 |
|
|
|||||
We still use industrial-age language to describe work: running like clockwork, tightening bolts, and burning the midnight oil. Those phrases made sense when productivity meant turning raw material into widgets. But in an era of climate disruption, AI acceleration, and record-high burnout, a purely mechanical model cant keep up. It drives us to measure hours instead of impact and speed instead of sustainability. Today, with artificial intelligence reshaping knowledge work and climate urgency redefining corporate responsibility, its time for a new vision of productivityone centered on human and planetary flourishing, not just output. The next evolution of work demands a shift from efficiency to emergence, from silos to systems, and from time-tracking to meaning-making. From Machines to Living Systems The metaphors we use drive the systems we design. Treat an organization like a machine and youll optimize for speed, control, and predictable outputs. Treat it like a living systemdynamic, interdependent, and regenerativeand a different design logic emerges. Heres what changes when we swap gears for genes: Sense-and-respond edges. Like cell membranes, customer-facing teams become sensors that provide real-time insights back to the core, allowing the entire organization to adapt quickly. Organizational metabolism. Energy (attention, data, and trust) is metabolized into creativity, innovation, and renewal, not just raw output. Cultural homeostasis. Healthy feedback loops foster psychological safety and inclusion, ensuring the system remains vibrant even as external conditions change. Seeing companies this way frees leaders from predicting the future; instead, they cultivate conditions in which emergent intelligence can thrive. Measuring Vitality, Not Just Time The hours worked show little correlation with the value created. What matters is employee vitality, the degree to which people feel rested, connected, and empowered to take risks and experiment. Global four-day-week pilots demonstrate the benefits: burnout dropped by 71%, stress decreased by 39%, carbon emissions are noticeably lower, and retention is markedly higher. Microsoft Japans Work-Life Choice Challenge, a four-day workweek pilot, proves this point. By closing offices every Friday (while maintaining pay), sales per employee increased by roughly 40%, energy use decreased by 23%, and printing costs dropped by 60%. The gains werent the result of heroic hustle; they were the fruit of redesigning the system itself. Letting AI Amplify Humanity AI can be the scaffolding for a more human-centric enterprise. Routine analysis that once devoured strategic attention now finishes in minutes. In my advisory work, I have seen leadership teams channel the freed-up bandwidth into scenario building, story crafting, and high-trust stakeholder dialogues. McKinsey estimates that generative AI could lift labor productivity growth by up to 3.4 percentage points per year through 2040. Those gains appear only when roles are deliberately reinvented, not merely automated. This isnt AI versus humans; its AI with humans. From Linear Growth to Regenerative GROWTH If the industrial era taught us to measure work in widgets and hours, the new era demands a more integrated lens, one that blends systems thinking, emotional intelligence, and regenerative design. To translate organism thinking into everyday practice, we developed the GROWTH frameworka six-step shift from extractive output to regenerative impact: G Generate New Metaphors: Swap factory for forest, and assembly line for ecosystem. Fresh language surfaces hidden assumptions and fresh design options. R Reimagine Human Roles: Let AI handle the rote tasks so people can focus on curiosity, synthesis, and relationship-building. O Optimize for Human Vitality: Prioritize rest, autonomy, and connection; vital people compound long-term value. W Work in Ecosystems: Replace silos with cross-functional guilds that share data, talent, and learning loops. Complexity is tamed through connection. T Track Whole Metrics: Pair profit with carbon avoided, bias reduced, and ideas shipped. What gets measured gets improved. H Harvest Regeneration: Design projects that return energy to the systememployee upskilling, circular supply chains, and community partnerships. Questions to Spark the Shift Changing how we think about productivity begins with changing our questions. Use the prompts below in leadership sessions, strategy retreats, or team huddles to surface hidden assumptions and align around a more human-centered, system-aware approach to work. Which metaphors dominate our language today, and what behaviors do they reinforce? Where could AI relieve cognitive or emotional load so humans can do higher-order work? What value are we creating that isnt yet on a scorecardculture, climate, social trust? If we trimmed hours by 10%, where would vitality and innovation likely rise? What small regenerative habitrepair, reuse, reflective pausecould we start this quarter? We stand at a crossroads. We can cling to mechanical models that view people as cogs and growth as linear output, or we can adopt a living-systems mindset where vitality, adaptability, and shared purpose define productivity. Redesigned productivity isnt about working less; its about working more wisely. The future wont be built by those who clock the longest hours. It will be built by those who design the richest conditions for creativity, connection, and contribution. The machine age is ending; the living-system era has begun. Lets grow accordingly.
