ResidentialBusiness

When corporate crises hit, the public looks to the CEO. From product recalls to workplace discrimination to customer mistreatment scandals, CEOs are often thrust into the spotlight and forced to apologize. But do the exact words they choose really matter? I’m a professor of marketing, and my preliminary research suggests the answer is yes. In fact, they can even move stock prices. A tale of 2 apologies Consider two examples from the not-too-distant past. When Samsung Electronics had to recall 2.5 million smartphones in 2016 due to battery fires, the company ran full-page ads in major American newspapers that said, “We are truly sorry.” Despite the apology, Samsung’s stock continued falling, wiping out billions of dollars in market value. Contrast that with a famous case: the 1982 Tylenol crisis, in which seven people died after taking capsules that a still-unidentified criminal had laced with cyanide, circumventing the company’s safety protocols. The then-CEO of Tylenol’s parent company, Johnson & Johnson, said “I apologize” to consumers and immediately ordered a nationwide recall, costing the company over US$100 million. His direct acknowledgment of responsibility and swift action helped restore public trust and became a case study in effective crisis leadership. The company’s stock price didn’t take much of a hit, either. While the two cases are different in many ways, together they illustrate a pattern my colleagues and I observed in our study: Markets respond differently to “I apologize” versus “We apologize.” Investors reward personal accountability I collaborated with marketing professors Jennifer H. Tatara and Courtney B. Peters to analyze 224 corporate apologies between 1996 and 2023. Using event-study methods common in finance, we tracked unusual stock returns around apology announcements and linked them to how CEOs framed their statements. Our results, which we are preparing for publication, were striking. CEOs who said “I apologize” often saw short-term stock returns rise by a statistically significant amount. CEOs who said “We apologize” saw no such effect. Saying “I apologize” lessens the market penalty by roughly 86%, we found. We think this is because markets reward leaders who take individual responsibility. “I” signals personal accountability and decisiveness. “We,” by comparison, dilutes ownership of the problem. But context matters, we found. When we zeroed in on diversity-related cases—those involving mistreatment based on race, gender, disability, or LGBTQ+ status, for example—the positive effect of “I apologize” weakened or disappeared. That’s because investors often interpret diversity crises as signs of systemic failure, rather than isolated mistakes. In those cases, investors, employees, and the public may expect accountability that goes beyond the CEO. A lone “I apologize” can seem hollow, while “We apologize” may resonate more by acknowledging shared institutional responsibility. Beyond CEOs: Why stakeholders should care Apologies are among the most scrutinized executive communications. Their effects ripple across different audiences. For investors, apology language provides a real-time signal of leadership quality and future governance. Our research shows these signals are strong enough to move stock prices. For corporate boards, an apology can be as important as a balance sheet in shaping market perceptions. Our research suggests that boards should insist leaders prepare for crisis communications as a standard part of risk management. For employees and customers, apology language sends a message about corporate culture. “I” can demonstrate accountability; “we” can affirm inclusion and shared responsibility. Both matter, depending on the situation. Leading in a skeptical era Corporate apologies are nothing new. But in today’s environment—where social media amplifies every word and trust in institutions is fragile—the stakes are higher. A single poorly framed statement can trigger outrage, stock sell-offs, or viral boycotts. The good news is that “sorry” doesn’t have to be the hardest word. In fact, this research suggests that a good apology can pay off, literally. The key is to remember that apologies aren’t one-size-fits-all. The right words depend on the nature of the wrongdoing. Prachi Gala is an associate professor of marketing at Kennesaw State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. View the full article

Google's Preferred Sources tool is surfacing parked domains, spammy domain squatters, and random websites, detracting from legit sites that should be benefiting. The post Google’s Preferred Sources Tool Is Jammed With Spam appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

‘Hello, I need the biggest business transformation project you have. No, that’s too big . . .’View the full article

“Get laid off with me.” So read the closed captions of a recent TikTok post. “My boss just put a 15 minute sink on my calendar,” creator @mbraindump said in the now-viral post. “I can’t believe this is really happening. Getting laid off, okay, here we go.” It is a sinking feeling that’s sadly familiar to myriad workers. In just the past week, thousands have fallen victim to mass layoffs at Amazon, Target, Paramount, CBS, and other large companies. After Amazon laid off 14,000 corporate employees last week, or 4% of its white-collar workforce, a number of workers started cropping up on social media to document their experiences. The trend of documenting being laid off first emerged post-pandemic and gained traction as mass layoffs hit in 2023 and 2024. Now it is back, as a fresh wave of workers joins the ranks of the unemployed. “Pretty sure I’m about to get laid off from my 9-to-5 right now, so come with me to my meeting,” one TikTok user posted in late October. The video has over 670,000 views. “Day in my life as a software engineer, except I got laid off before I could finish it,” another posted around the same time, which has almost 250,000 views. Rather than posting a LinkedIn update, being laid off is now lucrative content. On TikTok, the hashtag #layoffs has almost 60,000 videos. Many of these riff off the ubiquitous “Get Ready With Me (GRWM)” genre of content, in which creators showcase their hair, makeup, or outfit while chatting about their inner lives or zeitgeist-y topics. Some, like @mbraindump, go on to turn unemployment into a content series post-layoff. In an era of mass unemployment, layoffs are no longer seen as an individual failing. Instead, they are an unfortunate fact of life. For many, it’s not their first rodeo. Some are on their second—or even third—layoff in just one year. Amid the job losses, a new culture around layoffs has emerged. As more layoffs have hit in the past year, the stigma has lifted. Studies have shown that employees are more disengaged than ever, making them more inclined to hold their employers accountable, even on the way out. @mbraindump’s video has received hundreds of comments of support and solidarity since it was posted. “I’m so sorry. This sucks. These companies really don’t view us as humans. Something has got to change. Sending you a hug!” one person wrote. “Living in this constant state of anxiety at your job is AWFUL. My God, they couldn’t have made this any less humane,” another commented. “I’ve dealt with 2 layoffs within 12 months. I am really sorry you’re in the club now,” a third commiserated. Of course, filming and posting workplace meetings to social media—for former and future employers to see—does come with some risk. It could give hiring managers pause, or even put severance packages at risk. And while watching others get laid off online might help destigmatize the process, it certainly doesn’t make it any easier when a call with HR gets added to your calendar. View the full article

