We live in a world of increasing change. The international order is shifting and political certainties are evaporating day by day. Technological shifts are changing how we experience the world and interact with others. And in the workplace, AI is poised to unleash what might be the most revolutionary set of changes humanity has experienced since the first hunter-gatherers settled down to grow crops and build cities.
But while change is everywhere, we still find it hard to manage. The statistics around organizational change have always been brutal. For at least the last quarter century, corporate transformation efforts have failed at a remarkable rate: only three out of ten are brought to something approaching a successful conclusion. The age of AI will make things even more challenging. We will need to adapt more rapidly and more comprehensively, and we will need to manage multiple layers of continuous change at any one time.
How will we cope? Many different factors contribute to making change hard, but one in particular stands out: change is tiring. At the human level, constant transformation depletes our energy, attention, and commitment. At the organizational level, this depletion translates into stalled initiatives, institutional resistance, and a diminishing capacity for further adaptation.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/creator-faisalhoque.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/faisal-hoque.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Ready to thrive at the intersection of business, technology, and humanity? ","dek":"Faisal Hoques books, podcast, and his companies give leaders the frameworks and platforms to align purpose, people, process, and techturning disruption into meaningful, lasting progress.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/faisalhoque.com","theme":{"bg":"#02263c","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#ffffff","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#000000"},"imageDesktopId":91420512,"imageMobileId":91420514,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
To make the process of change navigable for real humansrather than the compliant ideals who often appear in strategy deckswe need to rethink how we understand change. We need to find the stable foundations that persist amidst the maelstrom of transformation.
The adaptation fallacy
The standard response to the reality of ever-increasing change is to insist that individuals and organizations simply adapt to it. Everything flows, as the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus is reported to have said. The world is in flux, nothing is fixed, and we should all get used to the idea that the stability of the past was just a temporary illusion.
This ancient wisdom has become something of a cliché, the It is what it is of the business world. It is offered up as a slogan to hold onto, a manifesto that distils the increasingly rapid change of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. But it doesnt do much to help people stay afloat.
Human beings are not infinitely malleable. There is a psychological and physical toll to constant, chaotic change that compounds in two distinct ways.
The first is the sheer quantity of simultaneous initiativesthe burden of switching between half a dozen transformation efforts at once. People find themselves juggling competing priorities, each with its own vocabulary, metrics, and demands on their attention. It becomes hard to see the big picture because the parts never stay still long enough to focus. The cognitive overhead of keeping track of everything crowds out the close attention that each single initiative requires.
The second is the exhausting length of individual change processes that can stretch over many months, or even years. The reasons for the change, once vivid and urgent, become abstract and distant. Champions move on, new people arrive who werent part of the original vision, and maintaining momentum becomes harder with each passing quarter.
The demand that team members adapt to the new reality addresses neither problem. The flux pushes and pulls them in different directions with no coherence, giving them no stable ground to stand on. Expecting people to get used to it amounts to expecting people not to be human.
Leaders who demand adaptation without addressing the underlying human experience are not solving the problem. They are adding to it.
The other Heraclitus
Heraclitus has some real wisdom that can help here, but we need to move past the most common versions of his sayings.
Heraclitus most famous aphorism is usually rendered as You cannot step into the same river twice. The idea is that when you step into the river, the water flows on and so it is not the same when you take your next step. Panta rhei. Everything flows.
But there is another version of this saying that comes closer to capturing what Heraclitus actually meant: We step and do not step into the same river twice.
The difference is small, but it matters. Yes, the water flows. Yes, the river is never the same from one moment to the next. But the river itself remains. The river has an identity that persists through its constant flow.
There is an important lesson here for organizations seeking to manage change. Recognizing that things flow is important. But we also have to identify and spotlight what it is that persists through that change.
Finding, defining, and celebrating the order that underlies the chaos is essential if we do not want to be swept away. The task is not to eliminate fluxthat is neither possible nor desirablebut to identify and preserve the stability that gives change its meaning.
Purpose, identity, strategic clarity: these define the organization and give it its identity. They provide the stable vessel that allows people to float happily along on the flowing water rather than being pulled under by the constant motion.
Providing this stability is the leaders responsibility. The constants that allow people to navigate change do not maintain themselves. They must be deliberately established, clearly communicated, and actively protected.
What leaders must do
If change fatigue is not a failure of individual resilience but a failure of organizational design, then leaders must take responsibility for building organizations in which change happens more easily. Here are five principles that can help provide stability in a changing world.
Be discerning about what you change. Not every transformation deserves equal energy. The familiar danger of chasing shiny objectsconstantly running from one initiative to the nextundermines the efforts that actually matter. Every proposed change should be tested against the organizations strategic purpose. If it doesnot clearly advance the core mission, it should not be adding to the cognitive burden on your teams.
Communicate the why, not just the what. Much of change fatigue comes not from the pace of change itself but from the cognitive burden of not understanding how changes connect. When people cannot see how a new process, tool, or structure contributes to an outcome, changes feel arbitrary and exhausting. Often, even C-suite executives are not fully aligned on precisely why things matter. That confusion cascades downward, multiplying fatigue at every level. Leaders must articulate the purpose behind each initiative and show how it fits into a coherent whole.
Build a unified narrative. When organizations pursue multiple change initiatives simultaneously, a unified story smooths the cognitive burden by holding the pieces together. Rather than experiencing six disconnected transformations, people can understand themselves as participating in a single journey with multiple dimensions. The narrative does not eliminate the work, but it reduces the sense of fragmentation.
Create systemic anchors that survive turnover. Long-term change efforts may see key leaders depart before the work is complete. If the change depends entirely on individual champions, it will falter when those individuals leave. There must be a process coregovernance structures, documentation, embedded practicesthat can survive personnel changes and maintain momentum independent of any single person.
Co-design the change with the humans who must live with it. Change fatigue intensifies when transformations are handed down fully formed, only to collide with realities about which leaders were unaware. Co-design reverses this logic. Frontline staff know the constraints they face; customers know what the change feels like on the receiving end. When the people involved help shape the new way of working that will affect them, compliance turns into ownership, and the change arrives already adapted to the world it must survive in.
Principles in practice
A clear illustration of these principles being put into successful practice comes from Gold Coast Mental Health and Specialist Services in Queensland, Australia, which undertook a sustained transformation to support the adoption of a Zero Suicide approach. The case is instructive both for the ambition of the goalto permanently shift the culture of a whole health systemand for the care that was taken to make the change sustainable over time.
