 |
|
|
|||||
If a single type of building could define our present time, it would undoubtedly be the data center. Underpinning the increasingly online way we work, shop, and entertain ourselves, data centers provide the computing power and storage to handle all the Zoom calls, Amazon purchases, and Netflix streams a person can cram into their day. And now as compute-hungry artificial intelligence dominates the future of nearly every sector of the economyand possibly society as a wholethe data center will become even more ubiquitous. A headlong data center building boom is already underway. One report finds that average monthly spending on data centers has increased 400% in the last two years, adding up to more than $50 billion in 2025 alone. One tally contends that there were more than 1,200 data centers either built or approved for construction in the U.S. by the end of 2024; another suggests the total number of data centers in the U.S. is now more than 4,100. The scale and spread of data center building is staggering, and there seems to be no end in sight. All of this is why it’s so disappointing that the design of data center architecture is, by and large, very, very boring. [Photo: halbergman/Getty Images] The typical data center looks something like this: a cluster of large, rectangular warehouses 15 or 20 feet tall, each covering about the area of a professional soccer field. The building’s walls are usually made from tilt-up concrete panels with little adornment. There are few windows, and if there were more they would look out on large outdoor clusters of equipment for cooling equipment, electricity generation, and wastewater treatment. Increasingly, the entire complex is surrounded by security fencing or even opaque walls. For anyone passing by or living in their vicinity, there may be little to see beyond the data center’s unending nighttime glow. For what could be considered the most important buildings of the decade, this is a decidedly dull aesthetic. It is the architecture of value engineering and the minimum viable product. The companies behind these facilities would argue that data centers are more like utilities or infrastructure and therefore don’t need the kind of design a more public-facing building would. But even when these data centers are not located near large communitiesthough many actually arehow they look can send a powerful message about their owners’ sense of responsibility for their many downsides. A missed opportunity By now, the negative externalities of big data centers are well known. From their excessive energy use to their inflationary impacts on local electricity rates to their deep thirst for water to the sheer size of their sprawling campuses, the costs of the data center building boom can feel excessively high, especially in the face of hallucinating chatbots, disinformation campaigns, and unavoidable AI slop. In this light, the warehouse design approach of most data centers is the architectural equivalent of burying one’s head in the sand, a supermax prison tucked out in the boondocks, far from any discourse over mass incarceration or human rights. The boring design of data centers is a missed opportunity to counter their negative externalities with at least a little upside. [Photo: courtesy of Gensler] There are some data centers that are offering glimpses of what a better design could be. Some data companies and spec builders are turning to large and renowned architecture firms to add an extra layer of design to what can be fairly cookie cutter buildings meant primarily to house computers. Some designs are emphasizing natural light and natural materials in their small but important human-centric office and entry spaces. Others are prioritizing new building materials and server cooling equipment that lowers both the embedded and operational carbon impacts of the facilities. Still others are blending themselves into dense urban locations, bringing smaller scale data centers closer to specific types of users. Some look like modern office complexes. If they weren’t so big, some even look like they could hold a high end restaurant or retaier. But for every data center trying to soften its blow on society, there are dozens, if not hundreds, that are spreading as much computing power over as large an area possible that can draw in the enough resources to get the servers up and whirring as soon as possible. This looks to be the predominant developmental strategy. Design is largely an afterthought. [Photo: Gerville/iStock/Getty Images Plus] AI companies and other so-called hyperscalers are scrambling for suitable building sites near electricity generation and transmission lines, making it likely that data centers will edge closer and closer to preexisting communities. This proximity will increase the need for more sensitive design approaches. Some better design is happening now. As the building boom carries on, much more will be needed. The companies behind the AI race have been unambiguous about AI’s potential to dramatically reshape society. If that’s true (the jury is still very much out), perhaps those companies could spend a bit more effort signaling AI’s importance by making its vast and growing physical footprint less of a total bore.
