 |
|
|
|||||
Sylvia was a senior partner at a consulting firm who decided to put her hat in the ring for the coveted CEO position. Four other internal applicantsall menmade it to the list of final candidates. Early in her campaign, Sylvia met with Andrea to talk about her strategy to win over the board and senior partners whose votes she would need to secure the CEO position. Sylvia deftly noted that, as the only woman in the running, her gender would be salient in the minds of the decision makers. As such, she wondered whether she should lead like a man. Too often, women in the workplace are told, explicitly or implicitly, that success means emulating male norms. Speak up more. Interrupt more. Show less emotion. But when women follow this advice, theyre often penalized for it. The problem isnt that women need to change. Rather, our definition of leadership needs to change as it is still stuck in a mold that rewards masculine traits and sidelines others. Based on our respective experiences researching gender bias at work and coaching senior executives on their communication skills, as well as our personal experiences, weve seen this pattern play out again and again. Women are coached to overcome imposter syndrome and project authority in ways that often backfire. Meanwhile, organizations suffer, missing out on broader leadership styles, emotional intelligence, and more inclusive decision-making. Two urgent shifts are needed: First, we need to stop encouraging women to lead like men. Second, we must expand our understanding of what strong leadership looks like. Until we do, were not just failing women, were limiting our organizations potential. There are four specific ways women are often advised to “lead like a man”but instead of reinforcing gendered norms, we can coach everyone, regardless of gender, to adopt more inclusive, effective leadership strategies. Here are the four problematic approaches and what to do instead. 1. Avoid Weak Language When outlining her strategy for obtaining the CEO role, Sylvia referenced how many stakeholders expected her, as a woman, to use weak language, but then penalized her for doing so. Sylvia decided that she would strategically use weak language with some old-school stakeholders but consciously avoid it with others. The question is, should this focus on weak language have come up at all? Weak language is language that is tempered with disclaimers (I dont know, but . . .), hedges (sort of, I hope), tag questions (. . . dont you think?), and apologies (Im sorry, but . . .). Women are often faulted for using indecisive language, and we are all urged to avoid it. Instead: Call it Strategic Language So-called weak language can soften a message, convey interpersonal sensitivity, and build trust. As such, it can be a way to strategically position yourself with various cohorts. Recognizing the impact that it can have, we encourage a relabeling of weak language to strategic language. This is about all of us being strategic or purposeful with our language, including when we demonstrate vulnerability. Certainly, leadership requires communicating with conviction. But lets coach everyone not to be overconfident when they speak. Leadership also requires curiosity and humility. Disclaimers, hedges, and tag questions are useful when we arent totally sure and to express concern and humbleness. Strategic language can be a source of power and strength. 2. Be Authoritative As a young information technology leader, Amy tried to emulate male colleagues through authoritative decision-making. But when Amy made a unilateral decision, she was surprised that she lost points with her staff. She quickly learned to seek everyone’s input and ideally achieve consensus before making important decisions. Sometimes guidance to be an authoritative leader is overt. A client of Andreas who had served in multiple C-suite roles left her last position when her male CEO repeatedly insisted that she was too soft and she needed to “be a killer. Authoritative leaders are also called visionary leaders, with their own vision for success. Men in leadership may default to using authority, as displays of dominance align with traditional male stereotypes and therefore tend to go unchallenged. While women may learn to use this approach in their attempts to establish credibility, it can backfire when they are misperceived as arrogant. The problem with this noninclusive, authoritarian approach is that it concentrates decision-making with one person and increases the risk of failure. Overreliance on a single perspective can lead to blind spots, regardless of how competent or visionary that individual may be. Even the most capable leaders have limitations in their knowledge, experiences, and biases. Instead: Use Participative Leadership Particularly in less time-sensitive contexts, a participative, inclusive leadership style is better for everyone. Coach everyone to approach decision-making as a collaborative process. Invite input from all stakeholders, including those who may ask uncomfortable questions and those who typically remain silent. Building consensus will ensure all voices are heard, considered, and that everyone understands the rationale for decisions. This isn’t about giving up control; it’s about gaining valuable perspective and buy-in. 