 |
|
|
|||||
Twenty years ago, as the top digital and innovation executive for Citi’s credit card business, I led the team that spent months building what looked like a brilliant partnership. We’d found a startup with a disruptive payments platformone that became the forerunner of what has become a new payment type used by millions of consumers today. The deal: strategic investment in exchange for access to the startup’s codebase as a sandbox for innovation pilots. No more waiting in the legacy systems queue. Just rapid prototyping with leading-edge developers. We built the entire partnership in a silo of supporters, treating resistance as something to avoid until absolutely necessary. Then came final deal approval day. The senior executives heading risk management, compliance, legal, finance, regulatory affairs, and profit and loss (P&L) weighed in: “The regulators won’t like this.” “Have we gotten corporate approvals?” “What’s the ROI?” “We’ve never done this kind of deal.” Deal torpedoed. Within a few years, that startup was acquired for close to $1 billion. The loss wasn’t just financial. It was a failure to recognize that resistance contains intelligence about reality that plans built-in echo chambers inevitably miss. Colleagues felt blindsidedasked to bless a final deal rather than shape an evolving strategy. The resistance wasn’t about the idea. It was about being excluded from the journey. I’ve spent the two decades since distinguishing the signal from the noiseand teaching leaders how to avoid the expensive mistakes we made. Why We Keep Making the Same Mistake Leaders faced with pushback default to a familiar playbook: build innovation in a protected silo, surround yourself with enthusiasts, keep resistors at arm’s length. The logic seems soundprotect the new thing from the “antibodies” of legacy thinking. But here’s what we discovered the hard way: unfamiliarity, fear of the unknown, turf protectionthese weren’t just emotional reactions. They were signals. Risk and compliance leaders felt threatened because no one had involved them early enough to anticipate possible regulatory concerns. P&L managers pushed back because the project diverted resources from their quarterly targets. The resistance contained intelligence about implementation realities that an enthusiast-only team couldn’t see. When 70% of change initiatives fail despite massive investment, the problem isn’t that people don’t understand the plan. It’s that the plan doesn’t account for what people understand about reality. Learning to Translate Resistance Into Intelligence The shift starts with listening differently. When someone says, “We tried this before and it didn’t work,” leaders typically hear obstruction and respond: “This time is differentwe have better technology.” But what if you asked instead: “What specifically failed last time, and how does this approach account for those lessons?” Suddenly you’re mining history for intelligence about why elegant pilots don’t scale. When a stakeholder says, “Our customers won’t understand this,” the dismissive response is “Of course they willwe have market research showing they favor this concept.” The intelligence-gathering response: “That’s an important observation. Where do you see the greatest failure points that we should account for?” Or consider: “This conflicts with our other priorities.” Many leaders hear bureaucratic gatekeeping and respond by promising to “make the case” at prioritization meetings. But that’s still trying to convince. The intelligence approach: “We have a full load of urgent priorities, you’re right. Where do you see the biggest stress points this project might create?” These aren’t just nicer ways of saying the same thing. They’re diagnostic questions that surface constraints the plan hasn’t addressed. When you ask, “Where do you see the biggest stress points?” instead of selling your solution, something shifts. You’re signaling genuine understanding, not persuasion. That act of listeningwhat former hostage negotiator Chris Voss calls “tactical empathy”builds the trust that determines whether your initiative scales or stalls. Why This Matters More Now AI experimentation is amplifying every dysfunction in how organizations handle resistance. Consider a common pattern: A team builds an AI assistant for customer service reps. The tech enthusiasts love it at pilot stageimpressive accuracy, clean demo, excited exec sponsors. But they never involved actual service reps. So, they didn’t discover until scale that the assistant couldn’t handle the 20% of calls requiring human judgment, created more work documenting exceptions than it saved, and made reps feel surveilled rather than supported. Adoption stalled. The pilot became another “AI experiment that didn’t work.” The same dynamic plays out with creative teams resisting generative AI. The pattern sounds familiar: Our brand spends millions to sound like itself. The moment we start prompting a model trained on every competitor’s campaign, we’re paying to erase what makes us different. Beneath the pushback is stewardship of hard-won brand equity, not necessarily technophobia. The intelligence-gathering response: “What if we approach AI as rough-draft only? How might we develop explicit guardrails for tone and references to preserve what makes us distinctive?” From Stakeholder Management to Coalition Building Traditional stakeholder management maps who supports and who resists, then tries to convert resistors through better communication. Coalition building does something different: it engages across the spectrum from the start to build trustthe foundation that determines whether change scales. I’ve seen this work. When innovation leaders don’t own a P&L, they face scrutiny from business unit managers who question whether “the innovation people” truly care about quarterly targets. One way through: explicitly align early experiments to P&L managers’ top prioritiesnot to convince them your idea is right, but to demonstrate you’re invested in making them successful. Shared values become the bridge when you disagree on tactics. The Questions That Change the Conversation In my workshops with senior leaders across financial services and other sectors, I consistently hear the same story. As one CTO told me: “We built our gen AI strategy with only the innovation team. Now we’re stuck because compliance wasn’t engaged early.” Here’s where to start: “What do you see that we might be missing?” Assumes intelligence in the perspective, not obstruction. “What would need to be true for this to work in your world?” Surfaces constraints before they become deal-killers. “What shared outcomes mattermost to both of us?” Finds the values bridge when tactics diverge. The fundamental shift: from “How do I overcome resistance?” to “What intelligence am I missing if I don’t engage this perspective early?” Twenty years later, companies are still building partnerships, AI pilots, and transformation initiatives in silos of supportersthe same mistake my Citi team made. Still treating resistance as friction to manage rather than intelligence to integrate: The billion-dollar missed opportunities keep piling up. What changes when you treat resistance as the intelligence it actually contains? You build coalitions instead of echo chambers. You gain insights that improve your plan and trust that enables scale. And you stop repeating the expensive mistakes we learned from the hard way.
