AI is making employee monitoring cheaper, more granular, and continuous—but lower costs can encourage companies to overuse controls without considering their broader consequences. Research
Linus Arauz operates 10 points of sale across two large airports and has responsibilities that extend to nearly 100 food and non-food retail locations across several airport programs. Some of those locations have no staff at all. Travelers simply walk up and take whatever they want off the shelf—a sandwich, a bottle of water. They’re supposed to pay, but no one is there to ensure that they do.
When employees seem stressed, leaders typically blame workload and respond with the usual remedies: task redistribution, time off, time management training. But a meta-analysis of 515 studies
Generative AI is transforming creative work by making it faster and easier to brainstorm and visualize ideas. But a new, yearlong study following senior creatives in charge of television and
Imagine a photographer reviewing a concept image for an advertising campaign that the client has already approved. He notices a problem: The man in the image is wearing a baseball cap that casts his face in shadow, but his eyes are clearly lit, showing his intense stare into the camera. The photographer’s trained eye tells him immediately that that lighting is impossible. No real-world set up could produce it. The image had been created by a senior creative using gen AI, and the client had loved it. Now the production team has been tasked with recreating—with cameras and human actors—something that reality can’t match.
Organizational values often emphasize what companies stand for, but their real power may lie in defining what they refuse to do,
Thirty years ago, Ralph Larsen, then the CEO of Johnson & Johnson, was interviewed by Jim Collins and Jerry Porras, who quoted him in their 1996 HBR article, “Building Your Company’s Vision,” which would become the defining playbook on organizational values. “The core values embodied in our credo might be a competitive advantage,” Larsen said, “but that is not why we have them. We have them because they define for us what we stand for, and we would hold them even if they became a competitive disadvantage in certain situations.”
When demands increase while resources shrink, leaders can’t simply absorb the extra work or push an already-overextended team harder. Both approaches carry costs:
When my coaching client, Chris* became chief legal counsel at a financial services firm, he didn’t anticipate how fast the workload would escalate. Within his first year, the company closed three major acquisitions back-to-back, producing an avalanche of contract reviews, compliance filings, and regulatory matters. Every time Chris tried to hand something off, his team would say, “we’re doing our best, but we’re at capacity.” He understood, but since the work still had to get done, Chris absorbed it himself. Working nights and weekends to keep up soon compromised Chris’s ability to drive the very high-level strategy he’d been tapped to lead.