Informed i’s Weekly Business Insights

Affordability is a fuzzy term that can mean whatever feels true. Telling people to stop complaining and be happy with their lot—the Marie Antoinette strategy—is not working for a White House where the tone and decor increasingly resemble Versailles. Maddeningly, voters want contradictory things: low prices when they shop, high wages for themselves; not many immigrants but lots of cheap labour; rising house prices when they own and lower ones when their children want to buy.

Successful economies are filled with tensions like these. Politicians will naturally say what polls well to win elections. If the only downside of the affordability story were that voters punished incumbents for high prices, that would not be so bad. Yet if the problem is misdiagnosed, the risk is greater that harmful policies will be introduced to “fix” it.

That is because talk of an affordability crisis mixes phantom concerns with real ones. Start with the imagined problems. People are sensitive to the prices of things they buy all the time. A gallon of milk cost $3 in American stores in January 2019 and now costs $4. Food prices have shot up in Europe too, as have energy prices. However, wages are growing faster than prices up and down the income spectrum on both sides of the Atlantic. In this sense there is no affordability crisis. 

There is more to the affordability story than the price of milk or electricity, though. As societies grow richer, the share of spending on goods shrinks and spending on services increases.

Although both goods and services are included in inflation numbers, services remain stubbornly resistant to the huge productivity gains seen in manufacturing. In the euro zone the affordability conundrum in services presents itself in a different way. Because the prices of services such as health care and home rental are more regulated, the problem is availability more than affordability, and it is often solved by queuing—which does not feel good, either.

That is the first true affordability problem. The second is that though real wages have indeed risen, they have not gone up as fast as assets have. The wealth-to-GDP ratio is close to an all-time high in America.

These are fundamentally problems of affluence, not of economic malaise. That makes them tough for policymakers to solve. To bring down the prices of housing and energy, for example, governments need to make it easier to build more homes and wind farms. Almost everyone favours this—but only in someone else’s backyard. Prices of services in America are inflated by absurd occupational-licensing rules—which licenced florists and hairdressers fiercely defend. Lowering tariffs would slow inflation, but firms protected by tariffs lobby strenuously for their preservation.

Enacting sensible policies is hard and even countercultural in a world that has, at America’s insistence, turned against free markets and international trade. The danger is that politicians reach for pseudo-fixes that make things worse, such as price controls.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

As Gen Z ditch books at record levels, students are arriving to classrooms unable to complete assigned reading on par with previous expectations. It’s leaving colleges no choice but to lower their expectations. 

One shocked professor has described young adults showing up to class, unable to read a single sentence.  “It’s not even an inability to critically think,” Jessica Hooten Wilson, a professor of great books and humanities at Pepperdine University told Fortune. “It’s an inability to read sentences.”

Her observation reflects a broader trend: nearly half of all Americans did not read a single book in 2025, with the habit plunging some 40% over the last decade. And even with young people embracing BookTok, a TikTok subcommunity dedicated to books and literature, Gen Z’s reading habits still lag behind all other generations. Americans aged 18 to 29 read on average just 5.8 books in 2025, according to YouGov.

For her part, Wilson has turned to reading passages aloud together, discussing them line by line, or repeatedly returning to a single poem or text over the course of a semester—in part so students can begin to develop the skills to read critically on their own and be prepared for their post-graduate career.

“I’m not trying to lower my standards,” Wilson said. “I just have to have different pedagogical approaches to accomplish the same goal.”

For Timothy O’Malley, a theology professor at the University of Notre Dame, adapting to changes in student behavior hasn’t been especially difficult. It’s always his job to tailor classes to students needs, he argued. What’s more, he said students showing up to class unprepared is nothing new.  Early in his career, O’Malley typically assigned 25 to 40 pages of reading per class —and students would either do it or admit they struggled.  “Today, if you assign that amount of reading, they often don’t know what to do,” O’Malley said—noting that many students instead just lean on AI summaries and miss the point of assigned reading.

He traces part of the problem to earlier stages of education, where reading has been framed as a means to an end rather than a pleasure or habit. Years of standardized testing, he argued, have also trained students to scan for information rather than sit with complex texts.

Reading is on the decline—and it could have wide-ranging impacts.  One major issue among college students isn’t hostility toward reading so much as a lack of confidence and stamina. 

When professors reduce anxiety around grades, students are often willing to give the reading list a go, according to Brad East, a theology professor at Abilene Christian University.  In his course, he hasn’t changed reading length or difficulty but rather adjusted assignments in light of generative AI to stimulate real critical thinking.