Category:
E-Commerce
A few weeks ago, I led a leadership workshop for a group of executive women leaders in Birmingham, Alabama. Before I begin leadership workshops, I ask the participants what they want out of our time together. This year, one answer has emerged consistently on top: connection.This isnt surprising. As executives rise to higher levels of leadership, they often report increased feelings of loneliness. One Harvard Business Review survey found that 55% of CEOs acknowledge experiencing moderate but significant bouts of loneliness, while 25% report frequent feelings of loneliness. As your expertise becomes more specialized, it can be harder to find other leaders who understand the unique challenges of the corporate environment, with whom you can connect, learn from, and grow alongside. This is especially true for women leaders, as finding them in the senior ranks becomes less frequent the higher they climb. According to McKinsey, only 29% of C-suite leaders are women. As an entrepreneur, I’ve felt this, too. As my business grew, I realized that I didn’t have any coworkers to confide in, lean on, and seek counsel from. I had to create this network on my own. I’ve joined business groups, leadership retreats, and mastermind groups to create this support circle. THE IMPORTANCE OF A LEADERSHIP SUPPORT STRUCTURE As you advance at work, you can find yourself feeling more alone in the decision-making rooms. For example, if you manage the people who were once your peers and your relationship has evolved, this often means you can no longer rely on them for support as you used to. Challenging emotions also arise as your level of decision-making becomes larger and the stakes rise. Neuroscience research shows that when people make decisions under pressure, the brain shifts from thoughtful, deliberate thinking to more automatic, emotion-driven responses. This makes leaders more vulnerable to biased or short-term choices. However, research also shows that strong social support actually dampens the brains threat response under pressure, helping leaders think more clearly and make better decisions.In the era of AI, nurturing relationships is even more essential. One large-scale study on 6,000 UK employees found that technologies like AI are associated with a poorer quality of life. A 2023 analysis in Business Insider also warns that AI tools may make us lonelier at work by replacing quick check-ins with colleagues. Many of my clients echo this sentiment, saying things like, With the rise of AI, I am constantly wondering if things are fake. Because of this, I crave real relationships more than ever.Relationships are not only essential for combating loneliness, but they are also how deals get done, projects get awarded, and people get promoted. Here are some ways to prioritize them, even in the face of digital distraction. LEVERAGE YOUR SUPPORTERS Your supporters are the people in the organization who would advocate for you when you are not in the room (and you know it). They have your best interests at heart, and you have built solid relationship capital with them. Supporters are also the people who will give you unfiltered feedback that is focused on helping you advance. A good way to leverage your supporters is by asking them to socialize and support initiatives you may be launching. They can also play a critical role in helping you build new relationships in the organization and nurture strained relationships. However, before reaching out, consider what you can offer the relationship in return. CULTIVATE RELATIONSHIPS WITH NEUTRALS Neutrals are people in the organization whom you dont know yet, or dont know well. Maybe they are new, you are new, or you just havent crossed paths yet. Organizational network scholars like Ronald Burt have repeatedly shown that people whose relationships bridge otherwise disconnected groups (what he refers to as structural holes) receive higher performance evaluations and compensation, because they sit at key points of information and influence in the network. This is why neutrals in key stakeholder positions are critical to build relationships with. One strategy my clients enjoy using to build relationships with neutrals is called a 30:30 meeting. This is an opportunity to invite someone to a meeting or coffee. Thirty minutes are spent understanding them, their vision, goals, and offering your expertise in a way that might help them. The remaining 30 minutes are spent focused on your needs or area of expertise. The key to success in thee meetings is that the focus is always on advancing shared goals and values. REBUILD CONNECTIONS WITH CHALLENGING PARTNERS Nearly every executive client I work with has one or two leaders with whom there exists some tension. It could be because individuals frequently stand in the way of their project implementations, or they consistently deny the resources they need to accomplish the work. Strained relationships are a normal occurrence when you work with people whose personalities differ from yours. However, as you advance in leadership, rebuilding these relationships will be essential to accomplish work and leverage organizational resources. To rebuild relationships, ask yourself: Do my challenging partners have good relationships with any of my supporters? Your supporters can often be bridge builders here. If you dont have supporters who can act as bridge builders, this can be a good opportunity to cultivate and strengthen your relationship with neutrals. In times of conflict with challenging partners, it can also be helpful to focus on shared business goals and values, rather than defaulting to your fundamental differences. NURTURE YOUR NETWORK BEYOND WORK As an executive coach, the first place I direct clients to is their immediate network of leaders (old colleagues or current colleagues). However, there are also great connection opportunities that you can leverage from your loose network. The next place I encourage them to look is their industry or professional affiliated groups. Because there is a shared common interest of the type of work you do, this is a great place to foster connection through participating in conferences, meet-ups or even online forums. Another example is asking a mutual friend for an introduction to someone whose work you admire. The most effective leaders are not the most self-sufficient, but they often are the most connected. In a world where digital technology and AI are shrinking everyday interactions, relationships become your most valuable and tangible resources.