Category:
E-Commerce
Hello and welcome to Modern CEO! Im Stephanie Mehta, CEO and chief content officer of Mansueto Ventures. Each week this newsletter explores inclusive approaches to leadership drawn from conversations with executives and entrepreneurs, and from the pages of Inc. and Fast Company. If you received this newsletter from a friend, you can sign up to get it yourself every Monday morning. The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos brings together an incongruous mix of celebrities (this year included Matt Damon, David Beckham, and Katy Perry, who was accompanying ex-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau), world leaders (President Donald Trump), and nonprofit leaders. The event also reliably assembles an unrivaled group of global CEOs who offer a window into where business is heading. Some CEOs see sunny skies ahead This year, though, I found the window very foggyand I wasnt alone. According toPwCs 29th Global CEO Survey, released at the start of the meeting, only about a third of CEOs (30%) say they are confident about revenue growth in the next 12 months, down from 38% in 2025 and 56% in 2022. Yet Paul Griggs, CEO of PwC U.S., says the American CEOs he spoke with in Davos are feeling much more optimistic than the survey would suggest. While they acknowledge that theyre dealing with high levels of uncertainty, theyre also more prepared to deal with complexity through new workflows and processes to keep them agile. I met with 10 CEOs today, and it was a day of optimism, Griggs says. Sharon Marcil, who leads Boston Consulting Group in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, is also seeing bright spots. A new report, BCG AI Radar 2026, finds that four out of five CEOs say they are more optimistic about the returns on their AI investments than they were a year ago. I do think 2026 is going to be a growth year, she says. Whos feeling blue? Most consultants I spoke with say European and U.K. CEOs are less confident than their U.S.- and Asia-based counterparts. AIs impact beyond the hype The impact of AI on jobs was also hotly debated at Davos. While most CEOs and executives continue to insist that AI will make work better by reducing mundane tasks, a few CEOs have started to talkpublicly and privatelyabout the roles AI will eliminate and the need to prepare workers for changes. Were focused on being completely honest with our workforce, says Kate Johnson, CEO of Lumen Technologies, a digital network services provider. Johnson says the company is committed to training employees for new roles in the organization but adds, We have to reimagine what the world will look like in the future, and [employees] need to imagine a world where their current job may not exist. Conversations about AI have also shifted away from applications (think OpenAIs ChatGPT) and agents (software that can make decisions and complete tasks) to infrastructure. Throughout the week, executives shared insights on the energy and networking capacity needed as data centers built specifically to support AI crop up. The big question now has gone from the potential to operational reality, says Aamir Paul, president of North America Operations at energy technology company Schneider Electric. (Fast Company partnered with Schneider Electric on a series of videos in Davos.) How do we make it happen . . . getting data centers built, getting energy access, getting it in a way that it doesnt affect retail costs and consumers dont have to take the burden, and doing it in a way where were still meeting our sustainability goals? These are daunting challenges that will require investment and inventiveness to solve. Luckily, one of BCGs recent business surveys saw a 14% uptick in mentions of innovation versus a year ago. Perhaps thats another reason for optimism in 2026. Your views on 2026 How are you feeling about the year ahead? Do you agree with the prevailing sentiment at Davos, or are you less optimistic about whats coming? Id like to hear your thoughts and why you feel that way. Please send them to me at stephaniemehta@mansueto.com. I may use your comments in a future newsletter. Read and watch more: Fast Companys Brendan Vaughan offers his take on Davos CEO insularity threatens dialogue goal at Davos CEOs at Davos are buying the agentic AI hype
Category:
E-Commerce
