Picture a jazz quartet mid-performance. The bassist anchors the rhythm with meticulous precisionyears of practice evident in every note. The saxophonist, meanwhile, closes her eyes and ventures into uncharted melodic territory, responding to something she heard in the drummers improvised fill three bars ago. What youre witnessing isnt chaos, nor is it rigid execution. Its something far more valuable: the dynamic interplay between discipline and imagination that produces work no one has ever heard before.
This is exactly the capability that distinguishes organizations that merely survive disruption from those that shape it.
In an era defined by the rapid-fire shifts of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the ubiquity of AI, many organizations find themselves chasing the prize of innovation without understanding the engine that drives it: creativity. Too often, leaders mistake innovation for a purely technical or systemic process, forgetting that it is actually a human competency rooted in a dynamic tension between two seemingly opposite forces. This is where the WonderRigor method becomes a vital strategic tool for the modern professional.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/i-16x9-figure-thinking.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/i-16x9-figure-thinking_0b545c.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cem\u003EWonderRigor Newsletter\u003C\/em\u003E","dek":"Want more insights, tools, and invitations from Dr. Natalie Nixon about applying creativity for meaningful business results and the future of work? Subscribe \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/urldefense.proofpoint.com\/v2\/url?u=https-3A__figure-2D8-2Dthinking-2Dllc.kit.com_sign-2Dup\u0026amp;d=DwMFaQ\u0026amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM\u0026amp;r=xHenyQfyc6YcuCNMBsOvfYGQILM1d1ruredVZikn4HE\u0026amp;m=F383gnrChFhYKPhcpNHI1hY3o58IHIn_LkB5QJDrs3G5Wfft-DcucUO4UEmGO7GZ\u0026amp;s=JlJm7GyKCJvPW0jyrsfTFtinteKDitN13vfPZiuJnP8\u0026amp;e=\u0022 target=\u0022_blank\u0022 rel=\u0022noreferrer noopener\u0022\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E for the free WonderRigor newsletter at Figure8Thinking.com","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"http:\/\/Figure8Thinking.com","theme":{"bg":"#3b3f46","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#6e8ba6","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91470060,"imageMobileId":91470061,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
What is WonderRigor?
WonderRigor is the ability to toggle between wonder and rigor to solve problems and deliver novel value. Rather than treating these concepts as oppositesthe dreamer versus the doerthe method recognizes them as a chaordic system: a blend of chaos and order that mirrors how creativity actually works in the real world.
Wonder is our capacity to exercise awe, to pause, and to ask audacious blue-sky questions like What if? It requires what the Italians call il dolce far nientethe sweetness of doing nothingto allow assumptions to suspend and ideas to marinate. Wonder is the CEO who, instead of immediately optimizing the quarterly report, asks her team: What problem would our customers pay us to solve that we havent even imagined yet?
Rigor is our capacity for discipline, deep skill, and time on task for mastery. Its the backstage machinationsthe hard, sweaty work that anchors the wonder and ensures a project actually reaches completion. Rigor is the product designer who spends six months testing prototypes, the financial analyst who builds seventeen iterations of a model before presenting to the board, the writer who revises the same paragraph until it finally sings.
Heres the insight that changes everything: rigor cannot be sustained without wonder, and wonder is often found in the midst of rigor. The designer who tests those seventeen prototypes isnt just grindingshes paying close enough attention to notice the unexpected behavior in prototype twelve that sparks a breakthrough. The analyst who rebuilds his model is cultivating the pattern recognition that allows him to see opportunity where others see noise.
By intentionally toggling between these two states, individuals and teams can increase their Creativity Quotient (CQ) and navigate the complex, wicked problems that lack linear solutionswhich is to say, nearly every problem worth solving today.
The Four Situational Modalities: Which problem-solving persona does this moment require?
Theory is useful, but leaders need tools. The WonderRigor method provides four situational modalitiesor personasthat help teams determine how to approach a specific challenge. These are not fixed traits or personality types. Theyre lenses to try on depending on the needs of the moment, the way you might switch between different pairs of glasses depending on whether youre reading a contract or scanning a horizon.
1. Specialize: when precision is the priority
The Specialize modality is high on rigor, lower on wonder. You choose it when the situation demands deep expertise, proven methods, and meticulous attention to detail.
When to use it: Youre a surgical team performing a complex procedure. Youre an accounting firm closing the books on a major audit. Youre a manufacturing team where a 0.01% defect rate has real consequences. In these contexts, creativity lives in the micro-refinements, the accumulated wisdom of repetitive practice, the ability to execute flawlessly under pressure.
The risk: Specialization becomes dangerous when its the only mode you inhabit. The specialist who never lifts her head develops blind spots. She may be so focused on optimizing existing processes that she misses the industry shift that makes those processes obsolete.
In practice: A global logistics company had spent years perfecting their warehouse operations. Their specialists could move products with stunning efficiencyand they were completely blindsided when a competitor introduced drone delivery. They had specialized themselves into strategic irrelevance. The solution wasnt to abandon specialization, but to create deliberate moments where specialists stepped out of their expertise to explore adjacent possibilities.