From the outset, the program was framed as a system-wide approach rather than as the heroic efforts of individual practitioners. This distinction matters. When success depends on personal endurance, organizations quietly burn through their people. By treating transformation as a collective endeavor supported by organizational structures rather than individual willpower, the program avoided placing impossible burdens on staff already working in an emotionally demanding field.
The new practices were institutionalized, not merely announced. Training reached more than 500 staff and was then embedded into orientation for new hires and supported by online modules, face-to-face sessions, and custom-produced materials designed with the local culture in mind. The change was designed to outlast the people who initiated itthe kind of systemic anchor that keeps momentum alive even as personnel turn over.
Crucially, the service built feedback loops to prevent drift. Staff received timely data on adherence to the new pathway, followed by supervision and coaching to embed skills. This continuous improvement cycle meant that standards did not have to be constantly re-litigated; the system itself kept reinforcing what good practice looked like.
Co-design was an essential component of the Gold Coast approach. The services culture change strategy explicitly integrates suicide attempt and loss survivors in leadership and planning roles, recognizing that effective prevention requires perspectives beyond those of clinicians. The result is that change is shaped by those most exposed to its failure modes.
Gold Coasts transformation success did not depend on asking already-stretched professionals to simply try harder. Instead, the program leaders ensured that their teams could see the unifying structures that provided stability, meaning, and identity through change.
Conclusion
The 70% failure rate is not a law of nature. It is the predictable result of asking people to navigate constant change without giving them anything constant to hold onto.
Purpose, identity, strategic claritythese are not luxuries to be addressed once the real work of transformation is complete. They are the vessel that keeps people afloat. Without that vessel, you are asking your people to swim through every change. And eventually, swimmers tire.
Build the structures. Communicate the purpose. Shine a clear and steady light on what endures. That is how transformation succeedsnot by demanding more adaptation, but by providing stable foundations on which to build something new.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/creator-faisalhoque.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/faisal-hoque.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Ready to thrive at the intersection of business, technology, and humanity? ","dek":"Faisal Hoques books, podcast, and his companies give leaders the frameworks and platforms to align purpose, people, process, and techturning disruption into meaningful, lasting progress.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/faisalhoque.com","theme":{"bg":"#02263c","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#ffffff","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#000000"},"imageDesktopId":91420512,"imageMobileId":91420514,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Much to the chagrin of investors, the value of Bitcoin continues to slide.
As of Wednesday morning, the world’s most popular cryptocurrency was trading around $75,000 per coin. Thats down more than 10% over the past five days, down 18% over the past month, and down a whopping 34% over the past six months.
It’s a far cry from October of last year, when Bitcoins price topped out at nearly $125,000. Values are now roughly where they were in early April 2025, and before that, in November 2024.
From bump to slump
Notably, Bitcoins value is now lower than it was when Trump took office last January, effectively giving up all of the Trump Bump gains that it and other crypto assets saw over much of 2025.
That bump was real, too: Bitcoin returns were down around 12% during Q1 2025, but jumped to nearly 30% during Q2, and then 6.3% in Q3, according to data from Coinglass.
The downturn seemingly took hold at some point during Q4, when returns were down 23%. Ethereum, the second-largest crypto on the market, saw a similar trajectory: It saw huge increases (37% during Q2 and 67% during Q3), followed by a big drop in Q4 (down 28%).
Here are a few notable crypto slumps year to date as of this writing:
Bitcoin (BTC): Down 13.86%
Ether (ETC): Down 25.56%
XRP (XRP): Down 15.13%
Why are crypto values declining?
As for whats causing the sell-off? A lot of things, but mostly, investors looking for off-ramps from riskier assets.
This can partially be blamed on a government shutdown delaying the release of important economic data (the jobs report was supposed to come out on Friday, but has been delayed), geopolitical tensions rising in many parts of the world, on-again off-again tariff threats, and even the fear of increased regulation on the crypto industry, according to reporting from CNBC.
The crypto markets are also caught in the maelstrom of other downturns. The stock market has been flat for the past month, with some earnings announcementsnotably Microsoftscausing fervor and worry among investors.
President Trump has also named a new Fed Chair, who if confirmed will take up the position in mid-May, adding another variable of uncertainty into the mix.
As a cherry on top, precious metals have seen a steep sell-off, too. Gold and silver prices had shot to the moon in recent months, last week, silver experienced its worst day ever, falling nearly 30%.
The confluence of all of these factors is whats led to massive crypto volatility.
This story is developing…
President Donald Trump says history is on his side.He wants to build a towering arch near the Lincoln Memorial and argues that the nation’s capital first clamored for such a monument two centuries ago even going so far as to erect four eagle statues as part of the project before being derailed by the attack on Fort Sumter.“It was interrupted by a thing called the Civil War, and so it never got built,” Trump said aboard Air Force One as he flew to Florida last weekend. “Then, they almost built something in 1902, but it never happened.”Trump’s history is off the eagles he references are actually part of a bridge connecting Virginia and Washington that was built decades after the Civil War. The closest Washington came to an arch was a wood and plaster construction built in 1919 to mark the end of World War I and even that was always meant to be temporary.“For 200 years they’ve wanted to build an arc,” Trump said, meaning an arch. “They have 57 cities throughout the world that have them. We’re the only major city Washington, D.C. that doesn’t.”Chandra Manning, a history professor at Georgetown University, said Washington was fledgling in the 19th century, dealing with a housing shortage, a lack of boarding houses for visitors, roads that went nowhere and an incomplete U.S. Capitol.“Washington coming into the Civil War was still this unfinished city,” Manning said. “There’s no push for decorative memorialization in Antebellum Washington because it’s still such a place that doesn’t even have all the functional buildings it needs yet.”
Trump has offered a similar historical rationale for the $400 million ballroom he demolished the White House’s East Wing to begin building arguing that officials for 150 years have wanted a large event space.That claim, too, is dubious. While space at the White House has indeed long been an issue, there’s no record of public outcry for a ballroom. Trump nonetheless is employing a similar argument to justify the arch.“I think it will be the most beautiful in the world,” he said.