You may have seen warnings that Google is telling all of its users to change their Gmail passwords due to a breach. That’s only partly true. Google is telling users to change their passwords, but not because of a breach that exposed them. In fact, Google’s real advice is to stop using your password altogether. Here’s what I mean. The breach traces back to Salesforce, whose systems were compromised by the hacker group known as ShinyHunters (also tracked as UNC6040). Attackers obtained business-related Gmail data, including contact lists, company associations, and email metadata. No actual Gmail account credentials were stolen, but the nature of the stolen data makes phishing and impersonation attacks far more dangerous. Google confirmed the link between the Salesforce breach and a rise in targeted phishing campaigns and said attackers are already impersonating Google, IT departments, or trusted vendors to trick people into handing over login information. Some campaigns even involve “vishing,” or fraudulent phone calls made from spoofed 650-area-code numbers that resemble Google’s corporate lines. Phishing attacks increase For years, phishing has been one of the most effective tools hackers use to break into accounts. Google’s own data shows that phishing and vishing now account for roughly 37% of successful account takeovers across its services. With the data from Salesforce in hand, hackers can customize attacks that look far more authentic than the usual spam message. Imagine receiving a message that references your actual employer, colleagues, or recent communications. That level of detail raises the likelihood that you’ll trust the email, click a malicious link, or provide sensitive information. Once credentials are stolen, hackers can bypass additional protections and take over accounts—sometimes without the victim realizing it until significant damage has been done. Protect your email password Look, the most important rule here is that you should literally never give anyone your Gmail password, especially not someone who calls you and purports to be tech support. No matter how convincing it may seem, Google is never ever going to call you and ask you for your login information. Seriously, even if your son calls you to help you with tech support, you should not give him your Gmail password. Why? Well, because your email is basically the key to everything. In an interview I did last year, Cloudflare CTO John Graham-Cumming explained the problem. “If you do not have a good password on your email, the rest of your life is pretty much wide open, because every single service out there does reset password by sending you an email,” says Graham-Cumming. “So if I can compromise your email, I can compromise pretty much everything else you have.” Of course, even better than not giving out your password or clicking on links in fake tech-support emails is to stop using passwords altogether on your Gmail account. Google has been encouraging users for years to adopt passkeys instead. Switch to a passkey I also spoke with Jeff Shiner last year about passkeys. As the CEO of 1Password, Shiner knows a few things about how people use passwords and why they should be switching to more secure ways of protecting their accounts. “A passkey, from an end user point of view, looks like the biometrics on your device,” says Shiner. “The cool thing about a passkey is that to the end user, you never have a password for that service. You just use your biometrics, and then a passkey is created. But, from a security point of view, it’s actually stronger than a password—even a strong password—because it can’t be phished.” In light of the breach, Google is encouraging Gmail users to change their password. In fact, you should change your password on a regular basis in the event it is ever compromised. But even better is to stop using passwords at all. Google is also pushing users toward stronger forms of authentication, including passkeys and app-based two-factor authentication (2FA). Unlike SMS codes, which can be intercepted or spoofed, authenticator apps and passkeys make it much harder for hackers to break into accounts even if they trick you into handing over a password. Google’s warning for users Google’s guidance can be summed up in five steps: Reset your Gmail password regularly. Choose something unique and complex. Do not reuse passwords across accounts. Turn on two-factor authentication. Preferably, use an authenticator app or a passkey. Be skeptical of unsolicited messages. If you receive an email or call about account security, go directly to your Google account dashboard instead of clicking links or giving information over the phone. Use Google’s Security Checkup. The tool provides a quick overview of devices, apps, and settings tied to your account. Stay alert. If something feels off—strange login notifications, unexpected password reset requests, or unusual email activity—act quickly by securing your account. This episode underscores a broader truth about modern cybersecurity: Your accounts are only as safe as the weakest link in the chain. In this case, a breach at Salesforce created risk for Gmail users who had no direct relationship with the company. Even if Google’s own infrastructure remains secure, attackers can exploit data leaked from partners to undermine trust. With more than 2.5 billion Gmail users, it isn’t surprising that the world’s most popular email service would represent one of the most irresistible targets for hackers. Google’s latest warning is a reminder that in a world of constant breaches, vigilance is the only reliable defense. —Jason Aten This article originally appeared on Fast Company’s sister publication, Inc. Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy. View the full article

