ResidentialBusiness

How I spend my hours in the day is how I live. To make the most of my waking hours, I practice the one-hour rule—a simple habit that helps me learn, reflect, and think. I give myself 60 uninterrupted minutes a day to try and become a little wiser than I was yesterday. I consciously take control of my growth to transform how I think, how I decide, or live. It takes commitment. But just an hour a day learning, thinking, and reflecting is helping me improve my life processes. That’s it. Sixty minutes. Five hours a week. And you are upgrading yourself daily. That means reading something that stretches you. Reflecting on what went wrong and why. Sitting in silence and letting your mind wander on purpose. The result is more clarity. Fewer regrets in life. And growth that actually sticks. One focused hour doesn’t just change your day. It rewires your direction. And gives your brain time to connect, create, and course-correct. ‘Think week’ In the 1990s, Bill Gates called his time away to reflect “think week.” He used seven days of solitude in a cabin in the forest to “read, think, and write about the future.” “This ability to turn idle time into deep thinking and learning became a fundamental part of who I am,” Gates said. The logic is timeless. Consistency beats intensity. An hour a day compounds faster than you think. One book a month, 12 a year. Twelve new mental frameworks. Twelve ways you now see the world differently. You don’t have to disrupt your schedule to apply the rule. It doesn’t have to be one stretch. You can use pockets of time in the day to get the same impact. An hour is long enough to change your life. And short enough to be doable. It’s the sweet spot between wishful thinking and practical results. You can learn a new skill, reflect on what went well or didn’t go well in the day. Or simply sit and think without your phone. The return of intentional time to learn, think, or reflect compounds in all areas of your life. The three pillars of the one-hour rule 1. Make learning an active process. Feed your brain something worth reflecting on. Your input will always determine your output. What you feed your brain determines how you decide, how you speak, and how you work. But don’t just consume, engage. Reading 10 pages means nothing if you’re not putting the ideas to use. Don’t just collect information, digest it. If you read about negotiation, go try it on your coworker or someone who can give you feedback. Learning sticks when you take action. Try things. Fail forward. Every time you stretch your understanding, you expand what’s possible for you. 2. Reflect on the new knowledge. If learning is the input, reflection is the processing system. It’s how you turn experience into usable wisdom. “We do not learn from experience . . . we learn from reflecting on experience,” says philosopher and psychologist John Dewey. Without reflection, you’re basically walking in circles. Lots of movement, no direction. “What worked? What didn’t?” What lesson did you take from what’s not working? Write it down. You’ll start to see patterns. Habits that hold you back. Decisions that move you forward. That’s your personal feedback loop. Reflection turns problems into clarity. Make sense of your day. What could you have done differently? 3. Think to turn learning into wisdom. Most people are too busy reacting to life. They recycle the same opinions, habits, and ideas. Thinking is how you question your perspective on anything. It’s you sitting alone with your mind, connecting dots no one else sees. It’s letting your thoughts wander. And then following the interesting ones. I like to do this while walking. Something about movement untangles thoughts. I’ve solved more problems in sneakers than behind my desk. Thinking gives your brain the room to process ideas. And when it does, it surprises you. Your mind starts connecting dots when you commit to the rule. You will begin to notice patterns in your own habits, at home and at work. That one-hour-a-day habit can help you handle conflict better, do your work better, or live better at home. Try it. One hour for your own transformation. Just you, your curiosity, and 60 minutes of honest focus. Do that long enough, and you’ll realize you were not just learning for an hour a day. You were rebuilding your entire life. One hour of learning, reflecting, and thinking daily can put you in control of the direction of your life. That’s the power of the hour. It’s small enough to start today. And big enough to change your life. It’s how you leap ahead. View the full article

Use this SEO checklist to improve your website’s search engine rankings. View the full article

This year? We barely talked about algorithms. Instead, more than 500 marketers gathered and listened raptly as every conversation circled back to AI. Its meteoric impact on our industry cannot be overstated. Here are the four themes that defined Ahrefs…Read more ›View the full article

Altman rejects ad-driven business models like Google's but doesn't entirely rule out advertising. The post OpenAI’s Sam Altman Raises Possibility Of Ads On ChatGPT appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

BaFin imposes its highest ever penalty of €45mn on European arm of Wall Street bankView the full article

