 |
|
|
|||||
This time its different.Those four words, the official slogan of every economic bubble, have been weaponized in the age of AI. Theyre the rallying cry of utopians and evangelists insisting the technology will reshape every corner of life, and that the financial gains surrounding it are therefore excusable. At the same time, those same boosters, along with their critics, wield the phrase as a cudgel in their endless sparring.The AI conversation now feels as fracturedand as split-screenas debates over politics or the economy. Every new headline becomes ammunition, seized on to reinforce whatever larger argument someone wants to make. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman captured it rather well in August: Are we in a phase where investors as a whole are overexcited about AI? My opinion is yes,” he said at the time. “Is AI the most important thing to happen in a very long time? My opinion is also yes.Of course, only the first part of the quote got aggregated into countless even Sam Altman says AI is a bubble stories.Predicting whether we are or arent in a bubble is a fools game, and I wont play it. But what Altman effectively elides is that the financial frenzy part risks the most important thing to happen part.The greed is endangering the good.You dont need to talk to a chatbot until it induces psychosis; you just need to follow the money in AI.In this Premium piece, youll learn: How the insatiable appetite for elite AI talent is breaking the social contract of startup creation What the race to build ever larger data centers to power AI use is really about Why you should closely watch the use of special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to buy and sell shares in AI startups This time is different: Whatever happens in AI will not be exactly what happened to inflate and then pop the dotcom bubble in 2000 (though, naturally, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son has costarring roles in each drama). So lets go through the events of just the last three months or so and you decide what the hell is going on. Sama-Jony-ding-dong Just before Memorial Day, OpenAI acquired Jony Ive’s io AI hardware company, which has never released a product or even announced one. But the potential riches if you build what my colleague Mark Wilson dubbed the fourth great computing interface are such that the startup commanded $6.5 billion in OpenAI stock.The nine-minute video that accompanied the news reportedly cost $3 million.Weeks later, a startup named iyO, which is also making AI-powered hardware, sued OpenAI alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition, saying that iyO met with OpenAI and Ives LoveFrom as far back as 2022 and as recently as spring 2025 sharing its vision and tech for screenless natural language human-computer interaction.A judge ruled iyO made enough of a case to merit a hearing and ordered OpenAI not to discuss the io brand. OpenAI then took down the video. ARRrrrgh Cursor, the buzzy AI code editor (or vibe coding app), announced in June that it had raised $900 million at a $9.9 billion valuation. The company also claimed its annualized recurring revenue (ARR) hit $500 millionup from the $100 million milestone it bragged about in February, which at the time made it the fastest company ever to get there, in just 12 months. But ARR is a slippery metric. Its calculated by taking a single month of revenue (almost always the companys best) and multiplying it by 12. The result is a gaudy number that implies annual revenue without actually being annual revenue. Cursors record quickly became the AI industrys version of the four-minute mile. In July, rival AI coding startup Lovable crowed that it hit $100 million ARR in only eight months. Not to be overshadowed, Anthropic (OpenAIs nerdier LLM competitor) reportedly hit $3 billion ARR in May, $4 billion in June, and $5 billion in July. By years end, it says it will reach $9 billion ARR. Yet even if you take those claims at face value, the companys real revenue pencils out closer to $4.3 billion on a back-of-the-envelope calculation. That didnt stop Anthropic from raising at a $183 billion valuation, or roughly 42.5 times this guesstimate of its 2025 revenue. While ARR is soaring, so too are concerns that AI companies negative gross margins, meaning it costs more to do what it does than it makes from selling it, will not easily be reversed. But hey, number go up, right? Building the Avengers of AI In June, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg paid $14.3 billion for 49% of Scale AI, a company which provides model makers with training data. Scale cofounder and CEO Alexandr Wang and some other Scale employees moved over to Meta to set up the social media giants new Superintelligence Labs (MSL).The move raised questions about whether Big Tech was yet again deploying a clever workaround to federal regulatory scrutiny for a large acquisition by spending a large sum for a stake in the company while its most valuable employees join the investor. Good questions! Even more so after Meta rivals, which had been Scale customers, backed away, and in July Scale laid off 14% of its staff, 200 people, and ended relationships with 500 contractors.Soon the tumult came for Meta itself, with Meta in August instituting an AI hiring freeze, doing a reorganization of the AI teams it had just organized (the fourth reorg in six months, but