 |
|
|
|||||
On most golf courses, silence is sacred. At the WM Phoenix Opens 16th hole, noise is the point. Every year, tens of thousands of fans pack into a stadium-like enclosure at TPC Scottsdale, turning a short par 3 into one of the most recognizableand rowdiestsettings in sports. Missed putts are booed. Holes in one trigger cascades of beer. The atmosphere is closer to a college football rivalry than a PGA Tour stop. But as iconic as the 16th hole has become, its future wasnt guaranteed by tradition alone. Behind the spectacle, the structure itself had reached a limitarchitecturally, operationally, and environmentally. We made the decision that that was as good as that structure was going to get, says Jason Eisenberg, the 2026 tournament chairman. If we want to continue to have an amazing fan experience, if we want fans to come back and see something new, we were going to have to elevate that experience. That realization sparked a full redesign of the 16th holeone that goes far beyond aesthetics. Whats emerging ahead of the 2026 tournament is a case study in how physical design, systems design, and cultural design can align to quietly change how large-scale events are built and run. [Rendering: courtesy WM Phoenix Open] The result isnt just a louder or flashier venue. Its a reusable, modular structure designed to last decades, embedded within one of the worlds largest certified zero-waste sporting eventsand supported by a culture that treats experimentation as essential, not optional. TPC Scottsdale is a publicly owned course, operated by the City of Scottsdale and host to the Phoenix Open for decades. Its ownership structureand the regulatory constraints that come with itmeans that even the tournaments most iconic spaces must be built to appear and disappear each year. [Image: courtesy WM Phoenix Open] Design Change Like every structure on the PGA Tour, the 16th hole at the WM Phoenix Open is built from scratch each year and dismantled once the tournament ends. What makes it unusual isnt that its rebuilt annually, but that it has reached the practical limits of how much a temporary structure can evolve without fundamentally changing how its designed. Every year, we would add to the 16th hole, says Danny Ellis, senior vice president of sales and business development at InProduction, the company that has built the structure for nearly three decades. Every year it would take on another section, another layer. Eventually, we reached a point where the footprint couldnt expand anymore. [Rendering: courtesy WM Phoenix Open] By 2020, the grandstand had reached three levels wrapping fully around the hole. The Thunderbirds, who operate the tournament, were satisfied with its location and scale. What wasnt sustainable was how it was built. The structure relied heavily on timber and cut plywood, requiring all three levels to be recut, modified, and refinished every yeara process that was increasingly misaligned with both modern fan expectation and the tournaments zero-waste ambitions. Across the PGA Tour, temporary construction is the norm. Each week, courses are outfitted with general-admission grandstands, hospitality structures, media centers, broadcast towers, volunteer headquarters, and fan walkways, all designed to exist for a single event. A typical Tour stop might involve roughly 200,000 square feet of temporary flooring spread across an entire course. At most tournaments, those elements are distributed across multiple holes; at the WM Phoenix Open, they are concentrated, layered, and intensified within a single one. From disposable to reusable The 16th hole alone doubles that footprint. With approximately 400,000 square feet of flooring contained within a single hole, it operates less like a golf installation and more like a stadium buildrebuilt annually, but engineered for one of the most densely packed fan environments in sports. By both scale and construction method, the 16th hole now occupies a category of its ownwithout direct analogue on the PGA Tour or at any other sporting event worldwide. The redesign addresses that mismatch by shifting from disposable construction to modular reuse. Levels two and three have been rebuilt using fully modular decking systems encased in metal frames, eliminating the need for annual cutting on two-thirds of the structure. Only the first level still relies on plywood, reducing constructionrelated waste at the 16th hole by roughly two-thirds compared to previous builds. Designing for reuse also changed the structures internal logic. Long-span engineering allows for wider interior spaces, fewer vertical supports, and cleaner sight linessubtle changes that have an outsized impact on how fans move through and experience the space. Robert MacIntyre of Scotland throws items to fans in the stands on the 16th hole during the third round 2025 tournament. [Photo: Christian Petersen/Getty Images] The spans we created inside literally took out every other leg in the structure, Ellis says. Before, we had a support every 10 feet. Now, its every 20 feet. [Image: courtesy WM Phoenix Open] The materials themselves