‘Biggest one of all’
The arch would stand near the Arlington Memorial Bridge, which spans the Potomac River.Trump first unveiled the idea at an October dinner for top donors to his ballroom. Without divulging how much the arch would cost, who would pay for it or whether he’d seek approval from planning officials, the president showed off three different-sized arch models, all featuring a statue of Lady Liberty on top.The president acknowledged then that the largest one was his favorite, and The Washington Post reported that Trump is mulling building an arch standing 250 feet (76 meters) tall. Asked about that aboard Air Force One, Trump didn’t confirm the exact height he desires, but offered: “I’d like it to be the biggest one of all.”“We’re setting up a committee, and the committee is going to be going over it,” Trump said. “It’ll be substantial.”The president says he’d like the new structure to be reminiscent of the Arc de Triomphe, at the end of the Champs-Élysées in Paris, which was built to honor those who fought for France during the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars.But that monument stands only 50 meters (164 feet) high. A 250-foot Washington arch would dwarf the Lincoln Memorial and White House, and even rival the Capitol, which stands 288 feet (88 meters).The finished arch would be part of a building boom Trump has personally triggered, anxious to use his background as a onetime New York construction mogul to leave a lasting physical mark on the presidency.In addition to the ballroom, Trump is closing the Kennedy Center for two years of renovations amid backlash from artists over changes he’s made at the nation’s premier performing arts venue. He replaced the lawn in the Rose Garden with a patio area reminiscent of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, and redecorated the Lincoln Bathroom and Palm Room in the White House’s interior.Trump also installed a Walk of Fame featuring portraits of past presidents along the Colonnade, massive flagpoles on the north and south lawns, and golden flourishes, cherubs and other flashy items to the substantially overhauled Oval Office.The arch would extend the president’s influence into Washington, where he has talked of beautifying “tired” grassy areas and broken signage and street medians and also deployed the National Guard to help break up homeless encampments.Harrison Design, a local firm, is working on the project, though no construction start date has been announced. Trump wants to unveil the new structure as part of celebrations marking America’s 250th birthday.
The bridge actually came after the Civil War
Pressed on what Trump meant by the four eagles, the White House sent a photo showing eagle sculptures at the four corners of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, but no further details.“President Trump is right. The American people for nearly 200 years have wanted an Arch in our Nation’s capital to showcase our great history,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement. “President Trump’s bold vision will be imprinted upon the fabric of America and be felt by generations to come. His successes will continue to give the greatest Nation on earth America the glory it deserves.”The president’s timing is off, though.The Arlington Memorial Bridge was first proposed in 1886, but it wasn’t approved by Congress until 1925. According to the National Park Service, the bridge was conceived after the Civil War and meant to memorialize the symbolic reunification of the North and South.It was originally built to link the site of the Lincoln Memorial with the home of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee where Arlington National Cemetery now stands. At the time, the direction the eagles would face right or left, meant to symbolize inward toward the city or outward facing visitors sparked controversy.The park service says the bridge was constructed between 1926 and 1931, and an engineer’s report lists only slightly different dates still decades after Trump’s timeline.Washington also once had a Victory Arch built near the White House in 1919, to commemorate the end of World War I. It was wood and plaster, however, and meant to be temporary. That structure was torn down in the summer of 1920.A 2000 proposal called for a peace arch in Washington, but those plans were abandoned after the Sept. 11 attacks the following year.Manning, who is also a former National Park Service ranger, said that, Washington aside, “I don’t know of a long U.S. tradition of building arches for things.”“That sounds like an import from elsewhere to me,” she said.
Will Weissert, Associated Press
Norwegian skier Nikolai Schirmer on Wednesday handed the International Olympic Committee a petition signed by more than 21,000 people and professional athletes who want to stop fossil fuel companies from sponsoring winter sports.Schirmer delivered the “Ski Fossil Free” petition to the IOC’s head of sustainability, Julie Duffus, at a hotel in the Italian city of Milan two days before the Milan Cortina Winter Olympics kick off.The petition asks the IOC and the International Ski and Snowboard Federation, FIS, to publish a report evaluating the appropriateness of fossil fuel marketing before next season. Schirmer, a filmmaker and two-time European Skier of the Year, spoke exclusively with The Associated Press outside the hotel, and said the IOC informed him that it would not allow media to witness their meeting.“It seems like the Olympics aren’t ready to be the positive force for change that they have the potential to be,” Schirmer told the AP afterward. “So I just hope this can be a little nudge in the right direction, but we will see.”
Norwegian skier Nikolai Schirmer walks out of a Milan hotel, Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2026, after privately meeting with the IOC’s head of sustainability, Julie Duffus, to hand her a ski fossil free petition with over 20,000 signatures two days before the Opening Ceremony for the 2026 Milan Cortina Winter Olympics. [Photo: Fernanda Figueroa/AP Photo]
Retreating winters spurred the skier to take action
Schirmer is a freeride skier who documents his adventures exploring Europe’s steep terrains. While freeride skiing is not currently an Olympic event, he said he felt like he needed to bring attention to fossil fuel marketing.“The show goes on while the things you depend on to do your job winter is disappearing in front of your very eyes,” he said. “Not dealing with the climate crisis and not having skiing be a force for change just felt insane. We’re on the front lines.”Burning fossil fuels coal, oil and gas is the largest contributor to global climate change by far. As the Earth warms at a record rate, winters are shorter and milder and there is less snow globally, creating clear challenges for winter sports that depend on cold, snowy conditions. Researchers say the list of locales that could reliably host a Winter Games will shrink substantially in the coming years.Schirmer launched his petition drive in January. He surpassed his goal of 20,000 signatures in one month, and people continue to sign.It’s a first step, he argues, much like a campaign nearly 40 years ago that led to a ban of tobacco advertising at the Games. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has urged every country to ban advertising from fossil fuel companies.In his meeting on Wednesday, Schirmer said, the IOC’s head of sustainability pointed to the organization’s commitments to renewable energy. He said he feels that isn’t enough.The IOC told the AP in a statement that climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing sport and society. It didn’t say whether it will review fossil fuel marketing, as demanded by the petition.Olympic partners play an important role in supporting the Games, and they include those investing in clean energy, the statement said.FIS welcomes mobilization campaigns like this one, spokesperson Bruno Sassi said. He noted that He noted that no fossil fuel companies are partners of the FIS World Cup and FIS World Championships.