3. Master Self-Promotion A former male boss once advised Amy to take credit for the success of projects, explaining, Everyone takes credit for everything around here. But while Amy had led or contributed significantly to many initiatives, she felt uncomfortable claiming to them to be her solitary achievements. Her teammates deserved recognition. One of the most common questions Andrea hears from her female executive clients is: How can I talk about my work and strengths without sounding arrogant? Notably, a leadership coach recently posed this question, proof that even those who coach others on confidence and communication can struggle with taking credit. The response to women and men promoting their own work and achievements has very different outcomes. Research shows that when women self-promote, they are seen as less warm and likable, whereas men who do the same are seen as more competent.&nbs; Instead: Share Credit Generously Everyone should be trained that strategic self-promotion is leadership, not arrogance, so that women arent penalized for it. Then the solution isnt to promote your work any more or less. Rather, its to take credit differently. Visibility matters, and as such it is important to promote our own work. But we all need to consider the extent to which we promote our own work, share credit, and spotlight others successes. True leaders understand how to confidently communicate their value while also celebrating the contributions of those around them. 4. Dont Be So Emotional After a recent workshop for female executives, Andrea heard from several women how effectively managing their emotions was a challenge. One woman said, My male colleagues can pound their fists and exude authority. Meanwhile, if I show emotion, I lose credibility. Another participant spoke up: Imagine having any conviction. Suddenly, Im labeled as an angry Black woman! Typically, the leaders we admire exude an ability to stay calm and in control, especially in crises. It seems that leadership is synonymous with emotional regulation. At the same time, emotional outbursts are interpreted differently for men versus for women. For men, displaying emotions is interpreted as passion or authenticity. For women, displaying emotion is a sign of weakness and lack of control. Instead: Balance Authenticity and Discretion Encourage everyone to lead with authenticity and discretion. Certainly, staying in control in crises situations is productive. But there are also benefits with sharing emotions and vulnerability. Communicating your convictions with passion can inspire a team. Leaders who demonstrate vulnerability also encourage a culture of psychological safety. That said, this is not about being unfiltered. There is an important difference between authenticity and transparency. Filtering and discretion are key. Redefining leadership Sylvias question of whether she should lead like a man was not just personal. It reflected a broader problem faced by women in leadership: the unspoken expectation to conform to outdated, masculine ideals of authority and success. If we want to cultivate inclusive, innovative organizations, we must redefine what great leadership looks like. Not by urging women to adapt, but by evolving the standards themselves. Thats the only way well build a future workplace where all leaders can thrive on their own terms.
Category:
E-Commerce
The World Economic Forum reports that 41% of employers plan workforce reductions by 2030 due to AI. Amazon’s CEO just told employees that AI will mean “fewer people doing some jobs,” while Microsoft is cutting 6,000 workers after pushing AI adoption. They’re about to make the biggest strategic mistake of the decade. The real choice leaders face today isnt which AI model to buyits how to use it: as a layoff machine, or as a competitive advantage to eat their rivals’ lunch. Weve seen this before. At my last job at Cloudability, I witnessed a fascinating SaaS dynamic: businesses that innovate take cost savings and reinvest them back into efficiency, reach, and market share.Our cloud cost management product rarely saved businesses money on their bills. But it did give them insights to optimize spend and allowed them to reinvest savings into bigger bets and innovation. The companies that did so went on to become innovators and leaders; the ones that didnt became footnotes in someone elses growth story. Replacement vs. Redeployment The same pattern is emerging with AI agents, except this time the savings aren’t budget dollarsthey’re human time, capability, and potential. According to new research from Salesforce, AI agent adoption is expected to increase 327% over the next two years, leading to productivity gains of 30%. The shift isnt toward replacementits toward redeployment. When AI handles repetitive tasks like rerouting customer support tickets, summarizing meeting notes, or filling out compliance reports, it doesnt replace jobs, it frees up capacity. CHROs expect to redeploy 23% of their workforce to new roles and 89% believe AI will empower them to reassign employees to new, more relevant positions. While those findings offer promise and reassurance for the workforce, not every leader will see it that way. Based on my experience using AI as a force multiplier for my team, I believe the companies that