reflect a shift toward permanence without permanence. The structure is built from galvanized steel and aluminum, and incorporates I-beams, bar joists, and glass guardrailscomponents typically associated with fixed buildings rather than temporary events. Reducing material use Dismantling and load-out takes roughly eight weeks, after which the modular components will be stored locally at InProductions facility in Goodyear, Arizona. Because much of the structure is custom-sized for the 16th hole, about 20% of the decks and beams will be redeployed to other events, while the remaining components will be reserved for annual assembly. Across InProductions broader inventory, those same modular systems will be reused across roughly 300 events each year, allowing materials to circulate continuously rather than being rebuilt from scratch. For InProduction, aligning with the tournaments sustainability requirements was a core design constraint. As Ellis explains, the shift to a fully reusable structure was driven in part by a long-running effort to reduce material usage, particularly wood, scrim, and paint that previously had to be recycled, donated, or discarded after each event. From the outset, the goal was to cut construction-related material use. While the cassette flooring system required a higher upfront investment than traditional lumber, Ellis says it delivers long-term savings while eliminating painting and significantly reducing scrim usage, bringing the rebuild into closer alignment with the tournaments zero-waste strategy. This is a different interpretation of temporary architecture: one that still appears overnight and disappears just as quickly, but behaves more like infrastructure than spectacle. In doing so, the 16th hole becomes less a one-off anomaly and more a case study in how large-scale events can rethink durability, waste, and experience. [Image: courtesy WM Phoenix Open] Designing for Experience The new structure firmly aligns with and reflects the Phoenix Opens long-standing zero-waste ambitions. For Tara Hemmer, chief sustainability officer at WM, that significance of the redesign lies less in any single material choice than in how the structure fits into a broader closed-loop system. (Waste Management became the named sponsor of the Phoenix Open in 2010 and rebranded to WM in 2022.) Reimagining the construction of the 16th hole and making it modular and completely reusable really speaks to the heart of what it means to be a zero-waste event, Hemmer says. This is just another step in that evolution. The WM Phoenix Open officially became a zero-waste event in 2013, but Hemmer is quick to point out that it didnt start with a playbook. When we decided to try this, we had no idea how to get to a 100% zero-waste event, she says. So we had to try a lot of different things. What emerged is a system designed across time, not just space. The process begins months before the tournament, immediately after the previous one ends. The minute the tournament ends, Hemmer and her team are already working on matters for the following years tournament. Aligning with vendors WM works directly with vendors, specifying which materials can and cannot be used. We go to them and say, These are the types of materials that you can and cant use'” Hemmer explains. Those are selected by the WM team, embedded by the WM team. Vendors can propose alternatives, but only if those materials fit into the broader system. Sometimes we take those and say, That might be a best practice for all of our vendors, she says. The goal is simple but demanding: How can each item that comes onto the course be reused, donated, or recycled. That lifecycle thinking extends into unexpected areas. One example Im really proud of on 16 is beverages, Hemmer says. There are a lot of cold beverages, kept cold by ice. Ice melts, and that water has to go somewhere. Instead of discharging it, WM designed a reuse loop. Several years ago, someone came up with the idea: Can we take that water as its melting and use it as gray water for our portable toilets?, said Hemmer. Thats a great example of design thinking that happens throughout the year. The WM Green Scene At the Phoenix Open, there are no trash binsonly compost and recycling. The success of that approach depends as much on psychology as infrastructure. We have to make things exciting but also easy,” Hemmer says. Especially on 16, which tends to be very crowded. Signage, bin placement, and staff engagement are carefully designed to reduce contamination. But the ambition goes further. WM spends a lot of time in researching how fans take their messaging home, and apply it. Compost and recycling bins at the 2024 edition. [Photo: Ben Jared/PGA TOUR/Getty] The WM Green Scene, an interactive fan zone, functions as the tournaments sustainability classroom. Staffed by WM employee volunteers, the space uses golf-themed games and hands-on demonstrations to teach fans how to identify recyclable and compostable materials. In past years, visitors chipped items resembling cans, bottles, and food waste into the correct bins. This year, the space will also