whos counting), and some of those high-profile hires changing their mind once they had to show up towork at Meta.At least all this took place over the leisurely cadence of about two and a half months. Choppy Surf The drama over the acquisition of the AI coding app Windsurf played out over just 72 hours, across a mid-July weekend.This too looked like a company being raided for its leadership and top talent (this time by Google). In the heat of a summer Friday news dump, it appeared those 40-plus Windsurf poachees were leaving their former colleagues high and dry while they reaped a share of $2.4 billion.AI, whether because of the opportunity, the resources required, or just the guaranteed money, was shattering the heretofore understood premise that founders, like sea captains, went down with the ship.But with Big Tech offering yachts, not lifeboats, startups became just another manifestation of I got mine, with founders now at the front of the line to get theirs.On the Monday after the Friday talent raid, Cognition, yet another AI software engineering tool (!), took the heros mantle, acquiring the rest of Windsurf and promising to make the employees whole.Cognition CEO Scott Wu wrote that the deal includes Windsurfs world-class people, some of the best talent in our industry, whom were privileged to welcome to our team.Those good vibes lasted all of three weeks, when Wu confirmed that he had offered those world-class Windsurf people buyouts, citing Cognitions extreme performance culture that translates to many of us literally live where we work. The note implied that Windsurf perhaps didnt share that oh-so-healthy work culture and allowing that its employees hadnt signed up to grind themselves into dust.The only greater privilege than welcoming Windsurf to the team was showing them the door. Mines bigger Stargate: Its not just a sci-fi franchise but also a joint venture to fuel OpenAIs data center expansion, an AI infrastructure company. Stargate launched in January with help from SoftBank, Oracle, and others. According to OpenAI, Stargate intends to invest $500 billion over the next four years” and this infrastructure will secure American leadership in AI, create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, and generate massive economic benefit for the entire world. (Emphasis mine.)The first Stargate project in Texas, which started operating while still under construction, is promising 357 full-time jobs once construction has finished, according to Bloomberg, which added that thats a little more than the average Walmart Supercenter. If we interpret hundreds of thousands as, say, 200,000, we only need to build another 560 data centers to fulfill that goal.Gotta start somewhere, I guess, but in truth, OpenAI got to that jobs number through the usual economic impact sleight of hand, adding in short-term construction roles and indirect jobs like manufacturing and local service roles.Good American jobs, AI supremacy over the world, whatever. Lets not lose sight of whats important here: Sam Altmans data center was larger than Elon Musks xAI Colossus data center, consuming 300MW of power to Colossuss 250MW. The tech site Toms Hardware proclaimed, Its the worlds largest single building.Fear not, though, Colossus 2 is underway in Memphis. Sure, both of these projects threaten the stability of the electric grid, and Colossus may or may not be poisoning the residents of Memphis while you read this, but no matter: Musk simply must prove his is bigger.You didnt think Meta CEO Mark Cage Fighter Zuckerberg was going to sit this out, right? In July, he announced Prometheus and Hyperion (nicknamed The Beast), his data center projects that promise multi-gigawatt power consumption. As Zuck bragged, Just one of these covers a significant part of the footprint of Manhattan.SoftBanks Masayoshi Son, although already involved with Stargate (with money he doesnt actually have), was not deterred by those realities from reportedly pitching a $1 trillion industrial campus in Arizona devoted to building AI and robotics, dubbed Project Crystal Land.Cant help but wonder if these guys are compensating for something here. Its the money, stupid Of course, the hot AI summer of 2025 hasnt just been about bragging rights. Its about money, which can be converted into bragging rights.To wit: In July, former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati raised a record $2 billion seed round for her Thinking Machines Lab AI startup. As of mid-August, arguably a lifetime ago in AI time, the analyst firm CB Insights calculated that there were 498 AI unicorns, with an aggregate value of $2.7 trillion, leading CNBC to conclude, AI is creating new billionaires at a record pace. On paper, at least. Thankfully theres a way for the founders (and maybe even the unwashed AI rank and file actually doing the work) to cash in that doesnt involve abandoning their startups: secondary share sales to investors clamoring to get a piece of these companies. In August, OpenAI reportedly initiated a $6 billion offering (or maybe its $8 billion) to investors (including, naturally, SoftBank), which would value the company at $500 billion. OpenAI currently has a $13 billion ARR (see above!). So lets call this maybe 50 times revenue, with, again, accelerating losses. Elite AI researchers and 10x engineers spent the summer changing teams like college football stars in the transfer portal, with