2. Hack: when speed trumps perfection
The Hack modality prioritizes expediency over polish. Youre working with what you have, moving fast, and tolerating imperfection in service of momentum.
When to use it: Your startup needs a minimum viable product by next week. Your team faces an unexpected crisis that requires immediate workarounds. The market window is closing and good enough today beats perfect in six months.
The risk: Hack mode can become an addiction. Teams that never leave it accumulate technical debt, cut corners that eventually collapse, and mistake activity for achievement. The quick fix becomes the permanent solution, which becomes the source of next years crisis.
In practice: During the early pademic, restaurants had 48 hours to pivot to takeout-only models. This was hack mode at its best: owners repurposing parking lots, creating menu items that traveled well, cobbling together delivery partnerships. The restaurants that thrived, however, were those who eventually transitioned out of hack modewho took what they learned during the scramble and systematized it through specialization, or reimagined it entirely through invention.
3. Provoke: when you need to blow up the status quo
The Provoke modality sits high on wonder, lower on rigor. Its characterized by audacious, imaginative thinking that shakes others out of their assumptions.
When to use it: The team is stuck in groupthink. Everyone is optimizing a business model that may not deserve to exist. The organization has been asking the same questions for so long that no one notices theyre the wrong questions.
The risk: Without rigor to ground it, provocation becomes loosey-gooseyexciting conversations that never translate into action. The perpetual provocateur can damage their credibility if theyre seen as someone who loves to challenge but never builds.
In practice: When streaming was still a radical concept, the provocateurs inside Netflix asked: What if we put ourselves out of business before someone else does? That questionwhich seemed absurd to a company making billions from DVD rentalscreated the space for transformation. But the provocation only mattered because Netflix also had the rigor to execute on what the question revealed.
4. Invent: the synthesis that creates new markets
The Invent modality is where wonder and rigor achieve balance. Its the space of the true thought leader, the market creator, the person who shapes categories rather than competing within them.
When to use it: Youre not solving an existing problemyoure defining a new one. Youre creating a product that customers dont yet know they need. Youre building something that will make your current offerings obsolete.
The requirement: Invention demands that youve spent equal time in the trenches working out kinks and in the clouds dreaming audaciously. You cannot skip directly to this modality. The inventor has done the reps; she has the intuition that only comes from deep practice combined with broad curiosity.
In practice: When Apple introduced the iPhone, they werent improving existing phonesthey were inventing a new category. But that invention was only possible because Apple had spent years both specializing (obsessive attention to industrial design, user interface) and provoking (asking what a computer in your pocket really meant). The iPhone felt right because it balanced high expertise with sharp intuitionthe hallmark of the Invent modality.
Putting it together: the art of situational toggle
The power of WonderRigor lies not in finding the right modality and staying there, but in developing the situational awareness to know which lens the current moment requiresand the agility to shift when circumstances change.
Consider a product development team working on a major launch. In the early ideation phase, they might operate primarily in Provoke mode: challenging assumptions, asking heretical questions, exploring possibilities that seem impractical. As concepts solidify, they shift toward Hack mode: quickly prototyping, testing rough versions, building momentum through iteration. As the launch approaches, Specialize mode takes over: refining details, ensuring quality, executing with precision. And throughout the process, the best teams maintain awareness of when they might be ready for an Inventiona leap that transcends iteration.
The trap that most organizations fall into is getting stuck. They specialize forever, never questioning their approach until disruption forces them to. They hack indefinitely, accumulating shortcuts that eventually collapse. They provoke without building, mistaking critique for contribution. Or they attempt invention without earning ittrying to leapfrog into thought leadership without the rigor foundation that makes real invention possible.
Think like a jazz musician
Return to that jazz quartet. What makes their performance compelling isnt just the technical skill (though they have it) or the bold improvisation (though they do that too). Its the togglingthe bassist who knows when to lock into a steady groove and when to take a melodic risk, the saxophonist who has practiced scales for thousands of hours precisely so she can forget them in the moment of creation.
This is what WonderRigor offers the modern professional: not a rigid framework, but a practiced flexibility. The ability to move between discipline and imagination, between execution and exploration, between the known and the possible. In a business landscape where yesterdays expertise can become tomorrows liability, this capacity to toggle isnt a nice-to-haveits the fundamental skill that separates those who shape the future from those who merely react to it.
The next time you face a complex challenge, dont ask Whats the solution? First ask: Which modality does this moment require? Then be prepared to shift as the music changes.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/i-16x9-figure-thinking.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/i-16x9-figure-thinking_0b545c.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cem\u003EWonderRigor Newsletter\u003C\/em\u003E","dek":"Want more insights, tools, and invitations from Dr. Natalie Nixon about applying creativity for meaningful business results and the future of work? Subscribe \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/urldefense.proofpoint.com\/v2\/url?u=https-3A__figure-2D8-2Dthinking-2Dllc.kit.com_sign-2Dup\u0026amp;d=DwMFaQ\u0026amp;c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM\u0026amp;r=xHenyQfyc6YcuCNMBsOvfYGQILM1d1ruredVZikn4HE\u0026amp;m=F383gnrChFhYKPhcpNHI1hY3o58IHIn_LkB5QJDrs3G5Wfft-DcucUO4UEmGO7GZ\u0026amp;s=JlJm7GyKCJvPW0jyrsfTFtinteKDitN13vfPZiuJnP8\u0026amp;e=\u0022 target=\u0022_blank\u0022 rel=\u0022noreferrer noopener\u0022\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E for the free WonderRigor newsletter at Figure8Thinking.com","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"http:\/\/Figure8Thinking.com","theme":{"bg":"#3b3f46","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#6e8ba6","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91470060,"imageMobileId":91470061,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
In December 2025, Andrea Lucas, the chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, invited white men to file more sex- and race-based discrimination complaints against their employers.
Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex? You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws. Contact the @USEEOC as soon as possible, she wrote in a post on X.
In February 2026, the EEOC began to investigate Nike on what the agency said was suspicion of discrimination against white workers.
Both initiatives followed the EEOCs March 2025 characterization of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, or DEI, as potentially discriminatory against white men. The EEOC characterization falls within the Trump administrations larger pattern of calling DEI illegal discrimination.
At the Center for Employment Equity at the University of Massachusetts, we have done extensive research on who files discrimination charges with the EEOC.
Given the EEOCs December 2025 solicitation for white men to file discrimination complaints, we revisited our prior research to see what is known about discrimination against white people and, in particular, what is known about white and white male discrimination charges registered with the EEOC.
As part of our research, the EEOC gave us access to discrimination charges submitted to the agency and state Fair Employment Practices Agencies from 2012 to 2016. By law, all U.S. employment discrimination claims must be submitted to the EEOC, or state agencies with equivalent roles, prior to any legal actions.
While the EEOC has a history of sharing its data with researchers stretching back to the 1970s, the EEOC stopped sharing current and historical data with researchers in 2016. As a result, we do not have any data on discrimination complaints after 2016. Judging by the EEOCs yearly reports, the basic patterns have not changed much in the interim.
White men already file complaints
When we looked at all sex- and race-based discrimination charges received by the EEOC, unsurprisingly we found that men are much less likely than women to file sex-based discrimination charges. But white men do file about 10% of sex discrimination complaints. While Black, Hispanic, and Asian male employees are more likely to file racial discrimination complaints, white men file about 9% of such complaints.
In the same study, when we compared legal charges filed with the EEOC to national survey data, we found that percentages submitting a legal complaint to the EEOC roughly correspond to the percentages of survey-reported experiences of discrimination at work. Together, these two findings suggest that white people generally, and white men in particular, were already filing employment discrimination charges.
Second, we did a deeper dive on sexual harassment charges. We found that while white men were 46% of the labor force, they filed 11% of sexual harassment charges and 11% of all other charges, most commonly tied to disability and age.
The general pattern is that, while white men already file discrimination charges, they are less likely to experience employment discrimination than other groups.
The risk of filing complaints
Charges filed with the EEOC can result in two types of benefits to the charging party: monetary settlements and mandated changes in workplace practices.
White men who filed sexual harassment charges received some benefit 21% of the timelower than white women, at 29%. Thats also lower than Black women, at 23%, and higher than Black men, at 19%. The EEOC already receives discrimination charges from white men and, at least for sexual harassment, treats them similarly to other groups.
Most people who submit a discrimination charge do so to improve their employment experience and those of their co-workers. But submitting these claims to the EEOC or a state Fair Employment Practices Agency is a high-risk, low-reward act.
We found that, at least for sexual harassment, employers responded to white mens complaints in much the same way as to other groups. White men who filed sexual harassment discrimination charges lost their job 68% of the time and experienced employer retaliation at about the same rate. Retaliation can include firing but also other forms of harassment at work, such as abusive supervision and close monitoring by human resource departments.
We found this pattern of employer retaliation and worker firings for all demographic groups that file any type of discrimination complaint. White men who file discrimination charges receive the same harsh treatment from their employers as any other group.
Urging more white men to submit discrimination complaints based on the perceived unfairness of DEI practices, as the EEOC has done, is likely to lead to job loss and retaliation from employers.
What will happen?
Its possible that EEOC chair Lucas call for more discrimination charges from white men will increase the number of filings.
This is exactly what happened after 2012 when the EEOC ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Acts prohibition of sex discrimination also protected LGBTQ workers from sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination.
More concerning is the EEOC defining employer efforts to prevent discrimination and create inclusive workplaces as discrimination against white men.
In the end, all workers want to be treated fairly and with respect. Employer efforts to create such workplaces should be supported. It would be a better use of EEOC resources to support companies efforts to create such workplaces.
Donald T. Tomaskovic-Devey is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Employment Equity at UMass Amherst.
Steven Boutcher is an associate professor of social science research at UMass Amherst.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Figmas fourth-quarter earnings report arrived on Wednesday afternoon with a notable claim from one of its top executives: AI should complement, not replace, employees.
Its a bold statement from the leader of a tech company at a moment when many are scaling back.
We don’t see it as a tool that replaces our talent, but rather how can we augment the team that we already have, Figma CFO Praveer Melwani said during Figma’s earnings call. So we will continue to hire, but we will be able to complement that with efficiency gained by some of the tools out there as well.
The comment came in response to an analysts question about how AI might impact Figmas research and development.
Figma is enjoying better-than-expected growth
According to Figmas fourth-quarter earnings report, the strategy just might be working. The company reached $303.8 million in revenue, a 40% increase year over year. It also beat Wall Streets expectation of $293.15 million, according to consensus estimates cited by CNBC.
Figma further predicts that it will reach $315 to $317 million in revenue for the first quarter of 2026. This result would bring an average of 38% year-over-year growth.
In response, shares of Figma Inc. (NYSE: FIG) rose over 16% in after-hours trading. By midday Thursday, the stock’s price was still up almost 8%.
Software companies have faced falling stocks amid AI fears
Melwanis call to not overly rely on AI tools comes as the company has faced sliding share prices around that very topic, with investors growing worried about the impact of AI tools on software platforms.
Figma opened at $85 per share during its IPO last July, reaching over $115 on its first day. However, it started a mostly downward trajectory soon after. February has seen Figmas shares hover in the low- to mid-$20sfalling more than 79% since that first day and over 35% year to date.
Artificial intelligence plays a significant part in Figmas offerings. The company launched Figma Make last year, a prompt tool with AI-powered design capabilities, along with a range of AI features.
Figma offers AI credits based on each users plan and will allow the purchase of additional credits starting March 11. Teams can track their credit usage in a shared billing dashboard.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday invited leaders of some of the top artificial intelligence companies to gather on stage as part of a commitment to build more inclusive and multilingual AI around the world.
And they did. But what caught some of the audience’s attention, and later went viral on social media, was an awkward interaction between two rival tech leaders: OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei.
Modi, host of the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi, clasped hands with those closest to him Altman to his left and Google CEO Sundar Pichai to his right and beckoned all 13 tech leaders to lift their hands up in a chain, like theater actors at the end of a show.
Everyone was holding hands except for Altman and Amodei, who stood next to each other but for several seconds awkwardly avoided hand contact. Both eventually put up their fists instead.
The interaction quickly became a visual symbol of the deep rivalries in the AI industry, particularly between OpenAI and Anthropic, though Altman sought to brush off any deeper meaning.
I didn’t know what was happening, Altman later said in a video interview with Indian media outlet Moneycontrol. He said he was confused, like when (Modi) grabbed my hand and put it up, and I just wasnt sure what we were supposed to be doing.
Anthropic declined to comment.
The two AI developers have a history, one that predates the creation of OpenAI’s hit product, ChatGPT, and Anthropic’s competing chatbot Claude.
Amodei worked at OpenAI before he and a group that included his sister, Daniela Amodei, quit to form Anthropic in 2021. The newer company promised a clearer focus on the safety of the better-than-human technology called artificial general intelligence that both San Francisco firms aim to build.
OpenAI first released ChatGPT in late 2022, revealing the huge commercial potential of AI large language models that could help write emails and computer code and answer questions. Anthropic followed with its first version of Claude in 2023.
Their different approaches spilled over into public debate earlier this month in the United States when Anthropic aired TV commercials during the Super Bowl that ridiculed OpenAI for the digital advertising its beginning to place in free and cheaper versions of ChatGPT.
While Anthropic has centered its revenue model on selling Claude to other businesses, OpenAI has opened the doors to ads as a way of making money from the hundreds of millions of consumers who get ChatGPT for free. Altman took to social media to criticize the TV commercials as dishonest.
Sheikh Saaliq and Matt O’Brien, Associated Press
On the heels of his recent political hit song “Streets of Minneapolis,” about President Donald Trump’s deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents into that city, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band have announced the spring 2026 dates for their “Land of Hope and Dreams” tour, dubbing it the “No Kings” tour (in reference to a series of massive nationwide anti-Trump protests).
The tour kicks off in Minneapolis on March 31. Last month, Springsteen performed his political single there, during a live benefit concert organized by former Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello.
Springsteen also dedicated his song “Promised Land” to Renee Good during a recent concert in his home state of New Jersey, and spoke out against the president and ICE.
“Right now, we are living through incredibly critical times,” Springsteen told the audience. “The values and the ideas [of the United States] have never been as endangered as they are right now.”
Springsteen continued: “If you believe in democracy, in liberty, if you believe truth still matters, and it’s worth speaking out and worth fighting for, if you believe in the power of law and that no one stands above it, if you stand against heavily armed masked federal troops invading an American city, using gestapo tactics against our fellow citizens . . . send a message to this president . . . ICE should get the fuck out of Minneapolis.”
Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on January 7, and ICU nurse Alex Pretti, also 37, was fatally shot by two federal agents on January 24.
The movement is growing, and were glad to have the Boss join the chorus,” said Eunic Epstein-Ortiz, a national spokesperson for the “No Kings” organizing group. “He understands what Americans know: We dont do kings.
What are the dates for Bruce Springsteen’s “No Kings” tour?
