deeply. Instead of asking What worked last time? ask What does this context demand? Extract principlessuch as how you built trust or navigated resistancefrom your past, but resist the temptation to replicate recipes. Thats how you turn past wisdom into present credibility. 2. Excessive Tolerance: Making Change Optional Justification: Im sure theyll get on board eventually, we just need to give them time.Reality: Some people have no intention of getting on board. When leaders become exhausted, confrontation often feels harder than compromise. Deadlines slip, underperformers are excused, and resistance festers. Employees learn quickly that change is recommended but not required. The costs are steep. Accountability erodes, peers resent double standards, and even those committed to change begin asking, Why should I bother if others arent held to it? The antidote: Sharpen accountability and send clear, early signals. Use symbolssometimes tough onesto show that the urgency of now is real. Dashboards of metrics tracking progress and regressions are common. Sometimes removing long-tenured leaders whose behavior contradicts the change is necessary. When actions dont match commitments, call it out. Consequences matter. Research on loss aversion shows that people fight harder to avoid losses than to gain bonuses. That means accountability must accompany rewards. Yes, it will feel lonely. Yes, you may lose popularity. But credibility depends on consistency. Tolerance masquerades as empathy, but it undermines urgency. Leaders who name and enforce consequences create trust, because people know the rules apply to everyone. 3. Settling For Dysfunction: Accepting the Wrong Norms Justification: It is what it is. With time, people will come around.Reality: Without sustained pressure, dysfunction becomes the new normal. One COO I worked with entered his role determined to challenge entrenched practices. But when resistance persisted, his frustration grew. Eventually he lost his composure in a board meeting, mirroring the very volatility of the previous CEO hed been hired to replace. Employees sighed, At least with the old guy, we knew what to expect. Instead of disrupting dysfunction, he had absorbed it. This rationalization is subtle. Leaders begin doubting their instincts: Maybe its me. Maybe Im asking too much. Surrounded by colleagues who shrug and say Rome wasnt built in a day, leaders can slowly adopt resignation as their operating norm. The antidote: Stay differentiated. Make time to decode the unhealthy patterns you seewhy do meetings after the meeting carry more energy than the actual meeting? Why does feedback trigger overreaction? Then encode what should be trueoptimism, accountability, or healthy debateand measure progress against it. Even incremental wins reinforce hope and prevent you from being seduced into complacency. Transformation requires leaders to behave differently than the culture they inherit. Settling into dysfunction might feel like relief, but it heralds surrender. 4. Dismissing the Devil You Know: Protecting the Wrong People Justification: She may not be perfect, but I cant afford to lose her now. Better the devil you know.Reality: The devil you know is still the devil. Few decisions are harder than removing a long-tenured executive. Leaders justify delay by citing loyalty, sunk costs, or fear of disruption. But keeping misaligned leaders is corrosive. It demoralizes others, who see that performance doesnt matter. It consumes disproportionate time and energy. And it erodes credibility, as people conclude the leader lacks the courage to act. The antidote: Evict the devils. Not everyone should make the journey. Leaving someone in a role they cannot succeed in isnt compassion, its cruelty. It sets them up for failure and broadcasts to everyone else that standards are optional. Yes, exits are painful. But acute pain from a tough decision is far better than chronic pain from avoiding it. Free yourself to focus on people already predisposed to advance the vision. When you remove dams, momentum flows again. 5. Reporting Enmeshment: Confusing Emulation with Growth/h2> Justification: Weve been a great team for years, and shes now ready to succeed me.Reality: Long-term reporting relationships often breed co-dependence, not development. Mentoring is essential. But when a promising leader spends too long in one bosss orbit, they risk becoming a replica rather than an original. Ive seen organizations elevate successors who sound and act just like their predecessor, only to find that more of the same isnt what transformation requires. Enmeshment feels safe but creates blind spots. It can also choke off opportunities for broader growth. Without varied assignments, leaders stagnate, lacking the agility transformation demands. The antidote: Move talent around, early and often. Diverse experiences stretch leaders styles and voices. Assign high-potentials to struggling business units, rival functions, or cross-border roles. The more of the organization they see, the strongerand more authenticthey become. Emulation is admirable, but growth requires mobility. Choosing the Path of Progress Transformation isnt undone by markets alone. More often, its these rationalizations, comforting stories leaders tell themselves, that derail progress. The woman at the airport thought her special status exempted her from the rules. Leaders often think the same. But leaders who resist these fallacies, and instead choose accountability, contextual wisdom, differentiation, courage, and mobility, create transformations that last. The costs of indulging rationalizations are dire: wasted time, lost credibility, and failed change. The benefits of escaping them are equally profound: resilient organizations, energized people, and futures worth building. Dont let the justifications win.