Zuckerberg reportedly offering $300 million, four-year deals to woo them to Meta. The coup de grace was hiring away Apples head of AI models with a compensation package that dwarfed that of Apple CEO Tim Cook. Meanwhile, investor demand has gotten so frenzied that 1) companies like Meta are using financial instruments known as special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to finance data center investments off its books, obscuring the risk from its stock investos 2) OpenAI warned investors that unauthorized sales of OpenAI equity; investments in SPVs that own OpenAI equity; tokenized interests in OpenAI equity (as Robinhood launched earlier in the summer, starting in Europe) and promised or an SPV holding OpenAI equity; and forward contracts and other forms of purported economic interests as violating its terms and could result in those shares being invalidated 3) OpenAIs investing arm launched its sixth SPV, mere weeks before warning investors about SPVs offering its own shares, to invest outside of its main fund, seeking another $69.5 million 4) VCs are buying into each others SPVs with high fee structures to get any kind of exposure to these those private AI high-fliers. As Javier Avalos, cofounder and CEO of Caplight, a secondary deal tracking platform, explained to TechCrunch, Buying units of the SPV means [VCs] wont own shares in the actual company; theyll technically be an investor in another investors fund. Of course they can then mark up those investments and sell them to a greater fool high-net-worth investor, so everythings fine. These are the kinds of things that happen when the smart money convinces itself that this time is different.The next crash will be different, and it may well not be caused by AI. (It could be private credit! Or crypto! So many possibilities.)Yes, every single one of these actions this summer has some kind of perfectly logical explanation. Why wouldnt you bet 1 or 2% of your company to have a shot at owning the next iPhone, being the dominant player in the fourth industrial revolution, or controlling data centers, the railroads of the 21st century?Then again, everything looks shiny if youre living inside a gossamer sphere floating into the atmosphere.Stay careful out there, folks. If anyone offers you a chance to buy into an SPV, maybe take all your money and put it in something tangible and safe, like Labubus.
Category:
E-Commerce
Managing a team with clashing personalities can be one of the toughest challenges for any leader, but it’s entirely possible to navigate interpersonal conflict and build cohesion among team members with different points of view. Here, experts in team management and organizational psychology offer proven methods for fostering collaboration and productivity among a group with differing personalities. Create Ritual and Name the Storm Conflict is not a red flag. In healthy, high-performing teams, it is a sign that people are engaged and care about the outcome. The real challenge is not avoiding conflict, it’s knowing how to move through it without damaging trust. One of the most effective approaches we use is teaching leaders to create ritual and name the stormnot just more meetings or surface-level check-ins. Ritual, in this case, means building a steady, predictable space on the calendar where teams can name what is working, what is hard, and what they need from each other. These moments become an outlet, a way to lower the pressure before it turns into resentment. They also create psychological safety and permission to tell the truth. But ritual alone is not enough. Leaders also have to name the storm when it hits. That means calling out what is being felt, even if it is uncomfortable. If tension is building, say it. If something feels off, bring it forward. People do not need every answer, but they do need honesty, presence, and leadership that does not avoid the hard part. In one team, two high-performing colleagues were consistently clashing. Their conflict was showing up in meetings, in Slack messages, and in how others tiptoed around them. We introduced a shared practice and helped them kick it off. Each person filled out three prompts: What am I working on that you may not fully see or understand? What do I appreciate about how you work? What is the one thing that would help us work better together? After a brief facilitated start to break the ice, they took it from there. There was no pressure to agree, just space to be honest. That first conversation shifted everything. The issue was not really personality; it was stress, misread intentions, and both of them feeling unseen. Once the story underneath the conflict was named, the energy changed. The strongest cultures are not built on agreement. They are built on rhythm, repair, and the courage to face what is real. Ritual provides structure. Naming the storm offers relief. Together, they create the kind of trust that holds when things get hard. And trust is not a soft skill; it is the foundation of every healthy culture and every company that intends to grow. Lena McDearmid, Founder & CEO, Wryver Use a 3-Step Process for Personality Clashes I am very skeptical of personality testing, but I do think most people are self-aware of their own personality “types.” So, when my clients or teams have had persistent personality clashes, we resolve them in a three-step process. The conversation is done in a group, but everyone knows