Latest news with #boardrooms
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The most successful people are not the smartest—instead, they're both ambitious and lazy, career coach to the Fortune 500 says
Forget grinding 24/7 or having the highest IQ in the room. The most powerful billionaires and CEOs know exactly when to cut corners—and how to use their time better than anyone else, the career coach to the Fortune 500, Bill Hoogterp, reveals. Bill Hoogterp has spent decades advising celebrities, CEOs, and rising stars inside some of America's most powerful boardrooms. Through his coaching firm, LifeHikes, he's helped more than 700,000 professionals level up their communication and leadership skills—and personally worked one-on-one with 'thousands' of executives, many of whom appear on Fortune's most powerful lists. But if you think the secret to their success is raw intelligence or long hours, you'd be mistaken. According to Hoogter, one of the most consistent—and perhaps surprising—qualities shared by the ultra-successful is laziness. 'I would say there's a juxtaposition of almost counterintuitive traits,' he tells Fortune. 'Most successful people, if you meet most famous politicians, they weren't necessarily the A students. They aren't necessarily the smartest.' 'What most CEOs have—that almost nobody else has—is that their ambition is way over the top. Now, if you combine that with lazy, you create a really nice blend because if you're really, really hungry to get success, but you're always looking for shortcuts, the combination of those two things leads to lots of little breakthroughs.' By lazy, he doesn't mean they're kicking up their feet and taking a 'quiet vacation' instead of grinding. 'They're like: 'How can I get this done faster, easier, better, and have time and energy for other things?'' Hoogterp explains. Tried and tested shortcuts for success: No big meetings, acronyms or one-to-ones Plenty of high-profile founders embody Hooterp's paradoxical formula. They're not cutting corners to coast—but to outsmart the competition, innovate faster and remain agile in a fast-moving market. Perhaps the most famous example of this is Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, who famously coined move fast and break things when scaling Facebook into the $1.8 trillion social media giant it is today. Likewise, Jeff Bezos' top career advice for his once right-hand man, Greg Hart, was literally to do less himself and delegate more to his employees. 'The fewer decisions that have to go to the CEO, the faster the organization will move,' the billionaire Amazon founder told him. Nvidia CEO and co-founder Jensen Huang doesn't have one-to-one meetings with his 60 direct reports—and it's a deliberate shortcut to innovation. Not only does it save time in their schedules, but more importantly, it ensures ideas and problems aren't siloed in private conversations. 'In that way, our company was designed for agility—for information to flow as quickly as possible,' he said. Then there's Elon Musk, who has a whole list of time-saving and corner-cutting rules for staff, including a ban on big and frequent meetings, no chain of command or acronyms, and an encouragement to walk out of unnecessary conversations. 'Walk out of a meeting or drop off a call as soon as it is obvious you aren't adding value,' the Tesla boss outlined. 'It is not rude to leave, it is rude to make someone stay and waste their time.' Brains alone won't get you to the top—or even hired Hooterp's claim that the most successful aren't the smartest doesn't just apply to CEOs. It's a theme echoed when it comes to hiring too. Countless CEOs and founders have said that they value attitude over aptitude. Amazon's AI boss exclusively told Fortune that stumbling your way through an interview question won't cost you the job. But being fake will. Andy Jassy, the company's CEO (and his boss), has similarly shared that attitude is the make-or-break trait that'll determine your success—especially, he says, in your 20s. Likewise, Cisco's U.K. chief focuses on whether a potential new hire has a positive energy and can-do attitude because, she says, that can't be taught. 'It's more about the person first and foremost than it is about skills or experience,' Sarah Walker told Fortune. And they're far from alone: About 80% of the Fortune 500 use personality tests in hiring, as well as tech giants like Amazon, Meta and Microsoft. A positive attitude is so important that some chiefs would rather remain understaffed than risk having a bad apple spoil the bunch. As Duolingo's CEO told Fortune, 'it's better to have a hole than an asshole.' This story was originally featured on Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores
Fast Company
4 days ago
- Business
- Fast Company
Is your company ready for GenAI? The answer involves more than just tech
