Connect with us

Business

Chief people officer of a $1.5 billion AI startup is training managers on how to work with Gen Z

Published

on


Meet Rebecca Adams, the Chief People Officer at Cohesity, a data protection startup with $1.5 billion-plus in revenue and, she notes, close to 6,000 employees. The key to driving further growth, she’s decided, is training her managers in how to work with—even talk to—Gen Z. Speaking of her own and her managers’ interactions with younger colleagues, and even some of her conversations with her children, ages 18 and 20, “it gives me some empathy,” she says. “It also is mindboggling” to see how differently young people approach work.

This new generation of workers is different in that they don’t accept a manager’s directions at face value, she says. “They want to know why, how, they want constant feedback.” Adams said Cohesity has had to teach the managers how to lead this generation of workers, while also teaching some seemingly “basic things” to younger workers, like “how do I manage my calendar? You actually have to accept the meeting request. You can’t just walk out of the meeting that you’re in because you have another one while it’s still going on.”

Boundaries and oversharing

Adams related an anecdote of a lunch program where a senior leader takes an intern out, and an instance where a manager was kept waiting by a successful intern who had just signed on to convert to full-time. The intern explained, “Sorry, I’m late, I just had to walk, I was just in a meeting.” The manager was horrified to learn that their lunch date had interrupted a business meeting, but the intern said they had “a lot going on” so it was fine for them to leave the meeting early for lunch.

She said on one hand, she thought it was “adorable” that the intern didn’t realize that a meeting would rank ahead of a previously agreed-upon lunch date. But on the other hand, there’s a clear need for some training on both sides here. Managers have to very explicitly explain the terms of each invite to their colleagues, in other words.

“When I was in my 20s and when I was out of school,” Adams says, “I learned so much from sitting in the cube next to my manager and hearing her and experiencing people dropping by my office.” She described a “struggle,” more on senior leaders’ part than her Gen Z interns, one part from the “mind shift” that comes with really understanding Gen Z, but “it’s also a shift trying to get [older] people back into the office. The Z’s want to come into the office, hybrid … they have no problem with it,” but that’s not the case with the rest of her workforce, which might find return-to-office more disruptive to family commitments. “I find the other workers are resisting coming back to the office because they had the taste of working from home and they … just want to keep it that way.”

She added that older workers also seem to have a hard time communicating with Gen Z, particularly when using different tools all day long. “Videos, slacks, everything being text, quick, quick, quick. The later-in-career employees want emails, spreadsheets.” This is a struggle for Gen Z, who has what she calls a “don’t-want-to-talk-on-the-phone disease.”

Hard learnings

Adams’ home life became a sounding board for the fast-changing workplace. She brought up the example of her older son and the subject of internships. His attitude equates to “I really need to love the job and I need to love the company.” Her first response was bafflement: “What do you mean? I was a waitress for many years.”

But she came to see this in her workforce, too, and an admirable transparency compared to previous workplace norms. “they have no problem saying, ‘Yeah, I can’t do that. I walk my dog at that time or I have a nail appointment.’ Like, they share everything, which I admire.” Adams said this oversharing tendency “fascinates me” and added that when she was pregnant in her 20s, she wouldn’t even disclose when she had doctor’s appointments, and would come back to work as if nothing happened. She said it used to be normal to “omit” information in the workplace, in the days before “bring your whole self to work,” but her younger colleagues are “very transparent with all of their thoughts and activities.”

Adams found that to work with Gen Z, she had to shift away from the “because I told you so” mentality common with the bosses of old. Instead, she taught leaders to explain the “why” behind workplace decisions and foster a sense of shared mission. Adams is far from the only workforce expert to see these patterns in Gen Z and their often-befuddled older coworkers: they ask “why” a lot and they don’t like being told to do things without good explanations.

Marlo Loria, Director of Career and Technical Education and Innovative Partnerships at Mesa Public Schools in Arizona, previously told Fortune that her school district is full of inquisitive Gen Zers who are questioning traditional ways of doing things. “Our youth want to know why. Why do I need to go to college? Why do I want to get in debt? Why do I want to do these things?” Loria specifically said that “because I told you so” as an explanation isn’t cutting it anymore.

And Derek Thomas, national partner-in-charge of university talent acquisition at KPMG U.S., previously told Fortune that he also hears the “why” question a lot. He said he’s seen an attitude among Gen Zers like, “Okay, you’re telling me it’s going to be good for me, but is it really?” The more that leaders can demonstrate why something is worth doing, in his experience, the more Gen Z will follow through.