Athletes say the petition is the start of a conversation
Athlete-driven environmental group “Protect Our Winters” supported the petition drive. This is the first coordinated campaign about fossil fuel advertising centered around an Olympic Games, POW’s CEO Erin Sprague told the AP.American cross-country skier and Team USA member Gus Schumacher said he signed because it starts the conversation.“It’s short-sighted for teams and events to take money from these companies in exchange for helping them hold status as good, long-term energy producers,” he wrote in a text message.American cross-country skier Jack Berry said he’s hopeful this is an influential step toward a systemic shift away from the industry. Berry is seeking a spot on Team USA for the Paralympics in March.
An Italian oil and gas company is sponsoring these Olympics
Italy’s Eni, one of the world’s seven supermajor oil companies, is a “premium partner” of these Winter Games. Other oil and gas companies sponsor Olympic teams.Eni said it’s strongly committed to the energy transition, as evidenced by how it’s growing its lower carbon businesses, reducing emissions and aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050. And the company defended its role in the Winter Games.“Through the partnership with the biggest event hosted by Italy in the next 20 years, Eni wants to confirm its commitment to the future of the country and to a progressively more sustainable energy system through a fair transition path,” spokesperson Roberto Albini wrote in an e-mail.A January report found that promoting polluting companies at the Olympics will grow their businesses and lead to more greenhouse gas emissions that warm the planet and melt snow cover and glacier ice. Albini disputed the emissions calculations for Eni in the Olympics Torched report.Published by the New Weather Institute in collaboration with Scientists for Global Responsibility and Champions for Earth, the report also looks at the Games’ own emissions.“They have lots of sponsors that aren’t in these sectors,” said Stuart Parkinson, executive director at Scientists for Global Responsibility. “You can get the sponsorship money you’re after by focusing on those areas, much lower carbon areas. That reduces the carbon footprint.”
McDermott reported from Cortina D’Ampezzo, Italy.
AP Olympics: https://apnews.com/hub/milan-cortina-2026-winter-olympics
Shares of Chipotle Mexican Grill are down over 6% in premarket trading following a relatively humdrum fourth-quarter earnings report.
The report, released on Tuesday, February 3, showed a 2.5% decrease in comparable restaurant sales from quarter-three and a 1.7% drop year-over-year.
However, it appears Chipotle has a plan to fix all that: more limited-time offerings.
Yes, the companys secret weapon of choice is to bump up its number of fresh menu options. This shift will include four limited-time offers throughout the year, Chipotle CEO Scott Boatwright said in an earnings call. He described the move as an increase in Chipotle’s “menu innovation cadence.”
The limited-time offers (or LTOs) will start next week with the return of Chicken al Pastor, which Boatwright called the most celebrated limited-time offer in history, with two times the requests on social media to bring it back compared to any other LTO.”
Boatwright adds that Chipotles data shows a core guest is more likely to choose a restaurant that has a new menu item.
Protein, rewards, and of course AI
Chipotle has also recently rolled out its high-protein line, with Boatwright nodding to the increased use of weight-loss drugs. It includes a $3.50 taco with 15 grams of protein as an addition to an 80-gram double-protein bowl.
Theres also a $3.80 high-protein cup that is inspired by hacks that our guests rely on to boost their intake and offers a solution to those looking for smaller portions, which is a fast-growing trend with the adoption of GLP-1s, Boatwright stated.
Furthermore, the fast-casual chain is relaunching its rewards program and using AI to create more personalized and impactful experiences.
Even with these steps, Chipotle predicts its comparable restaurant sales for 2026 will be flat.
The company did report some wins for quarter-four. It reached $2.98 billion in revenue, beating Wall Streets expected $2.96 billion, according to consensus estimates cited by CNBC.
What happened to that Chipotle boycott?
Quarter-one for 2026 has brought its own uncertainties to the fast-casual chain thanks to misinformation spreading online.
Chipotle faced boycott calls in January after Bill Ackman, the billionaire CEO and founder of Pershing Square Capital Management, donated $10,000 to a GoFundMe campaign for Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Nicole Good as she turned her vehicle away from him.
In 2016, Ackman bought a 9.9% stake in Chipotle, valued at about $1 billion, Newsweek reports. At the time, Pershing Square Capital was one of Chipotles top shareholders, but the company sold all of its shares as of November 2025.
In response to the boycott, Chipotle took to social media to clarify that Ackman is no longer connected to the brand.
Chipotles stock price (NYSE: CMG) was down more than 33% over 12 months when the market closed on Tuesday.
Your beauty and skincare products are full of fats and oils. Theyre what makes that cream so moisturizing or that emollient so good at repairing your skin barrier.
Often, those lipids come from palm oil or even animal fats, both of which are environmentally damaging to produce. But soon, the lipids in your personal care products could come from upcycled carbon, skipping the agriculture industry entirely.
Savor, a tech company that makes fats and oils directly out of carbon, has already proven this technology through the launch of its butter, which began commercial production in 2025.
Now, Savor is announcing a personal care and beauty division, bringing its plant- and animal-free fats beyond food to what it calls a “new era” of clean beauty.
[Photo: Savor]
How Savor makes fats without plants or animals
Savor turns the typical production of fats on its head. The usual formula to create fat starts with energy (from the sun or even grow lights), which grows plants, which can then be turned into oilsor be fed to livestock, which produce milk that becomes butter or fat that goes into skincare, such as beef tallow.
Those processes require lots of land and have intense climate consequences. Both livestock farming and palm oil, which is used in a majority of beauty and personal care products, drive deforestation, leading to biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, and more.
Savor, however, skips all those agricultural steps. Instead, the company turns energylike captured carbon dioxide, methane, or green hydrogendirectly into fats through a thermochemical process.
[Photo: Savor]
That carbon is combined with hydrogen, oxygen, and heat to create fatty acids, which can then be composed and rearranged into chains that mimic different fats, from butter to palm oil and cocoa butter.
Technically were making beautiful ingredients from thin air, says Jennifer Halliday, an advisor across the biotechnology, beauty, and life sciences industries who is working with Savor.
Its a replica of ancient chemistry. Billions of years ago, hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean created a chemical reaction that formed fatty acids out of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
[Photo: Savor]
Opportunities in the beauty industry
Savors butter has already been adopted by chefs and restaurants, including Michelin-starred SingleThread, in Healdsburg, California, and Jane the Bakery, in San Francisco. It launched commercially in March 2025.
