At a time when mainstream brands live in fear of getting dragged into a contentious political landscape, theres something curiously benign, almost feel-good, about Florsheimgate.
If youve somehow missed it, this particular instance of an involuntary pop-culture brand cameo came about following press reports this week that President Donald Trump has become an enthusiastand de facto brand ambassadorfor Florsheim dress shoes, gifting pairs to cabinet members and media allies. The upshot is that less-than-$150 Florsheims have become the hottest and most exclusive MAGA status symbol, according to The Wall Street Journal.
But more to the point, administration insiders who dont find the brand hot in the slightest, and would likely prefer more luxurious footwear, are sticking with the shoes Trump gives themeven, weirdly, if they dont fit. This naturally caught the attention of MAGA critics, who promptly lit up social media with mockery of the 79-year-old presidents taste and allegedly Stalinesque bullying of his compliant minions.
And this included some collateral damage for the venerable, and some might say dowdy, Florsheim. But really, even the inevitable dunking (what a dated mall brand!) seemed good-humored. Florsheim, one Bluesky user wrote. When a Gift From Wicks n Sticks Just Isnt Enough. Others added comments like florsheim didn’t go out of business in like 1978? and Florsheim shoes? Man, that guys brain really is stuck in the 80s and Ok I give. Whats Florsheim. And of course plenty of memes.
I get the feeling well be discussing Florsheim shoes today.— (@sundaedivine.lol) 2026-03-11T10:18:31.168Z
Funny, but well short of a dangerous brand backlash. Nobodys demonizing Florsheim-wearers in general, putting out videos of shooting up loafers, or organizing a grassroots brand-oppo campaign on behalf of Vuitton loafers.
To the contrary, it seems, at worst, to be a short-term, almost charming free publicity reminder to those who dont know that the brand is still aroundand, apparently, thriving. Turns out, Florsheim enjoyed record wholesale sales of $92 million in 2025, according to parent Weyco Groups most recent earnings release and call earlier this month, demonstrating resilience in a declining market for non-athletic brown shoes.
The Florsheim brand has a choppy history dating all the way back to 1892. Worn by everyone from Harry Truman to Michael Jackson, its a brand deeply embedded in American consumer culture, a staple brand of the suburban shopping malls heyday. But it also endured a bankruptcy filing in 2002. Its now part of the Weyco Group, whose CEO is Thomas Florsheim Jr., a fifth-generation Florsheim. (Sales of other Weyco brands Nunn Bush, Stacy Adams, and Bogs were down last year, dragging down revenue and earnings for the company overall.)
Weyco did not respond to an inquiry from Fast Company, but CEO Florsheim told The Journal he was not aware of Trump’s orders (and declined further comment).
In the conference call (which predated this weeks Trump fandom news), the CEO was upbeat, calling Florsheim one of the few mens [shoe] brands outside of the athletic category to sustain this level of post-pandemic growth. While the non-athletic brown shoe category has been in secular decline, Florsheim has bucked the trend and gained market share.
Whether thats true or not, the association with Trump seems more like a passing entertainment than a brand controversy. At a moment of profound tension brought on by war and the threat of a new global oil crisis, Florsheimgate didnt land like a point of contention; it was more like comic relief.
In an interesting footnote, Weyco noted in its earnings call that tariff impactswhich CEO Florsheim has groused about in the pastsignificantly affected gross margins in 2025. Those tariffs have since been judged illegal by the Supreme Court, and the company is optimistic about retrieving $16 million from tariff refunds.
Maybe Trumps Cabinet members should keep a spare pair of another brands loafers at the office, just in case Florsheim goes out of fashion at the White House.
For the first time that I can remember, this year I was completely enthralled by the Winter Olympics. In fact, I dont think Id ever watched the Winter Games before, but it really caught my attention this go-round. One event that really stood out for me was the skeleton.
For the uninitiated (like I was just a month ago), the skeleton is a slide-based sport where athletes lie face down, headfirst, on a small slide going 80 mph down an icy, declining slope. On the surface, it doesnt look like it requires much from the athlete but to lie down and hang on for dear life until crossing the finish line.
But upon further inspection, the sport is far more intricate, requiring the athlete to make subtle adjustments with their shoulders, knees, and even their toes to control and steer the sled. The slightest weight shifts can make the difference between first place and last. As if the Olympics werent competitive enough, the margin of error in this event is miniscule.
I was fascinated, particularly about the idea of finding balance. Theres so much talk about work-life balance, work-self balance, and just about any other something-something balance where the two somethings seem to be at odds with each other. To find balance, we make subtle adjustments throughout our days and weeksblocking off time, making time, taking timein hopes of steering our lives and maintaining control of ourselves. However, according to Misan Harriman, balance is less of an act and more of a series of choices that informs action; its not what we decide to do but who we choose to be.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/studio_16-9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/studio_square_thumbnail.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"FROM THE CULTURE","dek":"FROM THE CULTURE is a podcast that explores the inner workings of organizational culture that enable companies to thrive, teams to win, and brands to succeed. If culture eats strategy for breakfast, then this is the most important conversation in business that you arent having.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Listen","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/playlist?list=PLvojPSJ6Iy0T4VojdtGsZ8Q4eAJ6mzr2h","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91470870,"imageMobileId":91470866,"shareable":false,"slug":"","wpCssClasses":""}}
Raw and honest moments of humanity
Harriman is a photographer, activist, and Oscar-nominated filmmaker whose work has been prominently featured in publications like Vogue, celebrated on awards stages, and widely shared throughout the zeitgeist. His work captures the raw and honest moments of humanityin resistance, grief, joy, and all the many manifestations of our true existence.