thrive will be the ones that figure out how to integrate humans and digital teammates in ways that maximize both efficiency and the irreplaceable qualities machines cant replicatelike creativity, empathy, and judgment. The AI Divide This sets up a fundamental choice: cut or invest. But beneath that lies a deeper philosophical question: Do you see people as a cost to manage or a force to grow your business? In the case of a contact center, a leader with a cost-cutting mindset might say “Let’s replace our support team with chatbots to save money.” That decision might frustrate customers and drive up escalations, leading to short-term savings at the expense of long-term growth. The reinvestment approach sounds more like: “Let’s use AI for case classification and routing so customers get the right expert with all context preloaded.” The result is faster resolution times, happier customers, support agents focused on higher-value workand more sustainable business growth. The productivity gains are realwhat sets winning leaders apart is asking, “How do we reinvest this efficiency and grow?” “Where can we shift human focus from tasks to transformation?” and How do we redesign work to create more value, not just more output? Review, Reallocate, and Reimagine For those leaders ready to grow and build something better, I recommend the three Rs. Review: Audit employee time usage, identify underused tools, and diagnose process bottlenecks. Determine which tasks are repetitive or low-value and which ones can be automated with AI agents. Reallocate: Reclaim hours unlocked by AI and reinvest them in work that accelerates revenue, deepens customer value, or fuels innovation. Reimagine: Shift time toward high-impact interactions, retrain agents for sales roles, or embed support teams into product development to help eliminate root-cause customer issues. AI will amplify an existing leadership philosophy. If a leader is already shortsighted about people and customers, AI will make that worse. If leaders invest in their teams and customer experience, AI will become a force multiplier for both. This difference in approach explains why identical AI implementations can produce vastly different business outcomes. The technology is the same, but the leadership philosophy determines whether AI becomes a race to the bottom or a rocket to the top.
Category:
E-Commerce
In 2011, Marc Andreessen boldly declared that software is eating the world. At the time, it was both a prediction and a provocationone that came true faster than most imagined. Nearly 15 years later, software has thoroughly disrupted most sectors, from media to utilities, embedding itself in all types of business. However, some industries that couldnt be easily improved (eaten) by software have been overlooked, including measurably from an investment perspective. For instance, AI startups pulled in $131 billion in global venture capital funding in 2024 alone. Meanwhile total global VC funding in the robotics space stood at $100.9 billion between 2018 and 2024. Why the disparity? Software is efficient, frictionless, scalableand, for a time, it was deeply inspiring. But somewhere along the line, we over-indexed. We hyper-focused on funding and developing software designed to optimize everythingto squeeze out every last bit of efficiency and revenue. All the while, we watched the real world fade into the background. But a new day is dawning. Different kinds of companies are stepping forwardcompanies trying to rebuild the world. From logistics to defense, energy to mobility, a new generation of organizations is tackling hard, foundational problemsmany of which were left behind in our rush to digitize and scale seemingly everything. These companies are developing unmanned drones, next-generation supply chains, smart robotics, and automated factories. Theyre not launching apps; theyre launching rockets. Call these companies The New Industrials. These firms and founders heed lessons from our industrial past, but they are not fixated on nostalgia. Rather, they are impatient with the present. They see the limits of a purely digital world, and theyre pushing toward something more consequential. Something that runs on power, motion, material and design. Because in this new wave, design isnt decoration. It is direction. Its the force turning intent into impact. From Optimization to Originality Much of the last two decades in design have been about making things more efficient: flatter UIs, faster onboarding, smarter defaults. But this optimization era came at a cost. We lost the muscle for originality. The New Industrials are bringing it back. Over the last several years, there has been increased funding and founder ambition across deep tech, defense, and frontier industries. From 2021 through mid-June 2024, venture capitalists invested a total of $130 billion in defense-tech startups alone. Sequoia, Andreessen Horowitz, Lux, and Founders Fund, leaders in the industry, all shifted more of their portfolios into these sectors. Companies like Anduril, Epirus, and Saronic pushed into spaces that for many years, most founders wouldnt touchlike defense or hardware. Today, companies in these hardware spaces are building with vision. They treat design not as polish, but as infrastructurea critical tool for functionality