Expanding from food to personal care makes sense for Savor, says Kathleen Alexander, cofounder and CEO of the startup, because the two industries overlap in terms of ingredients, environmental impact, and opportunity for change.
Two of the main pillars associated with our platform are sustainability and versatility, or tunability,” she says. “Those wind up being very important in food, and they’re very important in the beauty space as well.”
By using its animal- and plant-free lipids, Savor says beauty companies could reduce their products emissions by more than 90%, compared to tropical oils like coconut or palm.
Palm and tropical oils wind up showing up a lot in the beauty sector, and those are products that we can really only grow in some of the most rich and biodiverse areas of the world. Alexander adds.
The agricultural industry at large takes up half of the worlds habitable land, and produces 25% to 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Savor skirts this entirely; the company says it requires 800 times less land to make its fats and oils than the agricultural industry.
Currently, Savor has a 25,000-square-foot pilot facility outside of Chicago, with plans for a large-scale commercial plant by 2029.
The startup, founded in 2022, has raised $33 million, according to PitchBook. Its Series A, funded in 2024, was led by food tech VC firm Synthesis Capital and Bill Gates’s Breakthrough Energy.
[Photo: Savor]
Vegan tallow and more
To launch its beauty and personal care division, Savor created three unique products. First, a Vegan Tallow, a colorless and odorless alternative to beef tallow, which has become a recent skin care craze.
We first made that for food customers, and we absolutely still have food customers that are interested in that, Alexander says. But the market pull in food for vegan tallow, it turns out, is a little bit lower than the pull were seeing in beauty and cosmetics.
Savor also created what it calls Climate Conscious Triglycerides, a palm-free emollient; and Mimetic, made to mimic the skin barriers structure to nourish and repair it.
Dont expect to see Savor-branded beauty products on store shelves, though. The startup created these three products to show what is possible, but ultimately, its a B2B company that will give its ingredients to brand formulations.
Savor says its actively engaged with beauty brands, ingredient distributors, and personal care formulators to bring these materials to market, but cant yet share names.
And theres lots of room for interest to grow, it adds, as brands adapt to regulatory pressure around their supply chains.
Traditional feedstocks from plants and animals are also subject to increasing volatility, because of climate changes effects on crops, geopolitics, traceability concerns, and general price swings.
We’ve actually just had a change in the GHG Protocol Standard to require corporations to start including land use in their accounting, which is just huge, Alexander says as an example. That is one of the biggest advantages from an environmental perspective of our platform, that we require less land to make our fats and oils.
Humans have always had an inherently extractive relationship with the planet, she adds. It’s how our food chain works; it’s how we make all sorts of products.
“What we’re doing at Savor is rethinking, what if humans could make molecules ourselves?” she says. “What would it mean to really exist on this planet in a way where we can actually not necessarily have to have to make use of other creatures in order to nourish ourselves.”
As Super Bowl Sunday approaches, the battle off the field for advertisers to win over 120 million-plus viewers will be just as heated as the rivalry between the New England Patriots and Seattle Seahawks.Dozens of advertisers are pulling out all the stops for Super Bowl 60, airing Sunday on NBC. They’re hoping that audiences tuning in will remember their brand names as they stuff their ads with celebrities ranging from Kendall Jenner (Fanatics Sportsbook) to George Clooney (Grubhub), tried-and-true ad icons like the Budweiser Clydesdales, and nostalgia for well-known movie properties such as “Jurassic Park” (Comcast Xfinity).Each year Super Bowl ads offer a snapshot of the American mood as well as which industries are flush with cash that particular year: from the “Dot-Com Bowl” of 2000 to the “Crypto Bowl” of 2022.This year’s trends include health and telehealth companies advertising weight loss drugs and medical tests, tech companies showing off their latest gadgets and apps and advertisers showcasing AI in their ads.Villanova University marketing professor Charles Taylor said because of the heavy headlines in the news lately from the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota to conflicts abroad he expects a advertisers to stick to a light and silly tone.“Because of the Super Bowl’s status as a pop culture event with a fun party atmosphere, the vast majority of brands will avoid any dark or divisive tone and instead allow consumers to escape from thinking about these troubled times,” he said.
Record-breaking prices
Advertisers flock to the Super Bowl each year because so many people watch the big game. In 2025, a record 127.7 million U.S. viewers watched the game across television and streaming platforms.Demand is higher than ever, since live sporting events are one of the few remaining places in the fractured media landscape where advertisers can reach a large audience. NBC sold out of ad space in September.Space sold for an average of $8 million per 30-second unit, but a handful of spots sold for $10 million-plus, a record, said Peter Lazarus, executive vice president, sports & Olympics, advertising and partnerships for NBCUniversal. He said he was calling February, with the Super Bowl, Olympics and the NBA All-Star Game, “legendary February.”Lazarus said 40% of advertisers bought across all of NBC’s major sports properties, and 70% of Super Bowl advertisers bought the Olympics as well.
Celebrities galore
Featuring celebrities is a tried-and-true way advertisers can get goodwill from viewers. This year, Fanatics Sportsbook enlists Kendall Jenner to talk about the “Kardashian Kurse,” in which bad things happen to basketball players she dates.George Clooney appears in a Grubhub add to promote a deal that the delivery app offers to “Eat the Fees” on orders of $50 or more.Several ads feature more than one celebrity or sports star. Michelob Ultra shows Kurt Russell training actor Lewis Pullman, as Olympic snowboarder Chloe Kim and hockey player T.J. Oshie watch on a ski slope.Xfinity reunites Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum in a tongue-and-cheek reimagining of “Jurassic Park” that shows an Xfinity tech bringing power back to the island so nothing goes awry.And Uber Eats enlists Matthew McConaughey for the second year in a row to convince celebrities this year it is Bradley Cooper and Parker Posey that football is a conspiracy to make people hungry so they order food.
AI takes the stage
For the second year in a row, AI is making waves in Super Bowl ads.Oakley Meta touts their AI-enabled glasses in two action-packed spots showing Spike Lee, Marshawn Lynch and others using the glasses to film video and answer questions.Wix Harmony debuted an ad that features its web design software that uses AI tools. Wix is also airing an add for Base44, an AI app builder. And OpenAI will advertise during the game with a yet-to-be revealed ad.Svedka Vodka enlisted Silverside AI, an AI studio, to help create their ad, which features their robot mascot FemBot along with a male counterpart, BroBot. They took that approach because of Svedka’s positioning as the “vodka of the future,” said Sara Saunders, chief marketing officer at Sazerac, which bought the Svedka brand in 2025.“We reimagined the robot via AI,” Saunders said. “It took us many, many months to rebuild her, to give her functionality, to give her that human spirit that we wanted to show up on behalf of the brand.”