The initial wave of excitement around generative AI (GenAI) has evolved into an intentional focus on how to institutionalize the technology and create long-term value. While most business leaders may accept the need to incorporate GenAI more deeply into their business, many remain skeptical of the effort and investment involved, wondering if it will add to sustainable performance. This begs the question: Are companies truly ready for GenAI? The truth is the GenAI journey doesn't start with a platform; it starts with a decision from leadership and across the organization. Leaders need to avoid getting swept up in the frenzy around them, take a step back, and survey the situation. With distance, leaders can stop obsessing about what's possible with GenAI and start focusing on how to make it probable. Over the past few years, GenAI has captivated boardrooms. According to Gartner, worldwide GenAI spending is expected to total $644 billion in 2025, an increase of 76.4% from 2024. And it's easy to see why. GenAI can produce content in seconds, enabling companies to boost operational efficiency, unlock data insights that can vastly improve decision-making, and enhance customer engagement. But while everyone is talking about solutions, models, and tech stacks, few are spending time evaluating if their company is prepared for that sort of change. Leaders who drive GenAI implementations know that adoption starts by rewiring an organization's mindset, shifting the priority from acquiring technology toward scaling its use. This requires a commitment to change management and mobilization, especially in two key areas: People and process. 1. PEOPLE: C-SUITE LEADERSHIP IS CRITICAL As with most transformations, it takes a top-down approach to accelerate impact. A survey by management consultancy Kearney shows that nearly 90% of companies that have successfully integrated GenAI credit senior leadership's understanding of the technology. Other factors contributing to GenAI readiness are cultural support of change (74%) and the allocation of sufficient resources, including time, money, and people (70%). This study underscores the fact that GenAI's success starts with the CEO setting the mandate, the CIO delivering the data infrastructure, and functional leaders driving the transformation. To facilitate this unified top-down push, CEOs must act as both collaborator and catalyst. According to PwC, a CEO's main function is to keep the organization's eyes on the prize 'amid the froth that accompanies the introduction of every major technology' and apply a systematic approach to implementing GenAI. This includes investment in data readiness, integration into technology platforms and workflows, and effective programs to build workforce skills. These foundational moves help organizations seize bigger opportunities, from functional transformation to business model shifts. 2. PROCESS: PRIORITIZE CHANGE MANAGEMENT OVER PILOTS While GenAI proofs of concept are everywhere, very few have been able to scale. Analysts predict one-third will be abandoned after the POC stage by 2025. Scaling requires aligning GenAI use cases with business value and prioritizing change management. In the first nationally representative U.S. survey of GenAI adoption conducted in late 2024, the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank found that only 28% of workers used GenAI to some degree. But outside of work, the GenAI chatbot, ChatGPT, skyrocketed to 100 million active monthly users two months after its launch. So, where's the disconnect between personal life and work life? KPMG offers some perspective. GenAI requires people to work as 'peers' of the technology, asking the tools what they want done, and then explaining how. This requires a change in work habits, which could expose biases such as resistance to change or job security fears. Instead of issuing blanket mandates, KPMG suggests developing a change program, using behavioral tactics like: • Offering exclusive training to tap into the appeal of limited availability. • Sharing case studies and success stories to create a bandwagon effect. • Demonstrating how GenAI can help careers, creating monetary value. Change management isn't a checkbox; it's a muscle. To exercise that muscle, companies need to revamp operations, redefine roles, and rethink value chains. Otherwise, they risk building smart tech that nobody uses. All the best-laid plans and intentions can fall short if two key elements are not addressed: Data quality and continuous learning. Data is the lifeblood of all AI, and GenAI's quality is only as good as a company's data quality. Low-quality data can lead to problems like transaction processing issues in operational systems and inaccurate results in analytics applications. Faulty data needs to be identified and fixed to ensure business users are working with good information. Improving data is a cultural discipline, and if people and processes are in place, better data should follow. And while it's become popular to spin up an 'AI CoE' (AI Center of Excellence) or appoint a 'chief AI officer,' these tactics often lack real influence. Instead of isolating GenAI adoption to a confined function/role, the goal should be to increase knowledge and comfort levels across the board. Tsedal Neeley, a Harvard Business School professor, recommends companies aim for a level of 30% competence in a variety of technological topics—something she calls a 'foundational fluency.' With this level of fluency, leaders can begin to 'connect the dots' and spot GenAI opportunities and assess risks more effectively. NOW IS THE TIME TO COMMIT TO CHANGE The struggles in scaling GenAI show how difficult it is to determine GenAI readiness. But readiness isn't binary—it's a progression. Instead of asking, 'Can we deploy GenAI?' consider questions like: • Are we aligned to change with GenAI? • Are we prepared to lead with GenAI? • Are we willing to transform with GenAI? Because it's not about when you implement new technology, it's about when you commit to change. By focusing on people and processes, companies can move beyond the hype and build GenAI capabilities that are robust and ready to scale. So, is your company ready for GenAI? The time to find out is now.