Springsteen’s tour dates are as follows:
March 31: Minneapolis, MN Target Center
April 3: Portland, OR Moda Center
April 7: Inglewood, CA Kia Forum
April 9: Inglewood, CA Kia Forum
April 13: San Francisco, CA Chase Center
April 16: Phoenix, AZ Mortgage Matchup Center
April 20: Newark, NJ Prudential Center
April 23: Sunrise, FL Amerant Bank Arena
April 26: Austin, TX Moody Center
April 29: Chicago, IL United Center
May 2: Atlanta, GA State Farm Arena
May 5: Belmont Park, NY UBS Arena
May 8: Philadelphia, PA Xfinity Mobile Arena
May 11: New York, NY Madison Square Garden
May 14: Brooklyn, NY Barclays Center
June 6: New York, NY Madison Square Garden
June 19: Pittsburgh, PA PPG Paints Arena
June 22: Cleveland, OH Rocket Arena
June 24: Boston, MA TD Garden
June 27: Washington, D.C. Nationals Park
Tickets go on sale Friday, February 20, and Saturday, February 21.
When is the next “No Kings” protest?
The third “No Kings” nationwide protest is scheduled to take place in a little over a month, on March 28.
More than 1,000 locally organized events in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., are already confirmed, including gatherings in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Organizers predict the March event will be even larger than the previous ones. In June, more than 5 million people attended the first “No Kings” protests. The movement grew to over 7 million people at the second “No Kings” protests in October.
Eileen Gu, the 22-year-old Chinese freeskier who just became the most decorated Olympian in women’s freestyle skiing, stood up for herself when speaking to a reporter at a press conference this week. In doing so, the skier unwittingly gave women everywhere an absolute masterclass in knowing their worth.
The skier, who previously earned a gold medal and two silvers at the Beijing winter games in 2022, has earned two more silver medals at the current Milan Cortina games, becoming the most decorated athlete in her sport. And she’s not finished yetGu is still set to compete in the women’s halfpipe qualifier on Thursday and the halfpipe final on Saturday. The skier is also the only female freeskier to compete in three disciplines (slopestyle, halfpipe and big air) at the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Regardless of the athlete’s incredible run thus far, a reporter asked Gu a question that raised some eyebrows on Monday. Most notably, Gu’s.
The reporter asked the Olympian whether she was proud of her two new silver medals, or if she considered them to be “two golds lost.” The question seemed to minimize Gu’s incredible accomplishments in her sport, given her success. However, the athlete (who burst out laughing at first) did not shy away from making one thing abundantly clear: no one is going to cast a shadow over her or her achievements.
Gu launched into an articulate and fierce response that was brimming with self-assuredness.
Im the most decorated female freeskier in history, I think thats an answer in and of itself,” she began. How do I say this? Winning a medal at the Olympics is a life-changing experience for every athlete. Doing it five times is exponentially harder because every medal is equally hard for me, but everybody elses expectations rise, right?”
She continued: The two medals lost situation, to be quite frank with you, I think is kind of a ridiculous perspective to take. Im showcasing my best skiing, Im doing things that quite literally have never been done before so I think that is more than good enough, but thank you.
The exchange was nothing short of extraordinary. Not just because the question was, well, embarrassing (for the reporter), but because it showed that you can be the most decorated female athlete in your sport and still have your accomplishments diminished.
More frustratingly, it’s hard to imagine a male athlete being asked if he considered his Olympic medals a failure.
Still, the phenomenon of diminishing women’s most incredible accomplishments isn’t new. In fact, most successful women experience it at some point. According to a 2023 study led by Women of Influence+, women in the workplace feel persistently penalized for being ambitious. In a survey of 4,710 respondents across 103 countries, over 86% of women said they experienced being undermined, cut down, or diminished due to their success. Who is doing the cutting down? When it comes to successful women, usually, a man. Specifically, it’s male leaders who are the most likely to dim women’s accomplishments, the survey found.
For women, that’s part of why being at the top of your game can feel like a blessing and a curse. Because while women often feel they have to work harder than men to get recognized, earning their keep can also come with this unpleasant side effect.
Thankfully, Gu just showed us exactly how to stand tall, own our success, and name our accomplishments in the face of dismissal.
Because, whether you’re on top of a mountain, or starting at the lowest rung in the officethere will likely be someone who doubts you no matter what. Knowing your worth is the only surefire way to win.
For all the talk from employers who claim to understand the needs of working parents, childcare benefits remain elusive in many workplaces.
Surveys have repeatedly shown that employees strongly value these benefits, which can run the gamut from childcare subsidies to backup care options. As working parents have demanded more from their employers, these perks have grown in popularity in certain workplaces, alongside more generous parental leave policies.
But the companies that offer childcare benefits are still in the minority.
The latest edition of an annual study from national childcare provider KinderCare compiled in partnership with the Harris Poll finds that one in three employers do not offer any kind of childcare benefits. And yet, the vast majority of parents surveyed85%said childcare benefits were essential, on par with health insurance and retirement benefits.
Childcare ranks as a top-three benefit
Of the more than 2,500 respondents, 70% expressed that health insurance was the most crucial workplace benefit, while 56% cited paid time off. But childcare ranked just after healthcare and PTOmaking it one of the top three benefits that was most important to working parents. For a quarter of low-income parents, childcare was actually the leading benefit.
Even when companies do offer childcare benefits, however, many working parents find that there is little clarity around what that means for them.