Health and telehealth
Health and telehealth providers are everywhere during Super Bowl 60. Two pharma companies are advertising tests: Novartis touts a blood test to screen for prostate cancer with the tagline “Relax your tight end,” featuring football tight ends relaxing. Boehringer Ingelheim’s ad stars Octavia Spencer and Sofia Vergara, who encourage people to screen for kidney disease.Liquid I.V., which makes an electrolyte drink mix, has teased an ad about staying hydrated.Telehealth firm Ro is using Serena Williams in their ad for GLP-1 weigh loss drugs. Novo Nordisk, which makes Wegovy and Ozempic, has teased that it will have a spot as well.Hims & Hers another company that offers GLP-1 weight loss drugs has an ad that says the company gives people better access to health care that usually only rich people get.“You could call this the GLP-1 Super Bowl,” said Tim Calkins, a clinical professor of marketing at Northwestern University. “Often you don’t see a lot from pharmaceutical companies on the Super Bowl, but this year we’re going to see quite a few showing up.”
Tried-and-true themes
Some advertisers are sticking to the tried and true. Budweiser’s heartwarming ad shows a Clydesdale foal growing up with a bald eagle to the tune of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Free Bird.” The ad celebrates Budweiser’s 150th anniversary.And Pepsi tries to reignite the Cola wars with their ad showing polar bears Coca-Cola’s famous mascots picking Pepsi Zero Sugar over Coke Zero in a blind taste test. The ad ends with the bears being caught on a “kiss cam.”
Surprises
While the majority of Super Bowl advertisers release their ad early to try to capitalize on buzz, some hold back until game day to reveal their ad.Pepsi-owned soft drink Poppi teased that pop star Charli XCX and actress Rachel Sennott will star in their ad.Ben Affleck is back in an ad for Dunkin’ Donuts. A teaser spot showed him with ’90s sitcom legends Jennifer Aniston and Matt LeBlanc of “Friends” and Jason Alexander from “Seinfeld.”And there are fewer car advertisers this year, but Cdillac is hinting that it will show off its new Formula 1 car in an ad.
Mae Anderson, AP Business Writer
Olive Garden parent company Darden Restaurants has announced that it will shut down its Bahama Breeze restaurant chain for good. But in an unusual move, some current Bahama Breeze locations will live on as a different brand, while the remaining stores will close.
Heres what you need to know.
Whats happened?
On Tuesday, Darden Restaurants revealed the fate of one of its restaurant chains. The restaurant group, which is based in Orlando, Florida, owns LongHorn Steakhouse, Olive Garden, and Ruth’s Chris Steak House, and others. In a news release, it announced the closure and conversion of all of its Bahama Breeze restaurants.
That Darden is jettisoning Bahama Breeze is no surprise. Last May, the company closed 15 Bahama Breeze locations and, in June, it announced that the brands 28 remaining locations were no longer a strategic priority for the company.
At the time, CEO Ricardo Cadenas said the company would be considering strategic alternatives for Bahama Breeze, including a potential sale of the brand or converting restaurants to other Darden brands.
Jump forward to yesterday, and Darden did indeed confirm the final fate of Bahama Breeze.
A buyer for Bahama Breeze never materialized, so instead, the company has revealed that it will simply shut down the brand. Yet not all 28 locations are actually closing. Instead, half will shutter their doors for good, while the other half will continue running until they can be converted into locations of other restaurant chains Darden owns.
These Bahama Breeze locations will close
The following 14 Bahama Breeze locations will be closing for good. According to Darden, the closures should be completed by April 5. Those permanently closing locations include stores in nine states:
Delaware
500 Center Blvd., Newark
Georgia
3590 Breckenridge Blvd., Duluth
Florida
12395 SW 88th St., Miami
10205 Rivercoast Drive, Jacksonville
1251 West Osceola Pkwy., Kissimmee
11000 Pines Blvd., Pembroke Pines
1540 Rinehart Road, Sanford
Michigan
19600 Haggerty Road, Livonia
New Jersey
2000 Route 38, Cherry Hill
North Carolina
3309 Wake Forest Drive, Raleigh
Pennsylvania
320 Goddard Blvd., King of Prussia
6100 Robinson Center Drive, Pittsburgh
Virginia
2714 Potomac Mills Circle, Woodbridge
Washington
15700 Southcenter Pkwy., Tukwila
These Bahama Breeze locations will be converted
As for the remaining 14 Bahama Breeze locations, they will be converted into other Darden-owned restaurants. Darden did not disclose which brands the stores will transition into.
The company believes the conversion locations are great sites that will benefit several of the brands in its portfolio, Darden said in a statement.
The 14 transitioning Bahama Breeze locations are expected to continue operating until their temporary closures are needed for the conversion. Those converting locations include stores in five states:
Florida
499 E. Altamonte Drive, Altamonte Springs
805 Brandon Town Center Drive, Brandon
14701 S. Tamiami Trail, Ft. Myers
8160 Irlo Bronson Memorial Hwy., Kissimmee
25830 Sierra Center Blvd., Lutz
5620 W. Oak Ridge Road, Orlando
8849 International Drive, Orlando
8735 Vineland Ave., Orlando
1200 N. Alafaya Drive, Orlando
3045 N. Rocky Point Drive East, Tampa
Georgia
755 Earnest W. Barrett Pkwy NW, Kennesaw
North Carolina
570 Cross Creek Mall, Fayetteville
South Carolina
7811 Rivers Ave., Charleston
Virginia
4554 Virginia Beach Blvd., Virginia Beach
How is Darden Restaurants stock reacting?
It seems investors have taken the news of Bahama Breezes demise in stride, most likely because Darden had previously announced that it was seeking to divest itself of the chain.
Yesterday, shares of Darden Restaurants (NYSE: DRI) closed up about 2.2% to $205.49. As of this writing, in premarket trading, DRI shares are down slightly by about 0.4%.