As an operative researcher for luxury retail companies, I spent my career grabbing onto one corporate contract after the next, like a tree-swinging retainer monkey. But in a tariff-distressed industry, those contract branches grew further and further apart until I was left hanging. Then a colleague experiencing a similar work gap said, Well, I guess were retired. Ive been called a lot of things in my life, but nothing prepared me for the word retired. I’m a freelancer, so no one is coming to my house with a gold watch as a reward for loyal service; I have no desire to move south; and I dont play golf. My equally self-employed friend Roland had a suggestion: Why not consider myself situationally retiredthat is, retired until the phone rings. Its funny how one word can make or break your spirit. I was crushed by retired because the concept is foreign and frightening. But adding situational made it comfortingly familiar. After all, for us freelancers every corporate contract is situational; you might even say that situational is my superpower. A friend whos spent decades in a grueling C-suite position still cant bring himself to retire, despite vested stock and a strong financial footing. Happy or not, he remains in the grip of his job, unable to let go of a role he believes defines (and so ultimately confines) him. Ive been an outside observer of corporate America long enough to understand his struggle, although it is not my own. Redirecting your energy As an independent contractor working for different companies, each with its own ecosystem, I constantly adapted my work persona to fit each unique corporate culture. Fluidity is what stabilized my career and so the loss of a fixed identity was not my retirement problem. My issue was displaced energy. Whether writing a history of plaid for a fashion CEO or helping the VP of design at a boutique hotel chain find just the right urban neighborhoods for expansion, every project required a tremendous amount of advance work. From sleuthing out relevant reference resources to searching for subject-specific experts, my research work was as fascinating as it was fun. I rarely left my desk yet built a national network of specialists and accumulated wide-ranging knowledge that often dovetailed, making every project a little easier. When the work slowedand then stoppedmy detective skills had nowhere to go. I cant remember how long I was in that uncomfortable standstill until Rolands use of the word situational got me moving. To kick off Project Retirement, I went on my usual research prowl. Every day, about 11,400 Americans turn 65the traditional retirement milestonefueling a busy and lucrative media market spanning content, publishing, and podcasts. But the most valuable operative research is not about finding the most information. It requires you to find the right informationinformation that is directional, that you can build upon, that can help steer your project to a successful conclusion. Redefining retirement For me, the initial guiding principles came from the YouTube channel Small Retired Life and Raina Vitanovs practical yet inspirational attitude. Her conversation about being rebellious enough to redefine and rebrand retirement broadened my understanding and freed me to choose my own norms and values. But the most significant contribution was her observation that in retirement, Productivity is not the conversation. Using the Roland method, I added a word and had a revelation: Transactional productivity is no longer my conversation. The time between contracts used to feel borrowed; now I own it. And all that research joie de vivre that I enjoyed over my corporate years is mine to use as I like. Sit next to me if you want to talk about the architecture of Shaker communities, art in ’80s New York, or the difference between Ivy style and preppy fashion. I also started a side gig in a small boutique where I once shopped whenever I needed to outfit myself for a rare visit into corporate America. Because Ive never had a structured straight job, I find the work to be fresh and interesting. Its also rewarding because I get to use decades of style research on real live women, many playing out their own life-shifting issues through the lens of their wardrobes. Although Im not sure I can pull off being an introvert cosplaying as an extrovert for more than my customary two workdays a week, I might give it a shot. Because now that Ive got the hang of it, situational retirement can be whatever I want it to be.