For years, email, texting, and messaging apps have ruled how we communicate. But one timeless human skill—often neglected—is quickly becoming a true difference-maker in the digital age. Active listening. It’s both an art and a discipline, and it’s what separates average leaders from exceptional ones (while making them instantly likable in the process). The truth is, active listening is the foundation of effective communication and the heartbeat of strong relationships. Yet as technology consumes more of our attention, we’re losing touch with this skill—and with it, a powerful competitive advantage in business. When you focus on your people—their growth, their needs, their challenges—none of it works without listening deeply first. Listen more than you talk After 25 years of coaching leaders, I’ve learned that the most effective ones know when to stop talking and start listening. Few things elevate a conversation more than genuine attentiveness. When you truly listen, you show respect for people at every level, demonstrate curiosity, and practice humility—three traits every great leader needs. I call this authentic listening. It’s the ability to understand what’s really happening on the other side of the conversation—to sense the will of a group, help clarify it, and create alignment around it. Management thinker Peter Drucker said it best: “The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn’t said.” Authentic listeners do exactly that. They listen intuitively—not just for facts or responses, but for meaning. They lean into conversations with empathy, seeking to understand what matters most to the other person. This kind of listening is selfless, not self-centered. It always circles back to one powerful question: How can I help this person right now? The hard part of listening Good listening always requires humility. In my coaching sessions with executives, I make one thing clear from the start: If you want to grow as a leader, you have to embrace the humble responsibility of inviting feedback—and then have the courage and openness to truly listen to it. That’s a tall order for many leaders, especially the higher you climb up the corporate ranks. There are several approaches to successfully listening for feedback. For example: Be open. Listen without interruption, objections, or defensiveness. Be responsive. Listen without turning the tables. Ask questions for clarification. Be accountable. Seek to understand the effects and consequences of your behavior. Be self-aware. Be aware of your own emotional reactions, body language, and how you’re coming across in the listening. Be quiet. Refrain from making or preparing to make a response, or trying to explain, defend, or fix. The last part of listening A lot of people think listening just means sitting quietly and absorbing what someone else is saying. But according to the authors of Radical Listening, the best listeners don’t just nod along—they ask great follow-up questions. For example: Questions that connect to the speaker. This shows you’re paying attention to what was just said and engaged in the conversation. Open-ended questions. Instead of a simple yes or no, open-ended questions invite deeper insights. Questions to encourage more sharing. Great follow-up questions help people open up about their plans, emotions, and perspectives. At first, asking questions might feel like the opposite of listening. But research tells a different story. In fact, studies show that employees consistently link good listening with strong leadership, a connection that holds true across cultures and organizations worldwide. As you move forward, embrace listening by relating to others with more curiosity and intent. Treat it like a human experiment in your professional development journey, with listening as a key tool in your toolbox. Speaking of toolbox, here’s a roadmap to develop your listening skills and master your interpersonal communication, with steps straight from my coaching sessions with top global clients. Like this article? Subscribe here for more related content and exclusive insights from executive coach Marcel Schwantes. —Marcel Schwantes 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

Learn how to get cited by AI search engines like ChatGPT and Google in 7 straightforward steps. View the full article

An unpopular government cannot afford to be branded dishonest by the public View the full article