So far this year, the companys stock price has risen more than 11%. That is nearly triple the return of the broader New York Stock Exchange during the same period. However, shares are currently down from their all-time high of around $228 in June of last year.
Darden’s brands, like many restaurant chains, are facing tough times as inflationary pressures increase costs and make diners more choosy about where they spend their discretionary dollars.
Darden is far from the only company closing restaurants in 2026.
In January alone, Fat Brands disclosed that it would close a number of restaurants (including some Smokey Bones, Johnny Rockets, and Yalla Mediterranean locations) as it seeks Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Meanwhile, Noodles & Company said it would close between 30 and 35 locations, and Salad and Go announced it would close more than 32 locations.
TV host, producer, author, and United Nations Development Program Goodwill Ambassador Padma Lakshmi has some candid advice for business leaders when it comes to speaking out, showing courage, and staying true to themselves, particularly amid the Trump administrations violent immigration crackdown. A passionate voice at the intersection of food, culture, and identity, Lakshmi shares how shes shaking up food media with her new series Americas Culinary Cup, and offers a refreshingly human take on modern work life.
This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former Fast Company editor-in-chief Robert Safian. 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.
Your work, the book, your Hulu show Taste the Nation, youre drawing on multicultural experience, immigrant experience. With all the stuff that’s going on right now with crackdowns on immigration, how do you feel about that? How does that impact what you’re trying to do?
I feel horrible. I feel horrible about all of it. It’s unconscionable, it’s unethical, it’s immoral. It’s antithetical to what this country has not only been about, but what makes it so unique and singular on the world stage. I mean, there are more migration today on Earth than there has been in the history of humankind, but America in particular is shaped and evolved into the superpower it is because of immigration, specifically because of immigration. Because we are able to attract talent from around the world and with the promise of, you can make your life here peacefully, and in turn, in exchange, make America better through whatever skill you bring, however you contribute to the economy, to the educational system, to the medical system, or whatever.
And I think it is very shortsighted of this administration. I mean, it’s racist. Of course it’s racist. Let’s just call a spade a spade, but it’s also from pragmatic view, really stupid because first of all, all you have to do is open your social media to see this farmer who voted for Trump crying about carrots in his field that cannot be harvested because all of the people are scared and have run away and not come to work. We can thank Trump for that. He can thank Trump for losing his family farm, and if anyone else wants to pick that vegetable or fruit under those conditions for that money, they would have, but they don’t.
When I talk to and ask business leaders about this kind of question, there’s a lot of wariness about being as clear about the way they feel as you are being here. They’re worried about poking the administration. They’re worried about alienating customers, potential audiences.
I understand.
Do you worry about that?
I know that I turn some people who don’t think like me off. I know that I cannot credibly be anyone but who I am, and I think that me leaning into who I am has made me sleep better at night, but also has brought me a modicum of success that I feel I’ve earned. And so yes, of course I’m afraid of losing business, but I’m more afraid of losing my soul.
Your new show is on CBS. You’ve talked about what great partners they’ve been. CBS itself has been a little bit of a lightning rod with the Paramount and Warner Bros. deal and what’s happening at Stephen Colbert’s show or 60 Minutes. Have you felt any of that?
To be honest, I have not because I’m not in the news department. I personally think food is very political, but the show we are making is not at all political.
You’re also a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador. The environment around the U.N. has become more fraught also with this administration. Is what you hear when you go to other countries as an ambassador about America, is that changing?
I mean, it’s been changing for 10 years. It’s not just changing now. I remember having a book tour in India, early 2017, and I felt like I was Trump’s press secretary. People kept saying, “What is going on?” And so all I could say was, “I’m so sorry.” I kept apologizing and saying, “I’m so sorry. I didn’t vote for him. On behalf of all Americans, we are sorry,” and those such innocent times. But that was happening even 10 years ago, and I think it’s a shame because we have squandered a lot of the goodwill that America had in spite of its very questionable foreign policy for decades and decades.
We still had a lot of goodwill because we were that beacon on the hill. We were that shining light that said, “Listen, we don’t care where you’re from. As long as your values align with American values, i.e., the Declaration of Independence, i.e., the Bill of Rights, i.e., the Constitution, you too have a fair shot in this country.” And that is a beautiful sentiment, that the only club there is is what your efforts bring to the table or what your assets or resources, however you want to say it. That is a wonderful thing and very unique and something that I think every American can feel proud of, but it’s going to take decades to repair a lot of the damage that has been done and it’s too late. It’s too late to go back to how it was.
That peoples’ trust in what we say we are as Americans doesn’t
No, not that, because I think people are intelligent enough to make the distinction between one man and his administration in office and the average American citizen. I mean it’s too late for, no matter what they do, what this administration does with ICE or border patrol or any of the other ways they’re trying to impede the natural progression of what this country looks like, they want a white America. They do. They want only European descendants to be in this country, and it’s too late.
It’s too late. Who’s going to program your computers? Who’s going to be your cardiac surgeon? And also the thing that is terrible, and I want to get away from this for a second, it’s not only about what you can contribute to this country, okay? A person’s worth should not only be based on their skills or resources. There’s nothing that is more valuable between my child and that child in the Congo and Gaza, in Brazil. My child’s blood is just as red as theirs. When we see each other that way, that will be a turning point, but this administration does not hold that belief at all.
You integrate all of this into your work though, too, right?
I’m lucky. I’m very fortunate, and I know this, to be able to make a living out of what naturally interests me. I didn’t get into food professionally until I was in my late twenties or almost 30, and so I was a literature and theater major. I was an actress, and then I made this change. Most of us spend most of our life at work, and so you’ve got to believe in what you’re doing because work is hard regardless. Even when you do, there are very difficult days and that’s why they call it work. So I think the more ou can find a way to spend your time doing things guided by your principles, the happier one will be.
My producers were talking about the videos that you post with your daughter and how genuine your connection is to your community. A lot of the listeners of the show, they’re business people who are trying to come across as being authentic in their communications internally, social media, otherwise. Do you have a suggestion about how you do that?
It was hard. For so long, especially when I was still an actor, I tried so hard to figure out and be what any one person who could give me the job wanted me to be. I mean, it’s inherent when you’re an actor, I guess. But I have now realized that there’s a difference between trying to be authentic and just being authentic. One is conscious of an observer, of an audience. The other is not conscious of the self being observed. So obviously my videos are edited. They’re also edited to protect my child and certain privacy issues in my home. But I am like, I am on those videos whether the camera is on or off, which is different, obviously. That’s a different version of me than you see on my television shows or in my op-eds for The Times or The Washington Post.
