 |
|
|
|||||
The latest buzzword is AI literacy. Much like social media, ESG, and CSR before it, employers are now looking for proof of fluency on résumés, and individuals are desperate to differentiate themselves to show that they are keeping pace. And its everywhere, mentions of terms like agentic AI, AI workforce, digital labor, and AI agents during earnings calls increased by nearly 800% in the last year, according to AlphaSense data. Over the last five years, workers across industries have become expected to be well-versed in a technology that is ever-evolving and still relatively new for so many, including the leaders implementing it. The trouble with AI is that by the time a candidate hits send on a CV, their level of proficiency is already outdated. It’s a quiet, corrosive force that’s keeping people silent in the very moments when we need their voices most. But what if the real problem isnt the pace of change or people not understanding AI, but instead that we have made them feel ashamed for their lack of understanding, preventing people from raising their hand to say, “I don’t know? Vulnerability makes us human. Mark Cuban recently posted on X, The greatest weakness of AI is its inability to say ‘I don’t know. Our ability to admit what we don’t know will always give humans an advantage. Why, then, are we creating an environment and fostering workplace cultures that encourage people to fake it, until you make it” as it relates to AI? The cost of staying quiet is real. We’re at risk of shaming ourselves into obscurity. The Shame Spiral in Action Everyones talking about the AI hype cycle. But almost no one is talking about the shame spiral its creating. AI not only has a long-term impact on the economy, but also on the day-to-day lives of people. Companies are replacing roles faster than theyre training workers and in some cases, like Klarna, laying off workers only to hire back when AI tools fall short. People miss out on jobs, not because theyre unqualified, but because no one gave them a path forward. They walk around feeling like impostors in rooms they’ve already earned the right to be in. Inside companies, we see biased tools get approved and shortcuts turn into systems. A recent report by LinkedIn shows 35% of professionals feel too nervous to talk about AI at work, and 33% feel embarrassed by how little they know. These aren’t just workers, they’re parents and community leaders. This shame spiral, fueled by hype that says “everyone gets AI except you,” risks shutting down curiosity and critical questions before they even start. The pattern signals a bigger issue: at the same time people feel too ashamed to engage, AI systems are taking over and making decisions, incremental and important, that affect everyone. To avoid embarrassment, people take shortcuts. A recruiter might rely on an AI résumé screener without understanding how it works and which candidates it may be discarding. A manager might approve a tool that decides who gets extended care without asking what drives the algorithm. A parent might sign off on an AI-powered teaching tool without knowing who designed the curriculum. A 2024 Microsoft and LinkedIn survey found that only 39% of people globally who use AI at work have gotten AI training from their company. We’ve seen what happens when these systems go unchecked. Amazon scrapped its AI recruiting tool after it was found to discriminate against women. Workday faces a class-action lawsuit alleging its AI screening tools systematically exclude older workers and people with disabilities from job opportunities. Microsoft’s chatbot Tay launched with the intention of learning from conversations, was exposed to trolls, and within 24 hours, was posting racist, misogynistic, and offensive content. When silence replaces curiosity, people essentially remove themselves from the decision-making process until they are no longer accounted for. Reshaping The Workplace Reality AI is here, and it is changing the workforce. The choice is ours: Bring people along with us and help them be part of the transformation or leave them behind in the name of efficiency? What moves people from anxiety to agency isn’t more lectures or tutorials. People are inspired by permission and tools. Permission to be a beginner. The freedom and the space to learn. The most confident AI users aren’t experts; they play with different tools until they find what works for them. Digital dignity starts with that permissionpermission to ask basic questions, to slow down, to admit gaps. It means leaders modeling vulnerability before demanding employees fill theirs. To truly embrace and harness the potential of AI, we must focus on impact, not mechanics. You don’t need to code a neural net, but you do need to spot when AI systems are making decisions about you. Start with what affects you directly: parents can ask what tools schools are using, job seekers can learn how résumé screening works, and managers can ask what AI tools are coming into their workplaceand what training comes with them. Practice saying “I don’t know.” The best leaders see gaps as opportunities to ask good questions. JPMorgan created low-stakes spaces for managers to experiment with AI, encouraging leaders to admit when they were stuck. That openness built trust and sped up adoption. Johnson & Johnson encouraged broad experimentation across business units, generating nearly 900 AI / generative AI use cases across research, supply chain, commercial, and internal support. The result? An internal chatbot for employees and a fresh approach to making clinical trials more representative. This isn’t just a knowledge gap. It’s a culture of silence. And if we don’t break it, AI won’t be a tool for transformation; it’ll be a mirror for all the systems we were too ashamed to question. The most powerfl thing we can say in this moment is: “I don’t know. But I want to learn.” Because the future is still being written, and we all deserve a seat at the table and a hand on the pen.