Over half of the people surveyed said it was difficult to understand my current childcare benefits, while 71% claimed their employer rarely highlights support for working parents. In fact, 69% said it was a red flag if a company did not broach the subject of support for parents during a job interview.
Less support equals more pressure
These findings underscore the bind many working parents find themselves in, as they struggle to juggle their caregiving responsibilities and cover the sky-high cost of childcare.
A growing number of parents now expect their employers to help them bridge the gap, in no small part because raising children can take a toll on their careers and require a job with more flexibility. KinderCare found that over 60% of people surveyed would reduce their hours or take on a less demanding jobor had already done sodue to their childcare needs.
That was even more common among low-income parents, with 80% of them saying they had switched jobs or would consider doing so because of childcare issues.
Younger parents who identified as Gen Z were also more likely to make career changes to accommodate having children. Two-thirds of parents say that unreliable childcare has had an impact on their productivity at work, while about three in four parents say that even jobs with more flexibility still put implicit pressure on them to be always available.
Women bearing the bruntagain
The lack of adequate support is impacting plenty of working parents, as this study makes evident: Over half of the parents surveyed by KinderCare claim to be searching for new jobs that promise better childcare benefits, and 60% worry they will have to dial back work commitments to accommodate their parenting duties.
But it is women who often bear the brunt of caregiving responsibilitiesand, in turn, tend to get penalized in the workplace for those obligations.
During the pandemic, many women were forced to step away from work when their childcare arrangements fell through and schools went remote, which left them struggling to continue working while watching their children. After years of a strong recovery, working mothers seem to be facing hurdles yet again, as childcare costs continue to climb and perks like remote work have slipped away; the Trump administration has also repeatedly targeted childcare funding for low-income families.
In 2025, about 212,000 women exited the workforce between January and June; according to a Washington Post analysis, the number of working mothers between the ages of 25 and 44 dropped by nearly three percentage points. The December jobs report showed that 81,000 workers left the labor forceand an analysis by the National Womens Law Center revealed that all of those workers were women.
Theres a lot at stake for companies that fail to invest in childcare benefits or support workers who are parents, between employee turnover and declining productivity. In the KinderCare study, nearly 80% of people surveyed said they would be more loyal to their employer if they felt more supported as parents.
As working parents increasingly look to their employers to help navigate childcare challenges, companies have an opportunityand perhaps a responsibility, too, to try and retain some of their best workers.
The Reeses brand just took a hit from an unlikely source: the descendant of its founder.
In 1919, H.B. Reese created his eponymous candy company. In 1928, he invented the flagship peanut butter cups that would define his brand, and in 1963, his sons sold the company to The Hershey Co. Now, H.B. Reeses grandson Brad Reese is standing up for his grandpas original recipe, alleging that Hershey has replaced a portion of Reeses Peanut Butter Cups key ingredients with lower-quality alternatives.
Reese addressed Hershey via a LinkedIn post on Valentines Day that has since gone viral, claiming that the company now uses compound coatings instead of milk chocolate, and peanutbutterstyle crmes instead of peanut butter.
How does The Hershey Company continue to position REESES as its flagship brand, a symbol of trust, quality and leadership, while quietly replacing the very ingredients (Milk Chocolate + Peanut Butter) that built REESE’S trust in the first place? Reese asked in his post.
In a statement to Fast Company, Hershey defended its recipes, saying that Reeses Peanut Butter Cups are made the same way they always have been, from milk chocolate and peanut butter.
As weve grown and expanded the Reeses product line, we make product recipe adjustments that allow us to make new shapes, sizes and innovations that Reeses fans have come to love and ask for, while always protecting the essence of what makes Reeses unique and special: the perfect combination of chocolate and peanut butter, Hershey said.
But Hershey consumers across social media are siding with Reese, claiming that theyve noticed the difference in taste across Reeses products and lamenting the apparent decline of their favorite candy.
“I love my Reese’s but I stopped eating them last Halloween because that’s when I noticed a big change. They got mad nasty. The chocolate was off and the peanut butter got really grainy and disgusting,” one user shared.
he's absolutely right. they are different. started realizing it when little kids in our classrooms started wasting them or not picking them from the treat jar UNLESS they were the Miniatures. we thought we got a stale batch, then tried different sizes. the only way to describe https://t.co/20dWSUrzAp— Sassington, M.C. (@MissSassbox) February 18, 2026
I have been saying this for years and no one believed me https://t.co/Gvmfruui5e— Jessica Smetana (@jessica_smetana) February 19, 2026
I love my Reese's but I stopped eating them last Halloween because that's when I noticed a big change. They got mad nasty.The chocolate was off and the peanut butter got really grainy and disgusting. They just weren't the same anymore. I didn't ask for any for Christmas either. https://t.co/dVeGsgauNs pic.twitter.com/YdJ4hzC8AK— Southern Fried StoNerD (@southernstonerd) February 19, 2026
Others took Reeses claim as evidence that the enshittification phenomenon is coming not just for our online platforms, but for our candy.
