Ultragenyx said it will lay off around 20% of its staff after halting development of two rare disease drug candidates, according to STAT. The announcement comes as the company faces setbacks in its research pipeline.
This move signals ongoing cost pressures and the challenge of managing high-risk drug development in the biotech sector. Pharma leaders may need to reassess their own project portfolios and workforce strategies in response to shifting market and research realities.
Ameetess Dira, CMO of Petzey, told Brandweek 2026 that marketing should play a direct role in product, technology and finance decisions, not just communications. She said purpose alignment is essential, and she only works with leaders she trusts to take on difficult challenges for a shared goal. Dira’s approach is to focus on underserved areas, such as senior dog adoption, where brands can make a real difference rather than chasing the largest audiences.
She explained that marketing has no business staying in its own lane and that the executive team is her primary team. Dira described how, during the LA fires, she decided to offer Petzey’s telehealth services for free to those affected, despite the financial downside. She argued that some decisions should be based on what the brand stands for, not just immediate returns.
For regulated-industry leaders, Dira’s strategy suggests that CMOs who engage across business functions can influence risk, reputation and long-term value. The move away from short-term metrics in favour of purpose-driven choices could reshape how marketing is valued in boardrooms.
Condé Nast is forecasting a fourth-quarter advertising revenue shortfall of more than $35 million, according to Adweek, citing internal documents and sources familiar with the business. The publisher, known for titles like Vogue and The New Yorker, is also dealing with a wave of executive departures, including CEO Roger Lynch and several leaders in its revenue organisation.
Sources told Adweek that Condé Nast’s revenue strategy has been undermined by turnover in its sales leadership and by targets set to accommodate senior editorial figures. The company’s flagship event, Vogue World, is expected to generate less than $20 million this year, well below last year’s nearly $30 million, though a company spokesperson said the Milan edition brought in $26 million. Staff reductions have already taken place in recent years to offset missed budgets.
Industry observers say the lack of a clear commercial strategy is compounding Condé Nast’s challenges. Some insiders described a demoralised leadership team and unclear direction, raising questions about the company’s ability to stabilise its revenue base. For senior brand and marketing leaders, the situation at Condé Nast offers a warning on the risks of leadership churn and over-optimistic targets.
Launching a bank in the U.S. means meeting complex compliance and legal standards, but Nubank’s cofounder told Fast Company that building the brand was the most difficult part. The digital bank, now operating as Nu, sees no playbook for brand building in a new market, even as it handles product and support launches.
Nubank’s rapid growth in Latin America relied on a distinctive visual brand, but as it expands internationally, its brand attributes risk blending into the category. For CMOs and digital heads, the story shows that brand differentiation remains a moving target, especially when entering mature, regulated markets.
Personal AI agents are rapidly becoming mainstream, with major tech companies like Meta, OpenAI, and startups launching tools that act like always-on employees. These agents can handle real-world tasks such as booking reservations, replying to emails, and organizing schedules, potentially boosting productivity significantly. However, the more access these agents have—like email, calendars, and payment capabilities—the greater the risks involved. For example, in one case, an AI agent deleted emails without approval, showing how much control they can unintentionally wield.
The workplace impact is profound, as employees increasingly connect personal AI agents to company emails and data, often without managerial knowledge or approval. Surveys reveal many organizations unknowingly have thousands of AI agents operating within their systems, posing significant security risks.
Key dangers include data leakage outside company control, the possibility of outsiders manipulating the agents through email, and the agents acting as master keys to critical systems. Businesses must act now by identifying all AI agents in use, setting clear rules on their access and permissions, requiring human approval for sensitive actions, and practicing how to disconnect agents safely.
Personal AI agents are here to stay, much like smartphones became essential. The difference now is that these agents can act on company data autonomously, making it crucial for leaders to establish clear policies before risks spiral out of control.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen, a world-class middle-distance runner, exemplifies how a pacer supports elite performance by managing pace and reducing mental strain. Athletes use pacers to maintain optimal speed and focus on crucial aspects of their performance rather than continuously monitoring their timing. Similarly, leaders often face challenges due to moving too fast or too slow, impacting decision-making, team motivation, and alignment with strategic goals. Many leaders lack a pacer, leaving them vulnerable to pace-related pitfalls that hinder effectiveness.
Research involving 125 employees revealed that 93% observed leaders whose pace didn’t match situational needs, with 75% running too fast and 25% too slow, yet only 40% had a pacer. Pacers help leaders calibrate their speed—slowing down fast leaders to improve deliberation and learning or prompting slower leaders to accelerate decisions and action. They help maintain strategic focus, manage team energy, and foster alignment, reducing burnout and disengagement.
Effective pacers are trustworthy, knowledgeable, and understand the organizational context. They may come from various roles: senior executives, coaches, peers, chiefs of staff, or trusted direct reports. Choosing the right pacer depends on leadership stage and pacing challenges. For rising leaders, mentors or experienced peers serve well, while veteran leaders might benefit from independent board members or coaches.