Category:
E-Commerce
Im always amazed at how easily we give our time to others without thinking, and then are mad later when it was wasted. What exactly did we think was going to happen? That everyone was going to be prepared, productive, and appreciative? Time has become the ultimate luxurywe never have enough of it, and are jealous of those that have it. For too many of us, endless meetings, back-to-back emails, and constant interruptions leave little room for focused, meaningful work. Additionally, in our effort to be nice or generous, we offer our time even when were running on empty. But what if I told you that much of this time theft could be prevented with a little more mindfulness, intent, and discipline? Warren Buffett is a great example: He once shared his calendar with Bill Gates, and it was practically empty, which Gates found shocking. But Buffett was making a pointthat one of the key reasons for his success is that he fiercely guards his time, knowing that people will take your time if you let them. Time is a nonrenewable resource, and we should be stingier with it. You can lose money and get it back, but you can never get it back lost time. Yet every day, unnecessary meetings and unproductive engagements hijack our calendars, diminishing both our productivity and morale. So why do we let it happen? Its time to rethink how we treat time: not just our own, but the time of our teams and colleagues. Time as a Strategic Resource Let me introduce you to the concept of time crime that is emerging in workplaces today. Time is now considered an asset, and too many people are wasting it. Its misused through poorly planned meetings, rambling conversations, and vague scheduling. This has an impact not just on productivity but missed opportunity, and as a result orgs have made bold moves to create strict policies on things like meetings. Theyve made it part of their culture change to treat time with respect, with scheduling a meeting becoming a last resort. The idea is about mutually respecting timeyours, and others. In 2023, Shopify ruthlessly cut all recurring meetings with more than two people, resulting in 322,000 fewer hours spent in meetings in one year. Can you imagine that impact? What would you do with all that found time? For Shopify, it meant more focus and more time for deep work. Alan Rankin, chief procurement officer at Moderna, shared an aha moment he had around time management, and it changed how he operates: I was invited to a monthly operations meeting where many senior leaders in the company attended. I was really struggling to make a meaningful contribution to the meeting. I started to put myself under pressure to contribute more and say intelligent things. Then I had the lightbulb moment: Is this what is best for the company or is this all about me? I decided to stop attending and see if anything in my universe changed. And guess what? Nothing did. And now I have more time. Revelations like this are impactfuland essential. While there are many ways time gets stolen, meetings are usually the biggest culprit. NBCUniversal, for example, has learned that fewer participants in meetings often lead to more productive discussions. For many business units, meetings include only the minimum number of people necessary to achieve the objectives, resulting in faster decisions and more meaningful input from all attendees. The Power of Less: Fewer People = More Productivity The power of “less” applies to emails, reports, committees, and most certainly, to meetings. Ive never heard an organization tell me they wished their teams had more of any of these. Have you? Less equals focus, especially during meetings. When too many people are involved, important voices get drowned out. By keeping meetings lean and mean, you create an environment where only people that can contribute meaningfully attend, resulting in less distractions and more deep work. Atlassian lets employees question the necessity of every meeting. To decrease meetings, they use tools like Slack to handle simple status updates, letting teams focus more on high-value work. The message is to use your time with intention, and to only hold meetings when absolutely necessary. Stealing time is unacceptable. When meetings are held less often, they become a valuable commodity, where teams become more focused and disciplined with peoples time. Even Google has developed guidelines to make meetings productive and purposeful. Because innovation depends on it. Their meetings are short, focused, and to-the-point, with strict rules about minimizing unnecessary participants. The goal is to protect employees’ time by stopping lengthy, irrelevant discussions that take away from deep work. These guidelines help teams be mindful of how they spend their time, as well as how they use the time of others. Respecting Time Equals Respecting People Employees who feel their time is valued are more likely to be committed to their work. Time is, after all, one of the most tangible forms of respect you can show someone. At my own company, FutureThink, we regularly “uninvite” people to meetings, emphasizing that they dont need to attend the meeting and can use their time for more urgent work. People love being uninvited because it feels like a giftand our culture emphasizes that you need to use your time wisely; if you waste it on the unnecessarythats on you. The goal is for people to understand that time is something worth protecting. Guard Time Like Its Your Most Valuable Asset Stop letting your calendar be overrun with things you do need to really do, and start using your time with intent. The next time someone asks for your time, ask yourself: Is this meeting truly necessary? Is this the best use of my time, and their time? Doing this will not only protect your own productivity but also foster a culture where everyones time is treated as the invaluable resource it truly is.