feature a three-dimensional WM Phoenix Open logo that allows fans to recycle bottles and cans directly. Free hydration stations encourage reusable bottles, while the tournaments 50/50 raffles tie sustainability engagement to charitable giving. Weve learned so much by watching how fans interact, Hemmer says. And yes, weve also learned how many beverage containers can be consumed in a short period of time. Behavior-led system design Weve all seen those cup snakes [collection of stacked cups] going up the 16th hole, Hemmer says. Thats important because we need to think through what fans are going to do and how we get those materials back. On the 16th hole, behavior is part of the system design. All cold beverages cups used on course are recyclable. WM anticipates misplacement, cup snakes, and even thrown cups, collecting materials from the course and manually sorting every bag to ensure proper processing. [Photo: Ben Jared/PGA TOUR/Getty] Why Sports Are the Perfect Test Lab Sporting events offer a rare advantage for experiments such as the modular system: controlled chaos. These events are remote, Ellis says. They always need infrastructure built temporarilyon a racetrack or a golf course. The level of detail increases every year. Hemmer agrees. The Phoenix Open is a closed event across several hundred acres, she says. We can test things at the 16th hole that we test differently at the 12th hole and see what works. The stakes are high, but so is the payoff. All of this depends on leadership willing to push past comfort zones. The WM Phoenix Open is the WM Phoenix Open because we take chances, Eisenberg says. We do things that not just other golf tournaments, but most other events dont do. Min Woo Lee of Australia and Akshay Bhatia, 2025. [Photo: Christian Petersen/Getty Images] Nearly a century of community commitment That confidence comes from trust that has been built over 90 years of community involvement. We have faith that if we build something and say its going to be great, our fans will support us, he says. The Thunderbirds rotating leadership structure reinforces that mindset. There is no dictator sitting on the throne for 10 years, Eisenberg says. Everybody comes in with fresh ideas, each trying to make it better. That culture extends beyond spectacle. Eisenberg points to accessibility improvements and the addition of a family care center as examples of design thats easy to overlook but deeply intentional. I hope they dont feel any burden getting in and out, he says of fan accessibility. I hope it just runs in the background. When asked what other tournaments would struggle to replicate, Eisenberg is blunt. Its hard to replicate the time weve invested, he says. We have 90 years of goodwill in our community. But he also believes the responsibility is clear. If we can do this at our size and scale, no event has an excuse. This weekend, fans will pack into the 16th hole once again. Theyll cheer, boo, and raise their cups skyward. What they likely wont notice is the modular decks beneath their feet, the materials already destined for reuse, or the systems designed months earlier to make the experience feel effortless. I hope they walk away thinking it was the most incredible temporary structure theyve ever been in, Eisenberg says. And the best sporting event theyve ever attended.
Category:
E-Commerce
After more than two decades as a psychosexual therapist, I have learned to listen carefully for what people are not saying. When vulnerability is close to the surface, uncertainty shows up quickly. Am I doing this right? Do I belong here? What am I allowed to ask for, and what will it cost me if I do? At its core, psychosexual therapy is not really about sex. It is about how humans relate when the stakes are high, when power is present, and when much of what matters remains unspoken. It is about noticing how meaning is made in moments of vulnerability and choosing how to respond rather than react. What continues to surprise me is how familiar these same dynamics feel when I step into boardrooms, leadership teams, and global organizations as a social psychologist. The context changes. The language becomes more polished. But the relational patterns remain strikingly consistent. Over years of working across more than forty countries, I came to realize that my clinical work and my leadership work were asking the same essential question: how do humans make meaning together when the cues are subtle and the consequences matter? Our jobs are rarely just jobs anymore. Many of us are seeking purpose, belonging, and fulfillment beyond a financial transaction. This is where I often see a widening gap between traditionally informed organizations and leadership styles, and those that have evolved alongside shifting sociocultural norms. We talk a great deal about generational differences. What if instead we looked at work through a relational lens? I am often described as a relationship architect. My work is about helping people make sense of their relational spaces so they can direct their energy, attention, time, and resources to where they actually bear fruit. Through this lens, I have come to see that thriving relationships, whether in the bedroom or the boardroom, are built on the same six fundamental ingredients. 