Category:
E-Commerce
I recently saw James Gunns new Superman movie, and as I sat there in the dark theater, I couldnt help but think that Nicholas Hoult based his Lex Luthor on Elon Musk. Something about that smirk he kept flashing throughout the movie reminded me so much of the Tesla CEO’s. But Hoults mannerisms werent the only thing. His Luthor had several other characteristics that I, and many others, see in Musk, most notably a savior complex and a need to be adored. Thats in addition to the fact that in this film, Luthor is a tech billionaire with significant contracts with, and influence over, the government. The thing is, during a lie detector test conducted somewhat in jest by Vanity Fair, Hoult told Superman star David Corenswet that he did not base his Lex Luthor portrayal on Elon Musk. Corenswet noted that Hoult had previously said he wanted to make his Luthor as alpha as possible, and asked whether there were any alpha male podcasts Hoult listened to to prep for the role. Hoult replied that he hadnt listened to any podcasts, but he did listen to the audiobook of Elon Musk’s book, even though I didn’t base the character on Elon at all. But I just thought it’d be interesting. [Note: Hoult did not clarify if he was talking about Musk’s official biography, written by Walter Isaacson in 2023, or Ashlee Vance’s unofficial Musk biography, from 2015.] Still, its hard not to spot the similarities between the controversial Musk and Supermans greatest foe. And Superman isnt the first movie with such similarities, intended or not. In recent years, Musk and other tech billionaires have seemed to have served as direct inspiration for movie villains. Yet things haven’t always been this way. [Photo: Marvel Studios] Elon Musk inspired the most iconic superhero of the 21st century Before Robert Downey Jr. starred as Tony Stark in 2008s Iron Man, few people outside of the comic book world could tell you who Iron Man was. Yet, thanks largely to Downey Jr.s portrayal, Iron Man became a household nameand kick-started the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has allowed now-owner Disney to rake in tens of billions of dollars in box office receipts over the past 17 years. In the script, Downey Jr.s Stark was charming, intelligent, and slightly arrogant. He leveraged his extreme wealth and technological prowess to make the world a better place. This take on the characterwho had existed in comic book form since 1963was heavily based on Elon Musk. In a 2022 interview with New York Magazine, Iron Man screenwriter Mark Fergus made it clear that the Tesla billionaire was an inspiration for Stark. Fergus said that Stark had historically been a Howard Hughes-style figure, but 2008s Iron Man needed a more contemporary inspiration. Fergus and his colleagues decided that the contemporary Stark was somewhat of a trinity figure, a mixture of three people. The first two were Donald Trump and maybe a little Steve Jobs. But it was Elon Musk who was the guy who grabbed the torch [from Howard Hughes]an industrialist who also would appear in the gossip pages. Trump was fun before he became presidenthe was actually kind of a goofy celebrity. Steve Jobs was always serious and angry; he never quite had that gift of the bullshit . . . Fergus explained. Musk took the brilliance of Jobs with the showmanship of Trump. He was the only one who had the fun factor and the celebrity vibe and actual business substance. Marvel didnt shy away from this comparison, either. After the first film became a smash hit in 2008, the studio quickly greenlit a sequel, Iron Man 2, which came out in 2010. In that film, Downey Jr.s Stark actually meets the real Elon Musk at a party in Monaco and compliments the real-world billionaire on SpaceX’s Merlin engines. Yet, the late 2000s are a long time ago now, especially in terms of politics, culture, and Musks public persona. Musk and tech billionaires are now movie villains Ive previously opined about how the world will likely never have another Steve Jobsa tech leader beloved by the general public. There are many reasons for this. The primary one is that Big Tech companies were generally seen as wondrous institutions improving our lives on a nearly monthly basis in the early 2000s. Since then, their integration with our lives and influence over it have dramatically expandedand not for the better. Tech companies are now largely viewed as self-interested entities that prioritize their profits over the greater