How can corporate leaders be more authentic? The only piece of advice I have for them, especially when they’re doing media, whether it’s just an internal video or it’s something public facing, try to do it without the camera on or try to do it when you don’t know the camera’s on and someone on your staff that you trust, try not to be aware of being watched.
I was a latchkey kid.
Most afternoons, I came home to an empty house, let myself in with my own key, and figured it outhomework and snacks. There was inherent trust from my parents that Id figure it out, and everything would be alright.
You learned fast. If you got stuck, you improvised. If you were scared, you got practical. If you needed help, you decided whether it was worth bothering anyone. And if you were the oldestif you were parentifiedyou were given responsibilities without guidance, expected to just know.
Thirty years later, Im watching middle managers experience the exact same thing.
We hand them keys instead of house rules, responsibilities instead of resources, and expectations instead of authoritythen act surprised when theyre exhausted, disengaged, or quietly looking for a way out.
Harvard Business Review recently reported that middle managers feel less psychologically safe than their bosses and their teams. That should stop us in our tracks, because middle managers are the layer we rely on to translate strategy into realityand reality into feedback that leaders can actually use.
Middle managers arent failing. Theyre experiencing organizational latchkey syndrome: Theyre isolated, underresourced, expected to figure it out, and blamed when things break.
The anatomy of organizational latchkey syndrome
Middle management strain isnt mysterious. Its structural. And it tends to show up in three predictable conditions.
1) Responsibility without resources
Many middle managers are promoted because they were excellent individual contributorsnot because anyone developed their leadership capacity. They inherit people management and culture the way latchkey kids inherited independence: abruptly, without training, with a quiet expectation that theyll rise to it.
And the scope keeps expanding. A Gusto analysis (reported by Axios) shows managers span of control has roughly doubled in recent years, from about three direct reports in 2019 to nearly six by 2024. Thats more emotional labormore check-ins, more conflict, more coaching, more criseswithout more time. (You can read the underlying Gusto write-up here.)
2) Accountability without authority
This one is the quiet killer.
Many middle managers are told they have autonomy, but what they actually have is responsibility for outcomes without control over inputs.
Theyre accountable for performance, but key decisions get overridden. Theyre asked to drive engagement, but cant influence the policies that drain morale. So they manage the gap between what people need and what the organization is willing to support.
That gap becomes a daily exercise in emotional labor: translating strategy into reality, making contradictions sound coherent, and absorbing frustration without passing it up.
Its not autonomy. Its abandonment with a title.
Heres what that looks like in real life: A manager is expected to improve engagement scores but cant approve a raise, adjust workloads, or backfill an open role. Theyre told to retain top talent, but the promotion path is unclear and compensation decisions live two levels above them. So they become the messenger for decisions they didnt makeand the buffer for frustration they cant solve.
3) Connection without cover
Heres the question I rarely hear anyone ask: Who can middle managers actually be safe with?
They cant be fully candid with their boss because theyre expected to look like they have it together. They cant fully exhale with their team because theyre expected to provide steadiness. And they cant always be honest with peers when everyone is competing for scarce resources and recognition.
So they do what latchkey kids do: They hold it alone.
They become the ones sitting at the lunch table keeping everyone else companywhile they eat by themselves.
The psychological safety paradox
Organizations are asking middle managers to create psychological safety for their teams while failing to create it for them. Thats not just unfair. Its strategically shortsighted.
Psychological safety is permission to raise problems, admit uncertainty, ask for help, and tell the truth without punishment or humiliation. Middle managers are often the only group expected to do that up and down while being safe in neither direction.
If speaking up makes them look incompetent, theyll stop speaking up. If flagging risk is political, theyll manage optics instead of reality. If vulnerability gets weaponized, theyll teach their teams to keep their heads downnot by instruction, but by example.
This is how a culture becomes emotionally unsafe while still talking about emotional intelligence, and why leadership pipelines start to break.
Why your current solutions arent working
Many companies respond to middle manager strain with quick fixes: a wellness app, encouragement to set boundaries, training on psychological safety, a reminder to use the employee assistance program.
Those supports can help. But they can also become a way to avoid the real conversation: You cant self-care your way out of a structurally unsafe role.
You cant keep demanding emotional intelligence while designing work that forces managers to stay in constant survival mode.
In my work, I call this a W.E.L.L gap: We ask leaders to model well-being, emotional intelligence, psychological safety, and sustainable self-careinside systems that undermine all four.
What needs to change
This isnt primarily a training problem. Its a design problem. Heres what actually helps.
For senior leaders
Model the behaviors you want repeated. Invite candor before you demand it. Reward early risk-flagging instead of punishing the messenger.
Make priorities real. Decide what matters mostand what will wait.
Clarify decision rights. If managers are responsible for outcomes, they need authority over inputs. If they dont have that authority, stop pretending they doand stop evaluating them as if they did.
Protect their capacity. If you flatten layers, expand scope, and speed up change, you cant also expect deep coaching, high connection, and flawless execution. Something has to give. Choose intentionally.
For HR and People Ops
Prepare people before promotion. Dont wait until after the promotion to teach coaching, feedback, conflict navigation, and psychological safety. The accidental manager pipeline is a predictable culture leak.
Create manager-safe spaces. Peer cohorts, confidential coaching, facilitated circlesplaces wheremanagers can say, I dont know without it becoming a ping on their performance review.
Build respected paths for non-managers. If leadership is the only path to status, youll keep promoting people who dont want the joband burning out the ones who do.
Measure psychological safety by layer, not as an org average. If middle managers are the lowest-scoring group, you have a structural bottleneck. Treat it like one.
Stop leaving your leaders home alone
Latchkey kids often grow into capable adults. They become resourceful, responsible, self-directed. They also learn how to carry too much without asking for support.
If your middle managers are struggling, its not because theyre weak. Its because the organization is asking them to be the stable center of a system that wont stabilize itself.
This is how execution quietly breaks: Priorities blur, feedback stops traveling upward, burnout rises, and the leadership pipeline thins right when you need it most.
Survival shouldnt be the standard for your culture.
Its time to stop leaving your middle managers home alone.