1. Respect Respect is often misunderstood as politeness, obedience, or walking on eggshells. In intimate relationships, respect looks like keeping the other persons priorities in mind, honoring boundaries, including your own, and practicing what I call the platinum rule: not treating others how you want to be treated, but how they want to be treated. In professional life, respect shows up in much the same way. It is reflected in how leaders honor boundaries around time, attention, and capacity. It appears when managers understand that what motivates one team member may exhaust another. Cultures of respect are built through everyday actions, arriving on time, being fully present, and not being distracted by a phone call in the middle of a conversation. 2. Trust Trust, in both intimate and professional relationships, is built through reliable and consistent actions repeated over time. Trust allows people to relax, to be vulnerable enough so connections could form, and to take risks. This looks like doing what you say you will do, taking accountability when you cannot, and repairing when things go off course. It means saying yes only when you can follow through, and saying no early rather than offering a lingering maybe. At work, trust functions the same way. Teams trust leaders who show up predictably and communicate clearly. Trust erodes when expectations shift without explanation or when people feel they must stay guarded. In organizations, low trust quietly taxes performance. People spend more time managing risk and protecting themselves than doing their best work. Over time, this shows up in burnout and avoidable turnover. 3. Attraction Attraction is often reduced to chemistry, but in reality it is about reciprocity and choice. In intimate relationships, attraction grows when people feel wanted and when there is space to be seen and chosen again and again. Attraction can take many forms, intellectual, emotional, social, physical, or financial. In professional settings, attraction shows up as engagement. Why do people want to be in the room? Why do they choose to stay with an organization or lean into a project? Leaders often underestimate how much attraction shapes retention. When attraction is absent, organizations rely on incentives. When it is present, people stay because they feel drawn to the work, the purpose, and the people. 4. Loving behavior Loving behavior is not about romance. It is about how we make others feel. In intimate relationships, it includes making the other person feel seen, special, and given the benefit of the doubt. It often means responding with generosity rather than suspicion when something goes wrong. At work, loving behavior translates into psychological safety. It shows up when leaders assume positive intent, acknowledge effort, and recognize unique contributions. People are more willing to stretch and innovate when mistakes are met with curiosity rather than punishment and they think their contribution is unique and it matters. 5. Compassion Compassion is often confused with empathy, but they are not the same. Empathy is feeling with another. Compassion is staying present without making the other persons experience about yourself. In intimate relationships, compassion allows partners to witness each others struggles without collapsing into them or turning away. In leadership, compassion means to be there for the other in a meaningful way. Leaders who can hold space for difficulty without over relating or becoming defensive are better able to guide teams through uncertainty and change. 6. Shared vision Finally, shared vision gives relationships direction. In intimate relationships, it helps couples navigate priorities, negotiate and compromise intentionally, and make sacrifices that feel meaningful rather than resentful. In organizations, shared vision determines where resources go, how decisions are made, and what success looks like. Without it, teams may work hard while pulling in different directions. With it, even difficult choices feel coherent and strategic rather than personal. The architecture of effective human systems What I have learned, sitting with couples and working with leaders across cultures, is that relationships do not thrive by accident. Across every context I have worked in, the relationships that truly thrive share these six foundations. They are not optional and they are not interchangeable. Respect, trust, attraction, loving behavior, compassion, and shared vision are the conditions that allow people to bring their full capacity into a shared space. When they are missing, no amount of strategy or incentive can make up for it. The bedroom and the boardroom are not as far apart as we like to think. Both are spaces where power, vulnerability, and belonging are negotiated. These are not soft skills. They are the architecture of effective human systems. At the end of the day, the way we do one relationship is the way we do them all.