good. E-commerce giants destroy small businesses, social media companies engagement algorithms reward bad behavior and poison public discourse, and artificial intelligence firms are so entwined with government and power that one cant help but be concerned about where it will all lead. And because of this shift in public sentiment towards tech companies, a shift has also occurred in the publics perception of the billionaire CEOs who lead them. This is perhaps nowhere more true than with Musk, who has publicly involved himself in governmental affairs of nations like no other CEO before him. All these changes have led, rightfully, to more distrust of the tech industry and those who lead the companies that power it. Suddenly, those same leaders have become the role models for fictional movie villains. It’s hard to watch the 2017 film The Circle and not see parallels between Tom Hankss evil ocial media CEO and Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg. And two films in 2022Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery and Jurassic World Dominion seem to have patterned their villains after Musk and Apples Tim Cook, respectively. The thing is, no director or actor in these movies has confirmed that any real-life tech CEO is the direct inspiration for these characters. In Glass Onions case, director Rian Johnson denied that the antagonist, Miles Bron, played by Edward Norton, was based on Musk, despite many observers seeing similarities between the two. Thats just sort of a horrible, horrible accident, Johnson told Wired. But he also noted that Theres a lot of general stuff about that sort of species of tech billionaire that went directly into [the movie], adding, But obviously, it has almost a weird relevance in exactly the current moment. That weird relevance has lasted years now. And, as Superman shows, it’s easier than ever for audiences to accept tech CEOs as modern-day villains, whether or not that villain is directly inspired by any singular individual. Societys ongoing tendency to now view tech leaders as the bad guys likely means that we can expect more in the future. At least until they own all the movie studios.
Category:
E-Commerce
Just like the dodo and passenger pigeon before it, the affordable new car is about to go extinct as a species. The last new Mitsubishi Mirage model is expected to be sold by the end of this summerand after that, there will be no new cars available for sale in the U.S. for less than $20,000. The Mirage is a fuel-efficient compact hatchback, and until it sells out, it is the cheapest new car on the market. In June it sold for an average transaction price of $18,484. [Photo: Mitsubishi] The Mirage was able to stay so cheap by offering the bare minimum. It’s tiny. And while it has now-standard features like a touchscreen and rearview camera system, it doesn’t have much else. In Car and Drivers review of the final 2024 Mitsubishi Mirage G4, the publication gave the car a 3/10 rating, noting that it was cheap to buy but cheaply made, with a puny engine and drab driving demeanor. “Cheap? Yes. Cheerful? Not so much,” it said. This is a car that gets you from point A to point B. If you want to get there quickly, that’s extra. You get what you pay for. [Photo: Mitsubishi] Mitsubishi said last year that it was ending production of the Mirage, and now there are only some 1,700 left, according to data from the car-services firm Cox Automotive. Based on the current sales pace, the firm predicts the last Mirage will be sold by summer’s end. Buyers looking for the cheapest new car will then have to turn to the 2025 Nissan Versa S ($20,130) or 2025 Hyundai Venue SE ($21,695), per Cars.com. Inflation since the pandemic has hit the automotive industry especially hard, with the average transaction price for a new vehicle rising from about $40,000 in 2020 to nearly $49,000 in 2025, per Kelley Blue Book data. Tariffs imposed by the Trump administration have led to increased production costs, and while major automakers have yet to announce consumer-side price increases in response to new import duties, Doug Ostermann, CFO of Stellantis, said during a call on July 21 that he believes we’re coming to the end of that period.” While the Mirage is no-frills, it offered buyers an ultracheap option for when cost was the most important decision-making factor. Without it, the average price of new cars will only continue to climb.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||