The most obvious use case for generative AI in editorial operations is to write copy. When ChatGPT lit the fuse on the current AI boom, it was its ability to crank out hundreds of comprehensible words almost instantly, on virtually any topic, that captured our imaginations. Hundreds of “ChatGPT wrote this article” think pieces resulted, and college essays haven’t been the same since. Neither has the media. In October, a report from AI analytics firm Graphite revealed that AI is now producing more articles than humans. And it’s not all content farms cranking out AI slop: A recent study from the University of Maryland examined over 1,500 newspapers in the U.S. and found that AI-generated copy constitutes about 9% of their output, on average. Even major publications like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal appear to be publishing a minimal number of words that originated from a machine. I’ll come back to that, but the big takeaway from the study is that local newspapers—often thought to be the crucial foundation of free press, and still the most trusted arm of the media—are the largest producers of AI writing. Boone Newsmedia, which operates newspapers and other publications in 91 communities in the southeast, is a heavy user of synthetic content, with 20.9% of its articles detected as being partially or entirely written with AI. Why local papers rely on AI Putting aside any default revulsion at AI content, this actually makes a lot of sense. Local news has been stripped down to the bone in recent years as reader attention has fragmented and advertising dollars have shrunk. A great deal of local papers have folded (more than 3,500 since 2005, according to Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University), and those that remain have adopted other means to survive. In smaller markets, like my New Jersey town, it’s not uncommon for the community paper to republish press releases from local businesses. The fact is, writers cost money, and writing takes time. AI, of course, radically alters that reality: for a $20 a month ChatGPT subscription, you now have a lightning-fast robot writer, ready to tackle any subject. Many unscrupulous people treat this ability as their own room full of monkeys with typewriters, cranking out articles just to attract eyeballs—the definition of AI slop. But there’s a difference between slop and AI-generated copy written to inform, with the proper context, and edited by a journalist with the proper expertise. In a local news context, the use case for AI writing that’s most often cited is the lengthy school board meeting that, if covered, would take a reporter several hours of listening to transcripts, synthesizing, and contextualizing just to cover what happened. With AI, those hours compress to minutes, freeing up the reporter to write more unique and valuable stories. More likely, of course, is that the reporter no longer exists, and an editor or even a sole proprietor simply publishes as many pieces as they can that serve the community. And while it’s not the ideal, I don’t see what’s wrong with that from a utilitarian perspective. If the copy informs, a human has done a quality check, and the audience is engaging with it, what does it matter whether or not it came from a machine? AI mistakes hit different That said, when mistakes happen with AI content, they can undermine a publication’s integrity like nothing else. This past summer, when the Chicago Sun-Times published a list of hallucinated book titles as a summer reading list, it caused a national backlash. That’s because AI errors are in a different category—since AI lacks human judgment and experience, it makes mistakes a human never would. That’s the main reason using AI in copy is a risky business, but safeguards are possible. For starters, you can train editors to catch the mistakes that are unique to AI. Robust fact-checking is obvious, and using grounded tools like Google’s NotebookLM can greatly reduce the chance of hallucinations. Besides factual errors, though, AI writing has many telltale quirks (repeated sentence structures, dashes, “let’s delve . . .,” etc.). I call these “slop indicators,” and, while they’re not disastrous, their continued presence in copy is a subtle signal to readers that they should question what they’re reading. Editors should stamp them out. Which is not to say publications shouldn’t be transparent about the use of AI in their content. They absolutely should. In fact, I’d argue being as detailed as possible about the AI’s role at both the article level and in overall strategy is crucial in maintaining trust with an audience. Most editorial “scandals” over AI articles blew up because the copy was presented as human-written (think about Sports Illustrated‘s fake writers from two years ago). When the publication is upfront about the use of AI, such as ESPN’s write-ups of certain sports games, it’s increasingly a non-event. Which is why it’s confusing that some major publications seem to be publishing AI copy without disclosing its presence. The study claims that AI copy is showing up in some national outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. This appears to be a similar, if smaller scale, issue as the Sun-Times incident: Almost all of the instances were in opinion pieces from third parties, though it appears to be happening around 4–5% of the time. That suggests third parties are using AI in their writing process without telling the publication. In all likelihood, they’re not aware of the outlet’s AI