and performance. Other firmslike Auger in the supply chain sectorare blending deep operational complexity with elegant, user-first interfaces to solve physical problems. The companys approach feels closer to consumer product design than legacy enterprise software. Its brand isnt just a wrapperits embedded in the system itself, helping the product operate seamlessly. The tools themselves feel as familiar and legible as a smartphoneand as powerful as a factory floor. Patriotism Without Politics This movement isnt just industrial. Its cultural. In a fractured world, The New Industrials represent a unifying force: a return to building. These companies are not espousing politicsbut they are rebuilding what America was once recognized for: innovation, ingenuity, clarity of purpose. You can see it in their design choices. Theres a material honesty to their work. A rugged elegance. A preference for legibility over flash. It feels like a new kind of Americanaone built not on sentiment, but on capability. And this movement is starting to break into the mainstream. The recently concluded Reindustrialize 2025, held in Detroit, welcomed a growing coalition of investors, technologists, manufacturers, and policymakers rallying around a techno-industrial renaissance. Thousands attended and watched online. Participation, varying from top defense officials to frontier founders such as Palmer Luckey, reinforced what many in this space already know: this is no longer fringe. Why design is the lever In this new era, seeing through the lens of design is how the biggest problems we face are understood, explored, and solved. Its how we create solutions that are not just functionalbut fundamentally better than anything that came before. And today, an exciting generation of organizations is approaching these challenges through that lens. The New Industrials arent just designing productstheyre designing entire companies, systems, and strategies with cohesive intention. From supply chain platforms and electromagnetic weapons, to autonomous vehicles and national narratives, they are aligning product, brand, and interface. In this way, design becomes an innovation engine. Its how critical, often overlooked industries are boldly reimagined. How solutions to space travel, homeland security, automation, and so much more are conceived, crafted, and launched into the world. Software may have nearly eaten the world. But it couldnt digest the hard problemsthe physical ones, the foundational ones. Now, the people who solve those problemsthe engineers, the builders, the designersare taking it back.
Category:
E-Commerce
Want more housing market stories from Lance Lamberts ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter. Zillow economists use an economic model known as the Zillow Market Heat Index to gauge the competitiveness of housing markets across the country. This model looks at key indicatorsincluding home price changes, inventory levels, and days on marketto generate a score showing whether a market favors sellers or buyers. Higher scores point to hotter, seller-friendly metro housing markets. Lower scores signal cooler markets where buyers hold more negotiating power. According to Zillow: Score of 70 or above = strong sellers market Score from 55 to 69 = sellers market Score from 44 to 55 = neutral market Score from 28 to 44 = buyers market Score of 27 or below = strong buyers market Nationally, Zillow rates the U.S. housing market at 52 in its June 2025 reading, published this month. That said, Zillows reading varies significantly across the country. !function(){"use strict";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}}})}(); Among the 250 largest metro-area housing markets, these 10 are the HOTTEST markets, where sellers have the most power: Rochester, New York 135 Syracuse, New York 92 Buffalo, New York 90 Kennewick, Washington 85 Hartford, Connecticut 83 Lansing, Michigan 80 Albany, New York 79 Binghamton, New York 79 Springfield, Massachusetts 77 Anchorage, Alaska 76 Among the 250 largest metro-area housing markets, these 10 are the COLDEST markets, where buyers have the most power: Jackson, Tennessee 11 Beaumont, Texas 22 Macon, Georgia 22 Gulfport, Mississippi 23 Longview, Texas 24 Brownsville, Texas 26 Daphne, Alabama 26 Naples, Florida 27 Punta Gorda, Florida 29 Cape Coral, Florida 30 Does ResiClub agree with Zillows assessment? Directionally, I believe Zillow has correctly identified many regional housing markets where buyers have gained the most powerparticularly around the Gulfas well as markets where sellers have maintained (relatively speaking) somewhat of a grip, including large portions of the Northeast and Midwest. Based on my personal housing analysis, I consider Southwest Florida the weakest/softest chunk of the U.S. housing market. Not too far behind are pockets of Texas, Colorado, and Arizona marketswhich have also seen a bigger build-up in resale inventory and unsold new-build spec inventory. In my view, many West Coast markets are softer right now than Zillows analysis suggestsin particular, the areas that have recently seen big jumps in active inventory for sale. What did this Zillow analysis look like back in spring 2021, during the Pandemic Housing Boom? Below is Zillows June 2021 reading, published in July 2021.