Our conversation with Harriman on the From the Culture podcast explored the balancing act of profitability and principle, where he argues that profit at all costs carries a heavy price tag that can cost us our authenticity. We make decisions at work that call into question the integrity of who we perceive ourselves to be outside of the office.
Tech CEOs sell products to schools that they hardly ever let their own children use. Managers treat their subordinates in ways that would anger them if it were something their spouse had to endure. Whether its the way we communicate with peers or manage our presentation of self at work, far too often there is an imbalance between ourselveswho we say we are and how we are. Our inconsistent performances of self not only cause harm in our work but can also cause a crisis of authenticity.
Fittingly, sociologist Erving Goffman likens the theatrical stage to the dynamics of social living, borrowing from William Shakespeares comedy As You Like It, where he writes, All the worlds a stage, and all the men and women merely players.
Our presentation of self, as Goffman posits, is a choice we make. We decide which character we choose to play in social life. This choice subsequently demands a series of decisions that coincides with said character. The costumery. The script. The mannerisms. The exits and entrances. They are all by-products of the character we choose to play. That is to say, who we choose to be informs how we choose to be.
A choice of character
Through this lens, the balancing act of work-life or work-self is a choice of character and commitment to it. And although we attempt to balance the existence of two characters with adjustments here and there, like the athletes in the skeleton event, these seemingly subtle shifts of self can have tremendous impact. The idea then is to remain true to self, one character that is consistent despite the context. This is, after all, the definition of authenticity.
As Goffman warns, we should pay mind to the mask we choose to wear because if we arent careful, our mask could soon become our face. This means we have agency in the matter. We can decide who we want to be and, therefore, how were going to behave. We have a choice; but when we dont choose, the context will certainly choose for us.
Check out our full conversation with Misan Harriman on the latest episode of From the Culture here on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/studio_16-9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2026\/01\/studio_square_thumbnail.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"FROM THE CULTURE","dek":"FROM THE CULTURE is a podcast that explores the inner workings of organizational culture that enable companies to thrive, teams to win, and brands to succeed. If culture eats strategy for breakfast, then this is the most important conversation in business that you arent having.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Listen","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/playlist?list=PLvojPSJ6Iy0T4VojdtGsZ8Q4eAJ6mzr2h","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91470870,"imageMobileId":91470866,"shareable":false,"slug":"","wpCssClasses":""}}
The U.S. military was able to strike a blistering 1,000 targets in the first 24 hours of its attack on Iran thanks in part to its use of artificial intelligence, according to The Washington Post. The military has used Claude, the AI tool from Anthropic, combined with Palantirs Maven system, for real-time targeting and target prioritization in support of combat operations in Iran and Venezuela.
While Claude is only a few years old, the U.S. militarys ability to use it, or any other AI, did not emerge overnight. The effective use of automated systems depends on extensive infrastructure and skilled personnel. It is only thanks to many decades of investment and experience that the U.S. can use AI in war today.
In my experience as an international relations scholar studying strategic technology at Georgia Tech, and previously as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy, I find that digital systems are only as good as the organizations that use them. Some organizations squander the potential of advanced technologies, while others can compensate for technological weaknesses.
Myth and reality in military AI
Science fiction tales of military AI are often misleading. Popular ideas of killer robots and drone swarms tend to overstate the autonomy of AI systems and understate the role of human beings. Success, or failure, in war usually depends not on machines but the people who use them.
In the real world, military AI refers to a huge collection of different systems and tasks. The two main categories are automated weapons and decision support systems. Automated weapon systems have some ability to select or engage targets by themselves. These weapons are more often the subject of science fiction and the focus of considerable debate.
Decision support systems, in contrast, are now at the heart of most modern militaries. These are software applications that provide intelligence and planning information to human personnel. Many military applications of AI, including in current and recent wars in the Middle East, are for decision support systems rather than weapons. Modern combat organizations rely on countless digital applications for intelligence analysis, campaign planning, battle management, communications, logistics, administration, and cybersecurity.
Claude is an example of a decision support system, not a weapon. Claude is embedded in the Maven Smart System, used widely by military, intelligence, and law enforcement organizations. Maven uses AI algorithms to identify potential targets from satellite and other intelligence data, and Claude helps military planners sort the information and decide on targets and priorities.
The Israeli Lavender and Gospel systems used in the Gaza war and elsewhere are also decision support systems. These AI applications provide analytical and planning support, but human beings ultimately make the decisions.
Researcher Craig Jones explains how the U.S. military is using artificial intelligence in its attack on Iran, and some of the issues that arise from its use.
The long history of military AI
Weapons with some degree of autonomy have been used in war for well over a century. Nineteenth-century naval mines exploded on contact. German buzz bombs in World War II were gyroscopically guided. Homing torpedoes and heat-seeking missiles alter their trajectory to intercept maneuvering targets. Many air defense systems, such as Israels Iron Dome and the U.S. Patriot system, have long offered fully automatic modes.