Racing along the Potomac River at 26 knots (almost 30 mph) usually guarantees a raucous ride—but not on a battery-electric Candela C-8 hydrofoil. Instead of the roar of a conventional boat’s fossil-fueled engine and the smack of its hull on the water, this vessel smoothly whirred along, barely shuddering over the wake of a passing water taxi as its foils cleanly sliced through the surface. The placid experience belied the speed shown on the C-8’s touchscreen. And the loudest noise heard on a mid-October ride came not from the C-8’s electric motor, but from planes taking off from Washington National Airport that were following a prescribed course above the river. Stockholm-based Candela (a Most Innovative Companies honoree in 2025) doesn’t just want to electrify the boating-for-fun experience, however. Along with a few other companies, it aims to purge fossil fuels from the passenger ferries that regularly ply city waterways. A ride for the ruling class You can think of the C-8, starting at $300,000, as a Candela equivalent of the Tesla Roadster—the high-priced plaything that helps boot up a line of more useful electrified conveyances. The hardtop edition we took around the Potomac and the Anacostia rivers is a sleek machine that drew compliments from boardwalk passersby when we pulled up to the Washington Harbour development in Georgetown.    The C-8 pulls out of a marina as a boat, but then starts flying on its foils at about 17 knots (19.5 mph). Candela’s engineers are fixated on foils—not only because of the speed they allow but also because, by getting the hull above the water, they vastly cut down on the drag. Candela quotes a range of 57 nautical miles (almost 66 miles) for the C-8’s 69 kWh battery, with the ability to go from 10% of a charge to 80% in under 30 minutes with 135 kW DC charging. You helm the C-8 via a steering wheel, a throttle, and a 15.4-inch touchscreen. Candela’s software monitors the boat and will automatically slow it down if you bank it too much—as I found out firsthand during an August 2023 ride on the San Francisco Bay in an earlier model of the C-8. Three seats and a bench aft of them can accommodate up to six passengers, while a cozy belowdecks space forward of the controls hides sleeping quarters and, below a cover, a small toilet. Almost two hours of cruising up and down the Potomac and the Anacostia, most of it on the foils, took the battery from 100% of a charge to 63%. Candela has sold more than 100 C-8s and delivered about 90, spokesman Mikael Mahlberg says; about half of those deliveries have gone to U.S. customers. It has also delivered 32 C-7 boats, the company’s debut electric hydrofoil that it no longer produces. The privately held firm has raised $96.2 million in funding so far, according to Crunchbase data, but isn’t disclosing financial details. “We’re aiming to be profitable next year,” Mahlberg says, describing Candela’s current phase as “a hyper-growth curve” optimized for research, development, and sales. Fossil-fuel-free ferries That joyride on the C-8 doubled as a chance to show off how passenger ferries can provide a useful transportation alternative. With Washington roads gridlocked due to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s White House meeting with President The President, as well as the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group, my boating-enthusiast friend Bob Vanasse couldn’t make it to Columbia Island Marina on the south side of the Potomac. So we zipped up to Washington Harbour to pick him up there instead. Vanasse, whose day job is representing seafood and fishing-industry interests, pronounced himself impressed and gave an impromptu sales pitch to a guy at his boat club by the District Wharf in Southwest D.C., when we pulled up there. Candela aims to offer that convenience to larger groups of people with its P-12 battery-electric hydrofoil ferry. It can transport up to 30 people at a cruising speed of 25 knots (almost 29 mph), with a range estimated at 40 nautical miles (46 miles). Candela doesn’t specify a price for the ferry; Mahlberg only says it’s “of course more expensive” than the C-8 and “slightly more expensive to purchase than the cheapest diesel vessels of the same size”—offset by annual operating costs about 60% to 70% lower. As with electric vehicles, the low maintenance of an electric motor makes a large contribution to those savings. The P-12, however, is just pulling out of the dock in terms of commercial deployment. One P-12 is providing ferry service around Stockholm—where Candela was able to get a waiver from no-wake speed limits, cutting travel time on an 11-mile commuter route from an hour to 30 minutes—and another serves as a demo vessel for the firm. Candela has 50 P-12 orders booked, with plans to deliver the first eight starting in the first quarter to customers in Saudi Arabia and Mumbai. And it has one new U.S. ferry operator, FlyTahoe, that’s considering the P-12 for a planned service going north and south across Lake Tahoe. FlyTahoe CEO Ryan Meinzer says that the company, based in San Francisco and Tahoe Vista, California, considered and rejected non-hydrofoil ferry concepts. “Conventional hull and propulsion designs—even when electric—still displace water as they push through it, making them far less efficient and less comfortable in choppy conditions,” he says. Meinzer isn’t disclosing FlyTahoe’s financial arrangements with Candela but says the company is “advancing toward a tentative 2026 launch for our cross-lake service, subject to regulatory approval.” Candela, meanwhile, will need to start building boats in the U.S. to advance its own ferry business here—pre-Depression U.S. laws impose a buy-American requirement on vessels transporting people between American ports. “The U.S. is potentially our biggest market potential,” Candela’s Mahlberg says. “We’re in advanced discussions with several states regarding a U.S. factory, and we hope we can shed more light on this soon, as we aim to deliver our first U.S. vessel in 2026.” Other passenger ferry prospects Candela already has company in that market. Belfast-based boat builder Artemis Technologies inked an agreement in February with the U.S. firm Delta Marine to develop battery-electric hydrofoils for Puget Sound routes. Artemis’s EF-24 will carry 150 people at a cruising speed of 34 knots (39 mph) and a range on foils of 70 nautical miles (80.5 miles). And in the Bay Area, the San Francisco Bay Ferry placed an order in December for three battery-electric, 150-passenger catamaran ferries from All American Marine, with the first vessel set to begin service on its shorter routes in early 2027. That ferry operator’s electrification ambitions include converting four 400-passenger diesel ferries to electric power. Putting batteries in a boat might seem like a much more ambitious venture into zero-emission transportation than electric cars, but the concept also has some nonobvious virtues. “Ferries are the largest vessels capable of becoming pure electric due to their well-defined operational profiles—often the exact routes, energy profile, stoppage times, size, load requirements, etc., are accurately known during the powertrain design, eliminating range anxiety and allowing high-cost batteries or other energy storage systems to be right-sized,” says Mika Takahashi, senior technology analyst at IDTechEx, a Cambridge, England-based research firm. But electric ferries also constitute a tiny fraction of the worldwide ferry fleet. IDTechEx estimates that only 280 e-ferries have been sold, with 440 more sales predicted through 2030. In the U.S. alone, 604 passenger ferries were in service in 2022, per the latest Department of Transportation statistics available; the industry group Interferry estimated there were 15,400 in operation worldwide in 2019. Takahashi also notes two other possible obstacles. One is “being a relatively small subset of the EV industry” relative to cars, meaning a slower pace of innovation. Another is “unpredictable policy shifts” in the U.S. and other countries—such as the The President administration’s weird and evidence-detached hostility to EVs. View the full article

Benjamin Netanyahu urged to allow about 150 militants to give up weapons in exchange for free passageView the full article

FTSE 100 property listings group warns profit growth will slow next yearView the full article