Category:
E-Commerce
When David Dominé moved to Louisville, Kentucky, for law school in the 1990s, he was captivated by the historic district of Old Louisville, lined with stately Victorian mansions. After he bought a reputedly haunted home in the neighborhoodand had “some strange things happen” therehe began researching the ghost stories told in the area. That led Dominé to write books about the communitys legendary hauntings. Soon, reader interest convinced him to offer tours, leading to a business he calls Louisville Historic Tours. Dominé’s company now has about nine tour guides, mostly people interested in local history. Many live in the neighborhoods where they give tours. We started off with ghost toursthose seem to be the most popularbut we also do history and architecture tours, [and] we do food tours, he says. Across the country, people passionate about history and curious about the supernatural have followed a similar path. In an age of ghost-hunting TV shows, YouTube channels, and podcasts, they combine historic storytelling with spooky local legendsand frequently operate at night after other attractions close down. “They surprised me for being these rich and kind of complicated little storytelling projects, even though they were clearly sensationalist sometimes,” says Heidi Aronson Kolk, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who has written about ghost tours. But the game has changed, thanks to the ascendance of multicity ghost tour chains. As with other industries, from ride hailing to news media, the internet has contributed to their rise. These outfits take advantage of economies of scale in centralizing operations like reservations, human resources, and even tour route planning, while leveraging search engine optimization and online advertising expertise to be the first ghost tour option tourists see. The rise of online marketing has, however, brought with it numerous disputes between local ghost tour operators and a handful of national chains over intellectual property, with tour companies accusing one another of copying tour titles and business names in an effort to game search listings. Big tour companies have also faced allegations of plagiarizing tour content from local operators in a rush to expand. Some have also faced allegations of violating labor laws around subjects like independent contractor classification and overtime pay as they recruit a national workforce of tour guides and other staff. Long-standing tour operators say chain operators can appear to be just another internet-based hustle with little consideration for what was once a cozy industry presided over by local history buffs. Competition isn’t a bad thing, but you’ve got to kind of be respectful,” Dominé says. “You can’t just go in and copy what someone’s doing, use their information, and things like that.” You cant own history Dominé has firsthand experience with these sorts of disputes. In 2022, he sued a ghost tour chain called Ghost City Tours, which bills itself as “the world’s largest and best ghost tour company,” serving more than 600,000 customers per year and advertising tours in at least 26 U.S. cities. Dominé alleged copyright infringement and unfair competition, saying Ghost City incorporated stories from his booksincluding fictionalized elementsinto its tours and worked his name into marketing materials, falsely implying his endorsement. Citing a nondisclosure agreement, Dominé declined to comment on the case, which settled in 2023. Ghost City Tours declined to make someone available for an interview for this article, citing concerns about revealing proprietary information. Another chain, called US Ghost Adventures (USGA), offers tours in more than 150 cities, from Akron, Ohio, to Yorktown, Virginia, and claims to have more than 1,000 local experts and trained guides on staff. The company was founded by serial entrepreneur and Marine Corps veteran Lance Zaal, who has said the business grew out of efforts to build a mobile tour guide app. Zaal, who did not respond to questions asked via email, also operates a broader tourism website called Tourismo. In recent years, Zaal has also purchased reputedly haunted historic properties. They include the Lizzie Borden House in Massachusetts, site of the notorious 1892 axe murders of Borden’s parents and now a bed-and-breakfast, and New Orleanss LaLaurie Mansion, a French Quarter site associated with the torture of enslaved people in the 1830s. (Zaal currently lives at the mansion.) Zaal also operates an online ghost hunting equipment store called Ghost Daddywhich boasts that it tests its merchandise at the Borden houseand even founded a Ukraine-focused aid organization called Ghosts of Liberty. Zaals businesses have been on both sides of ghost industry intellectual property disputes. In 2023, US Ghost Adventures sued Miss Lizzie’s Coffee, a newly opened coffee shop next door to the Lizzie Borden House, for allegedly infringing trademarks on the Lizzie Borden name and a hatchet logo. USGA says consumers and even local officials had been confused into believing the businesses are related. I said, This is ridiculous, because I always knew Lizzie Borden as a historical figure, says Miss Lizzies owner Joe Pereira. And you cant own history. So far, USGA has failed