the questions in advance. Each person answers a set of questions about themselves, their strengths, weaknesses, and triggers (see the list below). We all answer each question before going to the next so that at each step everyone dwells within that topic together. Others in the group may ask questions during that process. They may also point out when someone is being dishonest (like by saying their weakness is working too hard or some other deflecting nonsense). Then each person identifies a way in which they are likely to annoy or trigger someone else. This can be very specific and personal. One person may say, “I have a bad habit of interrupting. It probably annoys John.” Next, everyone identifies a strategy for getting themselves “un-hooked” when someone else in the group annoys them. For instance, John from the example above might say, “I will allow the interruption and then finish my thought and point out that I prefer not to be interrupted.” And finally, everyone commits to a specific strategy for reducing or stopping the behavior they have learned is most irksome to one or more peers. The person above might say, “I will focus on letting others complete their thoughts and catch myself before interrupting.” The process works on lots of levels. Everyone learns more about each other and themselves. Plus, each person is equally vulnerable when they identify some trait of their own that is annoying or discourteous. That shared humanity creates more charitable feelings toward each other. And of course, the strategies to both be less annoying and less annoyed help with the ongoing conflicts. Pretty soon, they are jumping in to help each other succeed in their behavior change goals. After all, most of us have annoying traits or habits. It’s easier to change yourself if everyone is working on their own bad habits with you.The questions to ask: What is your greatest strength as a person and professional? What are your greatest weaknesses personally and professionally? What three behaviors (in others) most annoy or trigger you? What habit or behavioral trait of yours is most likely to annoy or frustrate others? Amie Devero, President, Beyond Better Strategy and Coaching Apply Improvisation to Foster Team Cohesion One of the most effective and unexpectedly transformative approaches we’ve found for navigating interpersonal conflict and strengthening team cohesion is applied improvisation. As a firm championing collaborative methods, we seek tools that foster deeper connections across diverse teams. Applied improv is an underutilized approach that consistently surprises leaders with its impact. Unlike traditional conflict resolution strategies, improv invites team members to engage in low-stakes, playful activities encouraging listening, empathy, and trust. Through exercises rooted in “Yes, and . . .” thinking, participants suspend judgment, build on ideas, and stay presentskills that lead to effective communication and collaboration. In one engagement, we worked with a leadership team where two department heads had long-standing tension. Rather than forcing another structured mediation, we led a short improv session exploring shared dynamics. One exercise where each person added a line to a spontaneous story shifted the atmosphere. Laughter replaced tension, and both leaders later reflected that it helped them “hear each other without the baggage.” From there, communication opened and collaboration followed. The beauty of applied improv lies in its simplicity and emotional intelligence. It fosters psychological safety, invites creativity, and models inclusive behaviors that drive strong teams. In a world where diverse perspectives are a company’s greatest asset, improv helps people move past personal differences to co-create something greater. For teams exploring this approach, it’s key to start with the right mindset. Improv in’t about fixing conflict; it’s about creating shared experiences that build trust. Framing sessions as a chance to play and grow together helps lower defenses. Simple activities like collaborative storytelling or mirroring break the ice quickly. These aren’t about performance; they’re about presence, support, and attunement. What starts as laughter often uncovers deeper dynamics in a way that feels safe to explore. Leaders should embrace discomfortit signals authentic engagement. When they model vulnerability and playfulness, others follow. Reflecting afterward on how the experience felt and what lessons apply to daily work helps cement lasting change. In sensitive cases, a skilled facilitator ensures the space remains supportive. But in nearly any setting, applied improvisation offers something rare: a joyful, humanizing path to stronger teams. Tyler Butler, Founder, Collaboration for Good Leverage Group Activities to Bridge Generational Gaps Leadership often tests you in uncertain ways. Clashing personalities within teams can be most challenging. It becomes even more complex when you factor in generational differences. Approximately 70% of our workforce is Gen Z, with the remaining 30% being millennials. Interestingly, we have talented young leaders heading entire teams. Now, when it comes to differences in handling teams, Gen Zers tend to value immediate feedback, rapid decision-making, and direct communication. Millennials often prefer more structured processes and elaborate planning. For instance, when a 23-year-old team lead