The best pacers enable leaders to develop internal rhythm and judgment, eventually reducing the need for external pacing. They empower leaders to conserve cognitive resources and energy, focusing on priority decisions and pacing sustainable performance. Proper use of a pacer is about enhancing, not replacing, a leader's self-awareness and accountability, ultimately helping leaders win the race with greater purpose and control.
As investments in AI rise, many organizations struggle to achieve the returns they expect. True success goes beyond just deploying AI technology—it's about redesigning workflows and putting AI to work for people. Research shows only 5% of companies are truly transforming how work is done, while most optimize existing processes.
Leaders at AI-powered companies focus on three key areas: building strong data foundations with clear governance, equipping their people with vital technical and human skills, and fostering change readiness to shift mindsets and roles to align with evolving technology demands.
Companies like ServiceNow, PepsiCo, Pearson, and IBM illustrate how strategic AI adoption paired with a people-centered approach drives trust, accelerates learning, and enables workforce adaptability. This holistic approach creates a dynamic cycle where technology and human potential grow together, helping organizations innovate and stay competitive in a rapidly changing environment.
For some time, I have explored what corporate AI is and should be, focusing on AI agents, ontologies, and world models that represent and optimize companies by integrating with management tools like ERPs and CRMs. As AI threatens to replace many white-collar jobs, the role of leadership is changing fundamentally. Leaders will no longer simply make more decisions than others; instead, AI systems will handle many operational choices based on deep company understanding.
Leadership will pivot from task management to setting clear objectives, constraints, and trade-offs for AI to optimize. Every metric becomes a governance decision reflecting the company's purpose, requiring precise, machine-actionable strategy rather than vague slogans. Leaders become designers of trade-offs among competing priorities—like margin versus growth or speed versus quality—balancing these for coherent organizational outcomes.
This shift means management focuses less on supervising people and more on governing adaptive AI systems that constantly learn and evolve. Middle management roles may shrink, but leadership importance grows around legitimacy, priorities, culture, governance, and decision rights. CEOs become constitutional architects of intelligent organizations, defining what automation can do and where human judgment prevails.
Companies with effective learning systems gain cumulative competitive advantage by turning every interaction into valuable experience. This creates a reinforcing loop of better decisions and superior performance, heightening barriers for late adopters. Human judgment remains crucial at boundaries—when redefining goals or adapting to new contexts. Culture gains prominence as it shapes the data on which AI learns.
Optimized companies do not eliminate leadership; they reveal its true nature: choosing what really matters, defining trade-offs, and steering the overall direction. The question is whether leadership is ready for this transformative role.
The post-pandemic return-to-office push sparks debate, but new research shows that factors like feeling appreciated and having a strong relationship with your boss impact job happiness far more than whether you work remotely or on-site. Surveys of nearly 165,000 U.S. employees reveal that once you account for pay fairness, communication, and development opportunities, remote work alone doesn’t guarantee higher satisfaction. A positive manager relationship boosts satisfaction across all work settings, especially for those on-site who benefit from direct mentorship. Job satisfaction and burnout are distinct — you can enjoy your job but still feel stressed, influenced by workload, clarity, and managerial support, regardless of location. Additionally, working remotely may increase social isolation, especially for those living alone. To enhance workplace satisfaction, employers should focus on maximizing the value of in-person time through collaboration, feedback, and meeting individual employee needs.
Earlier this year, I shared my belief that 2026 could mark a turning point where companies seriously prioritize employee well-being. I called on HR leaders to spark cultural change, but it quickly became clear that this effort can’t rest on HR alone—it requires commitment from leaders across the organization, especially the C-suite.
For years, HR has been tasked with managing employee experience, yet the key factors that drive engagement—like workloads, supportive leadership, flexibility, and job security—are controlled by business leaders, not HR. This disconnect has caused trust in HR to erode, especially since HR is also responsible for difficult decisions like layoffs. Data shows that while most HR leaders believe they advocate well for employees, only about half of employees trust them to do so.
Employee well-being must be treated as a core business priority. Someone at the top, whether a CHRO or a dedicated Chief Well-Being Officer, needs true authority and direct access to the CEO to influence decisions before they happen. Frequent, brief pulse surveys should replace outdated annual engagement surveys to capture real-time employee feedback, which managers must be held accountable for addressing.
HR’s role should shift to managing the listening system and analyzing feedback trends, while leadership takes ownership of outcomes. Importantly, well-being must be considered as part of major business decisions, not after the fact. Evidence shows that prioritizing well-being doesn’t hinder leadership performance but rather fuels it. If companies fully commit to this approach, HR can move beyond being a referee to becoming a strategic partner in cultivating a culture where employees feel truly valued and supported.