Category:
E-Commerce
For leaders today, the pressure to do more with less feels relentless. Leaner teams, flatter organizations, and the rise of productivity tools such as Slack, Notion.ai, and Monday.com promise efficiency but often deliver the opposite: more reporting, more deliverables, and the demand to be always on.Organizations are increasingly falling into the “acceleration trap,” taking on too much too quickly and undermining their effectiveness and well-being. Sandra, a senior leader in the tech sector, saw this firsthand. After a reorganization left her team stretched thin, she slipped into a 9-9-6 routineworking nine to nine, six days a week. Gallup’s research shows unmanageable workloads and unclear priorities are top drivers of burnout and disengagement. For Sandra and her team, competing priorities created the illusion of progress. Quick wins piled up, but strategic projects stalled. Through our work advising dozens of companies navigating high-stakes transformations, we have seen this pattern repeatedly. Kathryn, as an executive coach and keynote speaker, and Jenny, as an executive adviser and learning & development expert, help leaders recognize when theyve fallen into the productivity trap, and how to climb out before it undermines their long-term impact. Productivity isnt the problem. Unbounded productivity is. Nonstop execution drains energy, mutes your voice, and erodes your ability to lead strategically. Here are four ways to avoid the trap. 1. Set Boundaries Against Over-Execution Deloitte finds that when AI and productivity tools lack clear ways of working, they create more work. Sandras team once tracked 157 projects, spending more time updating systems than moving work forward. As deadlines slipped, Sandra found herself diving into the weeds to close gapsa vicious cycle that left her team dependent on her and pulled her away from the strategic work only she could do. “Long hours backfire,” undercutting both people and organizational outcomes, with over-execution producing diminishing returns. To avoid this death by a thousand cuts, leaders must set clear rules of engagement. Focus only on mission-critical projects and eliminate the noise. Create a not-to-do list. Steve Jobs said, I’m actually as proud of the things we haven’t done as the things I have done. Empower your team to say not now when requests dont align with priorities. And keep stakeholders aligned by communicating progress and risks, reinforcing that the team is tackling the biggest problems. By following these principles, Sandras team cut the list to 25 priorities. But protecting time is only part of the equation; leaders must also decide how to spend it. 2. Balance Operator and Architect Modes Even after narrowing the list, Sandra was pulled into details. Her CEO wanted project-level updates, so she dug into the weeds herself, time that should have been spent on architect-level work, such as setting direction, aligning stakeholders, and shaping long-term priorities. If she had stayed at the right level, her team would have managed the details, and her CEO would have been hearing about trends, risks, and strategic shifts proactively through her updates. The Entrepreneurial Operating System (EOS) frames this as: rocks, pebbles, sand. Rocks: the 37 strategic priorities that truly move the business Pebbles: mid-sized projects matter but dont transform the business Sand: daily tasks, emails, and meetings that eat capacity The insight is simple: protect the rocks. Each time Sandra dug into sand, she sacrificed architect time. Ask: Am I building the future, or just surviving the present? Protecting rocks advances strategy and gives leaders clarity to speak up when new requests threaten to divert focus. 3. Speak UpDont Suffer in Silence One of the most common traps for leaders is quietly absorbing more work than they can handle. The instinct often comes from a desire to help and prove capability. However, silence signals capacity and quickly leads to overload. Gallup research shows unmanageable workloads are one of the biggest drivers of burnout and disengagement. The antidote is to make trade-offs explicit and visible. Leaders who speak up frame pushback not as resistance but as stewardship of priorities. Ground conversations in data: dashboards and workload views turn invisible strain into concrete evidence, elevating the discussion from Can you take this on? to How do we prioritize what matters most? Simple routines also normalize dialogue about focus. Start-stop-continue discussions encourage teams to decide what to pause or drop before new work is added. Asking, Which initiative should we deprioritize to make room for this one? reframes pushback as alignment, not reluctance. When Sandra faced mounting demands from her executive team, she shifted from silent acceptance to strategic dialogue. Instead of taking on every initiative, she began saying, If we add this project, heres what wont move forward. That change forced trade-offs onto the table, protected her capacity to act, and strengthened performance. 4. Protect Your Strategic Energy Sandra thought she was shielding her team by absorbing the overflow. It felt generous, even necessary, to keep them from burning out. But the more she took on, the more depleted she became. What looked like support drained her clarity and influence. That realization became a turning point. Protecting her strategic energy wasnt selfish; it was the only way to lead efectively. Leaders safeguard energy by channeling it into high-leverage priorities only they can drive: setting strategic direction, strengthening client growth, aligning stakeholders, and developing talent. McKinsey research shows sustainable productivity depends less on visible activity and more on aligning day-to-day focus with core strategy. Once Sandra redirected her attention to those high-value areas, her team stepped up operationally. The company advanced with greater focus, and her CEO engaged her in forward-looking conversations that reflected her true value. Protecting her energy unlocked not just her effectiveness, but her companys. When leaders over-execute, chase quick wins, or stay silent under pressure, they risk undermining the very future they are trying to build. Busyness doesnt create results or innovation; focus and reflection do. The leaders who thrive arent the busiest, but the ones who know how to protect their capacity for the work only they can do. Where might you be confusing activity for impact, or quick wins for real progress?