Robotic drones became prevalent in the wars of the 21st century. Uncrewed systems now perform a variety of dull, dirty, and dangerous tasks on land, at sea, in the air and in orbit. Remotely piloted vehicles like the U.S. MQ-9 Reaper or Israeli Hermes 900, which can loiter autonomously for many hours, provide a platform for reconnaissance and strikes. Combatants in the Russia-Ukraine war have pioneered the use of first-person view drones as kamikaze munitions. Some drones rely on AI to acquire targets because electronic jamming precludes remote control by human operators.
But systems that automate reconnaissance and strikes are merely the most visible parts of the automation revolution. The ability to see farther and hit faster dramatically increases the information processing burden on military organizations. This is where decision support systems come in. If automated weapons improve the eyes and arms of a military, decision support systems augment the brain.
Cold War-era command-and-control systems anticipated modern decision support systems such as Israels AI-enabled Tzayad for battle management. Automation research projects like the U.S.s Semi-Automatic Ground Environment, or SAGE, in the 1950s produced important innovations in computer memory and interfaces. In the U.S. war in Vietnam, Igloo White gathered intelligence data into a centralized computer for coordinating U.S. airstrikes on North Vietnamese supply lines. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agencys strategic computing program in the 1980s spurred advances in semiconductors and expert systems. Indeed, defense funding originally enabled the rise of AI.
Organizations enable automated warfare
Automated weapons and decision support systems rely on complementary organizational innovation. From the Electronic Battlefield of Vietnam to the AirLand Battle doctrine of the late Cold War and later concepts of network-centric warfare, the U.S. military has developed new ideas and organizational concepts.
Particularly noteworthy is the emergence of a new style of special operations during the U.S. global war on terrorism. AI-enabled decision support systems became invaluable for finding terrorist operatives, planning raids to kill or capture them, and analyzing intelligence collected in the process. Systems like Maven became essential for this style of counterterrorism.
The impressive American way of war on display in Venezuela and Iran is the fruition of decades of trial and error. The U.S. military has honed complex processes for gathering intelligence from many sources, analyzing target systems, evaluating options for attacking them, coordinating joint operations, and assessing bomb damage. The only reason AI can be used throughout the targeting cycle is that countless human personnel everywhere work to keep it running.
AI gives rise to important concerns about automation bias, or the tendency for people to give excessive weight to automated decisions, in military targeting. But these are not new concerns. Igloo White was often misled by Vietnamese decoys. A state-of-the-art U.S. Aegis cruiser accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988. Intelligence mistakes led U.S. stealth bombers to accidentally strike the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, in 1999.
Many Iraqi and Afghan civilians died due to analytical mistakes and cultural biases within the U.S. military. Most recently, evidence suggests that a Tomahawk cruise missile struck a girls school adjacent to an Iranian naval base, killing about 175 people, mostly students. This targeting could have resulted from a U.S. intelligence failure.
Automated prediction needs human judgment
The successes and failures of decision support systems in war are due more to organizational factors than technology. AI can help organizations improve their efficiency, but AI can also amplify organizational biases. While it may be tempting to blame Lavender for excessive civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip, lax Israeli rules of engagement likely matter more than automation bias.
As the name implies, decision support systems support human decision-making; AI does not replace people. Human personnel still play important roles in designing, managing, interpreting, validating, evaluating, repairing, and protecting their systems and data flows. Commanders still command.
In economic terms, AI improves prediction, which means generating new data based on existing data. But prediction is only one part of decision-making. People ultimately make the judgments that matter about what to predict and how to use predictions. People have preferences, values, and commitments regarding real-world outcomes, but AI systems intrinsically do not.
In my view, this means that increasing military use of AI is actually making humans more important in war, not less.
Jon R. Lindsay is an associate professor of cybersecurity and privacy and of international affairs at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The modern workplace is designed for early risers. But only about 30% of people are true morning types. The rest fall somewhere in betweenor toward the later end of the spectrum (those who think, create, and perform best later in the day).
Through my work implementing circadian health and performance in organizations in 17 countries, I’ve discovered three strategies to help night owls create workdays that protect their energy, creativity, and well-being so they can perform better and share their true talents.
1. Give yourself a slow start
As a night owl, your day simply starts laterand thats by design. Give your body time to wake naturally and ease into the day without rushing. Morning daylight (outside) can help, as it’s your internal clock’s strongest synchronization signal. Get at least 20 minutes of daylight before noon. This exposure won’t turn you into a morning person, but it helps stabilize your rhythm, reduce social jet lag, and boost alertness when your day begins.
Magne, a late chronotype I work with, thrives when he can start his day quietly and let his energy build through the morning. When he aligns his schedule with his rhythmworking deeply in the afternoon and protecting calm morningshis focus and creativity soar.
If your organizations rhythm starts earlier than yours, make micro-adjustments: Move demanding work to the afternoon, take short daylight breaks, or negotiate one or two later start times per week. Even small shifts can make a measurable difference to your sleep quality and mood, because they help protect the REM sleep that fuels creativity and emotional balance.
Most of your REM sleep happens in the final hours of the nightso when an alarm cuts off those last one to two hours, you can lose up to half of your REM. Small changes like these help you reclaim that vital recovery time and bring your body back in sync.
2. Do your hardest work later
Your performance peaks in the afternoon or evening. Use those hours intentionally for strategy, problem-solving, and creative work.