The confidence issue is something that Brooke Vuckovic, a professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, has seen among business school students. Each term, roughly 40-50% of her students describe themselves as novice or reluctant readers, but once they are encouraged to begin reading, she said, the shift can be immediate.

And despite Gen Z’s shift away from reading, the habit remains popular among the ultra-wealthy. A JPMorgan survey of more than 100 billionaires released last month found that reading ranks as the top habit that elite achievers have in common.

The consequences of declining literacy extend far beyond grades, classroom performance, or even future careers. Reading, Wilson said, is a way of seeing ideas from other people’s eyes—leading to increased empathy and feeling of community.  “I think losing that polarization, anxiety, loneliness, a lack of friendship, all of these things happen when you don’t have a society that reads together.”

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

Organizations tend to change much more slowly than AI technology does these days. This means that forecasting enterprise adoption of AI is a bit easier than predicting technology change in this, the authors third year of making AI predictions. Neither of the authors is a computer or cognitive scientist, so they generally stay away from prognostication about AI technology or the specific ways it will rot our brains (though we do expect that to be an ongoing phenomenon!).

However, AI seems to have moved beyond being just a technology to becoming the primary force driving economic growth and the stock market. The authors also neither economists nor investment analysts, but that won’t stop them from making their first prediction.  Here are the emerging 2026 AI trends that leaders should understand and be prepared to act on.

The AI bubble will deflate, and the economy will suffer.  Will this bubble burst? It seems inevitable to the authors that it will, and probably soon. It won’t take much for it to happen: a bad quarter for an important vendor, a Chinese AI model that’s much cheaper and just as effective as U.S. models (as we saw with the first DeepSeek “crash” in January 2025), or a few AI spending pullbacks by large corporate customers.  The authors hope the deflation will be gradual, which might mean that the overall stock market would have time to adjust and for investors to move some of the highly inflated AI vendors out of their portfolios. A gradual decline would also give all of us a breather, with more time for companies to absorb the technologies they already have, and for AI users to seek solutions that don’t require more gigawatts than all the lights in Manhattan.  The authors subscribe to the AI variation upon Amara’s Law, which states, “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.”

More all-in adopters will create ‘AI factories’ and infrastructure.  Companies that are all in on AI as an ongoing competitive advantage are putting infrastructure in place to speed up the pace of AI models and use-case development. Companies that use rather than sell AI are creating “AI factories”: combinations of technology platforms, methods, data, and previously developed algorithms that make it fast and easy to build AI systems.  Companies that don’t have this kind of internal infrastructure force their data scientists and AI-focused businesspeople to each replicate the hard work of figuring out what tools to use, what data is available, and what methods and algorithms to employ. Not being able to build on an established foundation makes it both more expensive and more time-consuming to build AI at scale.

GenAI will become more of an organizational resource.  Think about generative AI primarily as an enterprise resource for more strategic use cases. Sure, those are typically more difficult to build and deploy, but when they succeed, they can offer considerable value.  There is still a need for employees to have access to GenAI tools, of course; some companies are beginning to view this as an employee satisfaction and retention issue. And some bottom-up ideas are worth turning into enterprise projects.

Agentic AI will still be overhyped but will likely be valuable within five years.  Last year, like virtually everyone else, we predicted that agentic AI would be on the rise. Although we acknowledged that the technology was being hyped and had some challenges, we underestimated the degree of both. Agents turned out to be the most-hyped trend since, well, generative AI. GenAI now resides in the Gartner trough of disillusionment, which we predict agents will fall into in 2026.

Debate will continue over who should manage AI.  A challenging structural issue in emerging picture is who should be managing AI and to whom they should report in the organization. Not surprisingly, a growing percentage of companies have named chief AI officers (or an equivalent title); this year, it’s up to 39%. The problem is that there is little consensus about to whom that job reports. Only 30% report to a chief data officer (where we believe the role should report); other organizations have AI reporting to business leadership (27%), technology leadership (34%), or transformation leadership (9%).  The authors think it’s likely that the diverse reporting relationships are contributing to the widespread problem of AI (particularly generative AI) not delivering sufficient value.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

Nandan Nilekani can’t stop trying to push India into the future. He started nearly 30 years ago, masterminding an ongoing experiment in technological state capacity that started with Aadhaar—the world’s largest digital identity system. Aadhaar means “foundation” in Hindi, and on that bedrock Nilekani and people working with him went on to build a sprawling collection of free, interoperating online tools that add up to nothing less than a digital infrastructure for society. They cover government services, digital payments, banking, credit, and health care, offering convenience and access that would be eye-popping in wealthy countries a tenth of India’s size. In India those systems are called, collectively, “digital public infrastructure,” or DPI.