policy, and their writing contracts may be ambiguous. However, it’s not like the rest of the content was totally immune from AI writing; the study revealed it to be present 0.71% of the time. Getting ahead of AI problems All of this speaks to the point about transparency: be straight with your audience and your staff about what’s allowed, and you’ll save yourself headaches later. Of course, policies are only effective with enforcement. With AI text becoming more common and more sophisticated, having effective ways of detecting and dealing with it is a key pillar of maintaining integrity. And dealing with it doesn’t necessarily mean forbidding it. The reality is AI text is here, growing, and not going away. The truism about AI that’s often cited—that today is the worst it will ever be—goes double for its writing ability, as that is at the core of what large language models do. Of course, you can bet there will be train wrecks over AI writing in the future, but they won’t be about who’s using AI to write. They’ll be about who’s doing it irresponsibly. View the full article

Being asked to apply for a promotion is often framed as an unqualified win: validation that your work is seen and your potential recognized. Yet for many high-achieving professionals, that invitation can spark as much ambivalence as excitement. Because the question isn’t only “Can I do this?” It’s also “Do I want to live this way?” Promotions can be career accelerators, but they also reconfigure your days, your priorities, and your sense of balance. The challenge is learning to evaluate the opportunity without being swept away by it—to discern whether it’s truly aligned with this season of your life. The recognition feels good—until the logistics set in There’s an undeniable thrill in being seen. Someone has connected the dots between your competence and your potential. A promotion can expand your reach and amplify your impact. But recognition isn’t the same as readiness. The women I coach rarely question whether they can do the job; they question whether they can do it well while maintaining the life they’ve intentionally built. Before saying yes, imagine your typical Tuesday six months from now. What fills your calendar? What’s energizing—and what’s draining? If the answer feels expansive, that’s information. If it feels heavy, that’s information, too. Beware the “just for practice” mindset Many people apply with low expectations, telling themselves they’re “just interviewing for practice.” But interview processes are designed to entice you—they make you picture yourself in the role and attach to the possibility. That’s not a reason to opt out, but it’s a reason to stay clear-headed. Know what success looks like before you begin, so you’re deciding from intention, not momentum. Ask two grounding questions When you’re stuck between ambition and hesitation, two questions can clarify your thinking: Can I live with the outcome if I don’t apply and dislike who gets the job? If that thought bothers you, it may signal that you care deeply about the work or the direction of your organization. What looks like ambivalence might actually be conviction. Can I live with the outcome if I do apply and don’t get it? If rejection would shake your sense of worth, pause and make sure you have the support to weather it. If you can answer yes to both, you’re operating from clarity rather than fear. Readiness vs. willingness When someone says, “You’d be great for this,” they’re recognizing your readiness. But willingness—the energy and capacity to take it on—is a separate question. You may have every credential yet still feel an internal no. Maybe your kids need you differently right now, or you’ve finally found equilibrium after years of intensity. That’s not a lack of drive—it’s discernment. Sustainable growth depends on timing. The real cost of “up” Leadership often brings influence—but also more meetings, politics, and distance from the work you love most. One client put it bluntly: “I thought a promotion would mean more freedom. It meant more meetings about other people’s freedom.” If the day-to-day realities of the new role sound energizing, that’s your green light. If they sound exhausting, it’s okay to hit pause. Ambition doesn’t have to mean saying yes to everything. Build the infrastructure for success If you move forward, do it deliberately. A bigger job requires a sturdier foundation—at work and at home. Clarify what support you’ll need, what boundaries will sustain you, and what you can delegate. Thriving in a higher role isn’t about doing more alone; it’s about designing systems that help you hold more together. Decide—and own it If you say yes, treat the process as a two-way interview. Ask about resources, expectations, and what success actually looks like. Enter the role with curiosity and flexibility, not perfectionism. If you say no, do it with confidence. Try something like: “I’m honored to be considered. Right now, I’m focused on deepening my impact where I am and want to be intentional about my next step.” That’s not avoidance—it’s leadership. The paradox of promotion Promotions are both validating and destabilizing. They can expand your influence—or stretch you too thin. The goal isn’t to make the “right” choice, but an honest one. When someone taps you on the shoulder and says, “You should apply,” take the compliment. Then take a breath. Listen to both voices inside you—the one that craves growth and the one that craves peace. True wisdom lives in the space between them. View the full article

