World politics
fromFast Company
11 hours agoWe've entered a new era of risk for the modern CEO
Most CEOs are unprepared for crises like Taiwan Strait tensions due to a narrow focus on geoeconomic risks.
"I'm in favor of not having any rules against insider trading. I would like all the information out there as soon as it's available. Because look, as a society, we are better off knowing as soon as possible anything that is knowable."
The shift was apparent. People had a stake in the outcome, and they acted like it. Ideas flowed more freely, teams spotted and solved problems earlier, and employees took pride in identifying and implementing improvements.
Companies with a higher number of women in senior roles are significantly more likely to dismiss male perpetrators of abuse against female colleagues, according to recent analysis.
What most leaders label as a content problem is actually a presence problem. Leaders often assume credibility rises and falls based on wording alone. In reality, credibility is shaped by executive presence, which reflects the signals leaders send about confidence, clarity, and authority before their ideas are fully heard.
Research finds that relying on regulations to determine your policies and procedures can result in ethical blindspots, or situations where people might think if there is not a rule for something, that it's permissible. After years of shifting towards values and culture-based compliance, leadership might be heading the opposite direction.
Rather than stolen data making headlines, it was business stoppage that triggered attention. Moving into 2026, the board's focus should be on ensuring business continuity and building resilience in the face of emerging risks generated by AI usage and attack vectors, quantum computing and geopolitics.
Companies are under attack publicly and privately for policies viewed as "too progressive" or "woke." The reality, however, is that most companies have strongly reaffirmed their sustainability commitments but less so their DEI commitments. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) works in the grey area between the two. Many affirming companies have opted for "greenhushing," staying quiet about their strategies and leadership.
Dear Transparency-Committed Reader, You're not alone. So many of us want decision-making to reflect our collective values (like transparency, care, and shared power), but it's hard to actually put those values into practice. That gap between what we believe and how we decide can be frustrating. And getting stuck in the process is a common concern I hear from groups. I am happy to share, though, that decision-making doesn't have to be a nightmare.
Imagine a world where everyone in your team feels valued, heard, and empowered to contribute. Imagine that world where people aren't afraid to challenge the status quo and great ideas emerge from unexpected places. Now imagine that world where toxic behaviors don't just go unchecked, they don't even have room to rise. Wouldn't that be a great world? What happens when leadership tolerates the wrong behaviors? What happens when decision-making is shaped by exclusion, fear, and insecurity?
As we kick off 2026, activist investor campaigns are no longer just prevalent; they are global, sophisticated, and have increasingly become an acute threat to corporate leadership. The escalating pressure is undeniable: Barclays data shows that activist investor campaigns hit a high last year - surpassing 2024 by 5% - with 32 CEOs resigning as a result (a record) - and showing no signs of slowing down.
U.S. worker engagement has stagnated for decades, with more than two-thirds of workers feeling detached or disengaged. To reverse the trend, many executives have strived to build an "ownership culture," hoping personal responsibility will drive productivity. Yet most omit the most vital ingredient, actual ownership. We spent the past four years studying companies that committed to this missing piece, extending equity to all employees.