Category:
E-Commerce
The recent announcement by McKinsey & Company that it plans to cut roughly 10% of its workforce has sent ripples through the consulting world, reigniting debate about the future of the industry. This is not about one firm, one round of layoffs, or one business cycle. It signals an irreversible shift in how value is created in consulting. Having spent a significant part of my career at McKinsey, I saw it grow and flourish in an era when information was scarce. Even basic market intelligence required large teams working for months to gather and synthesize data. The digital age brought a data explosion and democratized access, and McKinsey adapted again by expanding its capabilities into advanced analytics and technology-enabled transformation. That advantage is now under pressure in the AI age. The existential threat in the AI age While the digital age reduced information asymmetry, the AI age goes further. It increasingly equalizes analytical and recommendation capabilities. Firms like McKinsey built a powerful competitive moat by hiring the best analytical minds from top universitiesexcelling at data synthesis, first-principles problem-solving, and translating insight into recommendations. In the AI age, however, that advantage is becoming commoditized. This shift is part of a broader transformation of white-collar work. Contrary to early assumptions, AI is impacting knowledge work more than blue-collar roles. I expect that over the next five years, nearly 300 million white-collar jobs will be impacted globally, with around 100 million at risk of becoming obsolete. Work that is highly cognitive and already digitized is particularly susceptible. Consulting sits squarely within this zone of disruption. As the traditional consulting model faces growing pressure, the premium for future talent will no longer rest on analytical horsepower alone. The center of gravity has shifted: Consulting is being redefined The need for consulting services is not disappearing, but the source of value is shifting decisively. Traditionally, firms like McKinsey, BCG, and Bain (MBB) sat at the top of the consulting value chain through high-value strategy work. Over the years, McKinsey has invested significantly in building technology and execution capabilities, but structural challenges remain. In contrast, execution-centric firms like Deloitte, EY, and Accenture, built with a different DNA, were able to more naturally combine advisory with technology and large-scale execution. The growth numbers speak for themselves. While the MBB firms have reported slower growth, averaging approximately 5% to 6% compound annual growth rate, implementation-led firms such as Accenture, Deloitte, and EY have grown approximately 11% to 12% in recent years (average growth estimated based on revenues from company websites, annual reports, press releases, and analyst reports), reflecting the direction of client spend. Historically, strategy was viewed as the highest-value activity, and execution was treated as a follow-onlargely organizational and operational in nature. In the digital and AI age, execution is deeply technology-driven, and strategy and execution are no longer sequential but iterative and continuous. From being an enabler, technology has become the primary driver of both strategy and execution. Clients increasingly want partners who can bridge strategy, technology, and operations, and execute change at scale. Consulting firms, including the Big Four, have responded by reshaping their talent and operating models around large-scale execution and organizational transformation. The Battle of Relevance in the AI age: Where does McKinsey stand? The key question now is: Who will emerge as winners in this new consulting landscape? As the center of gravity shifts toward execution depth and the ability to drive continuous change, success will depend on how effectively firms rewire their DNAbuilding the operating model and talent engine required to implement and scale tech-led transformation. While strategy remains critical in the AI age, it demands a higher bar. As AI takes over analysis and recommendations, strategic advantage shifts from problem-solving to sense-makingfrom humans “in the loop” to humans “above the loop.” My bet is that two types of firms are best positioned to win. First, there are firms like Accenture, Deloitte, and EY, which have built strong execution capabilities and successfully strengthened their technology foundations. Second, there are industry specialists with exceptional domain expertise, where deep contextual understanding becomes the primary source of differentiation. Where does that leave McKinsey? While its brand, client relationships, global reach, and intellectual capital remain as formidable strengths, the transformation challenge it faces may be far greater than what it advises its clients on. Meeting it will require more than just new capabilities. It requires a structural reset, beginning with a mindset shiftfrom authority rooted in expertise to leadership grounded in learning and adaptability. Whether McKinsey retains its position at the top will depend on how effectively it embraces this shift. In the AI age, even the most storied institutions must continuously reinvent themselvesor risk being outpaced by those that do.