to convince a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction in the matter, and the case remains before the court. Mimicry USGA has itself been repeatedly accused by other ghost tour companies of mimicking their business and tour names. The company was sued in 2024 by the owner of Queen City Tours in Charlotte, North Carolina, for allegedly infringng its trademarks in operating tours under the name Queen City Ghosts. USGA has filed its own legal challenge to the Queen City Tours trademark, and the cases remain pending. Queen City Tours did not respond to an inquiry from Fast Company. Terror Tours, the company behind a line of haunted pub crawls known as Nightly Spirits, also sued USGA in 2024 for allegedly infringing its Booze and Boos trademark. In its lawsuit, the company said USGA operated Boos and Booze tours, which confused consumers, including some who mistakenly brought complaints to Terror Tours. The case was settled in 2024. Founder Jared Broach declined to comment on the matter, citing a nondisclosure agreement. In Baltimore, USGA has advertised under the name Baltimore Ghosts, which is similar to the name of a local ghost tour company founded in 2001. Melissa Rowell, one of the founders of Baltimore Ghost Tours, says her business has received messages from customers seeking USGA, including an angry voicemail she shared with Fast Company. And, she says, Google at one time erroneously merged the business listings for the two tour operations. The two companies have exchanged cease-and-desist letters, which Rowell shared with Fast Company. Lawyers for Rowells company have claimed USGA is infringing on Baltimore Ghost Tourss trademark as part of a plan to ride on the coattails of an established business in various cities through similar naming. USGA attorneys have questioned the validity of the geographically descriptive Baltimore Ghost Tours trademark and alleged misconduct and defamation involving allegations around the Google issue. Jeanine Plumer, owner of Austin Ghost Tours, says shes spoken to multiple tour companies whove reported similar tactics by USGA. Mike Carter, owner of Tours & Crawls in Annapolis, Maryland, says hes also received texts and voicemails from confused customers who will often turn out to have actually booked with USGA. I get calls almost daily from somebody who’s confused or wants to verify which company it is, he says. USGA entered that market around 2023, using a variety of names including Ghosts of Annapolis, which Carter had previously used, he says. After he complained through an attorney, he says USGA began using the name Annapolis Ghost Tours, which Carter also previously used. Taking on the Goliath In 2024, Carter registered the domain usaghostadventures.com, one letter off from the USGA site, listing local alternatives in cities where USGA operated, along with the message: Don’t be tricked by the large national chains who pretend to offer the local tour experience you’re seeking, according to Zaals legal filings. Zaal filed a legal complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, which handles domain name trademark disputes. The organization awarded Zaal ownership of the domain after finding Carter went beyond offering criticism and advocacy in linking to USGA competitors, including his own business. I abided by that decision, Carter says. I understood where it came from. But in June, Zaal and USGA sued Carter and his company in federal court. They alleged Carter continued to infringe USGA trademarks with a new Local Ghost Adventures site and defamed USGA and Zaal through disparaging blog and social media posts, as well as comments to an Annapolis tourism organization. Zaals lawsuit also cites comments by other ghost tour operators around the country criticizing the company, arguing Carter and his company actively engage with fellow competitor ghost tour operators and potential customers to encourage harmful and misleading attacks, in part via a private Facebook group for local ghost tour operators. Carter acknowledges that he is active on such a group, but says members are more likely to share SEO and marketing tips or recommendations for graphic designers, along with other advice for operating a ghost tour in the internet age, than they are to discuss particular competitors. It’s more about sharing information than it is taking on the Goliath, he says. Death trap Like some other businesses that have rapidly expanded thanks to the internet, USGA has also faced accusations of violating employment laws. In 2023, two Pennsylvania women sued USGA and Zaal, saying they had been employed by the company as content creators documenting ghost tours but were improperly denied overtime pay, even when working more than 80 hours per week. Plaintiffs protested the lack of overtime wages to Mr. Zaal personally who erroneously stated that Plaintiffs were 1099 [independent contractors] and refused to discuss the matter further, they alleged. The women also alleged that Zaal and USGA provided them with an RV and pickup truck to use for ghost tours but said the truck wasnt large enough to tow the RV, with customers allegedly referring to the arrangement as a death trap. When they complained, they said Zaal and USGA traded in the RV for a smaller model at a loss, and began to illegally deduct the cost difference from their paychecks. Zaal and USGA denied the allegations, and the case was settled for an undisclosed amount earlier this year. In another case that remains pending, a Kentucky woman named Emily Menshouse alleges she worked for USGA-affiliated Zaal Ventures in administrative roles and was misclassified as an independent contractor, illegally underpaid for overtime and breaks, and fired when she complained. Menshouse, who previously appeared in a TV show called Paranormal Journeys and has a supernatural-themed video podcast, says she had hoped the position would be her dream job. Zaal Ventures has denied the allegations but made a payment to Menshouse after the lawsuit was brought, though Menshouse says the amount was inadequate to resolve the matter Ghost City Tours also faced an employment lawsuit filed in 2024 by San Antonio tour guide JoAnn Valenzuela, who alleged she was fired after complaining to the federal Department of Labor that she wasnt paid her $50-per-hour wage for more than 20 hours of mandatory training. The company said in a legal filing that Valenzuela was fired for not showing up for shifts, not because of the complaint, and that while she had attended the companys public tour guide training classes which are offered to members of the public, she had signed an offer letter that said she wouldnt be paid until she finished her first solo tour. The case was settled in 2024. Committed to the supernatural For their part, leaders of ghost tour chains have generally said they have the same commitment to supernatural storytelling as their independent rivals. Mike Huberty, founder of American Ghost Walks, which has expanded from a single operation in Madison, Wisconsin, to more than 25 cities across the country, says he still gathers stories personally before launching tours in new locales. He claims to talk to everyone from museum workers to busboys about legends that might fit into a tour, and often simply asks whether a particular place might be haunted. I’ve repeated that question probably to 5,000 people in my life, he says. Thats how you start collecting the stories. Zaal and USGA have emphasized their devotion to preserving their historic properties and bringing meticulously researched stories to life. And in a blog post, Ghost City Tours founder Tim Nealon wrote about becoming interested in ghosts after believing he had recorded the voice of one in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and his companys commitment to telling real, well-researched stories. But to some local competitors, certain chain operations can feel like just another online get-rich-quick scheme, disrupting long-standing mom-and-pop businesses in pursuit of a buck.
Category:
E-Commerce
AI is radically changing the future of the workplace from redefining jobs to fueling the rise of so-called work slop. Live on stage at the Masters of Scale Summit in San Francisco, Box CEO Aaron Levie, LinkedIns Chief Economic Opportunity Officer Aneesh Raman, and Metas Head of Business AI Clara Shih share their insider perspectives on AI optimism, uncertainty, and navigating this unprecedented era. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian and recorded live at the 2025 Masters of Scale Summit in San Francisco. 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. iFrame Embed: Aneesh, there’s a real debate about the impact of AI on work and some say it will be positive, some say it will be negative. You’ve said it will be spectacular. Why? Raman: I’m at LinkedIn, we are if nothing else, a platform of people. We go where the species goes. So for two years I have thought about human intelligence as my core focus For humans, work has kind of sucked since the industrial age. We have turned ourselves into efficiency machines, whether you’re at the assembly line or sending emails, it’s more, better, faster. More, better, faster… That isn’t who humans are. AI is going to out-efficiency us, robots going to out efficiency us. That’s okay. We became the apex species, not because we were the most efficient, but because we were the most imaginative, the most innovative AI is going to force us finally to broaden our view of human intelligence. I’m pessimistic about our state of being ready for that because it’s entire new systems of education, employment, entrepreneurship, but we’re going to have to fix that and that’s great, I think. Clara, we’ve heard this term that’s become very popular, work slop, that AI-generated work is creating more work. It’s like volume over quality Is work slop just a phase for AI? Is it like a bug that we’re going to fix or is this a feature and something that we’re always going to have to be vigilant about when we’re in a world where so much can be created so easily? Shih: I think there’s always been work slop. I’ve been responsible for some work slop, especially earlier in my career. I think certainly AI makes it easier to create lots of work slop, and so just like any new technology. I can imagine the very first spreadsheets when they were invented, people weren’t sure how to use it. The features probably didn’t include checking the formulas, and so there were probably some really bad, incorrect spreadsheets. The same thing is happening now. Raman: Like