If you have some flexibility to set your work schedule, protect late-day focus blocks where you can work without interruption. And always set a clear end time so that your late energy doesnt steal the sleep that refuels it. You thrive when working in the evenings, but turn off your computer at least one hour before you go to bed. The light from screens delays melatonin and can push your sleep window even later.
3. Schedule afternoon exercise
Your body is at its physical best later in the day. Research shows that late chronotypes perform up to 26% better in the afternoon and evening compared to the morning. Strength, flexibility, and coordination all peak as your temperature and alertness rise.
That’s why it’s important to schedule exercise in the afternoon or early evening, when your body is naturally primed. Its not just better for performanceit also supports sleep quality by helping you wind down gradually.
Evenings are also when your social energy is highest. Many cultural and social activitiesconcerts, theater, dinners, and gatheringsare already designed for night owls.
When you align your day with your biology, you protect your energy and unlock your full potential.
And when leaders replace moral judgment with biological understanding, they unlock trust, creativity, and genuine performance. As jazz legend Miles Davis put it: Sometimes it takes a long time to sound like yourself.
Designing your workday around your chronotype is one of the fastest ways to soundand worklike yourself.
Oil is a global market, so when prices rise in one place, they rise everywhere. The current war against Iran has already raised oil prices significantly.
Mideast oil production has been slowed by efforts to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for oil tankers from the Middle East to the rest of the world, as well as by attacksand fears of attackson oil production, storage, and shipment installations.
This war has also disrupted the flow of liquefied natural gas from Qatar, which controls almost 20% of the global market. That also affects the world economy and supply chains. Shortages of natural gas affect production of fertilizer and aluminium, as well as other key materials.
As a professor who has been studying oil price shocks for two decades, Im often asked about the effects of rising oil prices on the U.S. economy. The answer to that question has changed over the past two decades.
The global economic picture
Countries that import much of their oil have to pay other countries for that imported oil.
That was a problem for the U.S. back in the 1970s through the early 2000s. The U.S. sent billions of dollars a year abroad to oil-producing countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. That money built up other countries economies or sloshed around as financial surpluses that fueled financial market exuberance and asset bubbles that could suddenly pop.
Oil imports increased the U.S. trade deficit in the 1970s and beyond. And as a result, U.S. industries suffered from high energy costs, which forced closures of major U.S. steel plants and iron and copper mines. Falling purchases of cars and other durable goods also stimulated worker layoffs.
A shift in U.S. production
Now, however, the United States is a major producer and exporter of oil and refined petroleum products. Every day, on average, the U.S. exports more than 6 million barrels of refined products and more than 4 million barrels of crude oil.
The U.S. does still import some crude oil, most of which is heavy oil from Canada handled at certain American refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Factoring in those imports, net U.S. oil trade balance is a positive 2.8 million barrels per day, as contrasted with the mid-2000s, when the balance was a deficit of 12 million barrels per day.
U.S. production comes from 32 statesthough mainly from the biggest producers: Texas, New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska, Oklahoma, and Colorado. Because that revenue comes to companies in the U.S., the nations gross domestic product is less vulnerable to oil price increases than in the past, when high prices meant more U.S. dollars flowing overseas.
window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});
A changed economy
In addition to being less dependent on imports, the U.S. economy is much less oil-intensive than it used to be, producing more economic value with far less oil use today than in the past.
And researchers at the U.S. Federal Reserve report that gasoline prices havent been a major contributor to U.S. inflation in recent years. Thats because there are lots of ways Americans use less gasoline, including telecommuting and remote work, online shopping, and using electric vehicles and delivery trucks that run on batteries or other fuels.
Still, other economists disagree and say current oil prices, which are above $100 a barrel, could increase current U.S. inflation rates by as much as 1 percentage point.
The mental toll
Though the U.S. is economically less vulnerable to oil-price shocks, there is also a psychological factor. Its hard not to feel pessimistic when gasoline prices at the local pump are already rising: Bulk market prices are already soaring amid hedging trades and speculative fervor among traders and wholesalers and on U.S. commodity futures markets.
Americans feel pessimistic about consumer spending when gasoline prices are rising. And a study found that high gas prices even make people feel unhappy.
Research also shows that people tend to put off major durable goods purchases, such as automobiles, when oil prices rise sharply. That could mean bad news for the U.S. auto industry.
But it is also possible that high gasoline prices might encourage more Americans to consider buying electric cars. That could help the car companies that were having difficulty moving their electric-vehicle inventories. And for people who own electric vehicles, the war and its resulting price increases can be a reminder of the benefits of living gasoline-free.
More broadly, th war might be yet another reminder of the benefits of diversifying energy sources away from fossil fuels. As my research shows, oil price shocks generally lead to greater investment in clean technologies.
Amy Myers Jaffe is a director at the Energy, Climate Justice, and Sustainability Lab and a research professor at New York University. She is also a faculty affiliate of the Climate Policy Lab at Tufts University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
My friend Jessica Kriegel often warns her clients about the action trap, the urge to do somethinganythingwhen things arent going well. Yet while taking action might make us feel better, its no guarantee well get results. Many leaders fall into this trap, confusing taking action with making an impact, which can blind us to the underlying problem.
The truth is that you cant change fundamental behaviors without changing fundamental beliefs. It is, after all, beliefs, in the form of norms, that get encoded into a culture through rituals that drive behaviors. So unless you make a serious effort to understand the underlying problem youre trying to solve, any action you take is unlikely to be effective.