wants to pivot a product strategy based on user feedback, and a 32-year-old senior developer pushes for more comprehensive testing phases, you get real friction. Most companies default to HR interventions or formal one-on-ones when these conflicts arise. But here’s what I’ve discovered: Those sterile conference room discussions rarely address the underlying issue, which is often just a lack of genuine understanding between different working styles. Instead, we’ve built our conflict resolution around sports and wellness. We often organize group runs and yoga sessions, and quarterly, we participate in marathons as a company. Here’s why this works better than traditional approaches. During our weekend 10K runs, I’ve watched that same Gen Z team lead and millennial developer naturally start discussing their different perspectives. Without the pressure of deadlines or the formality of meeting rooms, they began understanding each other’s motivations. The younger lead realized that the developer’s cautious approach came from having seen rushed launches fail spectacularly. The developer understood that the lead’s urgency was driven by genuine user pain points. Physical activity releases endorphins, reduces stress hormones, and creates positive shared experiences. People return to work having seen each other as humans first, colleagues second. What traditional team-building misses is that it’s still work-adjacent. The result? The two individuals now collaborate seamlessly, with the developer’s thoroughness balancing the lead’s speed. Real understanding beats formal intervention every time. Anjan Pathak, Co-founder, Vantage Fit Reframe Conflicts to Facilitate Team Understanding Clashing personalities on your team can be a tough challenge for even the most experienced leader. The field of counseling and psychology can provide some insightful approaches to help navigate this often challenging team dynamic. One of the most simple yet powerful interventions that a leader can implement to help facilitate cohesion and respect is the ability to reframe. All business leaders know that stories are immensely powerful; they can help you sell a computer, negotiate a contract, and build lasting relationships. Your ability to “reframe” an interpersonal conflict on your team allows you to take control of the narrative and create a picture that can offer more cohesion and assist your team as a whole. I am a board member of a team that consists of a lead engineer and an attorney. Both are strong and opinionated personalities in their own right, and there was an instance where we were all on a fundraising call and the attorney was hesitant to answer a question, which left the engineer livid. After the call, the two of them went at itdismissing one another and criticizing the other’s approach. They were both telling themselves “a story” that the call was a disaster. It was evident to me that they were coming from two different perspectives and that all three of us were feeling the pressure to succeed. I drew upon my experience as a psychotherapist and was mindful not to “split” or take sides and instead find a creative way to reframe this situation. So, I chose to reframe that instead of “being a disaster,” this interaction was exactly what the prospective funder needed to hear. I specified, “He needed to hear that our engineering team was on point and ready to roll, and that our legal team was a risk management superpower and that both voices were critical in ensuring trust, efficacy, and overall professionalism, even if the two perspectives were seemingly ‘at odds’ with one another.” Although this reframe did not repair every emotion that they were experiencing, or create a Zen circle of transcendent bonding, it did allow both of them to come back to the table and continue creative problem-solving together. Louis Laves-Webb, LCSW-S, LPC-S, Psychotherapist/CEO, Louis Laves-Webb, LCSW-S, LPC-S & Associates Study Behavioral Patterns Beneath Personality Clashes When people talk about “clashing personalities,” they’re usually describing something else. In my experience, it’s often a lack of shared language around pressure and power, and sometimes even belonging. I tell others not to rush to resolve the tension but to study it. Look for the behavioral loops playing out beneath the conflict. Observe those roles people are unconsciously taking on (e.g., the protector, the performer, the fixer, or the ghost), and the threat they’re responding to. Once you see that, the clash becomes a pattern, and patterns can be interrupted. One approach I’ve used is to pause the task and invite each person to describe how they’re experiencing the room but not what they think of each other. That alone shifts the dynamic from judgment to self-awareness. Sometimes someone will say, “I feel like I’m being evaluated,” or, “I don’t know how to contribute without stepping on toes.” I tell them these aren’t personality traits. They’re more like survival strategies. Cohesion isn’t built by getting people to like each other. It’s more often built when people stop performing and start participating. And that only happens when the system makes space for complexity and when leaders make it safe to be wrong, to not know, and to shift roles. My mindset? If it feels messy, you’re probably on the right track. Clarity doesn’t come before discomfort.It comes after. That isn’t intuitive. It’s hard. But the best strategies