Category:
E-Commerce
One of Paramount’s most powerful creative minds has left the production company: Taylor Sheridan, whose major hits like Yellowstone, Landman, and Lioness made him one of Paramount’s most powerful writers and producers, has ditched the media house. The move comes shortly after a new Chief Executive, David Ellison, came on board in August and a merger between the company and Skydance was approved. Sheridan will remain involved with his Paramount projects until his current deal ends in January. But while Sheridan helped prime Paramount for success, starting early next year, he will be making programs for NBCU’s streaming service, Peacock a direct competitor. So what happened, and why would a company or organization in general let a star performer walk? A major loss amid restructuring The loss will undoubtedly be heartfelt by the media company, which is already coping with layoffs and restructuring. Losing a star performer whos acted as an anchor can make things feel even more unmoored and uncertain for employees. On Wednesday, Ellison sent a memo to staff, explaining that around 1,000 roles would be cut as the company addresses “redundancies that have emerged across the organization” as well as “phasing out roles that are no longer aligned with our evolving priorities and the new structure designed to strengthen our focus on growth.” Sheridan, who wrote, produced, and directed, reportedly made his decision to part ways with Paramount after spats over costs and creative control. Previously, Sheridan had become accustomed to loose budgets for his projects. However, with a new executive onboard, it seemed Sheridan’s leverage was being reigned in. After some key decisions were made without his knowledge, and Chris McCarthy, a Paramount executive who managed Sheridan’s projects, left the company, tensions quickly arose, people close to the producer said, per WSJ. Jennifer Openshaw, a nationally known financial leader and CEO of nonprofit Girls With Impact, tells Fast Company that when a high performer leaves amid restructuring, it can easily rattle other employees. When clear communication isn’t a priority, it can lead others to panic about potential internal issues. “That transparency helps maintain trust and stability,” Openshaw says. A tale of two egos The dust-up seems to beg the question: how could Paramount let such a massive talent go? And why would any organization allow this to happen? Creative control is pretty crucial in ensuring working relationships can be maintained, especially industries like entertainment. Openshaw says that sometimes letting a star employee go is simply “the right thing to do,” especially when they can “command more than you can offer.” In the case of Sheridan and Ellison, that may have been the case, given Sheridan’s hefty tab. But it’s hard to miss that it’s tough to fit two sizable egos in a room. “We also cant overestimate how much it might be personal, for both men,” James Hibberd, a contributor for The Hollywood Reporter, said in a recent debate about the controversy. “Ellison doesnt like how much power and control Sheridan wields, while Sheridan doesnt like the way hes been treated since Ellison took over.” Hibberd added, “Its very: ‘This streaming service aint big enough for the both of us.'” Openshaw agrees that egos are, well, paramount when it comes to predicting the success of projects and the future of a company. Sometimes, major decisions like this are made to protect the company’s larger goals. Openshaw says that, “when done thoughtfully,” letting even a star employee walk can reflect both “leadership and integrity. It protects your culture, strengthens trust, and often turns former employees into long-term ambassadors.” Still, Openshaw says, in order to avoid panic, leaders should “highlight the organizations values and mission by creating new opportunities for the next generation to grow.” Para-mounting costs Of course, costs can’t be overlooked, either. Sheridan’s creative mind wasn’t cheap. His projects reportedly cost Paramount $500 million in 2023. Concerns had been raised about the producer’s spending requirements, too, as previously reported by WSJ. From that lens, Paramount may be looking at the loss as a giant money-saver. Either way, while Paramount seemed to let Sheridan walk away, other media houses were apparently trying to woo him at the same time. Before signing with NBCU, Warner Bros. Discovery chief David Zaslav gifted Sheridan a pair of cowboy boots once worn by James Dean. But ultimately, cost was no issue for Paramount competitor NBCU. Not only did their chairman Donna Langley offer Sheridan a whopping $1 billion deal, she developed a personal relationship with him, and appealed to his ego by reportedly letting him know he’d have the control he grew used to at Paramount. That was something Ellison wasn’t ready to do, and it seems to have cost him a giant star. Therein lies the rub of letting star talent go: even if its for cost savings, losing them to one of your main competitors might well come back to bite you. According to Openshaw, sometimes it’s an inability to collaborate that seals the deal. “Great leaders understand that success comes from listening, collaboration, and inclusion,” Openshaw explains.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||