Category:
E-Commerce
Resilience is a much-needed skill in todays tough job market. Despite the headlines lambasting young employees as lazy and entitled, a Big Four consulting firm is taking matters into its own hands and offering training for recent grads. PwC will give its new young hires “resilience training to toughen them up for careers as management consultants. The firm has introduced the initiative in the UK to help Gen Z brush up on their human skills, including communication with clients and handling day-to-day work dynamics, like pressure or criticism. Quite often we are struck that the graduates that join us dont always have the resilience; they dont always have the human skills that we want to deploy onto the client work we pass them towards, Phillippa OConnor, PwCs chief people officer told The Sunday Times. Resilience requires, among other things, the ability to withstand, adapt or recover quickly from the challenges and inevitable setbacks that come with everyday work and life. A recent study by the McKinsey Health Institute shows that those who report high levels of resilience or adaptability show better holistic health and higher engagement than their peers. But simply telling employees to be more resilient and toughen up isnt likely to achieve much. When the path forward is unclear, research shows that teams and employees default to what they already know: regardless of whether its the best approach. OConnor isnt alone; the notion of Gen Z (and younger millennials) lacking in the resilience department is one thats popped up across the general discourse. Growing up as digital natives, missing formative in-person experiences during COVID, and now entering hybrid or remote-first workplaces, many young professionals simply didnt get the chance to build and exercise certain human or soft skills. And no amount of resilience training can compensate for a broken workplace. Studies show that resilience may help in low-pressure settings, but in environments with overwhelming workloads and toxicity, it becomes both ineffective and even harmful. As companies gut layers of middle management, Gen Z hires are increasingly left reporting to stretched, exhausted managers with neither the time nor the bandwidth to offer the close, hands-on guidance they need. As companies continue to gut middle management, new hires find themselves reporting to overworked, burnt-out managers who lack the capacity for the hands-on support they need. Now a number of companies, like PwC, are addressing these concerns head on. Last month the accountancy giant Azets revealed it is exploring partnerships with major hotel, pub, and restaurant chains to offer temporary work assignments for trainee accountants and improve their soft skills. In 2023, fellow Big Four consulting firm KPMG supplied classes on ‘soft skills’ for its Gen Z recruits who graduated during the pandemic, out of concern they were struggling to adapt to professional life. Surviving a global pandemic during their formative years, thrown into a tumultuous job market, and faced with relentless criticism from those on higher rungs of the corporate ladder, Gen Z have more than demonstrated their resilience. Now? Theyre looking for support.
Category:
E-Commerce
A group of college students braved the frigid New England weather on Dec. 13, 2025, to attend a late afternoon review session at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Eleven of those students were struck by gunfire when a shooter entered the lecture hall. Two didnt survive. Shortly after, a petition circulated calling for better security for Brown students, including ID-card entry to campus buildings and improved surveillance cameras. As often happens in the aftermath of tragedy, the conversation turned to lessons for the future, especially in terms of school security. There has been rapid growth of the nations now US$4 billion school security industry. Schools have many options, from traditional metal detectors and cameras to gunshot detection systems and weaponized drones. There are also purveyors of artificial-intelligence-assisted surveillance systems that promise prevention: The gun will be detected before any shots are fired, and the shooting will never happen. They appeal to institutions struggling to protect their communities, and are marketed aggressively as the future of school shooting prevention. Im a criminologist who studies mass shootings and school violence. In my research, Ive found that theres a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of these technological interventions. Grasping for a solution Implementation has not lagged. A survey from Campus Safety Magazine found that about 24% of K-12 schools report video-assisted weapons detection systems, and 14% use gunshot detection systems, like ShotSpotter. Gunshot detection uses acoustic sensors placed within an area to detect gunfire and alert police. Research has shown that gunshot detection may help police respond faster to gun crimes, but it has little to no role in preventing gun violence. Still, schools may be warming to the idea of gunshot detection to address the threat of a campus shooter. In 2022, the school board in Manchester, New Hampshire, voted to implement ShotSpotter in the districts schools after a series of active-shooter threats. Other companies claim their technologies provide real-time