Category:
E-Commerce
Over the past two years, a troubling trend has started to take shape in the media; for a large majority of journalists, DEI framing became the default for covering Black businesses. What should be stories about innovation, resilience, market disruption, and leadership have increasingly been flattened into a single, repetitive narrative: DEI. Not the company’s business model. Not the founders vision or entrepreneur journey. Not the problem being solved or the customers being served. Just DEI. And its often framed through the lens of rollbacks, political backlash, or cultural controversy. This didnt begin overnight, but in recent years and especially amid the political climate shaped by the Trump administration, it has accelerated to the point of absurdity. Today, if a business is Black-owned, media coverage almost reflexively treats it as a DEI case study rather than a company. The founder becomes a symbol, success becomes secondary, and the story becomes predictable before the first paragraph is even finished. One Narrative, Over and Over Again If you listen closely to news interviews from 2024 until now between reporters and Black founders, nine times out of ten a pattern quickly emerges. The questions sound eerily similar. How are DEI rollbacks affecting your business? What does the current political climate mean for Black entrepreneurship? How do you feel about corporate pullbacks from diversity initiatives? My company, Brennan Nevada Inc. New York Citys first and only Black-owned tech PR agency, has been able to witness this firsthand through my daily interactions and interviews with members of the media. Ive prioritized spending more time and conducting the necessary due diligence that preps my clients on how to engage, navigate, or just not participate in the same DEI obsessed interview. With these interviews between journalists and Black founders, the most important questions often go unasked, like What problem does this business solve? Or What makes it competitive? How did the founder build it? And What lessons can other entrepreneurs learn from its success? And when coverage does come out, it typically leads with the current administrations DEI rollbacks, and less like profiles of thriving companies. The rhetoric reflects commentary on diversity politics, with the business itself serving as a backdrop rather than the subject. When Black-Owned Becomes a Category, Not a Credential The underlying issue is subtle but very damaging: Black-owned has become synonymous with DEI in media framing. That equation is flawed and needs to be reworked. A Black-owned business is not inherently a diversity initiative or a political statement. It is first and foremost a business built by someone who just so happens to be Black. Thats it. Yet most media coverage today increasingly suggests that Black success exists primarily within the context of diversity efforts, and worse, that it is somehow dependent on them. When DEI programs face scrutiny or rollbacks, Black businesses are often portrayed as collateral damage rather than as resilient enterprises capable of thriving on merit, strategy, and execution. This framing does a disservice not only to Black founders, but to readers and audiences as well. It robs them of real business insight and reinforces the idea that Black success must always be explained through an external lens. The media tends to shift its tone to whats currently happening in the cultural moment, especially when towards Black businesses. Five years ago during George Floyds murder and the Black Lives Matter movement that happened around Juneteenth in 2020, the media positively highlighted a lot more Black businesses alongside brands that pushed for DEI to address systemic barriers. The Cost of Poor Storytelling This media obsession with DEI is getting old really fast. It reduces complex entrepreneurial journeys into political soundbites. And it quietly undermines the credibility of Black founders by implying that their success is inseparable from institutional support rather than personal vision and capability. Im not saying this is being done on purpose, because even well-intentioned coverage can fall into this trap, and oftentimes does. When every story leads with race rather than results, representation becomes reductive instead of empowering. The irony is that truly compelling stories are being missed. There are Black founders building category-defining products, solving real-world problems, scaling companies, and creating jobs; stories that deserve the same depth and seriousness afforded to any other entrepreneur. But those stories require more work. They require curiosity beyond a headline. They require journalists to move past the easiest narrative available. Whats Next for Black Stories in 2026 As media organizations reassess their role in shaping public discourse, 2026 presents an opportunity for a long-overdue reset. What would it look like to cover Black businesses the same way we cover all businesses, by focusing on innovation, leadership, and success first? What if founders were allowed to be experts in their industries rather than spokespeople for diversity debates? What if success stories were told as success stories? None of this means ignoring race or pretending systemic inequities dont exist. Thats not what Im saying since that context absolutely matters. But its my belief that context should inform a story not consume it. A Black-owned business should not automatically trigger a DEI narrative. And Black entrepreneurship should not be treated as a subplot in a political storyline. If the media wants to tell better stories in 2026, it needs to start by asking Black founders better questions, and by remembering that Black businesses are not symbols. We are enterprises. We are innovations. And we deserve to be covered as such.