Why is so much of the stuff we all grew up with slowly getting shittier with each passing year? https://t.co/1k6v89dd1Z— Oliver Jia () (@OliverJia1014) February 19, 2026
EXCUSE ME WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD ABOUT THIS YETTHE ENSHITIFICATION MARCHES ON https://t.co/HHMxoLcP3Y— mastaprincess (@mastaprincess) February 19, 2026
Reese himself also offered a firsthand account in an interview with the Associated Press. He tried a new Valentines Day-themed product, Reeses Mini Hearts, but ultimately threw out the bag. The candys packaging seemed to affirm Reeses suspicions, listing chocolate candy and peanut butter creme as primary ingredients, not milk chocolate and peanut butter.
It was not edible, Reese told the AP. You have to understand. I used to eat a Reeses product every day. This is very devastating for me.
He added that Hershey should take a cue from its own founder, Milton Hershey, who famously said, Give them quality, thats the best advertising.
I absolutely believe in innovation, but my preference is innovation with quality, Reese said.
From afar, Legos new set inspired by Claude Monets painting Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies looks like a slightly more vivid version of the original. Step a bit closer, though, and youll find that its intricate brushstrokes are composed of Lego bananas, katana swords, and carrot tops.
The new 3,179-piece set was created in collaboration with The Metropolitan Museum of Art, where Monets original 1899 artwork, inspired by his idyllic garden in Giverny, is on display. Legos designers spent more than a year working in tandem with the museums curators to faithfully re-create the original paintings iconic Impressionist scene. The set will be available to the public starting on March 4 for $249.99.
Over the past few years, as Lego has begun to invest heavily in its sets and products targeted at an adult audience, its designers have had to develop new construction techniques to re-create a wide range of historical artworks. These include sets based on Vincent van Goghs Starry Night and Sunflowers, which use chunky Lego bricks to represent thick layers of paint; a set based on Art Hokusais The Great Wave, which achieves a 3D effect though cleverly layered bricks; and a re-creation of Keith Harings dancing figures, which relies on clear Lego pieces to imitate Harings line work. The new Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies may be their most technically challenging effort yet.
[Photo: Lego]
How Lego’s designers cleverly mimicked Monet’s style
From the beginning, Legos collaboration with The Met was a hands-on process.
This piece was chosen through close dialogue between The LEGO Group and The Met, says Stijn Oom, a Lego designer. Together, we identified a fanfavorite artwork that would translate well into an immersive build. Throughout the process, we worked with curators, reviewed color references, and explored how to mirror the paintings layered techniques with LEGO elements. The aim was to let the build itself echo the feeling of creating the original artwork, while giving fans new entry points into Monets world.
[Photo: Lego]
The process started with Legos design team visiting The Met to see Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies in person. There, they got an up-close look at Monets image of the Japanese-style bridge arching over his backyard pond, rendered in soft hues and small, densely packed brushstrokes. As Ooms team began work on the Lego version, Met staffers also made trips to Legos headquarters in Denmark to review their drafts.
In an interview with Artnet, Alison Hokanson, a European paintings curator at The Met, explained that the painting represented a major undertaking for Legos team because of its intricate Impressionist technique, which is difficult to replicate with small Lego pieces.
[Photo: Lego]
Oom describes the process as both thrilling and challenging. Because Legos color palette was more limited than what Monet could mix on his canvas, Ooms team opted for a brighter palette and blended tones to strike the right color balance. Another key obstacle was accurately recreating the paintings sense of scale and depth. To create the optical illusion of forced perspective, Legos designers carefully layered smaller, darker elements behind the bridge, while positioning larger, brighter elements in front.
[Photo: Lego]
While experimenting with ways to mimic Monets depictions of light and movement, Ooms team stumbled across several clever uses for some unexpected Lego bricks. The works waterlily pads, for example, are made from a combination of tiles, painters palettes, brushes, and shields, all layered and overlapped to echo the varied thickness and direction of the real paint strokes. The willow tree in the works top left corner uses bars and carrot tops to mimic long, cascading green strokes. And in the vegetation under the bridge, horns, bananas, and katana swords are all carefully placed o guide the eye across the scene.
There are plenty of delightful wait, is that . . .? moments built into the model, as we used a diverse array of LEGO elements including many pieces chosen to reflect Monets love of the natural world, Oom says, adding, Those unexpected parts are what make the build so enjoyable. Youre not just recreating a masterpieceyoure discovering it piece by piece.
Welcome to AI Decoded, Fast Companys weekly newsletter that breaks down the most important news in the world of AI. You can sign up to receive this newsletter every week via email here.
The AI arms race may be more of an arm-twist
The big AI companies tell us that AI will soon remake every aspect of business in every industry. Many of us are left wondering when that will actually happen in the real world, when the so-called AI takeoff will arrive. But because there are so many variables, so many different kinds of organizations, jobs, and workers, theres no satisfying answer. In the absence of hard evidence, we rely on anecdotes: success stories from founders, influencers, and early adopters posting on X or TikTok.
Economists and investors are just as eager to answer the when question. They want to know how quickly AIs effects will materialize, and how much cost savings and productivity growth it will generate. Policymakers are focused on the risks: How many jobs will be lost, and which ones? What will the downstream effects be on the social safety net?