At 70 years old, Nilekani should be retired. But he has a few more ideas. India’s electrical grid is creaky and prone to failure; Nilekani wants to add a layer of digital communication to stabilize it. And then there’s his idea to expand the financial functions in DPI to the rest of the world, creating a global digital backbone for commerce that he calls the “finternet.”

Today, a farmer in a village in India, hours from the nearest bank, can collect welfare payments or transfer money by simply pressing a thumb to a fingerprint scanner at the local store. Digitally authenticated copies of driver’s licenses, birth certificates, and educational records can be accessed and shared via a digital wallet that sits on your smartphone.  In big cities, where cash is less and less common (just trying to break a bill can be a major headache), mobile payments are ubiquitous.

At the heart of all these tools is Aadhaar. The system gives every Indian a 12-digit number that, in combination with either a fingerprint scan or an SMS code, allows access to government services, SIM cards, basic bank accounts, digital signature services, and social welfare payments. The Indian government says that since its inception in 2009, Aadhaar has saved 3.48 trillion rupees ($39.2 billion) by boosting efficiency, bypassing corrupt officials, and cutting other types of fraud. The system is controversial and imperfect—a database with 1.4 billion people in it comes with inherent security and privacy concerns. Still, in the most populous nation on Earth, a big portion of the bureaucracy anyone might encounter in daily life just happens in the cloud.

Nilekani was behind much of that innovation, marshaling an army of civil servants, tech companies, and volunteers. Now he sees it in action every day. “It reinforces that what you have done is not some abstract stuff, but real stuff for real people,” he says.

By his own admission, Nilekani is entering the twilight of his career. But it’s not over yet. He’s now “chief mentor” for the India Energy Stack (IES), a government initiative to connect the fragmented data held by companies responsible for generating, transmitting, and distributing power.   Nilekani’s other side hustle is even more ambitious. His idea for a global “finternet” combines Aadhaarization with blockchains—creating digital representations called tokens for not only financial instruments like stocks or bonds but also real-world assets like houses or jewelry. Anyone from a bank to an asset manager or even a company could create and manage these tokens, but Nilekani’s team especially hopes the idea will help poor people trade their assets, or use them as loan collateral—expanding financial services to those who otherwise couldn’t access them.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

Many of the actions that shape workplace culture aren’t part of formal policies or big decisions; they show up in small, everyday moments. Comments made in passing or subtle differences in how certain employees are regarded can land very differently from how a leader intends, especially when similar patterns repeat. Over time, these behaviors can quietly erode trust, engagement and psychological safety, even when intentions are good.

Below, members of Forbes Coaches Council share small leadership habits that can have an unintentionally negative impact on culture, along with practical ways to course-correct.

1. Jumping Straight To A Solution.  When an employee brings a problem, and the leader jumps straight to the answer or solution, it can sound like “I do not trust your judgment,” breeding dependence and quiet resentment. Instead, give them space to describe the situation and their ideas, use coaching questions to deepen their thinking and only offer guidance if they genuinely feel stuck.
2. Interrupting Quieter Team Members.  A leader who regularly interrupts quieter team members may unintentionally send a message of disrespect. The consequence is reduced confidence and engagement. To fix this, the leader should practice self-awareness, pause before speaking, invite others into discussions and seek feedback to create a more inclusive and safe team environment.
3. Repeatedly Postponing A One-On-One Meeting.  It is mainly about what leaders don’t do—being present, listening, acknowledging and validating. A small action like repeatedly postponing a one-on-one can feel like a microaggression, signaling “You don’t matter.” A helpful strategy is naming that you will make mistakes and welcoming feedback. It signals humility, creates psychological safety and helps prevent small missteps from becoming patterns.
4. Responding To Feedback With ‘If’.  Watch your language! Words from a leader matter. A small and powerful word to watch, especially when responding to feedback, is “if.” “If I said that…” or “If that offended you…” can minimize the input from the other party. You run the risk that they’ll be reluctant to bring in additional feedback, which isn’t good for you or the team. Instead, consider “thank you” as a response to feedback.
5. Making Assumptions About New Parents’ Abilities.  Sometimes leaders, in an attempt to be sensitive to new parents, make assumptions about their availability or willingness to take on challenging projects. Those well-intentioned assumptions can backfire and create resentment. To avoid this, managers should have detailed discussions with new parents—upon return from leave and periodically for several months—to understand their needs and ambitions.