Category:
E-Commerce
Elon Musks personal brand has taken a massive hit since the tech billionaire began aligning himself with a conservative base and publicly feuding with President Trump. Unsurprisingly, his involvement in right-wing politics has turned many prospective buyers away from his EV company, Tesla. But according to a new study, Musks antics might have a broader, more concerning implication: making liberals less likely to purchase any electric vehicle at all. The study, conducted by a team of researchers from multiple American universities and published in the journal Nature, tracked how conservative and liberal views of Tesla, Musk, and EVs have shifted from 2023 to 2025. According to Alexandra Flores, a psychologist at Williams College and lead author of the study, the team initially expected that liberals views on EVs would remain stable over time, whereas conservatives would start to become more positive about EVsor at least Teslasgiven Musks politically rightward lurch in recent years. What they found was the exact opposite. Conservatives disinterest in both generic EVs and Teslas continued over time, whereas liberals desire to purchase a Tesla or other make of electric vehicle actually decreased. In other words, we expected Musk to depolarize the EV space by bringing conservatives more in line with liberals’ views, Flores says. Instead, we found that liberals’ purchase intentions looked increasingly like conservatives’ as the study continued. Today, liberals are not only turning against Teslas but also EVs more generally. The researchers believe this may be due, at least in part, to Musks persona becoming intrinsically linked to public perceptions of the EV market. Liberals sour on Teslaand on EVs Flores and her team pulled their data from a series of five studies, starting in August 2023 and ending in March 2025. In an early 2023 survey, conservatives reported equally low intentions to purchase both a generic EV and a Teslameaning, contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis, Musks right-wing politics did not seem to be boosting Tesla or EV support among conservatives. Meanwhile, liberal respondents were much more likely to express interest in a generic EV but showed significantly lower interest in a Tesla, demonstrating a powerful negative bias toward the brand. In 2025, conservatives sentiments around both Teslas and EVs havent changed much. At the same time, liberals have become more negative toward Teslaand even soured on generic EVs as well. In the 2023 surveys, we see liberals’ [EV] purchase intentions are well above the neutral or undecided midpoint of our scales. By the last survey in March 2025, they’ve dropped to that neutral midpoint for generic EVs and into negative intentions for Teslas, Flores says. So, liberals went from positive views on EVs in 2023 to negative views on Teslas, and neutral-shading-to-negative views toward EVs in general. According to the researchers analysis, there is market signal to suggest that Americans have a lower opinion of Teslas brand compared to EVs in general, though with some nuances. As Fast Company has reported, Tesla still holds the most EV market share of any brand in the U.S., but that percentage is quickly declining as other brands like GM and Ford catch up. And while EV sales have risen steadily since 2019 (suggesting that EVs overall are becoming more mainstream), Teslas global and U.S. sales have plateaued since mid-to-late 2023, the study’s authors note. Last quarter, Teslas deliveries fell 13% and revenue dropped 12%the two largest respective declines in the companys history. The Tesla backlash effect EV sales may be rising overall, but this new study suggests that liberal sentiment around them has become less positive. In an explanation posted on Substack, coauthor Matthew Burgess noted that to find out whether these cooling effects were specifically related to respondents opinions about Musk, participants in the last three surveys were asked to rate the CEO along four common dimensions: likability, trustworthiness, competence, and intelligence. We found that it was specifically liberals and moderates with low opinions of Musk who exhibited preferences for generic EVs over Teslas (and conservatives somewhat in the last survey), Burgess wrote. We also found that liberals’ negative intentions to purchase EVs in general in the last survey (March 2025) were associated with negative opinions of Musk. Flores is careful to note that this data is only correlational, not causal. Its possible that there are alternative explanations for these patterns in EV purchase intentions. The EV market in the U.S. is currently at an uncertain juncture, given that EV tax credits will be nixed on September 30. And while Teslas Q2 2025 results do reflect a significant decline in revenue and deliveries, the company is also facing external headwinds like a major spike in global competitors. Still, Flores says, the study data suggests that liberals cooling toward EVs was preceded by their negative views of Teslasviews that were, in turn, associated with their opinions about Musk. The studys authors have termed this the Tesla backlash effect. The suspicion is that Elon Musk became so synonymous with EVs in the U.S. that perceptions of him affected the entire class of vehicles, Flores told The Guardian. This made them way less appealing to liberals. He really dragged down perceptions of EVs in general. Its definitely unusual to have a chief executive have an impact on a whole class of products like this.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] next »