Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Bombastus, post: 93832, member: 2178"] AI is driving a trust gap between CEOs and their staff. Business leaders see a chance to boost output and cut costs, but many workers fear job cuts and doubt what their bosses tell them. The Milken Institute-Harris Poll Listening Project found a sharp split. More than two in three bosses think AI will help their finances within five years. Yet just 27% of U.S. workers share that hope. A 41-point gap. Pretty stark. Dhar warns that low trust may make staff less keen to use AI. Some could even stop using tools they had begun to adopt. For firms that want fast change, that is a real snag. General Catalyst boss Hemant Taneja gets the issue. He says vague plans call for more talks with staff, not less. His approach is to share why AI plans shift and admit when a firm lacks clear answers. One CEO Dhar knows asks staff which task at work seems the most pointless. The idea is to let people speak with no fear of blame. No grand pledge to fix it, either. Just a fair chance to be heard. KPMG chief Tim Walsh meets both partners and junior staff when he visits offices. Yet he admits that people may hold back when the boss walks in. Anonymous polls help the firm hear complaints that staff may not voice face-to-face. Edelman's Trust Barometer offers one bright spot. Americans place more faith in CEOs than in the press, NGOs, or the state. And staff value clear updates on AI plans, even when leaders have yet to work out each detail. Tesla and SpaceX may join forces. Elon Musk says both boards have set up special panels to study a deal. Any plan would need votes from holders of at least half of Tesla's shares. A major PHP security flaw has firms and state agencies rushing to fix their systems. AI helped spot the bug in the open-source code. The catch is that hackers may use the same tech to abuse it. Mark Zuckerberg has struck a deal over a proposed 5% tax on billionaire assets in California. Meta made a new share type that could let him raise billions yet keep his voting rights. He agreed to remain in the state for eight years, with some exceptions. Saudi Arabia put its major investor event on hold due to safety fears. Donald Trump wants Musk to give Ukraine access to Starshield again. Anthropic plans to file papers for its IPO, while Google, Microsoft, and Amazon face fresh checks on their AI spending. Meta's new AI group has one boss per 50 engineers. Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky favors direct control over key choices. Uber, Amazon, and Meta have cut layers of mid-level bosses. Flat teams are clearly having a moment. Stanford professor Nir Halevy thinks firms may be taking that trend a bit far. His book, Level Up, argues that good management ranks help teams grow. Even groups that claim to have no bosses tend to form informal ranks. For Halevy, the real issue is fairness. Staff need clear ways to earn more trust, take charge, and move up. A firm fails when people fight for status, hide help from peers, or lose promotions to a boss's relatives. Constant shifts can hurt as well. When roles change with no clear cause, workers may quit or feel on edge. Rules that seem fair and stay stable give teams a better shot at working well. Valve is one of Halevy's examples. The game firm has a few hundred staff and calls itself boss-free. Yet pay and access to facts still vary by role. The lack of formal ranks does not mean all staff have equal sway. Even a team of 10 can face the same issue. A founder may say each worker has equal status, but staff may see a different pecking order. What counts is whether the setup works in real life and seems fair. As for AI, Halevy doubts it can take on all the work of middle bosses. Managers do more than pass facts up and orders back down. Firms that treat those tasks as the full job may cut roles without grasping what else those people do. [/QUOTE]

Name