If one founder is good, then more must be better, right? Not necessarily. New research shows that the benefits of cofounding a startup with strangers can be eclipsed by the risks. Yes, cofounders can bring their own perspectives, along with “access to wider networks, greater capacity, and access to funding,” says Monique Boddington, a management practice associate professor at the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School, whose research includes early-stage venture formation and startup strategy development. And yet: “An increasing number of individuals have been setting up businesses with no intention of taking on employees,” she explains. That’s because more people are identifying as solo entrepreneurs—“solopreneurs”—since the pandemic, Boddington adds. And while the distinction between self-employed, freelancer, and solopreneur is still murky, “the way to spot [solopreneurs] is whether their venture pursues novelty and scalable opportunity or mainly income replacement or replication,” she says. For those running startups, many such workers are choosing to go it completely alone. In 2022, 84% of all U.S. firms had no employees, meaning there was just the one person running the business. These 29.8 million “nonemployer businesses” accounted for $1.7 trillion, or about 6.8% of the economy. And the momentum hasn’t slowed; in 2023, Americans filed over 5.5 million new business applications, and Gusto’s 2025 New Business Formation survey suggests more than 4 in 5 small businesses in the U.S. have no employees. Why people do it According to the same Gusto survey, over 50% of solopreneurs cite career autonomy—“being one’s own boss”—as the reason for adopting a lone wolf, owner-only business model. Many, like growth marketing consultant and content creator Kevin Fernando, do so because of the “unmatched freedom” it affords them. Fernando, who is the founder of Solopreneur Digital, where he helps entrepreneurs and software-as-a-service (SaaS) companies grow, says that “you get to move quickly, make decisions that align with your vision, and build something that’s fully your own.” Of course, going solo, and starting a venture with no cofounder or employees, doesn’t come without its challenges. “The flexibility and autonomy of being your own boss often come with the vulnerability of being on your own,” says Filip Majetić, sociologist and senior researcher at the Ivo Pilar Institute in Croatia. While strong social support from family and friends can improve solopreneurs’ overall mental and physical health, he explains, “this support does not buffer specific stress-related health problems” such as exhaustion and headaches. Like many others, Fernando finds everything falls on him, and the constant context switching can be draining. “When you’re a solopreneur, you’re not just the strategist. You’re the marketer, customer support, designer, and operations manager—all rolled into one. You have to be self-motivated and resilient because there’s no one else,” he says. That’s especially the case if you’re not sharing responsibilities with a cofounder in your venture’s early days. But new research posits that this may be a good thing. Stranger danger Conventional wisdom would suggest that bringing on a cofounder with a vastly different network from your own leads to more potential funds, as the chances of overlap in who you know would be lower. While that may be true, an analysis of over 3,500 Kickstarter campaigns in a study titled, “The ‘Devil’ You Don’t Know,” reveals that new ventures that include strangers on the team are less than half as likely to deliver the product or service they pitched, and almost twice as likely to cease operations. Studies challenging beliefs that resilience is universally beneficial to entrepreneurial teams are gaining traction, suggesting the very advantages that seem so compelling on paper can also introduce friction—making teams less reflexive, slowing decision-making, and complicating execution. “While having people with diverse skills and experience on a founding team has significant benefits, their ability to work together effectively is just as important,” explains Kimberly A. Eddleston, the Schulze Distinguished Professor of Entrepreneurship and Montoni Research Fellow at the D’Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University. “They need to be compatible, trustworthy, and able to communicate.” It’s one of business’s oldest truths: If you work with the right people, everything else falls into place. The problem? Nailing the people part of the equation is really hard. The limitations of going it alone “Solopreneurship can be a great starting point to get an idea off the ground. A single person can bootstrap with greater resource efficiency, greater control, rapid iteration, and hire-in capabilities,” Boddington says. But to scale, she explains, a team is critical. Founding teams are also more likely to attract funding in the first place, and the Kickstarter research revealed that teams comprised of strangers garnered more crowdfunding backers because they served as novel bridges to resources. Crucially, operational struggles (such as coordination breakdowns, delays in delivering promised products or services, differing work styles leading to relational uncertainty, misalignment of vision and goals, and potential early stage dissolution) appeared in teams with strangers in the boardroom, not businesses bound by strong family or friendship ties. Not all cofounders are a liability, Eddleston says. In ventures with family, for example, team members can rally quickly in a crisis, and “[they] have a ‘survival’ advantage because family members are willing to work for below-market wages, and even for free, to keep their business afloat,” she says. Still, entrepreneurs can thrive totally alone, without a cofounder or a team. “With AI revolution, the next wave of entrepreneurship won’t be about bigger teams, but smarter individuals—AI-powered solopreneurs who turn technology into their growth partner,” says Areti Gkypali, an assistant professor at Athens University of Economics and Business in Greece. The strategy has worked well for Fernando. By automating repetitive tasks and building systems to handle things like client communications, lead generation, and content distribution, he’s shaved 20 to 25 hours off his workweek, freeing him to focus on strategic priorities. Ultimately, for anyone eyeing a new startup, it’s worth being strategic about who, if anyone, to partner with. As Fernando says: “It’s a lifestyle that rewards focus and leverage more than raw effort.” View the full article