Thats why you need to start by asking good questions. While coming up with answers makes us feel decisive, those answers will close doors that should often be left open and explored. Good questions, on the other hand, can lead to genuine breakthroughs. With that in mind, here are three essential questions you need to ask before embarking on a transformational initiative.
1. Is this a Strategic Change or Behavioral Change?
Every change effort represents a problem, or set of problems, to be solved. A strategic change starts at the top and needs effective communication and coordination for everybody to play their role, like the famous case at Intel, when Gordon Moore and Andy Grove made the fateful decision to move out of memory chips and bet the company on microprocessors.
In a strategic shift, resistance is not particularly relevant. That doesnt mean it doesnt exist. As Grove recounted in his memoir, Only the Paranoid Survive, there were plenty at Intel who questioned the decision. But as chairman and CEO, Moore and Grove had full authority to allocate budgets and convert factories, and the change was going to happen whether people liked it or not. Thats why traditional change management methodologies, like Kotter’s 8 Steps or Proscis ADKAR (awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement), tend to be effective for strategic changes.
Yet research shows that change itself has changed. In 1975, 83% of the average U.S. corporations assets were tangible assets, such as plants, machinery, and buildings, while by 2015, 84% were intangible, such as licenses, patents, and research. That means the changes we grapple with today have less to do with strategic assets like factories and equipment and a lot more to do with the things people think and do every day.
Clearly, that changes how we need to approach transformation. Because often the most important changes involve collective action, which can be maddeningly complex. People adopt things when they see others around them doing so. Success begets more success, just as failure begets more failure. Big communication campaigns can ignite early resistance and backfire, while isolated individual efforts rarely scale.
For collective action problems, we need to focus on, as network science pioneer Duncan Watts put it to me, easily influenced people influencing other easily influenced people. You build momentum and reach critical mass not through persuasion but through connectionby empowering early adopters and helping them influence others.
2. What are the Shared Values?
Humans naturally form tribes. In a study of adults who were randomly assigned to leopards and tigers, fMRI scans revealed signs of hostility toward out-group members. Similar results were found in a study involving 5-year-old children and even in infants. Evolutionary psychologists attribute this tendency to kin selection, which explains how groups favor those who share their attributes in the hope that those attributes will be propagated.
Our ideas, beliefs, and values tend to reflect the tribes we belong to, and sharing our thoughts and feelings plays a key role in signaling our identity and belonging to these groups. For instance, expressing an expert opinion can demonstrate alignment with a professional community, while sharing a moral stance can signal inclusion in a particular cultural group.
Every organization has its own tribes, with their own values, customs, and lore. Divisions and functions develop their own norms, rituals, and behaviors, shaped by their institutional needs and priorities. As the workplace expert David Burkus told me, there isnt really any such thing as an organizational culture because each organization contains multitudes of cultures.
So before you start trying to evangelize a transformational initiative across those myriad cultures, with all of their internal biases and emotional trip wires, think about the values they share and build an inclusive vision. That may sound simple and straightforward, but its harder than it seems, which helps explain why so many transformational efforts fail.
The problem is that when were passionate about something, we want to focus on how its different, because thats what makes us passionate in the first place. We want to talk about how innovative and disruptive it is. Yet while that may honor the idea itself, it doesnt do much for the people we want to adopt it. If we want them to share our priorities and aspirations, they have to believe that they share our values.
3. What are the Sources of Power?
We like to think of transformation as a heros journey. Theres an alternative future state that we want to reach, and wed like to think that if were good enough, we do all the right things, and our cause is righteous, well eventually get to that place.
Yet the truth is that change is always a strategic conflict between that future state and the status quo, which always has soures of power keeping it in place. These sources of power have an institutional basis and form pillars supporting the current state. It is only through influencing these pillars that we can bring about genuine change. Without institutional support, the status quo cannot be maintained.
Thats why to build an effective transformation strategy, we need to identify the institutions that support the status quo, those that support the future state, and those that are still on the fence and as yet uncommitted. These institutions can be divisions or functions within an organization, customer groups, government agencies, regulators, unions, professional and industry associations, media, educational institutionsthe possibilities are almost endless.
Whats important is that they have power and/or resources that can either hold things up or move them forward. Thats what makes them viable targets for action. If you can influence the sources of power upon which the status quo depends, genuine transformation becomes possible. But make no mistake: As long as the forces upholding the status quo stay in place, nothing will ever change.
The Power of a Question
All too often, transformational initiatives are presented as a fait accompli. A strategy is set, a plan is made, and everything is announced with a lot of hoopla at a big launch event. Questions are treated as a nuisance, something to be batted away rather than engaged with. Change leaders, in an effort that seldom succeeds, try to act as if they have all the answers.
Yet while answers tend to close a discussion, questions help us open new doors and lead to genuine insights. Asking What kind of change is this? is essential to building a strategy to overcome challenges. Investigating shared values is key to getting widespread buy-in. Analyzing sources of power is how you identify institutional targets for action.
The truth is that every great breakthrough starts with a question. As a child, Einstein asked, What would it be like to ride on a bolt of lightning? which led to his theory of special relativity. He then asked a second question, What would it be like to ride an elevator in space? and that led to his theory of general relativity.