usually are. Stephen Belenky, Co-founder & Chief Solutions Architect, Hiddn LLC Shift Focus from Ego to Shared Purpose Managing clashing personalities isn’t just about resolving conflict but rather about unlocking collective potential. One approach I’ve found effective is shifting the conversation from “Who’s right?” to “What do we need to create together?” That small shift reframes the dynamic from ego to purpose. A few years ago, I led a cross-functional, multicultural team in developing an extensive executive master class. None of us had worked together before, the project was brand new, the timeline was tight, and we were fully remote. Let’s just say the personality mix wasn’t smooth. The lead designer was fast-moving and visionary. The content strategist was deeply reflective and needed space to process. The graphics designer was opinionated and on their own creative clock. Tension wasn’t just expected; it arrived early and loudly. I realized the risk wasn’t open disagreement, but one voice dominating and others retreating. So instead of pushing through or trying to fix personalities, I hit pause. We ran a no-nonsense values alignment session where each person named what they needed to do their best work. That surfaced something powerful. We all cared deeply about excellence and success, but had radically different definitions of what that meant. From there, we co-created team agreements. These weren’t platitudes, but real, operational norms such as “share early, polish later,” “ask before assuming,” “silence doesn’t mean agreement,” and so on. Within two weeks, the friction transformed into flow. People understood each other’s rhythms, respected communication preferences, and trusted that everyone brought something vital to the table. We delivered ahead of schedule, but more importantly, we built a culture that didn’t just tolerate differences but thrived on them. Diverse personalities aren’t a problem to fix; they’re the foundation of a thriving team. But diversity alone isn’t enough. Trust and respect must be earned, and that only happens when each person brings meaningful value to the table. When someone doesn’t contribute, it’s not a personality issue but a clarity and accountability one. The key is creating a culture where every voice is heard, every strength is activated, and everyone understands what we’re building together. Maria Papacosta, Co-founder, MSC Marketing Bureau Design for Friction in Team Dynamics One thing I’ve learned is that you can’t fix personality clashes, but you can create conditions where they don’t get in the way of progress. I manage both marketing and sales teams, which are typically driven by very different personalities, and once we had a situation where two team leads from those respective teams just fundamentally rubbed each other the wrong way. Every cross-functional sync became a turf war, even when they were both technically right. Trying to mediate doesn’t always work on people. What worked instead was reworking the structure of how they interacted. We reduced direct one-on-one confrontation, shifted their collaboration into shared documents and asynchronous updates, and made KPIs [key performance indicators] the neutral ground. Instead of trying to get them to like each otherwe aren’t in elementary schoolwe focused on letting them work effectively despite the tension. Over time, that asynchronization lowered the emotional temperature. Their styles never matched, but they could respect each other’s results. The team dynamic improved not because we solved the clash, but because we stopped forcing harmony and started designing for friction. Andrew Byzov, CMO & HOS, AcademyOcean Clarify Roles to Prevent Misunderstandings One thing I do at the start of every project is have everyone write down what they think their job is, and then what they think everyone else should be doing. Then we sit around and read it all aloud. It sounds weird and awkward, I know, but how incredibly revealing it is totally compensates for everything. I had one campaign a few months ago where a strategist and copywriter kept butting heads. She thought he was stepping on her toes, and he felt like she was micromanaging him. When we did this exercise, we found they both thought they were supposed to create the messaging framework. Nobody had ever actually said who was handling what, so they were both doing the same work and getting frustrated. Once we talked it through, everything calmed down. We figured out who would handle the framework and who would execute it, and agreed to touch base after the first draft, instead of just passing documents back and forth with no real communication. This takes extra time up front, but it prevents weeks of people working against each other. I’ve done it with design teams, SEO folks, and even video crews. It lets everyone get their expectations out in the open before things get stressful. And the funny thing is, people are usually relieved when you do this. Everyone’s been wondering about the same boundaries, but nobody wants to be the one to bring it up. Austin Heaton, Head of Content, Rise Establish Minimum Viable Alignment for Progress Minimum viable alignmentI borrowed this concept from Adam Grant, who insists that people don’t need to agree on everything. They just need to agree on what matters most. Two of our content strategists couldn’t agree. One was obsessed with user data and couldn’t