Category:
E-Commerce
Apple will turn its Siri assistant into a full-fledged chatbot by next year. The company is working on a personal AI device to compete with the one OpenAI is building with Jony Ive. And Apple is putting control over its AI strategy into new hands within the company. So say a flurry of new reports, all advancing the larger story that Apple is doing what it can to get itself back in the AI race. And its doing it in a way that may allow it, in classic Apple fashion, to lead from behind. That is, it may hang back and benefit from the hard lessons learned by others marketing a new technology, then arrive fashionably late with a more polished product. Apple and Google announced on January 12 that the (notoriously slow) Siri assistant will be powered, at least in part, by Gemini models developed by Googles DeepMind division. Apple has in the past voiced concern about the privacy implications of sending user data to AI models outside its own infrastructure. Apple has said it plans to run its AI models either within a secure Apple cloud, or, even better, on chips inside Apple devices. Bringing in Gemini But that may be changing. Bloombergs Mark Gurman reports that Apple is now in talks with Google to run the Gemini models powering Siri and Apple Intelligence features within the Google Cloud. Previous reports said Apple could be paying Google as much as $1 billion per year for access to the Gemini models. The new Siri is expected to show up with iOS 26.4 in March or April, the report states. The assistant will reportedly gain a better contextual understanding of the user by accessing some types of personal data stored on the users device. It may also have an awareness of what the user is viewing or working on on their screen, as well as better internet search. These are the same Apple Intelligence” features the company promised to deliver in 2024, but later postponed, explaining that it wasnt happy with the performance and reliability of the AI. Then, in 2027, another upgrade will make Siri feel more like a real chatbot, meaning that users will be able to have extended back-and-forth exchanges with the assistant (including via their voice), as is common with OpenAIs ChatGPT and Googles Gemini chatbots. Apple also plans to integrate the smarter Siri deeper into the operating system, which could make it a more functional intermediary between the user and the capabilities of the device. The Information reports that Apple is also in the early stages of developing a small personal AI deviceabout the size of an AirTagthat can clip to a lapel and contains two cameras, three microphones, a little speaker, a battery, and inductive charging tech. (A patent search yielded no Apple designs fitting this description.) OpenAI attracted a lot of attention last year after announcing that it was developing a personal AI device in collaboration with Apples former design guru Jony Ive. Its worth noting, however, that other companies have tried selling such a product, notably Humane (founded by some ex-Applers), and none have found much success. A new AI leader inside Apple The Google Gemini deal and the AI device reports come in the wake of a pretty major power shift at Apple regarding the companys AI strategy. Apple struggled for years to build its own AI models under the leadership of ex-Google AI chief John Giannandrea (while balancing its historical concern for data privacy), and failed to deliver models that performed like those from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. Now Apple has reportedly put its consumer AI problems in the lap of software chief Craig Fedherighi, who is known for his tall hair and utilitarian (and somewhat skeptical) views on the new technology. Fedherighi has viewed AI as an enabling technology that should work behind the scenes to make phone features work better. Hes also expressed concern over the predictability and reliability of the technology. Fedherighi is taking the reins at a pivotal moment. Apple is in a tough spot with AI. It fears the appearance of falling further behind OpenAI (and the punishment it might take from Wall Street), but its also traditionally hesitant to rush into an emerging technology that isnt yet totally proven and reliable (AI chatbots still make mistakes and consumers dont fully trust them). Apple is most comfortable taking a mature technology (like cell phones) and reinventing it for the mainstream with simplicity, utility, and artful design. So partnering with Google, talking about plans for new Gemini-powered features in the future, and preparing a personal AI device might be just the right moves for Apple right now. The deal with Google buys Apple time while its own researchers find ways to balance the twin needs of data privacy and high-performing models. (It might also shift some of the responsibility onto Google if the new Siri doesnt work as promised.) Being late has worked out before Theres precedent for this. Apple relied on Intel processors in its computers while it built up the expertise and experience to make its own. Apple used Intel processors in its Mac computers for 15 years, before switching its lineup to Apple-designed chips. But planning the features of future Macs was difficult because it all depended on Intels roadmap for releasing new chips. Apple became acutely aware of the speed and efficiency gains to be had from designing custom chips that could be deeply integrated with its Mac operating system. Those improvements were first realised in the companys first M-series Macs in late 2020. Apple also relied entirely on Qualcomm cellular modem chips for the iPhone before it was able to build its own. The first Apple-designed modem, the C1, shipped inside the iPhone 16e in 2025. While Qualcomm says it will continue to supply modems for iPhones in 2026, Apples intent is to build its own modem into the integrated silicon system-on-a-chip processor that powers iPhones, which could yield faster and more reliable cellular connections. However, in other cases, like internet search, Apple has been content to rely on Google as a partner. Who knows, Apple may believe generative AI will become a commodity in the future (models are indeed getting more efficient and cheaper to access), something it would rather buy than build. he news of an Apple AI device doesnt hurt either. It shows an Apple that still has the appetite to mold emergent technologies into its own image and bring them to the mainstream, even without Ives. Apples relationship with generative AI is seen as rocky and mainly unsuccessful so far. That narrative may have seeped through the shell of Apples spaceship in Cupertino and caused a rush to ship a technology that wasnt quite baked. The hype around generative AI is so thick now that were quick to judge any technology company that isnt betting the farm on it. But its part of Apples culture to take the long view on new technology waves (notice that it didnt change the company name when the metaverse was having its moment). Its hesitation, intentional or not, may give it more time to judge the real scale of the AI revolution, and more time to understand what it all should mean to Apple and its customers.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] next »