Tech leaders say systems now rival human intelligence in key tasks, further fuelling the superintelligence debateView the full article

UK broadcaster says uncertain economic outlook causing widespread cautionView the full article

Matt outworked his peers and risen a rung too high on the career ladder—at least, too high for the good of anything but his insecure ego. Constantly fearing his bluff would be blown, he overcompensated by striving to impress upward while leading from fear. His anxiety seeped through his management team, then filtered into the ranks beneath, chipping away at everyone’s courage. He micromanaged, filtered feedback, and pushed out anyone who challenged him—the best, brightest, and boldest. When crisis hit, his “play not to lose” mentality magnified while competitors gained ground Chances are you’ve met someone like Matt. They’re crushing every deadline, exceeding every target, climbing every ladder. But look closer, and you may also see fractured relationships, disenchanted colleagues, and toxic team dynamics in their wake. Meet the “insecure overachiever”—exceptionally capable people whose deep-seated insecurities override their nobler aspirations. These aren’t garden-variety workaholics. They’re high performers driven by a gnawing fear of not being enough: not smart enough, valued enough, worthy enough. The distinction between healthy ambition and insecure overachievement is deceptively subtle. Both deliver results. But healthy ambition stems from wanting to contribute value and build connection, while insecure overachievement is fueled by the need to prove worth and alleviate anxiety. Why The Best Workers Can Destroy The Most Value What makes this pattern problematic is that organizations often reward the dysfunction. Insecure overachievers stay later, work harder, say yes faster, and consistently over-deliver. Those in power generally love them—until the hidden costs surface: toxic cultures, talent loss, and teams that become competitive battlegrounds rather than collaborative ecosystems. The warning signs can be subtle. Wins bring only fleeting relief before anxiety about the next goal kicks in. They sacrifice essentials—sleep, health, relationships—for work extras. Self-worth becomes dangerously intertwined with output: a bad day at work equals being a bad human. Here’s where it gets destructive: insecurity rarely stays contained. Insecure overachievers often shore up fragile egos by diminishing others. When your worth feels constantly threatened, making others feel smaller provides temporary relief. Axios cofounder Jim VandeHei put it bluntly “Nothing destroys more relationships, teams, or companies than insecure people in power,” he warned. “It’s an insidious form of cancer.” Breaking Free Without Breaking Down Recognizing yourself in this pattern? The good news: breaking free doesn’t mean abandoning ambition. It means realigning it from proving something to improving something. Find Your Summon Bonum. Roman philosopher Cicero coined this phrase—Latin for “the highest good”—believing everyone should aspire toward it. Until we’re more committed to a positive future outcome, our actions will be governed by fear of a negative one. Trade proving for improving. When all your energy focuses on impressing others, it’s taken from improving yourself and tapping into your creative faculty to bring smarter solutions. The irony? Shifting from external validation to personal growth and contribution creates more sustainable success—and greater respect—over time. Instead of “What did others think?” ask “What did I learn?” Schedule non-negotiable recovery. Treat rest like any other crucial meeting. Organizational psychologist Adam Grant’s research demonstrates that meaningful contribution—not endless output—drives long-term well-being and sustainable performance. Practice radical self-compassion. Talk to yourself like you would a trusted friend facing the same struggles. Dr. Kristin Neff’s research shows self-compassion actually improves performance by reducing the fear that fuels over-functioning. Embrace the insecure part of yourself; befriend that younger version who learned that achievement equaled love. Leading Insecure Overachievers If you manage these high performers, resist the temptation to simply enjoy their output while ignoring their patterns. Left unchecked, their behaviors can poison entire teams. Spot the early warnings. Notice team members who rarely delegate, constantly seek reassurance despite competence, take more credit than due, or obsess over managing upward while neglecting their own teams. Like Matt, they create competitive rather than collaborative environments. Have direct conversations about workload and help them see how their drive affects team dynamics, not just individual metrics. Recognize effort, not just results. Focus on contribution over competition. Acknowledge people for who they are, not only what they produce. Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety shows that when people feel safe to be imperfect, teams become more innovative and resilient. Model healthy boundaries. If you’re sending midnight emails and working weekends, you’re reinforcing the very behaviors you want to change. Demonstrate that rest and boundaries are professional strengths, not weaknesses. The Path Forward Organizations need ambitious, competitive, and driven professionals. But the healthiest ambition comes from being committed to outcomes that transcend self-interest and insecurity alleviation. Organizations whose leaders are more committed to purposeful growth over impression management will ultimately outperform others. The real question isn’t whether you’re achieving enough—it’s whether you’re achieving for the right reasons, and whether your drive lifts others up or tears them down. Sustainable success isn’t about proving your worth at others’ expense. It’s about expressing your potential while helping others do the same. Don’t be a Matt. The world has enough insecure overachievers already. View the full article

