 |
|
|
|||||
Since the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the power of tech moguls has been more conspicuous than ever. Elon Musk, the worlds richest man, campaigned extensively for Donald Trump and earned first buddy status. One of the most circulated photos from the inauguration showed the lineup of Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg standing in front of Trumps Cabinet picks. Musk donated at least $250 million to Trumps campaign, while Bezos and Zuckerberg each pledged $1 million to the inauguration. Such active support of the president has struck many as glaringly opportunistic, given that all three were significant critics of Trump and his actions during his first term. But looking at how their companies and leadership have evolved, perhaps it shouldnt come as much of a surprise. Over the past two decades, these leaders early commitments to the public good dissipated as their wealth piled up. When they were scrappy startups, they followed the common path of underdogs bucking against the systems that stood in the way of success. But as they accumulated vast power and became part of the establishment, their focus shifted to protecting the very systems they used to challenge. This is an age-old pattern. The Medici family rose to prominence in Florence and used their wealth to support important arts and civic projects. As their power consolidated, they became entrenched in Florentine politics and eventually led through corruption and violence. Julius Caesar went from populist leader to dictator for life, as did Napolean. The saying Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely reflects this trajectory. Todays tech moguls may be gratified they have achieved such dominance, but history shows that overreach invites resistance, and as cultural values evolve, the very traits that once defined a leaders success can later lead to their downfall. Over time, public resentment at the Medicis authoritarian control and reliance on patronage led to exile and collapse of their dominance; Caesar and Napoleon were murdered and exiled, respectively. The history of modern business is replete with similar stories. Henry Ford revolutionized work with his $5-per-day wage, then went on to violently suppress labor, and at the end of his life struggled to compete with GM and Chrysler. More recently, Adam Neumann of WeWork and Travis Kalanick of Uber ran through this cycle at record speed. Bezos is, so far, a textbook example of the first half of this doomed path. In the early days of Amazon, he focused on e-commerce with the vow to make goods more affordable and accessible to everyone. Now the company is a poster child for labor abuses. More than a decade ago, when Bezos bought The Washington Post, he promised not to interfere in the papers coverage. This commitment was shattered when he killed the papers endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris less than two weeks before the election. Bezos said the decision was due to a principled stance to reestablish trust in the media, but his true feelings for Trump were clearly on display when he was one of the first billionaires to offer fawning postelection congratulations for the twice-impeached presidents extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory. While some expressed surprise at this turn toward Trump, Bezoss waning commitment to the public can be traced to other domains as well, such as Amazons treatment of workers and its backtracking on its climate commitments. Amazons journey from a small online bookstore to a global tech giant earned Bezos years of admiration from business and mainstream press. He was Time magazines Person of the Year in 1999, and topped many best CEO lists, including those of Fortune in 2012 and Harvard Business Review in 2014. Alongside these recognitions, serious questions emerged about Bezoss management of Amazon. In May 2014, the International Trade Union Confederation labeled him the Worlds Worst Boss, condemning the inhumanity of Amazons business and employment models. Bezos was dropped from Harvard Business Reviews ranking of the top 100 CEOs in 2019 due to the companys working conditions and employment policies, among other factors, a dramatic omission given that he was one of only a few CEOs who had appeared every year from 2013 to 2018. Such reassessments are due, at least in part, to the fact that expectations about what constitutes responsible leadership shift over time. While the achievements of business leaders are frequently credited to their personal skill and effort, research from Harvard Business School on the 1,000 most well-known leaders in the 20th centuryfrom Henry Ford to Jack Welchshowed that their successes, and the publics perceptions of them, were due primarily to how they appealed to the dominant cultural values of their time. The conclusion is that leaders who thrive when certain business practices are celebrated run into problems when the business environment shifts. Consider Welch, CEO of General Electric from 1981 to 2001. In 1999, he was hailed as the best CEO of the 20th century for embodying the idea of shareholder primacy, which posits that a corporations sole objective is maximizing short-term profits for shareholders. But the standard Welch pioneered has undergone a critical reappraisal. Harvard Business Review stated in 2020 that he probably isnt the ideal model for 21st-century executives. In a recent book titled The Man Who Broke Capitalism, New York Times journalist David Gelles situated Welch historically and explored his devastating legacy. Since Welch stepped down, GE has struggled, and as of 2024 when the company split itself up, its stock still traded for less than it did when Welch retired. In 2018, it was removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average after being a founding company in the index more than 120 years ago. A significant reason was that GE Capital, the growth engine under Welch, saw massive losses following the 2008 financial crisis. The reappraisal of Welchs legacy, and middling results of the companys finance-driven focus since 2000, serves as a poignant illustration of the evolving skepticism of the neoliberal shareholder-centric model he exemplified. Its also emblematic of how leaders models become antiquated after changes in the business environment. Welchs ideas are now seen as disastrous in an era that has increasingly demanded a focus beyond short-term profit. Seen from this perspective, despite the privileged position the broligarchs enjoyed at Trumps inauguration, their days at the top may be numbered. While many have likened Trumps ideas and policies as a throwback to Welchs day, a key difference is there are many indications that the public is increasingly fed up with greedy CEOs. In a tragic example, Luigi Mangionewho shot and killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompsonwas celebrated online as a folk hero striking back against an executive who boasted that the companys positive earnings were from slashing insurance coverage. A recent YouGov poll found that more 18- to 29-year-olds had a favorable opinion of Mangione than an unfavorable one, which may be a leading indicator of the depth of contempt for business leaders who exploit the public. Its unclear how long the general public will stand for todays gross displays of skyrocketing inequality. Bezos, for instance, reportedly believes that people are inherently lazy, and so, in addition to harsh working conditions, Amazons employment model is designed for minimal upward mobility. Recently, however, the company has experienced significant pushback from workers who have voted to unionize at one of the companys distribution facilities and an Amazon-owned Whole Foods supermarket. Its also notable that Amazon, Tesla, and Meta have all recently suffered backlash from consumers disgust at their leaders behaviors. With growing discontent comes a shift in cultural values, and while the tech bros power today may seem unassailable, history shows this can change quickly, and it may not be long before the nations richest citizens are seen not as pioneering heroes but as the embodiments of greed, corruption, and the worst excesses of 21st-century capitalism.
Category:
E-Commerce
After years of pressure from the pandemic, the challenges of managing remote, hybrid, and RTO workplaces, and inconsistent organizational support, managers are on the brink of a crash. The coming manager collapse is kicking off a vicious cycle for organizations. As managers struggle, Gen Z sees the toll of the job and backs away, leaving fewer employees to rise into management roles. This puts more pressure on remaining managers. At the same time, several years of manager layoffs have left fewer people taking on these responsibilities. In 2023 alone, middle managers made up over a third of all layoffs. The remaining managers are under more pressure, with growing stress leading to higher rates of burnout. New research from my organization, meQuilibrium, shows just how deep the manager shortage could become. In addition to higher expectations for their performance, managers experience 59% higher emotional demands than their team members. They often face these elevated risks in isolation, being 12% less likely to receive support when they need it. The risks are also known precursors to burnout, disengagement, and quitting. UKG has found that almost half of middle managers would likely quit within the year due to stress. Organizations cant attain their goals for growth without resilient managers who have the skills to support their teams, says meQuilibriums Alanna Fincke, SVP Content and Head of Learning, who first identified the likelihood of a manager crash earlier this year. Employees who dont feel supported by their managers are more than four times as likely to quit their jobs, and twice as likely to report poor overall well-being. When this house of cards falls, it will impact the entire organization. On the flip side, employees who feel strongly supported are more protected from psychosocial risks at work, such as mistrust, conflict, and excessive work pace. These employees are two times as likely to perceive that conflicts are resolved fairly and 2.6 times more likely to receive help when needed. Strongly supported employees are also much more likely to feel like the pace of work moves at a sustainable rate in which they can complete their tasks. The manager role is indispensable for high workforce performance. But if todays managers crash, who will be there to pick up the pieces? Gen Z Says No Thanks Next-generation employees show little interest in the challenges of management. Despite Gen Zs greater openness to change, a recent Robert Walters survey revealed that 72% of Gen Z respondents would choose an individual route to progression over managing others. Sixty-nine percent say middle management is too high-stress and low-reward. (Its not just Gen Z. CNBC reports 42% of U.S. workers say theyd turn down a promotion.) Theres another complication, too. Even if Gen Z workers were looking for management jobs, our research shows many dont yet have the skills to handle the emotional turbulence of change, which is part and parcel of managing teams. Compared to their older colleagues, Gen Z employees experience 34% higher change anxiety and 25% lower emotional stability in the face of change. This anxiety may be spurring them to self-select out of manager roles they could excel in. To stop and reverse the draining of present and future manager talentand prevent organizational growth from stagnatingleaders have to do two things. First, they have to change how their organizations support their managers. Second, leaders need to equip younger employees with the skills to handle change. The following actions are key: Assess and address workplace psychosocial risks Psychosocial risks are characteristics of work design and management that negatively influence performance. They include high workload, poor work-life balance, workplace conflict, lack of control, lack of meaning at work, and inadequate support. These risks are often measured as environmental impacts, affecting teams, business units, and entire workforces. For example, a meQ customer recently sent a psychosocial risk survey to 34,000 employees and contractors. With a 50% response rate, the company gained significant data to identify risk factors across job functions, such as a lack of meaning for finance employees and a lack of control in the manufacturing unit. Tight deadlines are the most common psychosocial risk, according to research by the University of Washington School of Public Health, with 43% of all U.S. workers exposed. Consider an engineering team that feels like the demands on them are too high. These strains typically lead to anxiety and depression, which both endanger attention and focus on the job and put the entire team at high risk for burnout and turnover. Managers are nearly 40% more likely to cite excessive workloads compared to non-managers. Almost as many report insufficient time for tasks, and 34% are more likely to report needing to work at a very fast pace. These risks have both financial and human costs in increased absenteeism and more workers’ compensation claims. Poorly managed psychosocial risk also leads to elevated mental health risks and a range of negative physical health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal disorders, and diabetes. A comprehensive psychosocial risk assessment, including mitigation strategies and support, is the clearest path to improving managers performance and experienceand changing how the rest of the workforce views the role. Eact clear policies that support manager health and well-being Explicit policy decisions can help managers protect and promote their own mental and physical well-being. This might look like mandatory “disconnect” periods, sabbaticals, or easing access to acute mental healthcare resources. Making sure managers have consistent, supportive check-ins with their own supervisors can help reduce isolation. Leaders can also model and reinforce workplace norms that prioritize health. For example, a leader for an R&D unit might maintain consistent boundaries on work hours to sustain the high cognitive demand of the job. He or she might also begin meetings with simple well-being check-ins, modeling the normalcy of mental health discussions in day-to-day work. With these actions, companies set a positive example for the entire organization and invest in the sustainability of their management pipeline. Deploy evidence-based techniques to build resilience Comprehensive, evidence-based resilience programs equip managers with practical tools to improve team interactions, communication, and collaboration. Digital cognitive behavioral therapy tools can also help managers recognize and replace unproductive thought patterns with more effective alternatives. As managers develop these skills and model them for their teams, they become better equipped to maintain clear communication channels, inspire collaborative problem-solving, and guide teams through periods of change or uncertainty. Ultimately, investing in leader resilience translates to improved team performance, increased productivity, and a more positive work environment that drives organizational success. Focus on Gen Z The previous steps are meant to improve the experience and perception of the manager role. But organizations also need to train their young employees in the essential skills they lack. In our research, Gen Z employees score significantly lower on core capabilities such as emotion control, stress management, engagement, and positivity. At the same time, we have found the employees most skilled in handling change and challengethe realities that managers deal with dailyhave the highest levels of those very skills: emotion control, stress management, engagement, and positivity. These are the specific, actionable areas to focus Gen Z training efforts on in order to improve their ability to handle management demands. Organizations that take a systematic approach to supporting managers and Gen Z workers can end the vicious cycle. The key lies not in grand transformations, but in consistent, practical steps to embed the fundamental capabilities of resilience and support across the organization. The result will be a more stable, sustainable workforce, capable of handling change and ready to lead through it.
Category:
E-Commerce
Is LinkedIn the new TikTok? Short-form video is now the fastest-growing category on LinkedIn, growing at twice the rate of other post formats on the platform. According to LinkedIn, total video viewership surged 36% in the first quarter of 2025. Now, LinkedIn is doubling down on video with new features to boost discovery and engagement. The full-screen vertical video experience, first launched on mobile, is now coming to desktop. Users can tap a video, swipe through more, and explore a new video tab for TikTok-like scrolling. Videos are also getting front-and-center placement on the platform. Now, when you search a topic, relevant videos will appear in a swipeable carousel. A bigger follow button in the full-screen player makes it easier to keep up with creators, and viewers can check out a quick profile snapshot and other videos without leaving the player. For users looking to capitalise on the video push, LinkedIn has also launched nano-learning courses on topics including video hooks, editing, repurposing content, and LinkedIn Live. Across LinkedIn, were seeing our members have widespread success when it comes to posting short-form video, Laura Laurenzetti, executive editor of LinkedIn News tells Fast Company. From small business owners to CEOs to Gen Z creators and more, video on LinkedIn is the new frontier for professional successwhich is why were excited to be rolling out a suite of new tools that make the video creation and viewing experiences on LinkedIn even stronger. While LinkedIn might not be the first place people go to doomscroll, its quickly becoming a powerful tool for creators, entrepreneurs, and businesses. Since March 2024, LinkedIn has been pushing hard to attract video creators, launching a TikTok-style vertical feed filled with career advice, industry news, and other content. The move seems to be paying off with video uploads jumping 34% year-over-year in Q4 2024, according to LinkedIn. LinkedIn creators are also seeing the results. Top executives are jumping in, with CEO video posts rising 23% in the past year. Deeptech VC Alex Leigh recently reported two million impressions a week after just three months posting consistently three times a day on LinkedIn. Last month, content creator Piper Phillips saw 13.8 million views on a video made on her phone in 10 minutes. I missed the opportunity to be an early adopter of TikTok and Reels, she wrote in a post. I do ~not~ intend on making the same mistake for LinkedIn video.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||