Fundamentals matter

Coming at this issue from another perspective, HR leader Jeri Doris insists that “stereotypes are hard” for her: she actively rejects applying generalizations to different generations at work. As Chief People Officer at Justworks, which manages HR for over 14,000 small and medium-sized businesses, Doris emphasizes fundamentals to managers. She told Fortune that she believes viral catchphrases like “quiet quitting” or “job hugging” are just confusing buzzwords that get in the way of real management.

courtesy of Justworks

A cornerstone of Doris’ approach is to “not make assumptions—ask.” She stressed the value of data in the forms of engagement surveys and analytics. Most importantly, she said, simply talking to employees, both as groups and individuals, is invaluable for good management. Nevertheless, Doris acknowledges that her own use of data reflects a significant shift toward mission- and impact-driven work, especially among Gen Z employees. From her own survey data at Justworks—where she notes that pride and mission orientation score in the 85th percentile—she sees younger workers in particular wanting to understand the “why” behind their tasks. “It’s just table stakes now,” Doris said, urging managers to always link daily work to overall strategy and organizational purpose.

Referring to herself as something of a throwback, Doris explains that she’s a product of the “old-school” General Electric HR rotational program, which dates back to the 1940s and the dawn of modern management theory. (Much of this dates back to one man, the “original management guru” Peter Drucker, who consulted with GE, IBM and other blue-chip Fortune 500 firms as he pioneered a shift away from top-down corporate structure and into a modern structure, with midlevel management and delegation of responsibilities.)

Doris noted that that she went to both GE’s famous Crotonville campus in the Hudson Valley of Upstate New York as well as Deloitte University, and later worked at Groupon when it was one of the fastest-growing companies of all time, onboarding 100 people a day. Modern management, Doris asserts, especially in the startup space, has a lot of leaders who “haven’t had time to invest in themselves.” (Midlevel managers in their late 30s and early 40s recently told Fortune that they had received minimal training, with mentorship few and far between.)

Adding that “new manager leadership training is absolutely paramount,” Doris says that she feels there’s a need for leaders to create more “space” for themselves. She said she thinks that new managers often aren’t reflective enough. They don’t ask themselves, “How did I show up today? What do I want to show up as?” As Doris continued talking, she sounded like she was describing a lot of the Cohesity managers in Adams’ Gen Z training.

Tremendous pressure

Adams did sound a note of concern, something that she says is both “scary and fascinating” to her: the amount of pressure she sees her Gen Z colleagues piling on themselves. They are intensely focused on the future, she said, laying out a litany of concerns that recalls Jonathan Haidt’s thesis on Gen Z as the smartphone-raised “anxious generation.” (Adams did not specifically cite Haidt’s book, but Fortune has previously reported on the role of workplace dynamics in rising young worker “despair.”)

The Cohesity executive said she sees tremendous self-imposted pressure to accomplish many things as soon as possible, with the attitude being “because I might not want to do this later, by age 30.” She described it as, “I want to have everything locked in so that I can then decide if I want to get married, if I want to have kids, so I want to career-climb as much as possible before that, but I also want to travel and have lots of work-life balance.” She said she was frustrated recently when a very successful intern turned down a full-time offer to travel for a year instead. (Adams later clarified that she does not watch TikTok and had no awareness of the viral fall trend of “the great lock-in,” so any resemblance in her remarks was coincidental.)

Adams said she sees so much anxiety in Gen Z: What will AI do to their jobs? Will they even have a job? Will they be replaced? “It’s like a lot of pressure that they’re putting on themselves.” They’re different from millennials, though, she added, summing up their attitude like, “OK, you gave me a job. When am I going to get promoted?” Gen Z is “willing to work hard,” she concludes, just “at their own pace.”

When asked about this program’s success, Adams cites internal data showing decreased attrition and a “weekly pulse check” with high engagement and improving scores. Cohesity is planning to keep growing and is actually doubling its number of interns in the upcoming season, she added. This is a real commitment, since Cohesity commits to hiring on any intern who proves themselves a good performer. “We really do want to teach them, set them up for success and have them be a future employee.

Adams issues a call to corporate America, saying that 30% of all workers will be Gen Z by 2030, so “they are the future of our workplace and the organization.” She said “we have to be open and patient and not just expect them to be like us … They think different. I learn from them because the way they go about things is just different, and they have a fresh approach. So we can’t get stuck.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Senate Dems’ plan to fix Obamacare premiums adds nearly $300 billion to deficit, CRFB says

Published

on



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.

With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.

“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.

The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.

CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.

Reversing recent guardrails

MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.

The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.

The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.

MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.

The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.

“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.

The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.​

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.