Category:
E-Commerce
It’s Q1 2026. Your chief financial officer is cutting innovation budgets by 20%. Your AI pilot showed 94% accuracy improvements. The LLM is yielding solid results. You’re getting defunded anyway. The reason? You solved a problem AI can solve. Your budget-holder needed you to solve theirs. Companies launch AI pilots that produce results, then stall at scale. The team’s diagnosis: “They don’t get it.” What’s really going on: These projects never earned budget-holder buy-in. Passing the budget-holder test requires three things pilot teams fall short on: analytic proof that you move their needles, execution confidence that scale is achievable, and relational trust that you have their back. As economic headwinds hit 2026, here’s how to know if your project will surviveand what to do about it now. Analytic ProofDo You Move Their Needles? Budget-holders don’t fund impressive technology. They fund solutions that move metrics they get credit for at bonus time. Your pilot team celebrates: “Our AI improves processing accuracy by 40%!” Your budget-holder asks: “Does that improve my customer retention rate? Lower my cost per acquisition? Move my net promoter score? Show me the math and where this shows up in monthly financial reports.” Most teams can’t answer. They proved the technology works. They got great feedback from customers. They didn’t prove it moves the drivers of financial outcomes that matter to the person holding the purse strings. One of the most challenging barriers I encountered in banking: We proved migrating customers to digital self-service generated huge impacts on customer segments aligned to product P&Ls. But accounting systems didn’t attribute these improvements to each P&L owner. They couldn’t “get the credit” in performance reviews. Without attribution in the system of record, results almost didn’t exist. P&L owners had no incentive to shift resources from familiar approaches to digital initiatives they wouldn’t get recognized for. You may prove improvements in metrics everyone claims to supportcustomer experience, innovation, digital transformation. But if those improvements aren’t attributable to line items on their scorecard, they won’t survive prioritization discussions. This requires analytic work most pilots skip: understanding what drives the budget-holder’s financial metrics, connecting AI outputs to those drivers with causation and magnitude, and confirming results will manifest in financial reporting. When the CFO asks “prove ROI,” showing AI accuracy improvements isn’t an answer. Showing how accuracy translates to their measured outcomes is. Execution ConfidenceCan You Actually Scale This? Your pilot worked in controlled conditions with a small team, friendly users, and tolerance for iteration. Your budget-holder knows what you might not: What you needed to test is totally different than what you need to scale. They’re assessing execution risk. Can you articulate what’s different about scaling? Have you anticipated the capabilities to address those differences? Four capability gaps erode budget-holder confidence. Strategic optionality: AI evolves faster than traditional planning cycles. If your road map locks the organization into today’s context, you’re creating risk. Human judgment integration: Edge cases that were 2% of your pilot become thousands of customer impacts at scale. Do you know where human judgment is essential, or will you create operational chaos? Quantitative versus qualitative reality: Your dashboard shows 85% adoption. But are users completing tasks because the experience works, or because they have no alternative? Sustaining motivation: Organizational anxiety about AI is realpeople fear being replaced. What’s your impact on the budget-holder’s team motivation to achieve 2026 targets? Budget-holders who’ve seen technology work in pilots but fail at scale won’t fund projects where execution risks aren’t anticipated and addressed. Relational TrustDo You Have Their Back? This is the most critical dimension. Your budget-holder is assessing: Do you understand my pain? Are you here to make me successful, or to pursue the latest “shiny object”? The gap shows up in how teams frame problems. “We can use AI to automate customer service” starts with what AI can do. “Your call center costs are 15% above target and customer satisfaction is droppinghere’s how we address both” starts with their problem. It shows up in how you treat pushback. If the budget-holder or their team are “obstacles” to what you believe should happen, you’ve already failed. Their messages are loaded with intelligence about what they need before they’ll get on board. A team I worked with spent two years trying to get a test file of customer names from an operations team to validate a hypothesis. They kept asking without diagnosing the real issue: colleague fear of a new approach that seemed implausible and raised risks to predictable results. It could be overcome only through trust-building and patience. Given anxiety about AI replacing jobs, are you building confidence or eroding motivation among the people who need to execute? Budget-holders fund teams they trust understand their reality. Active champions invest in your success. Passive tolerance means you’re first on the cut list. The MetroCard Lesson In 2006, my team at Citi partnered with Mastercard and the Metropolitan Transit Authority to prove contactless payments worked in subway turnstiles. The technology performed. User feedback was strong. But scaling required three complex organizations to align business models, priorities, cultures, and decision-making. The execution capability took two decades to build. Today’s AI leaders don’t have 20 years. You have until Q1 budget reviews. What to Do This Week Assess where you stand on all three dimensions: 1. Analytic ProofCan you draw a direct line from AI outputs to your budget-holder’s measured outcomes? Not “Our accuracy improved, but “Here’s how accuracy translates to the retention rate you’re accountable for and will show up in your results”? If you can’t make that connection, do that analysis before asking for scale funding. 2. Execution ConfidenceCan you articulate what’s different about scaling versus piloting? Have you identified execution risksstrategic optionality, human judgment integration, what dashboards miss, organizational anxietyand built capability to address them? If you think scale is just “bigger pilot,” you haven’t earned their confidence. 3. Relational TrustHonest assessment: Are you focused on making your budget-holder successfu, or on building impressive technology? Are you treating their concerns as intelligence or obstacles? What’s your impact on their team’s motivation? If they’re not actively championing your project, you’re at risk. The AI projects that survive 2026 won’t necessarily be the most technologically impressive. They’ll be the ones where teams built all three dimensions of budget-holder confidence. Economic pressure doesn’t care about your pilot. It cares whether you solve their problem or yours.