Ann Hummond knew the office software like the back of her hand. Based in Yorkshire, England, she could untangle any spreadsheet snafu in her sleep. Over the past 23 years, she had worked her way up from a data entry clerk to her finance company’s administrative director, quietly becoming the person everyone relied on when things went sideways. She was, in short, indispensable. And then, one Tuesday morning last year, during a quarterly team meeting attended by directors, colleagues, and a team leader, her boss—who is nearly 10 years her senior—told her publicly, in a roomful of people: “You’re too old to do this job.” “I must have looked like a goldfish with my mouth open,” says Hummond, whose name and location have been changed for job security reasons. “I felt like I had been hit on the head with a shovel,” she says. Hummond, who speaks about her experience for the U.K.’s Age Without Limits campaign to raise awareness of ageism in England, says she didn’t break down in the meeting. “I didn’t want to give him the pleasure of seeing how much he had hurt me,” she says. Instead, she coolly finished her work day, gathered her belongings, “and then went home and fell to pieces.” Although she took two weeks off work, quitting at the age of 64 was not an option. “I can’t afford to give up working. I have lots of responsibilities and a family to support, and I need to build up more savings.” She also knows the prospect of finding a new job often collides with the cold reality of age bias, and is still working at the company. Age discrimination is one of the last accepted prejudices—tolerated in jokes, embedded in hiring, and often brushed off as pragmatism rather than bias. In the U.S., legislation against it has existed since the passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in 1967. Yet, “Between 1997 and 2024, the number of age discrimination charges filed with the EEOC exceeded 15,000 in every year except four—three of which were right after the pandemic, which caused a dip in all employment discrimination litigation,” says Nicole Buonocore Porter, law professor at William & Mary Law School. Research suggests ageism is underreported to begin with. Jobs, across cultures, are quietly coded by age. Regardless of industry, workers experience age discrimination across their careers: negative stereotypes, discriminatory recruitment processes, being passed over for training opportunities, not being recognized. Some studies suggest a staggering 77 to 93% of older adults report experiences with ageism, and 42% of hiring managers admit they consider age when reviewing résumés. And most insidious of all: it compounds mentally and emotionally for those experiencing it, to the point where they really do feel like they might be incapable of doing great things at work. “It’s illegal, it’s wrong, and it’s bad for business,” says author, speaker and activist Ashton Applewhite. “Older people make up the fastest-growing segment of the workforce, both because they need to work and because they want to.” “Everyone, everywhere, is living longer, and everyone is old or future old.” Microaggressions, major consequences The rules are there, tucked neatly into HR handbooks and federal law. The trouble is, they rarely make it off the page, and holding people answerable is complicated. “We’ve made progress in policy awareness, but not in accountability,” says Sheila Callaham, cofounder and board chair of Age Equity Alliance. “Many policies that would strengthen age protections at work have languished in Congress for years, leaving outdated frameworks in place.” Even when cases do make it to the courtroom, such as 63-year-old James Barrios’ recent lawsuit against Atmos Energy Corporation and its affiliate, Atmos Energy Services, LLC, there are myriad reasons his case, and many others like it, will probably fail. Most large employers require workers to agree to binding arbitration, which moves age discrimination claims out of court and into private proceedings, limiting transparency and reducing external enforcement of anti-age-bias rules, Callaham explains. Another reason may simply be because of how deeply we internalize socially constructed beliefs. A 2024 study found employees mimic the age discrimination they once experienced themselves, practicing negative observed and learned traits in a self-perpetuating cycle. “Age discrimination varies from other types of discrimination—specifically race or ethnicity discrimination, and perhaps sex discrimination—in that most age discrimination is not based on animus, but rather, it is based on stereotypes about declining competence as one ages,” explains Porter. Age discrimination also persists because of the subtle, covert ways it slips into daily life. Ariane Froidevaux, associate professor of management at the University of Texas, Arlington, cautions research of overt age discrimination can overlook subtle “microinsults.” Seemingly innocuous comments like the once-ubiquitous “Okay, Boomer!” or “You’re pretty tech-savvy for someone your age,” she explains, can be insulting. Froidevaux’s recent research about the changes in perceived age discrimination over time followed Swiss employees with the mean age of 42.64 over a six-year period. She examined how workers’ sensitivity to age discrimination is shaped by their cognitive frameworks: Those who see the world as fundamentally fair—”belief in a just world”—appeared to be less sensitive, and less likely to perceive increasing age discrimination at work, she explains. Surprisingly, some older workers may also perceive decreased age discrimination over time—not necessarily because of a tangible reduction in patterns of behavior, but because, darkly enough, repeated exposure gradually numbs their response and desensitizes them. For instance, an older worker repeatedly passed over for high-profile projects may start to notice it less over time, as bias fades into background noise. Yet, even when repeated exposure lessens its sting, other research finds that age discrimination still quietly chips away at workers’ confidence and perceived work ability—making it one of the more insidious forms of bias. Hummond says it poisons even things like sick leave. “My advice is try not to take too much time off for anything,” she says. “If you’re ill, you’re ill, but I feel judged in a way that youngsters aren’t.” Nothing personal—and everyone’s next We know discrimination against older workers has impacts on their well-being, mental health, and motivation. But it reshapes workplace dynamics for others, too. “When exclusion of a certain group is embedded into the work culture, the safety of belonging is threatened,” explains Callaham, who calls this the “shadow threat” of ageism. She coined the term after a 31-year-old tech worker told her that his 38-year-old manager was stockpiling savings in case he was fired for “being too old,” stoking the younger employee’s own fears of being next. Collectively, this spawns a frenzied attitude—you’re never too young to start running out of time. What we can do Research suggests age diversity statements have a positive impact, while Applewhite makes a case for blind interviews. “Many orchestras use blind auditions, where musicians perform behind a screen, in order to diversify their ranks. How about replicating this in business practice? Conducting virtual interviews with the camera off?” Callaham adds debunking age stereotypes starts with awareness, which can in turn increase accountability. “When organizations talk openly about how age bias shows up, they’re better able to build systems, habits, and expectations that make inclusion real,” she says. “Managers and HR professionals can do a lot to prevent age discrimination at work by modeling and adopting an age-inclusive culture,” says Froidevaux. In Hummond’s case, she was (and still is) the person the office turns to for her technical prowess and knowledge of the company, but things have turned “pretty sour.” Over the past year, her responsibilities have been reduced and flexible work arrangements withdrawn. “I don’t feel trusted,” she says, “I’ll knock on a door and hear the conversation stop.” For her colleagues, too, the atmosphere in the office is different, more guarded: “You go in on a Monday and nobody’s talking.” With its innate universality, few realize how toxic age discrimination can make workplaces, with everyone wondering “Who’s next?” Hummond keeps working, still indispensable, still sidelined. “I’m working down to retirement, but it’s not fun anymore,” she says. View the full article

If it’s one thing that can consistently break the internet, it’s pets. Take Pancho the diva: The 1-year-old English cream mini dachshund started his career early in the fame-hungry world of LA, and is now a celebrity with 148,000 followers on Instagram. “We created this personality of this dog that is a diva and a brat who loves the lavish, luxury lifestyle—but his poor little parents can’t afford it,” says his owner, Felix Levine, entrepreneur and host of the popular podcast Unlike Me. He and Serena Kerrigan, founder of the dating game Let’s F**ing Date, are seasoned content creators, so when friends joked about giving their new dog an online persona, the idea stuck. “We thought maybe a ‘Dear Diary, I hate my parents’ vibe,” Felix recalls. The content quickly evolved into vlogs with AI-powered voice-overs, where Pancho shared his spoiled rants at his parents. And the idea gained momentum: from Central Park to a European summer, Pancho’s following snowballed—gaining 30,000 followers in just two weeks. Brands took notice. Pancho’s first deal was with Five Below, followed by partnerships with Pet Life Unlimited, Target, Amazon, and even Kiehl’s. (Yes, the skincare giant now has a dog line). From toys to gourmet snacks and premium grooming, each partnership was endorsed with his signature “diva” flair. Serena KerriganPancho The pup’s collabs don’t scream ‘ads’, and that’s precisely why it works. In the last month alone, his posts reached 24 million viewers and drew over 9 million engagements, a rate many of his fellow human influencers would feel a twinge of envy for. With affiliate links, brand partnerships, and his own storefront, Pancho has a mini-media empire—and he’s only turning one. Levine and Kerrigan declined to disclose exactly how much revenue Pancho has generated, but confirm it’s in the six figures. The “petfluencer” trend isn’t new. But it’s just as profitable as ever. Charming, and delivers results A study published earlier this year in The Journal of Advertising Research found that pet influencers outperform human influencers, particularly since they’re seen as more sincere and trustworthy than their human counterparts, who are often met with skepticism due to perceived commercial motives. Social media endorsements from petfluencers have been shown to generate stronger consumer responses, including higher engagement and greater willingness to pay. Pancho Lead researcher Dr. Laura Lavertu, a lecturer in marketing at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, echoes this idea: “Petfluencers offer distinct advantages compared to human social media influencers. While human influencers often persuade through relatability or aspiration, petfluencers are seen as more genuine. They have no hidden agenda, no baggage, no scandals.” The study also noted that as the number of sponsored posts by human influencers rises, their perceived sincerity declines—a phenomenon researchers call “influencer fatigue,” which in turn makes pets a more credible alternative. (The more fur or legs you have, the more credible you are, apparently.) Some have even become household names: As reported by Forbes, TikTok user @princesshoneybellex, a big-shot Australian cat influencer, earned $74,148 in 2023 alone, surpassing the U.S. average salary. Could your pet create a cash flow? Our four-legged friends offer brands countless opportunities in the pet care market, which is anticipated to reach over $427.75 billion by 2032. And it’s not just pet-focused companies cashing in—larger brands like Dyson are tapping into the rise of petfluencers, partnering with celebrity pups to extend their reach in a way that resonates directly with pet owners. In today’s oversaturated media landscape, where ads are swarming from every corner, partnering with a celeb pet might be your smartest marketing move. As noted by The Journal of Advertising Research, “people follow and engage with petfluencers for the joy and entertainment that they bring, and are, overall, universally loved given their ability to communicate with diverse audiences and transcend cultural differences.” When Pancho first came home weighing just a pound and a half, his owners thought they were getting a dog. As it turns out, he’s now running his own business, landing brand deals—even managing his own intern to keep up with his demanding schedule. View the full article