Multitasking During A Meeting, Rushing To Contribute To Conversations, Failing To Address A Shift In Tone, Filling Space With Words, Being Inconsistent, Withholding And Excluding, Dominating The Discussion, Failing To Be Fully Present, Making Every Conversation About Your Success, Giving Feedback With The Wrong Tone, Assigning Nicknames Without Asking, Cutting Someone Off Due To Excitement, Making Decisions Without Consulting Others, and Only Turning To The ‘Usual Voices’.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

For many CEOs, especially those leading fast-growing companies, delegation isn’t a skill gap—it’s an emotional one. The irony is striking: The very leaders who built their businesses through vision and grit often become bottlenecks that slow them down.  The truth is, delegating and letting go isn’t about competence; it’s about control, trust, and identity.

In the early stages of building a company, founders/CEOs wear every hat—sales, marketing, HR, sometimes even IT. That intense ownership forges a deep connection between “me” and “my company.” As the organization expands, however, rather than delegate, that early instinct remains: “No one can do it like I can.”

There’s also fear—fear of mistakes, of diluted quality, and often, fear of losing passion and momentum. Delegation means relinquishing direct oversight and accepting that others may take a different route to achieve the outcome. That uncertainty can feel risky, even when it’s the only way to scale.  Another reason delegation falters is ego. Many leaders unconsciously tie their worth to being indispensable. 

How to let go and lead smarter.  When CEOs fail to delegate, growth stalls. Decisions bottleneck, and the team hesitates to act because the leader has implied that they always knows best. Innovation truly suffocates under micromanagement. Over time, the CEO burns out—and so does the culture. It’s a negative cycle, but it’s one that CAN be changed. Here’s how to make that change.

1. Redefine your role.  Stop thinking of yourself as the “chief doer” and instead think of yourself as the “chief enabler.” Your job isn’t to execute—it’s to ensure others can. Define what only you can do (vision, strategy, culture) and delegate the rest. 
2. Start. Right. Now.  Begin by handing off low-risk tasks to capable team members. As trust builds, expand the scope. The key is consistency. Delegation isn’t an event; it’s a decision and a habit.
3. Hire for trust, not just talent.  Many CEOs say they can’t delegate because “the team isn’t ready.” That’s often a hiring problem. Build a leadership team with complementary strengths and emotional maturity—people you want to trust. 
4. Create clarity.  Delegation fails when expectations are vague. No one can read your mind. Define outcomes, deadlines, and decision boundaries. Then step back. Provide resources, not reins.
5. Accept imperfection.   Your team will do things differently—and sometimes, less efficiently—at first. That’s okay. Progress beats perfection when building leadership depth.

When CEOs master delegation, they don’t lose control—they gain freedom. Most importantly, they gain the freedom to build a company that thrives even when they’re not in the room. That’s not letting go—that’s leveling up.  Every successful company’s leader has learned to let go. The sooner you can do so, the better you grow.

Extractive Summary of the Article | Read | Listen

The author believes setting goals should be as automatic in the new year as turning the page on a calendar, yet he is always surprised by how many CEOs don’t do it at all. Goals are the roadmap for a company’s journey, and without one, it’s hard to understand how leaders expect to arrive anywhere meaningful.  In his experience, leaders who avoid goal setting usually fall into one of two camps: they don’t have a clear process, or they feel paralyzed by economic uncertainty. But difficult conditions make direction more important, not less. When the seas are rough, you don’t abandon the map — you rely on it.

Goal setting 101.  Goal setting isn’t static. Even with a strategy in place, business today requires constant adjustment. What some call herding cats, the author simply call a normal Tuesday.  His approach is straightforward: we maintain a one-year plan and a three-year plan, both revisited midway through the year to assess what’s working and what needs recalibration. Each plan includes no more than three primary goals. Fewer than three lacks focus; more than three turns strategy into a cluttered to-do list.  Those goals must be challenging, specific and measurable.

Involve the entire organization.  Even after four decades in business, we continue to involve everyone in the goal-setting process. We survey teams across our franchise brands, gather ideas and vote on the most critical priorities. Inspiration can come from anywhere, and engagement creates ownership.  Each brand also defines success differently. A mature signage brand may focus on increasing average unit volume or expanding the number of million-dollar locations. A newer franchise may prioritize entirely different benchmarks. The key is alignment around goals that actually reflect where the business is today.

Measure what moves the goal.  Setting goals isn’t enough — you must decide how you’ll measure progress. The author call these lead measures: the specific actions that drive results. Every goal should have two or three lead measures attached to it.  If your goal is to double revenue, what daily or weekly sales activity will get you there? If you want to launch a new product every quarter, what milestones and deadlines must be met along the way? Big outcomes are built from consistent, repeatable actions.

This is how businesses win — not by fixating on an end-of-year number, but by executing the right actions every day. Just as a basketball team wins one basket at a time, companies grow one call, one meeting and one decision at a time.