Unlock the secrets of AI content creation that actually gets cited. Learn how to enhance your visibility with unique AI-generated articles. The post Why AI Content All Sounds the Same & How SEO Pros Can Fix It appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go… 1. I can’t shake my crush on a former coworker I try not to view my coworkers as romantic prospects for the obvious reasons (women come to work to advance their careers, not to cater to the romantic whims of their coworkers!). As a woman in my 20s, I’ve experienced a few sexual overtures at work and in public, and I certainly don’t want to impose my own romantic demands on a fellow young woman who simply wants to do her job. However, I can’t shake my crush on a former coworker, “Diana.” Over the summer, I worked seasonally on the same large team as Diana. (She does year-round, part-time work for this employer.) While we didn’t always have close interactions during the workday, I loved speaking to her whenever we had the chance to collaborate. She asked me genuine, complex questions about my background and experiences, and she occasionally complimented my appearance and overall demeanor. She has an easygoing, natural charisma and the warmest, most expressive smile I’ve ever seen. My job ended about six weeks ago, and I considered exchanging phone numbers on my final day of work. (I even spent two weeks rehearsing a low-pressure, work-appropriate script!) However, I decided to restrain the impulse to stay in contact, since I’m uncertain that she even dates women. Also, I purposefully only mentioned my male exes when the workplace discussion turned to comedic date stories. It was clear I loved collaborating with Diana, and I didn’t want her to perceive my good mood as an unwelcome overture from the workplace lesbian. However, I still can’t seem to get over her, and I’m even inclined to return to my former workplace and casually try to exchange phone numbers. (While it’s technically open to the public, this still feels like an overstep.) Can you reassure me I made the work-appropriate choice? I can’t locate her on social media, so I’ll probably have to let her remain a fond memory. Would you be interested in a friendship with Diana even if you knew for sure she wasn’t interested in anything more? If so, given that you appeared to have a warm, friendly rapport while you worked together and it sounds like you both connected at least a bit, I don’t think it’s inappropriate to stop by and ask if she’d ever want to get coffee. I would not suggest this if your interest was primarily based on physical attraction, but it sounds like it’s based on the actual conversations you had and that she shared an interest in talking with you, not just “I find you attractive and thus am projecting my own interest on to you” — which is where a lot of these things go wrong. 2. My new coworker is doing too much of my job I have a new coworker, Dana, who is extremely thorough in her responses to my questions, to the point where she basically does my work for me. It’s a tricky situation in that she is taking over my role as department head as I transition into a new one, but for continuity, I’m maintaining management on a few projects we’re in the middle of. I’m asking her questions out of respect not need — meaning that I don’t actually need her to help me with it but, because ultimately the department now belongs to her, I’m asking for her opinion to honor that new relationship. (The projects live her in department and she’ll be accountable for their implementation once my transition is final). I was particularly annoyed at her thoroughness recently and was short with her on a call. A few days later, I apologized and explained myself, expressing that her thoroughness is hitting a chord with me due to my own insecurities and it’s something I’m working on. Well, fast forward a couple of weeks later and she is as thorough as ever (basically writing what I should send a client word-for-word after I ask a simple question). On the one hand, she’s making my job easy by doing it for me. On the other, it really irks me and I’m not sure how to handle this. It is, very much, MY problem – bringing up my own insecurities. And, at the same time, it feels very controlling. (Again, maybe that’s my insecurity?) I like Dana and want to have a positive working relationship with her, so it feels weird to not say something. At the same time, I’m not sure if this is just a sensitivity I need to work on in my own self. This would be a lot easier if you weren’t continuing to manage those remaining projects, because that’s preventing Dana from fully moving into her job and preventing you from fully moving out of it. But since that’s the set up, you have two options: (1) you can stop asking her things that you don’t actually need to ask her and instead can just fully manage the projects that are still on your plate and keep her informed rather than consulting her for input. That sounds like it might solve a lot of this. Or (2), you can drop your end of the rope and work on not caring about how much she’s involving herself. It’s sounds like she’s trying to take full ownership of her new job, which isn’t that weird, and it just happens to be rubbing you the wrong way … but if that accounts for most of it and it’s not actually causing work problems, deciding not to care (as much as possible, anyway) might be the way to go. I would definitely not raise your own insecurities with her again, though; that feels like too much info and emotional burden to put on her when she’s just trying to do her job, and it’s not necessarily actionable on her side anyway. If her actions are causing work problems (duplicating efforts, muddying divisions of labor, etc.), you can raise those specific problems — but if it’s really just about how it’s making you feel, that’s not a conversation to have with her. (It would be different if you were remaining in your current role and this was going to be a long-term issue, but it sounds like it’s short-term and then you’ll fully transition out of the job.) 3. Someone wants to pick my brain — should I ask for a job? A contact at work reached out to see if they could pass along my name for an information interview. For context, the interviewers are building out a new capacity on their team and they’re looking for advice. I’ve been looking for a new job, so I instantly thought, “Are they open to hiring instead?” Should I mention this to the intermediate party? Or do I bring it up with the interviewers once we meet? Would that come across as deceptive? It’s not deceptive. They’re asking for your help; there’s nothing deceptive about offering some and then also pointing out that you do this work yourself and would be open to a larger role with them. It’s likely to be more effective if you wait until you’ve talked with the interviewers and established your expertise and helpfulness. Toward the end of that conversation, you could say that you’d love to be more involved and that if they end up hiring for the area, you’d like to talk more about whether you might be a match for that. Also, I don’t know how much information they’re looking for from you, but there’s a point where it really should be paid consulting and it’s okay for you to raise that ahead of time. (A 15-minute call that you’re doing as a favor or to build your reputation, probably not. But something more substantial, yes.) Related: how to turn a request for free help into paid consulting 4. Using vacation at a new job, when it doesn’t roll over After close to a year of searching, I finally received an offer to start a new role. Yay! My start date will be early November. Normally I know it is best to wait a few months before taking vacation days, which I usually do. However, I will accrue about 1.5 days by the end of the year and PTO cannot be rolled over, so I will lose the time I have earned if I don’t take it. Do I just have to suck it up since I’m so new? Wait and see what the culture is like? Or does not letting employees roll over PTO at year end mean places are more flexible with time being used? I would only want to use a day around Christmas, not the full 12 hours or whatever it comes out to. If it matters, I don’t plan on taking any more time until the end of February/early March and even then it would only be three or so days, not a full week. It’s very normal to take off time around the holidays even when you’re new, and a single day is nothing at all. (In fact, it would probably be no big deal to take the additional half day, too.) The exception to this is if you’re in a heavily coverage-based job and your coworkers already have dibs on those days. After you’ve been there at least a few weeks, ask your boss about it. I’d say it this way: “I normally wouldn’t take time off when I’m so new, but I know I’ll lose my days once the year ends so I was hoping to take off X in December.” 5. Can I ask for a higher salary after I named a lower one? I was contacted via email by a recruiter about a job that I think would be a great fit. The recruiter scheduled a time for a quick phone call to discuss the job. Unfortunately, she called right after I received a call to come pick up my sick kid from daycare. I was very distracted and ideally should have rescheduled. When she asked me my salary requirement, I told her an amount less than what I make currently. She then asked me to complete the job application online later, where I was also asked to provide a salary range. Silly of me I know, but I also put down that same number because I already told her the same thing. I did the second interview where I was told the salary range and the top of the range is $60,000 more than I provided. Can I go back to renegotiate or am I stuck with the amount I provided? I don’t want it to seem like I only want more money now that I know their range. You can still negotiate — now that you have learned more about the responsibilities of the job, you are envisioning $X instead of $Y. You don’t need to bring it up again yourself, but if salary comes up again or if it gets to the point of them making you an offer, that’s how you can frame it — “Having learned more about the responsibilities of the role, I was hoping for $X.” (And the fact that they shared their range with you, knowing it was higher than what you’d named earlier, is a good sign.) Also! What happened that made you name a number less than you’re currently earning? That makes me wonder if you hadn’t been thinking about salary at all up until that point, maybe because you were thinking it wouldn’t come up that early, and so you were caught off-guard when the recruiter raised it. Use this experience to vow that whenever you’re job-searching, you’ll think about salary very early on so that you’re not caught off-guard if it comes up earlier than you’re expecting! Related: how to find out what salary you should be making The post I can’t shake my crush on a former coworker, using vacation time at a new job, and more appeared first on Ask a Manager. View the full article