help keeping tabs on Google Search Console and Hotjar. The other was more instinctive. She cared more about the tone and wanted to rely on her gut feeling. They had the same KPIs but completely different approaches. Monday meetings were passive-aggressive, and it started getting out of hand. I asked them, “If this project were to go south, what would you blame it on?” One said ignoring data. The other said over-optimizing. I asked them to give me a shared list of three non-negotiables. Two months later, we got better content for our website. Yes, they still disagreed, but this time it was productive. Their list gave us the best-performing blog series we had ever published. Get people to agree on enough to move forward and leave the rest. Andrew Juma, Chief Executive Officer, CustomWritings.com Observe Unspoken Cues in Team Interactions I always pay close attention to what is not being said. Reactions, subtle shifts, and silence often reveal what wods do not. During a recent huddle, several issues surfaced at once. The project manager was trying to show initiative and push the team forward. The developer, who was new to the project, didn’t have space to speak and shut down. The manager jumped in and took over the conversation. That was the moment I stepped in and paused the meeting. I brought everyone back to where we actually stood in the project. I asked the PM to explain why those features were important to her. Then I turned to the developer and asked directly for his perspective. When he got interrupted again, I stopped the conversation and said, “I asked for his opinion.” That shifted the tone in the room. From that point on, the team communicated more openly and respectfully. I stay emotionally present and aware. I watch how people react, not just what they say. When I sense tension or someone being shut down, I force a pause, set structure and boundaries, and make sure people have the space to contribute. That’s what creates clarity, safety, and trust. Lila Diavati, Managing Director, Momencio
Category:
E-Commerce
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., but a long-standing and effective anti-smoking ad campaign that brought that number down is now ending. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Tips From Former Smokers” ads will stop airing at the end of September due to a reorganization that eliminates or reassigns the agency’s work on chronic disease, according to CBS News, which first reported the ad campaign’s upcoming discontinuation. The CDC did not respond to a request for comment. Launched in 2012, the “Tips From Former Smokers” public service announcements featured testimonials from real-life former smokers who shared their personal experiences. Their heartfelt calls to action encouraged viewers that they could quit too, like the message from Terrie, a North Carolina woman who spoke with the assistance of an electronic voice box. The former smokers in the PSAs opened up about health issues that resulted from years of smoking: cancer, gum disease, heart disease, HIV complications, and stroke. They were convincing. [Image: CDC] A rare combo: effective and universally liked The first ads in the series aired for just four months, at a cost of $48 million, but they had a high return on investment. The CDC says about 1 million people successfully quit because of the campaign, making its cost only $480 per smoker who quit. The campaign was estimated to have saved $7.3 billion in healthcare sector costs and prevented 129,100 premature deaths by 2018. The ads are also popular. An August Ipsos poll found 72% of Americans believe “television, online, and print advertisements aimed at reducing smoking or encouraging people to quit smoking are important,” though that varies by party affiliation. Democrats (82%) and Republicans (71%) are more likely to say they’re important than independents (67%). Still, a majority of those polled in each party agreed that such advertisements are important. [Screenshot: CDC] The Federal health system’s budget up in smoke The end of the CDC’s anti-smoking PSAs will come amid major downsizing and reorganization at the agency, which is seeing layoffs, firings, and mass resignations over anti-vaccine policies under Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Former CDC director Susan Monarez was fired last week after opposing Kennedy’s vaccine policy changes, and other top CDC officials have resigned, too, saying Kennedy is endangering Americans’ health. The end of “Tips From Former Smokers” isn’t the only thing the U.S. health system is losing under the second Trump administration. A new HHS budget makes cuts to primary care; care for mental and behavioral health, HIV/AIDS, environmental health, and maternal and child health; and the health workforce. And last month, the National Crime Prevention Council began selling “Take a Bite Out of DOGE” merch featuring McGruff the Crime Dog in order to raise money after Department of Government Efficiency cuts forced the nonprofit organization to put a public service announcement on hold amid an anti-fentanyl campaign. The anti-smoking campaign’s end, though, is great news for tobacco companies. A study published in the Journal of Smoking Cessation in 2022 found “Tips From Former Smokers” wasn’t only good at convincing people to stop smokingit also helped former smokers from relapsing.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||