any tool, use it. Do not misuse it. Do not overuse it. There’s already lots of research. MIT has great research with brain scans that if you overuse AI, you’ll deplete your ability to grow critical thinking skills. AI helps individuals get started, but if everyone’s using it across a team, sameness creeps in. So it’s all about how you use it. Aaron, you founded Box. You know how important and distinctive a culture can be in an organization. Each company is different. All of our cultures, each one is different. When we add AI agents to our work, do we need to orient them like we do new employees? If we all use off-the-shelf AI, are we going to end up with off-the-shelf culture? Levie: Certainly. And by the way, I’m actually fine with lots of work slop because all I see is lots of files that are going to get generated That’s good for you. Levie: I think everybody here is familiar with context engineering. It’s sort of a simple analogy, which is if you have an employee off the street, super-intelligent person, doesn’t know kind of what job they’re in, they just appeared and you’re like, “Okay, today you’re a lawyer and the next day you’re a marketer and the next day you’re a coder.” That’s kind of what an AI model is. And so you have to give it the context necessary to be able to perform its tasks. And so maybe actually ironically, if anything, you’ll have to get more context than the person would. It’s actually very easy for an employee to pick up the general cultural sort of norms and work practices because they can just look over at one other person and say, “Oh, I see the way that you just collaborated over there.” And so we’re more of a collaborative culture versus we just make really quick decisions and then move forward. An AI agent again doesn’t know, “Did I just join SpaceX or did I join Patagonia?” I’m assuming those are two different ends of the cultural spectrum. So you’re going to have to tell the agent effectively like, “Who are you right now? And here are the norms in our organization, and here is the context about the business process that you’re involved in.” Clara, I talked to one CEO last week who said like he’s being pressured to adopt AI in areas that he’s not sure it’s actually beneficial for the business, but he feels like, “Oh, I’m getting this push from all different parts of the organization, investors, and the board.” How do leaders strike the balance between, “I got to be in this,” versus, “It’s not really showing any measurable impact now yet”? Shih: I see this all the time from various leaders that I meet with. I think it’s first being hands-on and really getting in there and understanding the capabilities because I think with that judgment, with that firsthand experience, only then can leaders really know, “Okay, I want to apply it here but not here.” Another really great success formula is splitting up the team, having people focus on immediate use cases. What can I unlock today that will show me ROI this quarter, next quarter, versus what are the bigger bets where just I see the secular trend and we have to skate to where the puck is going Levie: One pitfall that a lot of existing organizations will fall into, like us included when I walk around and try and talk about what kind of processes we can bring automation to, I think there is this idea that we have this sort of end-state utopian view of AI can do anything and can automate anything. The reality is that if you drop AI into today’s business process, it’s going to actually do very little and you have to actually re-engineer your workflow and you have to re-engineer your process. I think a lot of times, unfortunately, you’ll see people try and drop in AI into a process where then even with thebest automation, you’re going to get a 10% gain or whatnot of that workflow. It’s not world-changing. Levie: It’s not world-changing, but it’s because you didn’t think about re-engineering the workflow for AI. And we thought AI would work how we do. It turns out it might be the case that we have to work how AI does and we have to be actually in service of the agent to make it most productive as opposed to this unfortunate reality where we probably thought it would make us productive. It’s a little terrifying. Your job is to make the AI more productive? Levie: Totally. Well, so there was some offsite 15 years ago where one of our engineering managers told me about the inverted pyramid. His job is to enable all the people below him technically in a hierarchy, but to be as productive as possible. And it was sort of this inversion of like he works for them to make them as effective as possible. And the reality is that that’s kind of what we’re going to be doing with AI agents for quite some time because we’re going to be working to make them effective And if you look at the five and 10 and 20-person startups that are AI-native fully, they don’t have a single business process, that’s basically what they’re doing. They’re working to support agents to be super effective, and that’s just a totally different way to work. Raman: Make them more productive to make you more impactful. Shih: Yeah, help you help me. Raman: I think we have to be affirmatively pro-human. It’s hard to state how radical it is.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||