Libertarian president vows to double down on radical transformation of Argentina’s economy after midterm election victoryView the full article

Former Tory minister Sir John Redwood and City executive Mark Dowding contribute to CFABB reportView the full article

Mohammed bin Salman’s utopian city was undone by the laws of physics and financeView the full article

On Jeff Bezos’s defence of AI maniaView the full article

Big Four firm says move reflects better management of workloads View the full article

Use of derivatives to enhance bets on UK government bonds raises parallels with strategies that fuelled 2022 meltdownView the full article

The lender reported $33.3 million in net income in the third quarter this year, up from the second quarter and same period a year earlier. View the full article

IN a world of constant change, leaders face relentless pressure to deliver results. Yet the greatest leaders know that true success is not measured only by outcomes, but also by their ability to create conditions for others to thrive and achieve the extraordinary. Of course, everyone in your organization plays an important role. But there are the very select few who show a truly exceptional talent. They are the ones who have the potential to achieve extraordinary things, who push the whole team further, under the most pressing conditions. They are the ones who are not just satisfied with the status quo on a high level. They are going the furthest, taking the risks that pay off, delivering outstanding performance as a baseline, creating innovative solutions, and inspiring others to level up. It’s these special individuals that make you think: If they quit, we’ve got a real problem! I call these individuals Game Changers. In my experience, you’ll find only a very small percentage among your people. They don’t just exceed predetermined targets or goals. They have the potential to deliver consistently exceptional, game-changing performance. However, to reach that level, they need to be recognized, understood, and most of all, led to fully develop. I describe the relationship between a leader and the Game-Changer as a Winning Match. Here are three essential strategies for leaders when building a Winning Match with Game Changers: Recognize and scout for the qualities that add up to game-changer potential. Drawing on more than two decades of experience coaching top-tier executives and world-class athletes, I have identified four essential characteristics that define individuals with game-changer potential: Passion: They are deeply invested in their work — driven by purpose and a relentless hunger to learn, grow, and achieve excellence by continually pushing beyond limits. Desire for Feedback and Input: They actively seek honest, high-quality feedback and diverse perspectives. They listen with openness, filter insights carefully, and distinguish genuine guidance and useful insights from noise or hidden agendas. Ability to Transform Input into Action: They embrace change as opportunity for the better. They act quickly on new insights, prepare proactively for changes, and respond with action – decisively, without hesitation. Mental Toughness: They thrive and deliver their best performance under pressure, sustaining resilience and focus through disciplined habits, intentional recovery, and supportive relationships. Expand your leadership focus: Make your best people even better. Recognizing what sets Game Changers apart is only the first step. I’ve seen too many leaders make the mistake of buying into a leadership fallacy that holds entire organizations back: “the best will prevail no matter what.” In reality, many leaders devote most of their time and energy to helping lower achievers meet objectives, while their best people are left to fend for themselves. For Game Changers — the ones that are deeply passionate about their work, and committed the success of the business — being overlooked or taken for granted, or left without specific powerful leadership interactions, can be deeply discouraging. Without intentional and empowering leadership, they may lose motivation, disengage, or even leave. What they need is a trusted partner — a Leadership Champion – who recognizes their potential, challenges them to stretch further, and supports them in achieving sustained, exceptional performance. Commit to being more than a leader. Aspire to be a Leadership Champion. To truly tap into the potential of your Game Changers, you must go beyond the traditional management approaches — such as progress reports, routine cadenced reviews, and biannual goal-setting meetings — because it simply can’t do justice to the extraordinary potential of Game Changers. They need — and deserve — more. You must unlock potential. Becoming a Leadership Champion requires a conscious shift in mindset and behavior. Here are three essential shifts that define this leadership transformation: Partner with your Game Changers: In traditional models, Game Changers are often expected to conform to organizational processes and standards before their true potential can emerge. Instead, once you’ve identified individuals with game-changer potential, step into the role of a leadership sparring partner – someone who guides them beyond traditional norms. Much like a great coach in sports, a Leadership Champion does not just follow a set program; they’re bold enough to inspire and adapt to what best fits the individual strengths and specific needs of their Game Changers. Start sparring: The objective of sparring is not to primarily support the other person in finding their solution to fix a situation. It’s far more about having an open, productive, and, if necessary, controversial debates to create long-term impact. As the leader, you’re the primary sparring partner, bringing your experience, insight, and perspective to the table. Offer your wealth of experience and expertise, and commit to being personally involved in co-creating the decisions that drive extraordinary outcomes. Make time for breakthrough discussions and plan for Winning Match moments: Strategically planned Winning Match moments are your dedicated opportunities to connect with your Game Changers. These sessions — ideally every four to six weeks, or more often if urgency demands — should be protected and prioritized. Use this time to deeply explore key strategic topics, address high-impact challenges and activities, and spark new ideas. Together, you’ll focus on the areas where your Game Changers can make their greatest contribution, amplifying the exceptional value they already bring to the organization. When you establish these regular leadership sparring sessions - where you share your knowledge, offer guidance, and open your network, Game Changers begin to see more than a leader. They see your genuine commitment to the overall success, your belief in their role within the organization, and your investment in bringing out the best in them. They recognize your clear ambition to help them reach their full potential. And then, something remarkable happens: a certain magic emerges in these conversations. That dynamic of trust, challenge, and inspiration becomes the foundation for a true Winning Match. All in all, a Winning Match represents the ideal combination between a driven individual with game-changer potential and their leader, who acts as their Leadership Champion – engaging in regular, challenging, honest, and deeply supportive interactions. This partnership becomes the cornerstone for creating extraordinary results through your Game Changers. * * * Dr. Christian Marcolli is a global thought leader and expert on sustainable high performance who coaches executives, business leaders, market-leading brands and elite athletes to achieve outstanding results. His firm, Marcolli Executive Excellence, focuses on fostering leadership excellence, driving team effectiveness and creating organizational health. He’s an in-demand speaker, award-winning author, University of Zurich-trained psychologist, and former pro soccer player. His latest book is WINNING MATCH: Leadership for Game Changers—Together Toward the Extraordinary. Learn more at www.marcolli.com. * * * Follow us on Instagram and X for additional leadership and personal development ideas. * * * View the full article