Business schools and consulting firms have turned to research to find those answers the question. One of the most consequential recent efforts was a 2025 MIT study, which found that despite spending between $30 billion and $40 billion on generative AI, 95% of large companies had seen no measurable P&L [profit and loss] impact.
More recent research paints a somewhat rosier picture. A recent study from the Wharton School found that three out of four enterprise leaders “reported positive returns on AI investments, and 88% plan to increase spending in the next year.”
My sense is that the timing of AI takeoff is hard to grasp because adoption is so uneven and depends a lot on the application of the AI. Software developers, for example, are seeing clear efficiency gains from AI coding agents, and retailers are benefiting from smarter customer-service chatbots that can resolve more issues automatically.
It also depends on the culture of the organization. Companies with clear strategies, good data, some PhDs, and internal AI enthusiasts are making real progress. I suspect that many older, less tech-oriented, companies remain stuck in pilot mode, struggling to prove ROI.
Other studies have shown that in the initial phases of deployment, human workers must invest a lot of time correcting or training AI tools, which severely limits net productivity gains. Others show that in AI-forward organizations, workers do see substantial productivity improvements, but because of that, they become more ambitious and end up working more, not less.
The MIT researchers included an interesting disclaimer on their research results. Their sobering findings, they noted, did not reflect the limitations of the AI tools themselves, but rather the fact that organizations often need years to adapt their people and processes to the new technology.
So while AI companies constantly hype the ever-growing intelligence of their models, what ultimately matters is how quickly large organizations can integrate those tools into everyday work. The AI revolution is, in this sense, more of an arm-twist than an arms race. The road to ROI runs through people and culture. And that human bottleneck may ultimately determine when the AI industry, and its backers, begin to see returns on their enormous investments.
New benchmark finds that AI fails to do most digital gig work
AI companies keep releasing smarter models at a rapid pace. But the industrys primary way of proving that progressbenchmarksdoesnt fully capture how well AI agents perform on real-world projects. A relatively new benchmark called the Remote Labor Index (RLI) tries to close that gap by testing AI agents on projects similar to those given to remote contractors. These include tasks in game development, product design, and video animation. Some of the assignments, based on actual contract jobs, would take human workers more than 100 hours to complete and cost over $10,000 in labor.
Right now, some of the industrys best models dont perform very well on the RLI. In tests conducted late last year, AI agents powered by models from the top AI developers including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and others could complete barely any of the projects. The top-performing agent, powered by Anthropics Opus 4.5 model, completed just 3.5% of the jobs. (Anthropic has since released Opus 4.6, but it hasnt yet been evaluated on the RLI.)
The test puts the question of the current applicability of agents in a different light, and may temper some of the most bullish claims about agent effectiveness coming from the AI industry.
Silicon Valleys pesky principals re-emerge, irking the White House and Pentagon
The Pentagon and the White House are big mad at the safety-conscious AI company Anthropic. Why? Because Anthropic doesnt want its AI being used for the targeting of humans by autonomous drones, or for mass surveilling U.S. citizens.
Anthropic now has a $200 million contract allowing the use of its Claude chatbot and models by federal agency workers. It was among the first companies to get approval to work with sensitive government data, and the first AI company to build a specialized model for intelligence work. But the company has long had clear rules in its user guidelines that its models arent to be used for harm.
The Pentagon believes that after paying for the technology it should be able to use it for any legal application. But acceptable use for AI is different from that for traditional software. AIs potential for autonomy makes it more dangerous by nature, and its risks increase the closer to the battle it gets used.
The disagreement, if not resolved, could potentially jeopardize Anthropic’s contract with the government. But it could get worse. Over the weekend, the Pentagon said it was considering classifying Anthropic as a supply chain risk, which would mean the government views Anthropic as roughly as trustworthy as Huawei. Government contractors of all kinds would be pushed to stop using Anthropic.
Anthropics limits n certain defense-related uses are laid out in its Constitution, a document that describes the values and behaviors it intends its models to follow. Claude, it says, should be a genuinely good, wise, and virtuous agent. We want Claude to do what a deeply and skillfully ethical person would do in Claudes position. To critics in the Trump administration, that language translates to a mandate for wokeness.
The whole dust-up harkens back to 2018, when Google dropped its Project Maven contract with the government after employees revolted against Google technology being used for targeting humans in battle. Google still works with the government, and has softened its ethical guidelines over the years.
The truth is, tech companies dont stand on principle like they used to. Many have settled into a kind of patronage relationship with the current regime, a relatively inexpensive way to avoid MAGA backlash while keeping shareholders satisfied. Anthropic, in its way, seems to be taking a different course, and it may suffer financially for it. But, in the longer term, the company could earn some respect, trust, and goodwill from many consumers and regulators. For a company whose product is as powerful and potentially dangerous as consumer AI, that could count for a lot.
More AI coverage from Fast Company:
OpenAI, Google, and Perplexity near approval to host AI directly for the U.S. government
New AI models are losing their edge almost immediately
Meta patents AI that lets dead people post from the great beyond
These 6 quotes from OpenClaw creator Peter Steinberger hint at the future of personal computing
Want exclusive reporting and trend analysis on technology, business innovation, future of work, and design? Sign up for Fast Company Premium.