Leaders learn to say things with confidence. You may assume that people will be more prone to listen to you when you speak forcefully and with a sense of belief. Despite your best efforts, though, you’re going to say something incorrect every now and again. You might get out ahead of a story only to find out that things were not as they seemed initially. You might just have your facts wrong. Regardless of why you erred, you still have to be willing to admit that you were wrong. Happily, there is an easy way to do this, though you may find it hard to do at first. You have to admit you were wrong. Yup. That’s right. You just have to come out and say it. There is a simple formula for admitting you were wrong. Do it right away Let everyone know as soon as possible after you find out that you said something that was not correct. Don’t sit on the error for days. It is best if everyone hears it from you rather than having someone else discover the mistake first and make your admission feel like a reaction. Of course, if someone else does point out that what you said was incorrect, you should verify that they are correct and then immediately thank them for providing the feedback. You might even credit them in your statement After all, you want the people who work for you and with you to own their mistakes. The best way to demonstrate that you value corrections is to issue your own quickly. In addition, by thanking people who pointed out errors, you encourage others to step forward with errors they notice as well. That helps to keep the organization functioning with good knowledge. Use simple declarative sentences There is some embarrassment that can come along with making mistakes—particularly when you’re new to leadership. You may think that leaders need to be infallible. As a result, you may not want to put a dent in your reputation by saying that you were wrong. To cover for this embarrassment, you may use tortured sentences to avoid owning the error. You may resort to the passive voice (“Mistakes were made . . .”) or use lots of qualifiers (“When speaking about the upcoming sales meeting, I inadvertently left out . . .”) or cast blame elsewhere (“Sadly, when I spoke, I was relying on . . .”) It turns out that great leaders don’t need an air of infallibility, they need to project transparency. You create trust by being honest, not by being right all the time. Simply saying something like, “Recently, I told you X. Actually, Y is true,” is incredibly effective. And, again, speaking in this way encourages other members of your team to come forward and admit when they have said something wrong. Do a postmortem Of course, just because you admit when you’re wrong doesn’t mean that it is good to be wrong. You’d like to minimize the number of times that you have to walk back something you said. It is important to figure out why you ended up making a statement that was not true. Perhaps you spoke too quickly without verifying information. Perhaps you relied on sources that did not have the full story. Perhaps you made intuitive leaps that led you astray. If you have trouble figuring out how you might have gone wrong, consider talking to a colleague or mentor about the situation and walking through it with them. You might find that just talking it through helps you to figure out where you went wrong. And their expertise may bring to light problems with your process that led to you saying something wrong. When mentoring some of your direct reports, you might even want to refer to the errors in your own judgment that you discover. That way, you can help the people working for you to make a different set of mistakes rather than having to repeat yours to learn for themselves. View the full article

We are living in turbulent times and there is no reason to expect that things will become less so in the future. During such moments our emotions become strained and pushed to their limits. Stress increases as emotions are stretched, making it increasingly important that we are able to recognize the effects of it in ourselves as well as others in our environment. Becoming acutely aware of ourselves and others we are interacting with in this type of environment is paramount to building healthy relationships in the workplace and all areas of our lives. In my book, Emotional Intelligence Game Changers, I delve into how to navigate difficult times. Here are four ways emotional intelligence can help you navigate turbulent times. 1. Manage triggers During crisis situations, heightened emotional self-awareness allows us to recognize our triggers. Rather than reacting from our emotions, this allows us to pause, take time out, and respond after we have allowed our emotions to settle down and think things through from a rational perspective. This helps us make reasoned decisions, rather than acting impulsively from our emotions. 2. Sustain relationships Turbulent times can cause relationships to become strained as everyone feels increased pressure. If this is left unchecked, relationships that would normally stay positive could become fractured. To prevent this, we need to become more empathic and actively listen to others. Emotionally intelligent people have learned to use these tools to help overcome misunderstandings, build support networks, and develop a sense of collaboration and community around them. 3. Build coping strategies It is hardly surprising that turbulent times cause our stress levels to elevate to new highs. Emotionally intelligent people have developed coping strategies that help them thrive, even during times of unusually high stress. For example, they are aware of and continually practice asking for help, mindfulness, openness, and strategic vulnerability. Modeling these habits helps others they are involved with build their own coping strategies. 4. Deescalate conflict Conflicts, which are a constant in normal times, will spiral during troubled times, both in intensity and frequency. This requires increased empathy and the ability to listen to and get to know others on a deeper, more personal level. Emotional intelligence allows us to go beyond surface biases and stereotypes as it allows for more curiosity in our interactions with others. Instead of jumping to judgement and conclusions, it allows us to dig deeper to find out what the other person is going through during this time. Instead of reacting, emotional intelligence allows us to ask relevant questions that will help lower defenses and find out more about what motivates and drives others. Being able to form connections at a deeper level allows us to gain a much better understanding of what motivates and drives them. Even though we may not agree with them, this sets up the basis for a much healthier relationship with them. View the full article