Category:
E-Commerce
Laying people off takes its toll. Going back 25 years plus ago, I can still remember every situation that I had to do it in, says Robert Kovach, a work psychologist and former corporate executive. The experience sticks with you, he says. Because its not just about operational stress: Have I filled out the forms? Made the calls? Its also filled with moral stress, he adds. Even when the decision is necessary, it can feel like a violation of your own personal values. People laying off their coworkers often feel a clash between their responsibility to their company and their responsibility to be a good person to the people theyre laying offparticularly because layoffs are about a company needing to downsize, not always about the individual employees poor performance. These feelings have been coming up a lot lately, with layoffs reaching a high in 2025, and 2026 already being off to a layoffs-filled start, with Amazon, Pinterest, UPS, Home Depot, Dow, and others announcing cuts so far. While getting laid off can of course be devastating, theres a big emotional challenge for the people who must do the laying off, as well. How do you [show] respect [for] someone when you know you’re about to mess up their life? Kovach asks. Though you may get feedback from higher-ups that you shouldnt feel bad for letting someone go because its just business, you know deep down, that its not. Its all very personal, Kovach says. Fast Company spoke with several mental health experts about the psychological underpinnings of having to lay someone off at work: the anxiety leading up to the event, the language to use during the moment of truth, and the guilt-provoking aftermath. Maintaining composure throughout is keybut how do you? Like Kovach says: Youre about to mess up someones life. Prepare Being the person who has to deliver the news can be deeply distressing, says clinical psychologist Melanie McNally. Psychologically, many people experience anxiety, guilt, and even a sense of grief. Approach a layoff meeting with a clear idea of how you want to handle it, says Victor Lipman, a Psychology Today contributor who provides coaching on mindful management at work. This doesnt necessarily mean having a script ready, as that can come off robotic or impersonal, but lay out some key talking points you need to hit during the conversation. These might stem from organizational obligations. Consult with the appropriate powers that be, says Lipman, whether thats human resources or the companys legal department. You may be obligated to make certain statements about severance or explain the reason for layoffs in a certain way. Its worth making sure those points are covered not just to fulfill the duties to your organization, but also to add some predictability to an otherwise unpredictable situation. You may also want to turn to colleagues for moral support. Preparing emotionally might involve talking with a trusted colleague or supervisor, says McNally. HR and mental health providers might also be available at your company to help with layoff prep. Ultimately, to go into a layoff meeting prepared, its important to acknowledge and validate your own feelings first, says McNally. One way to do that, says Kovach, is to name that this is going to be tough. Dont pretend that youre a robotaccept the emotional component and choose to lean into the empathy that comes with it. Be direct Everyone knows that there is a wrong way to lay someone off. When former Google employee Vivek Gulati prepared for a meeting one morning in January 2023, he checked his email to find an announcement that the company would conduct 12,000 layoffs. (At least this email was sent on purposejust last month, Amazon accidentally sent employees an email announcing a round of global layoffs, which they later confirmed would indeed take place.) The next email in Gulatis inbox contained his personal layoff notice. In a story he wrote about this experience for Harvard Business Review, Gulati also shares how his manager learned about his layoff. He had tried to enter an office building, and his badge didnt work, Gulati writes. It was a rough way to find out. This is why mental health experts recommend conducting layoffs in person. Employees deserve personal communication, says Lipman. Laying someone off face-to-face exhibits emotional maturity in a companys leadership. For the person conducting the layoff, however, the temptation to do so at a distance is understandable. By using text or email, you wont have to see the person break down; you wont be faced with trying to comfort them in a situation where you cant provide much assurance. Kovach