Change leaders often feel they need to have all the answers, but what they usually need is to ask moreand betterquestions. Thats the essence of the changemaker mindset: Its not about building consensus around a plan and executing it, but about building a coalition to explore possibilities that lead to a better future.
Youre at your usual weekly team meeting. The team leader asks for ideas, and you immediately come up with the best one. Its not just clever. Its perfect. You rush to say it, glowing with anticipation. Silence. Nobody reacts. You walk out deflated, wondering how a group of smart people could ignore the obvious answer.
The assumption is simple. If the idea is sound, it should carry weight. We tend to believe that the one with the best ideas has the greatest impact. We take for granted that influence flows from competence and that those who are right, early and often, naturally shape decisions. But decades of research in social psychology and decision science tell a different story. In group settings, being right doesnt automatically translate into influence. In fact, one of the reasons ideas fail to land is that being right too early can undermine your influence.
Heres why even brilliant ideas face immediate resistance.
1. The Ego Threat
You may think youre helping, but solving the puzzle first can make others feel small. People don’t just want the answer. They want the sweat equity of finding it together. Theyre not rejecting your idea because its bad. Theyre pushing it away because it feels forced on them, not discovered together. They feel threatened rather than persuaded.
2. Logic vs. Shortcuts
Wouldnt it be wonderful if our ideas were judged purely on logic and data (diagnostics)? But most of us are busy, tired, distracted, or just want to move on with our next task. So, groups often rely on shortcuts such as who sounds confident, who talks the most, whos more assertive (proxies). Such shortcuts may drive quick decisions, but they rarely lead to results. If you drop a maverick idea before the group is ready, youre basically asking an overwhelmed group to do the hard work of thinking outside the box. Chances are theyll rely on proxies rather than substance such as diagnostics. Influence isnt about having the loudest voice. Its about having the best-timed one.
3. The Consensus Comfort Zone
Groups love sticking to what feels familiar. Its safer and lets everyone feel like theyre working together. If you toss out a big, unusual insight right away, you dont look like a visionary. You look like youre playing a different game than the rest. The team will reject the disruption because unconsciously they protect the direction and rhythm of the group.
How to Make Ideas Land
To stop being the “ignored expert” and start being the influential leader, you need to stop selling facts and start managing social currency and timing. Heres what works:
1. Practice strategic silence
Dont jump in with the solution. Practicing strategic silence means that you first consider issue relevance, issue readiness, and target responsiveness, before speaking up. Let the group feel the problem. Listen to others perspectives. When you finally speak, tie your answer to what they care about in that moment. Now your idea will feel more like a relief.
2. Show the “why,” not the “what”
If you just drop the answer, youre asking people to trust your brain rather than the facts. Instead narrate your logic. By sharing your logic and the why, youre giving them the map you used plus time to process. Now theyre on the same page as you.
3. Lower the ego shield
Present your idea as a 90% complete thought and leave the last 10% for the group to solve. For example, you can ask questions like What obstacles do you see?, or What would make this easier to implement? Youre not lowering your confidence. You invite collaboration. In return, you arent just right anymore; youre the person who helped the team find the right answer together.
Accuracy is essential, but social recognition is the currency of influence. Start thinking less about winning with facts and being the first to offer a solution. Think more about how people want to arrive at a conclusion with you.
Much like its peers in the tech industry, Oracle is pouring money into AI infrastructure. The tech giant inked a lucrative $300 billion deal with OpenAI last year to build out AI data centers, in a bid to compete with companies like Amazon and Microsoft. But the deal requires Oracle to spend a significant amount of money upfronta move that is now pushing the company to cull its workforce.
According to recent reports, Oracle is planning major layoffs that would reportedly affect thousands of jobs. The company had already earmarked about $1.6 billion for restructuring costs this yearlargely due to employee severance costsindicating there would be job cuts. As of February, that sum has now increased by $500 million, bringing overall restructuring costs to $2.1 billion. Bloomberg has reported that the layoffs would impact many parts of the business and could take effect this month; some of the job losses will also target roles that AI is rendering less essential.
The forthcoming job cuts were framed as broader than Oracles usual rolling approach to layoffs; the company typically avoids large-scale layoffs that merit a public announcement. Oracle would also effectively freeze hiring in its cloud division, according to Bloomberg.
Oracle joins a growing list of companies that are trimming headcount due to AIbut as with many other employers, theres limited evidence that the company is replacing workers with AI en masse. Instead, these layoffs largely seem to be driven by Oracles extensive investments in AI, which could take years to pay off. Oracle is currently raising $50 billion in debt and equity to finance its AI aspirations, and analysts have said the company will likely continue losing money on this venture until 2030.
Last month, Jack Dorsey announced major layoffs at his fintech company Block, which drew widespread consternation. Dorsey framed those job losses, which affected 40% of the companys workforce, as the direct result of efficiency gains from AI. But many companies have also used AI as a convenient explanation for more pedestrian cost-cutting measures, even as economists have argued that AI is not yet displacing workers on a large scale. Some companies have cited AI rather than blaming issues like immigration policy and tariffs, which might not be as politically expedient or appealing to shareholders.
Others, like Oracle, are slashing jobs over AIbut not necessarily because theyre outright using AI to replace workers. Microsoft, too, has made sweeping investments in AI, spending tens of billions of dollars on data centers while laying off over 15,000 in 2025. The layoffs at companies like Microsoft and Amazon have also targeted middle managers, the sorts of jobs that cant exactly be replaced by AI at the moment.