Chancellor looks to offset a forecast sharp drop in government revenue from fuel duty View the full article

Anna's Archive, a popular website for pirating books and articles, seems to be square in Google's sights, according to copyright and digital rights publication TorrentFreak. The search giant is said to have blocked some 749 million Anna's Archive URLs from showing up in search results, TorrentFreak found, after combing through a recent transparency report. The removal wasn't necessarily targeted, as Google regularly delists content at the request of copyright holders. At time of this writing, has taken down links to 15,125,359,564 pages since 2011. But this is the latest in an ongoing, AI-prompted saga that is seeing copyright holders crack down on so-called "shadow libraries," and it already represents around 5% of Google's overall takedowns. Anna's Archive is a platform for pirated e-booksPersonally, I hadn't heard of Anna's Archive, which makes sense—it's a newer player in the field. The platform popped up in 2022, shortly after its predecessor, Z-Library, had its domains seized by the U.S. Department of Justice. Since then, it's been quietly operating on its own little corner of the internet, serving as an open-source search engine for literary works that links to free publicly available sources when they exist, and pirated uploads when they don't. Like Z-Library, it's been blocked by German ISPs and sued in the U.S., but remains operational. You can think of it kind of like the Pirate Bay, but for literary works—but on a larger scale (impressive given how new it is). TorrentFreak notes that only 4.2 million Pirate Bay URLs have been taken off Google, which is paltry compared to Anna's Archive's numbers. AI scraping could be a factorThat discrepancy could be due to more aggressive takedown filing from publishers and authors, as more than 1,000 separate users have issued takedown requests to date, according to the Google data. These include both individuals and larger names like Penguin Random House, and their diligence could be related to Anna's Archives' stance on AI, as the site has admitted that it has freely provided access to 30 LLM developers to train on its "illegal archive of books," and still openly hosts freely accessible pages for others to access. Where copyright holders and readers will go from here is still up in the air. It's important to note that, despite all appearances to the contrary, Google does not own the internet. Removing a site from its search engine does not prevent users from visiting it directly, and all three Anna's Archive domains—annas-archive.org, annas-archive.se, and annas-archive.li—remain live. Additionally, Anna's Archive does not host any pirated content itself, but simply provides users to links where they can find it. All of this puts it in a legal gray area, which, when backed by the site's open-source nature and strong commitment to the ideal that "preserving and hosting these files is morally right," means it's likely to continue in some form or another for years. Still, as companies like Meta are found to have used pirated content to train its AI models, it's likely actions that Google's will become more common, and other sites, or even legal entities, might follow suit. Plan accordingly. (And if, like me, you've been asking yourself "Who the heck is Anna?" the archive's FAQ has an answer: "You are Anna." It's a nod at the anonymous uploaders who provide it with much of its material.) View the full article