compares these at-a-distance layoffs to the studies from the 1960s where participants were told they were tasked with administering electric shocks to people they couldnt see in another room. It was much easier to knowingly cause someone harm when the administrator didnt witness it. While you should be physically present to lay someone off, its best if no one else is. Ideally, layoffs should be conducted in a private, neutral space, like your office or a quiet meeting room, says McNally. Be clear and direct. McNally suggests avoiding euphemisms, which might confuse or minimize the situation. For instance, you might feel compelled to cushion the blow with something like, Were going through a rough time financially now at the company, but if things turn around, Id love for you to get your job back. That likely doesnt represent a promise you can keep. You want it to be an efficient meeting, Lipman says, one that doesnt heighten existing emotional distress or provide false hope. Zoom can constitute such a private, neutral space if its facilitating a one-on-one meeting. This work for layoffs when thats the usual way you communicate with an employee, but if youre both working at a physical office, its best to eschew video calls in this tense moment. (And of course, mass firings over Zoom never go well, yet continue to be part of many big firms MO for laying people off.) Also: dont bash the company. Youre still management, Lipman says, and need to act professionally. Lipman suggests saying something like, I’m sorry to see you go. I’ve enjoyed working with you, but this is just something that has to be done. While Kovach acknowledges certain enterprises might offer scripts to ensure everyone losing their jobs get treated the same (for legal and/or policy reasons), its okay to massage that script into your own words for a personal touch. At the organizational level, companies should give transparency about why the layoffs are taking place: was a particular department underperforming? Did a new product fail to meet revenue goals? Companies can also offer mental health resources for employees conducting layoff, whether that’s in-house or via referrals. Also, the timing of layoffs should be well thought out and diligently coordinatedno one should find out theyre jobless because their key card suddenly doesnt work. Ready for reactions Calmness can be contagious, as can agitation, Lipman says. Bad reactions to getting laid off run the gamut, says Kovach. From tears to physical outbursts to even suicidal ideation, responses reflect the fact that losing a job is a massive, detrimental shakeup to someones life and well-being. It can fuel what somebody already believes about themselves, so they can slip into a narrative of I just wasn’t worth keeping, says social worker Yvonne Castaeda. This is why an explanation of its not you; its the company can be so important. When encountering emotions from employees like shock, anger, sadness, anxiety, or even relief, McNally suggests, the best practice is to allow space for these emotions and dont try to fix them right away. Thats because you wont be able to. Instead, take the time to listen to the employee, and validate their feelings in that moment. Provide support resources where you can, either from within your company or an outside trusted job placement organization, and give concrete details about severance packages. You can also encourage those whove been laid off to reach out to family, friends, or mental health professionals, McNally says. Not everyone handles these emotions calmly, even if you exude calm while conducting the layoff. People are very capable of making a scene in a layoff situation, says Lipman. You want to be sure you have some backup in case anything goes wrongsecurity, if it comes to that. Then theres dealing with your own guilt for having to lay off a coworker. Maybe this persons also a friendsomeone with whom youve shared successes and failures at work, and whose families youve maybe barbecued with on Sunday afternoons. Its normal to feel guilt, sadness, or even anger after laying someone off, McNally says. Reflecting on what took place, either alone, with friends, or with a mental health professional, can help process these emotions, as can generally practicing self-care, like getting enough sleep and exercise. At the end of your day, reassure yourself that this was something you had to do in the management role that you were in, Lipman says. If you offered empathy and clarity during a layoffthen its better you conducted it, than someone who considered it just business.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] next »