visual weapons detection. Evolv is an AI screening system for detecting concealed weapons, which has been implemented in more than 400 school buildings since 2021. ZeroEyes and Omnilert are AI-assisted security camera systems that detect firearms and promise to notify authorities within seconds or minutes of a gun being detected. These systems analyze surveillance video with AI programs trained to recognize a range of visual cues, including different types of guns and behavioral indicators of aggression. Upon recognizing a threat, the system notifies a human verification team, which can then activate a prescribed response plan. But even these highly sophisticated systems can fail to detect a real threat, leading to questions about the utility of security technology. Antioch High School in Nashville, Tennessee, was equipped with Omnilerts gun detection technology in January 2025 when a student walked inside the school building with a gun and shot several classmates, one fatally, before killing himself. Lack of evidence This demonstrates an enduring problem with the school security technology industry: Most of these technologies are untested, and their effect on safety is unproven. Even gunshot detection systems have not been studied in the context of school and mass shootings outside of simulation studies. School shooting research has very little to offer in terms of assessing the value of these tools, because there are no studies out there. This lack is partly due to the low incidence of mass and school shootings. Even with a broad definition of school shootingsany gunfire on school grounds resulting in injurythe annual rate across America is approximately 24 incidents per year. Thats 24 more than anyone would want, but its a small sample size for research. And there are few, if any, ethically and empirically sound ways to test whether a campus fortified with ShotSpotter or the newest AI surveillance cameras is less likely to experience an active shooter incident because the probability of that school being victimized is already so low. Existing research provides a useful overview of the school safety technology landscape, but it offers little evidence of how well this technology actually prevents violence. The National Institute of Justice last published its Comprehensive Report on School Safety Technology in 2016, but its finding that the adoption of biometrics, smart cameras, and weapons detection systems was outpacing research on the efficacy of the technology is still true today. The Rand Corporation and the University of Michigan Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention have produced similar findings that demonstrate limited or no evidence that these new technologies improve school safety and reduce risks. While researchers can study some aspects of how the environment and security affect mass shooting outcomes, many of these technologies are too new to be included in studies, or too sparsely implemented to show any meaningful impact on outcomes. My research on active and mass shootings has suggested that the security features with the most lifesaving potential are not part of highly technical systems: They are simple procedures like lockdowns during shootings. The tech keeps coming Nevertheless, technological innovations continue to drive the school safety industry. Campus Guardian Angel, launched out of Texas in 2023, promises a rapid drone response to an active school shooter. Founder Justin Marston compared the drone system to having a SEAL team in the parking lot. At $15,000 per box of six drones, and an additional monthly service charge per student, the drones are equipped with non-lethal weaponry, including flash-bangs and pepper spray guns. In late 2025, three Florida school districts announced their participation in Campus Guardian Angels pilot programs. Three school districts in Florida are part of a pilot program to test drones that respond to school shootings. There is no shortage of proposed technologies. A presentation from the 2023 International Conference on Computer and Applications described a cutting-edge architectural design system that integrates artificial intelligence and biometrics to bolster school security. And yet, the language used to describe the outcomes of this system leaned away from prevention, instead offering to mitigate the potential for a mass shooting to be carried out effectively. While the difference is subtle, prevention and mitigation reflect two different things. Prevention is stopping something avoidable. Mitigation is consequence management: reducing the harm of an unavoidable hazard. Response versus prevention This is another of the enduring limitations of most emerging technologies being advertised as mass shooting prevention: They dont prevent shootings. They may streamline a response to a crisis and speed up the resolution of the incident. With most active shooter incidents lasting fewer than 10 minutes, time saved could have critical lifesaving implications. But by the time ShotSpotter has detected gunshots on a college campus, or Campus Guardian Angel has been activated in the hallways of a high school, the window for preventing the shooting has long since passed. Emily Greene-Colozzi is an assistant professor of criminology and justice studies at UMass Lowell. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce