 |
|
|
|||||
The business worlds most exclusive club has always been the boardroom. For decades, it has operated as a roped-off circle of experience, where pattern recognition, war stories, and collective gut instinct guided the biggest decisions. But the most recent quarterly earnings calls and 2026 spending projections across industries from tech to finance make it clear: That era is ending. As business complexity explodes and competitive cycles compress, those old methods are showing their limits. Artificial intelligence is exposing blind spots, surfacing inconvenient truths, and rewriting how boards govern, challenge, and lead. The transformation goes beyond adding new tools and technologies to the boardroom playbook. AI is changing how directors think, what they question, and how they hold management accountable. And as AI matures, its transforming boardrooms from bastions of intuition into engines of continuous intelligence. Here are three ways that shift is unfolding, and how forward-thinking boards are adapting. Data Finally Beats Anecdotes In my experience doesnt cut it anymore. AI can process customer behavior patterns, market signals, and competitive shifts faster and more accurately than any human can. When a director recalls how a similar situation played out 15 years ago, AI can instantly test whether that approach worked then, and whether it would still work today. Leading boards are now requiring management to back up claims with AI-driven analyses alongside traditional reports. Gut instinct still has a role, but its being paired with evidence-based validation. Boards and leaders must learn to partner with AI’s analytical horsepower, even (or especially) when it feels unnatural or risk being left behind. Predictive Intelligence Forces Long-Term Thinking Boards often fall into the trap of short-termism, reacting to the last quarter rather than anticipating the next disruption. AI changes that. Predictive models can now forecast churn months in advance, identify market shifts before they appear in analyst reports, and simulate how strategic moves might play out under different scenarios. This pushes boards to engage in true foresight: asking whats next, not what happened. It extends the time horizon of governance from postmortem analysis to strategic anticipation. New Skills Are Redefining Who Belongs in the Boardroom Board composition must evolve. The traditional mix of former CEOs, financial experts, and industry veterans, valuable as they are, is no longer sufficient. Boards now need directors who understand data governance, algorithmic bias, and digital operating models. That doesnt mean replacing experience with youth, but pairing wisdom with fluency. Forward-thinking boards are addressing this through structured approaches: creating dedicated AI oversight committees, partnering long-serving directors with AI-savvy advisors, and requiring all directors to complete AI governance education programs. The goal isnt to turn every director into a technologist, but ensure that every director can think critically about AIs strategic and ethical implications. Whats Next? Boards have always made decisions based on databut until now, that data arrived slowly, selectively, and often filtered through human bias. AI changes the tempo and texture of governance. It challenges assumptions in real time. Companies whose boards resist this shift will find themselves making yesterdays decisions about tomorrows challenges. Those who embrace it will lead with sharper foresight, faster adaptation, and deeper accountability. The choice isn’t whether to embrace AI in governanceit’s whether boards will use it to lead or follow.
Category:
E-Commerce
At its core, public health is about driving healthy behavior changes by building awareness, meeting people where they are, and offering solutions that are accessible and grounded in evidence. Throughout my career, I have worked on issues ranging from foster adoption and drunk driving prevention to tobacco prevention and cessation, always with science as our foundation. But the media landscape, and how people engage with information, has changed dramatically. To remain relevant and effective, public health must evolve. That means rethinking not just what we communicate, but how we motivate, engage, and sustain healthy behaviors. WHY ITS IMPORTANT TO LEAN IN Gamification, using elements of game design in an existing digital product or intervention to engage users and change behavior, has become an increasingly common approach in public health. It can reframe intimidating goals like exercising more, managing stress, and quitting nicotine into smaller, achievable steps that feel tangible and motivating. When implemented effectively, gamification can improve user engagement by supporting intrinsic motivation, learning and skill development, social interaction, and a sense of accomplishment. In many ways, public health cant afford to ignore gamification. Addiction is already gamifiedand its winning. As one example, smart vapes now feature screens, rewards, animations, and puff tracking. These high-tech devices have become top-selling products, with 32% of youth and 33% of young adults reporting using vapes with screens, games, or Bluetooth connectivity in the past month. These products are applying the same engagement strategies used in consumer tech to drive repeat use and ultimately sustain addictive behavior. WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS Mounting evidence supports gamification use in public health. As an example, some randomized trials show that socially incentivized gamified interventions can significantly increase physical activity, compared with non-gamified approaches. Similar approaches have been used to improve medication adherence, chronic disease management, and preventive health behaviors. Participants assigned to team-based challenges or friendly competition sustain healthier behaviors longer than those receiving traditional prompts alone. Progress you can see becomes behavior you repeat. Interventions using gamification share some core principles: making health interactive, trackable, or social. Many effective gamified health interventions align with self-determination theory, which identifies three drivers of motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE BACKING IS NEEDED Well-designed programs dont just reward outcomes; they reward effort, consistency, and resilience. In public health, that distinction matters, because change rarely happens all at once. It happens through daily re-commitments. Public health succeeds when it rewards persistence and practicenot perfection. Campaigns, which often complement an intervention, can also be gamified. The campaign itself can inspire behavior change, while also encouraging sign-up for the specific health intervention. The collective result: stronger outcomes. The approach can be especially relevant for younger generations, who may expect things like daily check-ins, streaks, and digital accountability as part of their digital experiences. We are infusing some gamified elements into EX Program from Truth Initiative, our free, digital nicotine-cessation resource developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic. By implementing elements that mirror gamification principles like check-ins, milestones, progress encouragement, virtual rewards, and social reinforcement, we help participants stay engaged with quitting behavior. These features are designed to reward effort and participation rather than outcomes alone. We know that every try makes you stronger the next time. APPLY GAMIFICATION BEYOND TRADITIONAL HEALTH TOOLS We have also tested creator-led digital experiences that reflect how young people already motivate one another online. As part of You Got This Day, a national moment designed to reframe Quitters Day as an opportunity to recommit after relapse, Truth Initiative worked with Gen-Z creators to create and launch a Snapchat augmented-reality lens called 30 Day Challenge. Developed through Snap Academies, the lens encourages young people trying to quit nicotine to focus on making it one more day without using nicotine, through visual progress tracking, supportive messaging, and social accountability. Rather than relying on financial incentives or competition, the experience emphasizes encouragement, persistence, and community, reinforcing evidence-based support through EX Program. For Gen Z, platforms like Snapchat and TikTok arent channelsthey’re cultural fluency. Designing health interventions that live there brings gamification to young consumers where it already resonates. REASONS FOR CAUTION Evidence points to important caveats to consider when moving toward a more gamified public health approach. Over-reliance on competition can discourage people who fall behind. Extrinsic rewards can crowd out internal motivation, or risk trivializing an important topic for participants. And without strong privacy protections, data-driven health tools can run the risk of eroding trustparticularly among individuals who are already wary of surveillance and misuse. Theres also a risk of superficial engagement. Points without purpose dont change lives. The most effective interventions are grounded in evidence, are culturally relevant, and are responsive to users real-world challengesnot just their attention spans. THE PROMISE Despite these challenges, the promise of gamification in public health is real. This novel approach for public health can become a catalyst for measurable health behavior change. By recognizing how people already engage with technology and then designing public health tools that feel supportive, human, and achievable, were turning participation into progress. In a world where screens dominate attention and traditional health messaging can struggle to break through, gamification can complement proven public health strategies that support sustained behavior change. The future of public health isnt louder messaging, its smarter engagement. Kathy Crosby is CEO and president of Truth Initiative.
Category:
E-Commerce
If you haven’t read the book The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman, youre probably at least familiar with the idea behind it: that people give and receive care in different ways. Some value words, others actions. Some want quality time; others want gifts or closeness. Problems arise when two people in a relationship give and receive care differently. Even the best intentions dont land if theyre expressed in a way the recipient doesnt recognize. This dynamic is well-established in personal relationships, but I’ve also seen a version of it play out between leaders and their teams. Very often, what leaders see as performance issues are really a mismatch in leadership languages. As a leader, I consider it my job to enable people around me to be their bestboth at work and beyond. Applying the idea of leadership languages to these relationships gives me a practical framework for doing that. LEADERSHIP IS EXPERIENCED, NOT DECLARED Just as in personal relationships, leadership is not measured by what you mean to convey, but by what the other person experiences. As leaders, we care deeply about our teams. Yet even the best intentions can get lost in translation when theres a leadership language mismatch. Like there are leadership styles, there are followership preferences. Some people want clear guardrails; others want autonomy. Some value frequent feedback; others prefer independence. When leadership and followership styles align, work feels energizing. When they dont, even talented people struggle. These disconnects often show up as performance problems. But at a deeper level, they are translation problemsmoments when a leaders way of showing support or direction doesnt align with what a team member needs to do their best work. Ive seen this pattern repeatedly, and Im sure you have too: A strong hire struggles. Communication becomes tense. Projects and initiatives stall. Often, a leaders instinct is to treat the problem as a performance issue and institute more structure, clearer expectations, and tighter oversight. But that makes the situation worse, because the problem isnt capability. Its that the leader and team member speak different leadership languages. 5 LEADERSHIP LANGUAGES Every leader Ive met has a unique leadership style, but Ive seen common patterns that lead me to believe we all default to one of these five leadership languages. They all have their advantages, but they also all have the potential to be misunderstood by people who work best with a different leadership language: Direction and controlCharacterized by: Centralized decisions, detailed guidance, and close involvement. How its received: For some, this creates clarity and confidence; for others, it feels like micromanaging. Inspiration and visionCharacterized by: Emphasis on purpose, narrative, and momentum over day-to-day execution. How its received: Motivating for mission-driven teams, but frustrating for those who want clear direction. Empathy and presenceCharacterized by: Leading through listening, availability, and emotional attunement. How its received: Builds trust and a sense of belonging but can slow decision-making. Results and accountabilityCharacterized by: Relentless focus on outcomes, metrics, and performance. How its received: Drives excellence in some people and burnout in others. Servant leadershipCharacterized by: Prioritizing growth and enablement. How its received: Builds long-term capability but requires clarity and boundaries to work well. None of these approaches is inherently good or bad. It’s important for leaders to understand that their preferred style may not match what their team members need. CLARITY IS A LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY Before diagnosing an issue as a performance problem, ask: Has this person succeeded in similar roles before? Does the friction feel procedural? Or does it feel more personal? Are you responding with more of what isnt working? Would this person describe your leadership the way you intend it? Do you see a pattern across multiple people you manage? Taken together, these questions help distinguish true performance gaps from leadership that’s lost in translation. Its on us as leaders to be explicit about how we lead. People should not have to figure out our leadership styles through trial and error. That clarity starts in the hiring process. I’m direct with candidates about how I lead. I even encourage them to talk with people who have worked for me to learn about my leadership style. A leadership language fit is too important to leave to assumption. It may seem like this level of transparency could limit the candidate pool or make people feel excluded, but my goal is to give them agency. My primary leadership language is servant leadership. That works wonderfully for a lot of people. But for people who want more direction and control, Im probably not the best fit. And thats okay. Better to know early on and make decisions accordingly. WHAT TO DO MONDAY MORNING Of course, no organization can have only one leadership language. There will always be mismatchesand leaders can address them with clear assessment and communication: Name your default leadership style. Be explicit about how you lead when youre not consciously adjusting. Ask your team what they need. Ask what helps them do their best work and what gets in the way. Create a simple translation guide. Note how each direct report prefers to communicate, receive feedback, and operate day to day. Revisit strained relationships. Before escalating performance concerns, have a direct conversation about working styles and expectations. Make alignment part of onboarding. Share your leadership language early and invite new hires to do the same. Small moves like these wont change who you are as a leader, but they can change how people experience your leadership. Leadership alignment is one of the most underutilized tools in building high-performing teams. You may be the worlds best leader, but that doesnt mean much unless the way you lead helps the people around you do their best work. Chris Ball is the CEO of 6sense.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||