It’s four answers to four questions. Here we go… 1. Boss doesn’t care that new office isn’t accessible I work in a director-level position for a center of a large university. We have experienced significant reductions in staffing following budget cuts and project terminations. Several staff also work remotely. We have a large leased office space off-campus, but now that we only have about 20 people who work in the office regularly (down from over 100), the university has decided that we need to move. This all seems reasonable to me. However, the space the university has proposed is a converted rowhome with steep concrete steps into the front door, a very narrow and steep staircase up to the second floor with no landings, and a bathroom with a low-sitting toilet and no stability bars. There is a back door to an alley that does not have any stairs, but it is currently exit-only. When I toured the new space with the executive director (my boss) and another director, I raised concerns about accessibility and noted that it did not appear to comply with the American Disabilities Act. This space would not be open to the public, and we do not currently have any staff who use a wheelchair, but there are staff who might have difficulty navigating the stairs and bathrooms. I also expressed concern that anyone could easily fall down the very steep stairs and be injured. The other director shared my concerns and noted feeling a bit uncomfortable herself on the stairs. I suggested several next steps, including: a list of questions for the Facilities team about the accessibility and requests for accommodations, such as stability bars in the bathroom, a portable/storable ramp for the front entrance, and granting entry access to the back door with an automatic opener; a list of questions for HR regarding how to approach accessibility concerns with staff, such as whether to ask staff to self-identify if they think they would have trouble with the stairs so we can try to accommodate a first floor office or advocate harder for a different office space; proactively reaching out to the Office of Institutional Equity, which handles disability accommodations, for guidance; and contacting to the Office of Occupational Safety and Health to document our concerns about the safety of the staircase. My boss has largely shrugged this off and seems excited about moving to the new space. They seem to think this is a done deal and we have no room to negotiate. I have reason to believe this is untrue, but even if it is, I think that we should make more of an effort to document our concerns and advocate for our staff. I’d rather not go over my boss’s head, but I am troubled by the new office set up, the lack of my boss’s care, and the stark misalignment of this move with our own stated values of equity and inclusion. Do you have advice for what more I can do? Am I off-base in my concern, or is this something I should keep pushing on? You’re not off-base. I’d say this: “I’m worried we’re setting ourselves up for legal and logistical headaches if we don’t address some of this before we move in, and it’ll be much less disruptive to do it now than after we’re already in the space. I’m happy to take the lead on it so it stays off your plate! Unless you object, I’d like to contact Facilities and the Institutional Equity office this week to make sure we stay in compliance.” If your boss responds that there’s nothing that can be changed, you could say, “I think to cover ourselves from a liability standpoint we need to at least alert them to what we’ve noticed so it’s clear we didn’t just ignore it. Can I move forward on that myself?” 2. I took a step back and feel like I’m failing I recently left a job that I loved and was good at after a decade, due to moral injury (I worked in social services and under the current regime, things are … really not good in a way I could not handle being a part of). At the time I left, I was making very good money for my field. In the two months since then, I have applied to everything within my field that’s available up to a 90-minute commute away. Due to needing to pay bills and anxiety over the current state of job-searching, I ended up accepting a position that I’m not honestly that happy with. While the work is similar to what I was doing and is in an interesting city, it is a title drop (coordinator down to project assistant) and a significant drop in pay. For some reason, I cannot get over the feeling that I have failed and am now “regressing” professionally. I literally cried the whole drive to do the hiring paperwork because I just kept thinking of how stupid and under-qualified I must be, to not be able to secure a position of similar title or pay after over a decade of experience. Was my previous job just a fluke, and I wasn’t qualified to be working there either? Am I doomed to be an assistant making less than $40,000 a year once I’m 40, 50, and 60? I know logically there are a lot of other factors at play, but I don’t know how to get over this feeling that I should be better than this by now. I can’t go back in time and join another industry or go to college for something else, and I don’t regret leaving my previous position with the situation that’s unfolding. But how do I shift my thinking away from this negative feeling of shame? You got a job in a terrible job market where lots of people are spending exponentially more months job-searching. That’s not failure; that’s making a practical decision in a difficult situation, and doing better than a lot of your competition is! You aren’t going to be stuck in this job forever. You took it because it made sense for you in the circumstances you’re in right now. At some point those circumstances will change, and you’ll move to a different place on your professional path. In fact, there’s a ton of room to move from project assistant to coordinator jobs (and from there, beyond). It’s an incredibly common path for people to take! If you do well and become known as someone who’s conscientious and good at the work, it’s highly likely that you’ll be able to move up from here. (And this isn’t needing to jump from assistant to VP to get back where you were; you’re talking about a much easier move.) 3. Director tried to force us to donate to a birthday gift and was furious when we wouldn’t I work in a government agency (outside the U.S.) with thousands of employees in different branches. My branch has 40-50 people working here, with two managers, the director, and the assistant manager. Recently, the assistant manager hit pension age, 65, and invited everyone at our branch and around 200 other people to her birthday party, outside work hours. We don’t celebrate birthdays at our branch, as it has caused numerous hurt feelings when someone is celebrated more or less than others. Despite this, the director insisted that we all contribute to a gift for the assistant manager, with a minimum donation of $30 per person. This caused a huge argument, as for a lot of people (myself included!) this was a huge chunk out of our weekly budgets. (Over half the office are living paycheck to paycheck.) The director was challenged on this by multiple people. Conversing with some of my teammates, we all agreed that we could afford up to $20, but $30 was pushing us past a comfortable level. The director, seeing how little was coming in, started to send first passive-aggressive, and then full-on aggressive, emails about not contributing. They started out with little threats like “Those not contributing will not be able to sign the card” up to “Nothing you could buy personally will be under $30, so don’t even try” and then escalated to lectures in weekly meetings about budgeting and threatening to send staff to the same budget advice service we direct our clients to. She personally caught me one day to advise how much money I must be saving as I don’t have children and “no costs”! I briefly rebutted this – I have student loans, rent, debt, and bills like everyone else! (And you understand how expensive cats are to feed.) I ended up not contributing, and the gift ended up being over $1,000, surprising the assistant manager who had no idea about the gift situation. The whole thing left myself and half the team feeling quite bitter. About 20 people didn’t end up contributing and we were persona non grata for about a month with the director. This isn’t normal, is it? No, it’s not normal! Nothing about it is normal — from the compulsory donation amount (as opposed to a “suggested” amount, which is still problematic because it’s still pressuring people, but less so than making it compulsory), to the threats and lectures, to the implication that your life must be free since you don’t have kids, to the ultimate (and ridiculous) amount of $1,000 (!), to the freezing out of people who didn’t contribute. It’s all wildly inappropriate and wrong. It would be wildly inappropriate and wrong in a social situation; it’s triply so in a work situation, as well as an abuse of power by your director. Any chance you have HR that would care? Something is deeply wrong with your director, and I’m betting this isn’t the only thing they mishandle. Related: I’m being pressured to contribute to gifts for resigning coworkers — and it’s increasingly obnoxious 4. Can my employer make me update my accommodation paperwork? I have a permanent disability that never goes away (PTSD). I put in a request for accommodations and submitted a note from my therapist from my original diagnosis over a decade ago. My accommodations are very basic — just being able to work from home around the anniversary of the events that caused my PTSD. I already have some flexibility as a faculty member, but I know the importance of having formal protections in place. The HR rep emailed me to say that they couldn’t identify anything in the documents that “suggests the conditions and need for accommodation are permanent or will extend past 2023.” However, my therapist and doctor’s notes from back then clearly diagnosed me with PTSD, which can get better, but is a permanent condition. Am I right to think that the department is not allowed to get into the business of diagnosing me? That these medical documents should be enough to move forward? I am currently working to get additional documentation (moving means my doctors are out of network, so I’m finding new providers), but I was very surprised by the email back with this particular language. Is there anything I should be aware of and do? I checked the ADA website, but it wasn’t super clear what they are allowed to ask questions about when I provided verification of my diagnosis. They’re not diagnosing you; they’re saying that the paperwork you submitted is over a decade old and they need something more recent indicating that the need for accommodations still exists currently. That’s allowed under the ADA, and it’s not unreasonable. The law does say that you don’t need to do this if it’s obvious that the disability still exists, such as if you were blind or missing a limb. But while PTSD can be permanent, it isn’t always — and when we’re talking about a note that’s more than 10 years old, it’s reasonable for them to request updated documentation since disabilities and needs can change over time. (Here’s what the Job Accommodation Network says about this.) The post boss doesn’t care that new office isn’t accessible, mandatory birthday contributions, and more appeared first on Ask a Manager. View the full article

New research shows how incentives in the modern media ecosystem help explain rising polarisation and negativityView the full article

Brussels is set to water down part of its strict digital rule book as it aims to make bloc more competitiveView the full article

In the long run bubbles always deflate, often when least expectedView the full article

Growing tension between London and Brussels just six months after summit set out to build stronger ties View the full article

Details of armed forces and industry attendees at Méribel competition raise concerns about conflicts of interestView the full article

Hungarian prime minister to push for exemptions from US sanctions during White House meeting on FridayView the full article

Unexpected decline comes even as President Donald The President and Chinese leader Xi Jinping seal a truceView the full article

The country’s annual statistical compendium is now available, but only in hardback View the full article

Record package of shares wins 75% approval, reinforcing billionaire’s control of the electric-car makerView the full article

As the founder, chair, and CEO of the Exceptional Women Alliance, I am fortunate to be surrounded by extraordinary female business leaders. Our purpose is to empower each other through peer mentorship that provides personal and professional fulfillment within this unique sisterhood. This month, I’m pleased to introduce Sammie Dabbs. Sammie is passionate about building and scaling high-performing commercial organizations. As chief commercial officer, she oversees revenue strategy, sales, and marketing alignment—driving growth through a combination of operational rigor and customer-centric innovation. With a proven track record of leading teams, entering new markets, and unlocking sustainable revenue, Sammie brings a front-line perspective on how companies can thrive in an increasingly competitive and complex business landscape. Q: As a chief commercial officer, how do you define your core mandate? Dabbs: My mandate is to be the architect of growth. That means aligning sales, marketing, customer success, and revenue operations into one unified strategy. I don’t see these as separate functions—they’re different parts of the same engine. My job is to ensure that engine runs smoothly, efficiently, and with clear direction. Ultimately, a CCO has to deliver consistent revenue performance, but the path there requires strategy, executional discipline, and a relentless focus on the customer. Q: Why is sales and marketing alignment such a challenge for many organizations? Dabbs: Sales and marketing often grow up in silos—different metrics, different budgets, different perspectives. Marketing says, “We delivered leads.” Sales says, “Those leads aren’t qualified.” It’s a cycle of finger-pointing that hurts the business. Alignment requires shared ownership of pipeline, shared KPIs, and constant communication. In my role, I set a single commercial target, so everyone is working toward the same number. When sales and marketing win together, the customer feels it. Q: What have you found to be the biggest barrier to growth? Dabbs: Complexity. Companies layer on too many tools, too many initiatives, too many priorities—and in the process, they lose focus. The real barrier isn’t the market; it’s internal misalignment. I’ve seen teams hit their stride when we strip away the noise, focus on ideal customers, and empower reps with clear messaging and support. Simplicity and executional discipline will beat complexity every time. Q: What’s your approach to leading a commercial team? Dabbs: I believe in clarity and accountability. Teams need to know the strategy, their role in it, and how success will be measured. Then it’s about coaching for execution and celebrating wins along the way. I’m very data-driven, but data is only useful if it drives action. I set targets, track outcomes, and make adjustments in real time. At the same time, I want teams to feel empowered to bring forward ideas from the field—we learn the most from our customers. Q: How do you think about the role of marketing in driving revenue? Dabbs: Marketing is no longer just a brand function—it’s a revenue driver. A strong marketing team generates demand, accelerates pipeline, and positions sales to succeed. But that only happens when marketing is tied directly to commercial strategy and accountable for pipeline contribution alongside sales. When marketing owns revenue, they create campaigns that resonate with buyers, not just campaigns that look good on paper. Q: Technology is changing the commercial function rapidly. What’s your philosophy on tools like AI and automation? Dabbs: Technology is essential, but it’s not the strategy—it’s the amplifier. AI and automation can make sales and marketing faster and smarter, but they don’t replace human judgment or relationships. My philosophy is: Get the fundamentals right first. If you don’t have clear positioning, a disciplined process, and strong teams, no tool will save you. But if you do, then technology allows you to scale, personalize, and optimize in powerful ways. Q: Can you share an example of a commercial pivot that made a major impact? Dabbs: One example is when we restructured our go-to-market model to focus on fewer, higher-value customer segments. Instead of spreading resources thin across too many markets, we doubled down on accounts where we could deliver outsized value. That shift required marketing to retool messaging and sales to change their targeting, but the results were dramatic—higher win rates, shorter sales cycles, and better customer retention. Sometimes growth is about addition, but more often it’s about focus. Q: If you had to give one piece of advice to other executives leading commercial teams, what would it be? Dabbs: Treat growth as a company-wide responsibility, not just a sales number. Every function—product, finance, operations—contributes to the customer experience. As CCOs, we have to be the integrators, making sure the entire business is aligned around delivering value to customers. When you break down silos and build a culture of accountability, growth becomes sustainable. Larraine Segil is founder, chair, and CEO of The Exceptional Women Alliance. View the full article

Company leaders said current strategy sets it up to profit and compete against its rivals as the mortgage market improves in the coming months. View the full article