Forbes
5 days ago
- Health
- Forbes
Why CEO Health Is The Leadership KPI That Drives Everything Else
CEO health is the KPI driver influencing all other metrics. Inside boardrooms and quarterly reviews, executives obsess over key performance indicators: revenue growth, profit margins, net promoter scores, and employee engagement, to name a few. But amid all the dashboards and data, one KPI remains underrepresented: CEO health. Executive well-being is more than a personal matter. It's a strategic asset and impactful KPI that shapes performance and potential from the top down. When neglected, it becomes a hidden liability with impactful costs. According to a widely reported Deloitte study, 75% of C-suite leaders have considered leaving their roles for ones that better support their well-being. When a leader's physical, mental, or emotional bandwidth is depleted, their decision-making abilities falter, the organizational culture weakens, and loyalty erodes. Health is the invisible infrastructure beneath every board-level priority. Below are three critical domains directly influenced by executive well-being. 1. Decision-Making And Perceived Leadership Effectiveness The quality of leadership is inseparable from the quality of a leader's decisions. Yet many executives operate under conditions that steadily erode their cognitive edge: unmitigated stress, fragmented sleep, suboptimal nutrition, and inconsistent physical activity. There's a difference between mentally existing throughout the day and mentally thriving. A study published in The Leadership Quarterly found that a one-standard-deviation decline in a CEO's mental health was associated with a 6% drop in firm performance. The effects extended beyond mood, showing up in slower execution, diminished judgment, and weakened presence. And when a CEO is off their game, the consequences cascade through balance sheets, team dynamics, and investor confidence. Well-being also communicates before words are spoken. CEOs who run marathons—or engage in other intense physical training, a proxy for cardiovascular fitness and stress resilience—have been linked to greater firm value, stronger M&A outcomes, and more stable stock performance. 2. Connectivity And Talent Optimization An executive's habits become organizational norms. Leaders who visibly prioritize recovery, boundaries, and health send a signal far louder than any company memo. A study in the Transdisciplinary Journal of Management confirmed that health-promoting leadership directly elevates performance by improving employee well-being. And research from Frontiers in Psychology reinforced this, finding that such leadership reduces burnout and increases engagement by creating a climate where people can consistently operate at their best. Leaders who model strategic energy allocation—whether it's deliberate recovery, mindful delegation, or strategic disconnection—build teams that are more loyal, more resilient, and more productive. In today's talent economy, where replacing key performers is both costly and time-consuming, well-being is a KPI that positively impacts numerous organizational metrics. 3. Stakeholder Trust And Company Image Executives are constantly communicating, even before they speak. Body language, energy levels, facial tension, and vocal tonality all contribute to the perception of confidence, credibility, and control. In high-stakes settings, executive presence precedes executive messaging. A leader who appears physically depleted or emotionally flat can unintentionally project instability. Stakeholders and investors make micro-judgments long before financial results are released, and in a 24/7 media environment, those impressions travel fast. Markets have historically responded to health-related executive signals. When Steve Jobs appeared visibly unwell at public events, Apple shares dipped. When Jamie Dimon underwent emergency heart surgery in 2020, JPMorgan's stock dropped nearly 8%. Both companies eventually rebounded, but the initial response reveals a larger truth: markets react to leadership uncertainty, especially when it stems from health issues. The same principle applies internally. Just as investors respond to perceived stability, teams and stakeholders respond to how leaders communicate under pressure. Trust isn't built on flawless execution. It's shaped by emotional intelligence. A recent study titled "The Trust Dilemma" found that CEOs who expressed personal vulnerability, authentically and strategically, were viewed as more trustworthy by investors. This type of transparency, especially in challenging moments, served as an emotional buffer, improving credibility and confidence. Perception is reality in leadership. CEO Health: The KPI That Influences All Others In leadership, it's not just about what gets done, but how it gets done, and how long it can continue to get done. The infrastructure behind all of it is a leader's capacity. And that capacity is built through health and well-being. CEO health isn't just a personal obligation. It's an organizational driver. Decision-making, team performance, cultural integrity, vision building, and stakeholder trust are all downstream of executive well-being. And unlike market volatility or external risk, CEO health is a variable leaders can fully control.
RNZ News
25-06-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Gender pay reversal identified by directors' fee survey
The survey also showed just 36 percent of private sector board directors were female. Photo: 123RF A survey on directors' fees has thrown up a surprise, showing female directors are earning more than their male counterparts in private sector boardrooms. The survey , by Strategic Pay, said female non-executive directors receive 17.2 percent more in fees on average. Managing director Cathy Hendry believes more women achieving higher positions in large listed companies is driving the change, but thinks there is more work to be done on gender balance on boards. "We have seen female directors increasing in terms of representation across the whole sample year-on-year, which is great to see. "The public sector is leading the way. You've almost got 50-50 percent representation male/females in the public sector [boards]. Its significantly lower in the private sector." The survey showed just 36 percent of private sector board directors were female, and just 21 percent were non-executive chairs. The survey highlighted a stark difference in the pay of directors on listed company boards compared to unlisted and private company boards. On average, directors on listed company boards earned 59 percent than their unlisted counterparts. Directors' fees were also increasing above the rate of inflation. Listed company directors' fees increased by just over 10 percent last year, while unlisted company directors say their fees increase by 8 percent on average. Hendry noted however that directors' fees had been static since Covid-19, and the rises were more of a catch-up. The pay gap between directors on private company boards and those on public sector boards was also pronounced, with those on listed company boards earning on average twice as much. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Forbes
20-06-2025
- Science
- Forbes
Is ChatGPT Making Us Stupid?