The AI boom has also helped cement an era of forever layoffs, in which even big tech jobs no longer hold the promise of stability. Since the pandemic, tech employers have become especially reliant on layoffsa trend that has been accelerated with the rise of AI. Whether or not workers are getting explicitly displaced or ousted due to automation, few jobs are now safe if companies value AI over human capital.
With its many extraterrestrial guest stars, The X-Files was always meant to be a spooky show. One of its earliest episodes, however, is now eerie in a way its creators likely never intended.
In Ghost in the Machine, a first-season standout that originally aired in 1993, a sentient, corporate-created AI turns deadly when it perceives a threat to its existence.
That description may rightly sound near-identical to any number of previous killer-computer plotlines2001: A Space Odyssey being the most obvious touchstone, along with Terminator 2, which had come out just two years earlier.
What sets this X-Files episode apart from other entries in the lethally sentient AI canon is that it pits a safety-minded tech CEO against a belligerent U.S. Department of Defense, which is desperate to use this companys AI in guardrail-free combat operations.
Sound familiar?
A ghost in the machine
Across its nine original seasons, two feature films, and a reboot, The X-Files cultivated an overarching mythology. The shows creators wisely took frequent off-roading adventures, though, with standalone Monster of the Week episodes that helped keep fans on their toes.
Ghost in the Machine is one such excursion, only the monster in this case turned out to be AI.
The show begins with the CEO of too-cutely named software company Eurisko (you risk-o?) writing a memo about shutting down the Central Operating System AI that runs corporate HQ.
Unfortunately, because the AI is surveilling the entire building, it picks up on this plan and chooses instead to shut down with extreme prejudice the CEO himselfvia electrocution.
Enter FBI special agents Fox Spooky Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson). Their investigation quickly leads them to Euriskos founder, Brad Wilczek, who is initially willing to take the fall for his CEOs murder.
By digging a bit deeper, though, Mulder discovers that not only is Euriskos AI the true culprit, the Department of Defense has been trying to get its hands on that AI for years, only to be snubbed each time by Wilczek.
(It’s a learning machine, one character says. A computer that actually thinks. And it’s become something of a holy grail for our more acquisitive colleagues in the Department of Defense.)
Eventually, Mulder and Scully work with Wilczek to fry the AI, much to the chagrin of a Defense Department mole who has been working at Eurisko the whole time. File closed!
Back in 1993, Ghost in the Machine fit snugly into the paranoid truth is out there ethos of a sci-fi show about alien conspiracies. Now, its not closer to the realm of documentary.
Although the show would return to the subject of AI again 25 years later in one of the reboot episodes2018s Rm9sbG93ZXJz, a more Black Mirror-y spin on fearing ones smartphoneits the older and admittedly cheesier outing that is far more relevant in 2026.
Its most glaring point of prescience, of course, is that it appears to have predicted with spooky accuracy the recent battle between the U.S. government and AI heavyweight Anthropicnot to mention the governments use of AI in its current war with Iran.
Our more acquisitive colleagues in the Department of Defense
Unlike his fictional counterpart in The X-Files, Anthropic cofounder Dario Amodei was very much interested in lending his AI model to Uncle Sam. Last July, Anthropic signed a $200 million contract with the U.S. Department of Defense to provide its Claude model for use in classified and operational work.
It was only when negotiations began over what such work might actually entail that irreconcilable differences emerged.
As the back-and-forth dragged on through late 2025 and into this January, the major sticking points involved Anthropics demand of usage restrictions on Claudemainly, that it shouldnt be deployed for mass domestic surveillance or for building fully autonomous weapons without human oversight.
The Pentagon insisted otherwise.
Heres where the similarities between Amodei and Euriskos Wilczek get really interesting. (The fact that Amodei bears something of a physical resemblance to Wilczek cant be ignored either.)
Why did the fictional founder want to protect civilian populations from the U.S. Defense Department using his AI? He explains it himself in the following exchange with Mulder:
Wilczek: After the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Robert Oppenheimer spent the rest of his life regretting he’d ever glimpsed an atom.
Mulder: Oppenheimer may have regretted his actions but he never denied responsibility for them.
Wilczek: He loved the work, Mr. Mulder. His mistake was in sharing it with an immoral government. I won’t make the same mistake.
Amodei publicly presents himself in a similar light, if with less on-the-record talk about government immorality.
He has frequently recommended Richard Rhodess book The Making of the Atomic Bomb in interviews, reportedly used to give copies of the book to new employees, and keeps one on prominent display in the Anthropic library.
Though Amodeis peer, OpenAI founder Sam Altman, has also spoken often of Oppenheimer as a cautionary example, Amodei has now proven more willing to stick to his guns on the issue.
In recent weeks, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave Anthropic an ultimatum to drop its demand for safety guardrails or face consequences. Anthropic refused. As a result, Hegseth made good on his threat, formally designating Anthropic a supply chain riskthe first time the Pentagon has applied that label to a U.S. AI firm.
Anthropic has since sued the Pentagon over this measure. As a bonus, the White House labeled Anthropic a radical left, woke company, and President Trump directed all federal agencies to stop using Claude.
Meanwhile, former Oppenheimer-recaller Altman has agreed to let OpenAI fill the military void, albeit with guardrails, according to the company.
AI at war
The X-Files episode Ghost in the Machine ends with the Department of Defense thwarted and its desired AI, which has ostensibly been destroyed, telegraphing to viewers it is still alive, so to speakthe epilogic hand flying out of a grave in a horror movie.
In real life, though, the government got a hold of its AI without the need for any innuendo.
Despite the formal ban on federal use of Anthropics tools, parts of the U.S. military continue to rely on Claude in combat operations, since they were already deeply embedded. (Removing them completely could take months.) In the meantime, according to the Wall Street Journal, the current war with Iran is demonstrating Claudes usefulness.
AI tools are helping gather intelligence, pick targets, plan bombing missions and assess battle damage at speeds not previously possible, the report reveals. AI helps commanders manage supplies of everything from ammunition to spare parts and lets them choose the best weapon for each objective.
On February 28, at the start of the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, a Tomahawk missile struck an Iranian elementary school, claiming the lives of at least 175 peoplemost of them children. Recent reporting strongly suggests that not only was the U.S. at fault for the missile strike, but that the school was on a U.S. target list and may have been mistaken for a military site.
As of this writing, nobody in the U.S. government has claimed responsibility for the mistake.
The X-Files episode and movies like Terminator 2 stoked the fear that a sentient AI might decide to wipe out all of humanity. They couldnt foresee the more immediate threat in 2026: that an immoral government would decide to wipe out a portion of humanity and let AI take the blame.
James Beard Award-winning chef René Redzepi, who co-founded the iconic, Michelin Starred Noma restaurant in Copenhagen, announced his resignation on Wednesday. The announcement comes following years of allegations of abuse, assault, and the creation of a toxic work environment at the restaurant which is one of the world’s most famous, influential and acclaimed dining spots.
Back in 2017, at the height of the #MeToo movement, entire industries were upended with a long-overdue, global reckoning that held countless high-profile men accountable for past behavior of abuse, leading to widespread cultural and workplace change. The chauvinistic toxicity of the restaurant industry was especially highlighted, with big names like Mario Batali, Todd English, John Besh and many others hit with abuse allegations that triggered restaurant closures and public resignations.
Now, nearly a decade later, the latest incident with Redzepi underscores just how far the workforce, and the restaurant world in particular, may still have to go to create safe workspaces that operate at the most elite levels in their industriesand to hold perpetrators accountable.
Jessica Kriegel, Chief Strategy Officer at workplace consultancy firm Culture Partners, tells Fast Company that restaurants are “pressure cookers,” but asserts that shouldn’t excuse abusein restaurants, or any other workplace led by highly successful leaders highly visible in their field.
Dismantling the mythology of the brilliant tyrant
While abuse claims followed Redzepi for years, the heat on the chef reached a boiling point after an explosive New York Times report was published earlier this month.
The piece detailed Redzepi’s alleged abuse from 2009 to 2017, with reports of a kitchen being run by “unpaid interns” working 16-hour shifts, a habit of “public shaming,” and an explosive episode that involved punching an employee. Employees said that kind of abuse was common: Going to work felt like going to war, former employee Alessia, who didn’t want her surname to be published in the piece, told the outlet. You had to force yourself to be strong, to show no fear.
The bombshell NYT report came just ahead of a new Noma pop-up’s opening in Los Angeles. When the pop-up opened on March 11, a crowd of protesters were outside. Key sponsors like American Express, Resy and Blackbird had pulled their funding the day before. The chef’s resignation soon followed.
I have worked to be a better leader and Noma has taken big steps to transform the culture over many years, Redzepi wrote on Instagram following the opening. I recognize these changes do not repair the past. An apology is not enough; I take responsibility for my own actions. In a post just days earlier, Redzepi also acknowledged his abusive behavior, which he admitted involved physical acts of aggression, and said he was simply “not able to handle the pressure.”
Fast Company has reached out to Noma for comment.
While workplace culture has undeniably changed in recent years, as individuals (especially women) have spoken out more frequently about workplace harassment and abuse thanks to the #MeToo movement, challenges still exist. Working in an office and a restaurant are drastically different experiences, for examplethe latter tends to be an extraordinarily fast-paced environment that can lend itself to toxic conditions.
Kriegel says that more recent representation on shows like The Bear, coupled with brave employee voices, could be helping to bring about some long-awaited change within the industry. The Emmy-winning Hulu hit features toxic bosses at world-class restaurants, but it also shows the impactincluding traumato employees.
“Workers are speaking up, and audiences are starting to see the human cost behind the mythology of the ‘brilliant tyrant,'” Kriegel explains.
“Shows like The Bear are great because they dont just glorify the chaos of the kitchen. They show what it does to people.”
According to a 2021 survey of 4,700 restaurant workers from Black Box Intelligence, 49% of restaurant workers experience emotional abuse from managers, and 15% reported being sexually harassed by managers or coworkers. (Thats not even including abuse from customers: 62% of respondents said they receive emotional abuse or disrespect from customers, and another 15% are sexually harassed by them.)Kriegel says that the narrative is definitely beginning to shift, even when it comes to the restaurant industry. “The world is moving away from tolerating abusive leadership simply because someone is talented,” Kriegel explains.
If Redzepi’s resignation is any indication, that may be true.