Two research studies suggest that heavy use of AI is not only a game changer, but an alarming threat ... More to humanity's ability to solve problems, communicate with one another, and perhaps to thrive. In boardrooms and classrooms, coffee shops and cubicles, the same question keeps coming up: Is ChatGPT making us smarter, or is it making us intellectually lazy—maybe even stupid? There's no question that generative artificial intelligence is a game-changer. ChatGPT drafts our emails, answers our questions, and completes our sentences. For students, it's become the new CliffsNotes. For professionals, a brainstorming device. For coders, a potential job killer. In record time, it has become a productivity enhancer for almost everything. But what is it doing to our brains? As someone who has spent his career helping clients anticipate and prepare for the future, this question deserves our attention. With any new technology, concerns inevitably arise about its impact. When calculators were first introduced, people worried that students would lose their ability to perform basic arithmetic or mental math skills. When GPS was first introduced, some fretted that we would lose our innate sense of direction. And when the internet bloomed, people grew alarmed that easy access to information would erode our capacity for concentration and contemplation. 'Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, is what often gets shortchanged by internet grazing,' noted technology writer Nicholas Carr in a prescient 2008 Atlantic article, 'Is Google Making Us Stupid?' Today, Carr's question needs to be asked anew – but of a different techno-innovation. Just-released research studies are helping us understand what's going on when we allow ChatGPT to think for us. What Happens to the Brain on ChatGPT? Researchers at MIT invited fifty-four participants to write essays across four sessions, divided into three groups: one using ChatGPT, one using Google, and one using only their brainpower. In the final session, the groups switched roles. What these researchers found should make all of us pause. Participants who used ChatGPT consistently produced essays that scored lower in originality and depth than those who used search or wrote unaided. More strikingly, brain imaging revealed a decline in cognitive engagement in ChatGPT users. Brain regions associated with attention, memory, and higher-order reasoning were noticeably less active. The MIT researchers introduced the concept of "cognitive debt"—the subtle but accumulating cost to our mental faculties when we outsource too much of our thinking to AI. 'Just as relying on a GPS dulls our sense of direction, relying on AI to write and reason can dull our ability to do those very things ourselves,' notes the MIT report. 'That's a debt that compounds over time.' The second study, published in the peer-reviewed Swiss journal Societies, is titled 'AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking.' It broadens the lens from a lab experiment to everyday life. Researchers surveyed 666 individuals from various age and educational backgrounds to explore how often people rely on AI tools—and how that reliance affects their ability to think critically. The findings revealed a strong negative correlation between frequent AI use and critical thinking performance. Those who often turned to AI for tasks like writing, researching, or decision-making exhibited lower 'metacognitive' awareness and analytical reasoning. This wasn't limited to any one demographic, but younger users and those with lower educational attainment were particularly affected. What's more, the study confirmed that over-reliance on AI encourages 'cognitive offloading'—our tendency to let external tools do the work our brains used to do. While cognitive offloading isn't new (we've done it for centuries with calculators and calendars), AI takes it to a whole new level. 'When your assistant can 'think' for you, you may stop thinking altogether,' the report notes. Are We Letting the Tool Use Us? These studies aren't anti-AI. Neither am I. I use ChatGPT daily. As a futurist, I see ChatGPT and similar tools as transformational breakthroughs—the printing press of the 21st century. They unlock productivity, unleash creativity, and lower barriers to knowledge. But just as the printing press didn't eliminate the need to learn to read, ChatGPT doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to think. And that is the danger today, that people will stop doing their own thinking. These studies are preliminary, and further research is needed. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that heavy use of AI is not only a game changer, but an alarming threat to humanity's ability to solve problems, communicate with one another, and perhaps to thrive. In integrating metacognitive strategies—thinking about thinking—into education, workplace training, and even product design. In other words, don't just use AI—engage with it. The line we must straddle is between augmentation and abdication. Are we using AI to elevate our thinking? Or are we turning over the keys to robots? Here are four ideas for using this new technology, while keeping our cognitive edge sharp: The danger isn't that ChatGPT will replace us. But it can make us stupid—if we let it replace our thinking instead of enriching it. The difference lies in how we use it, and more importantly, how aware we are while using it. The danger is that we'll stop developing the parts of ourselves that matter most—because it's faster and easier to let the machine do it. Let's not allow that to happen.
