𝗚𝗢𝗢𝗗 𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚, Reader

Sunday, August 30, 2026

I’ve been thinking about how much information crosses our screens in a week—and how little of it earns a second thought. So this issue goes wider without getting noisier: more useful discoveries, less filler. I pulled together the stories and studies that made me stop, ask a better question, or reconsider something I thought I understood. My hope is that at least one of them follows you into a conversation this week.

🟨 𝗜𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗨𝗘

• AI is entering the promotion meeting.
• Workplace surveillance has a trust problem.
• Curiosity is proving to be a learning advantage.
• Sleep, interruption, and uncertainty reshape focus.
• NASA is about to give us a much wider view of the universe.

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes.

🟨 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗜𝗚 𝗠𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗺 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘂𝗽

Wonder founder Marc Lore says his company uses an AI-powered performance system to help determine promotions. At least a dozen colleagues rate an employee’s performance, behavior, and leadership qualities; written feedback and a “value above replacement” score are added; then AI produces a recommendation. Managers can override it, but Lore says exceptions are becoming less common.

The appeal is obvious. Promotion decisions are often inconsistent, political, and vulnerable to bias. A standardized process can make expectations more visible and force leaders to use more than instinct. Wonder also practices transparent compensation, adding another layer of clarity.

But the phrase “very objective” deserves scrutiny. An algorithm can organize judgment; it cannot make judgment disappear. Peer ratings contain bias. Chosen metrics encode values. A replacement score can turn a human being into a market calculation. The consequential question is not whether AI belongs in the room. It is whether leaders remain accountable for what the system rewards, overlooks, and gets wrong.

Read the report in Fortune

🟨 𝗠𝗬 𝗧𝗔𝗞𝗘

𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗜𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿.

The moment a manager says, “The system decided,” leadership has left the room. Use AI to surface patterns, challenge favoritism, and make expectations clearer. Then put a human name beside the final decision. Someone must be able to explain—not merely calculate—why a person is ready, what growth still matters, and how the choice reflects the organization’s values. Accountability cannot be automated. If no leader is willing to own the answer, the process is not objective. It is orphaned.

🟨 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗛 𝗔 𝗠𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧

— 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞 —

𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗯𝗼𝘀𝘀𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸. Researchers tested nine employee-monitoring platforms and documented identifying data being sent to outside companies; some apps could collect precise location data in the background. Surveillance can measure activity while quietly destroying the trust that makes meaningful performance possible. Read the investigation

𝗣𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴. A systematic review describes effective positive leadership as openness, transparency, and the removal of psychological barriers so people can contribute diverse ideas. Optimism without truth is performance. Hope becomes leadership only when reality is safe to name. Explore the review

𝗖𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹. SHRM’s global research draws on 27,159 workers across 25 countries and argues that workplace culture is shaped more by organizational strategy and values than geography. Your stated values matter far less than the choices employees repeatedly experience. Read the report

— 𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚 —

𝗛𝗮𝗿𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗔𝗜 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀. A $699 startup bootcamp lets founders rehearse pitches, sales calls, and board meetings with avatars modeled on seven faculty members, while retaining live expert sessions. The best use of AI in learning may not be replacing the teacher—it may be making practice abundant before human judgment becomes scarce. See how the program works

𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. In a controlled study of 214 undergraduates, participants placed in a high-curiosity condition performed better on attention, encoding, and delayed recall. Before giving someone an answer, create a gap they genuinely want to close. Explore the research

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴. A longitudinal study following 502 children found greater screen viewing in infancy and near the start of school was associated with lower later academic performance and weaker working memory. The findings are associative, not proof of causation—but they make intentional boundaries worth reconsidering. Read the study summary

— 𝗙𝗢𝗖𝗨𝗦 —

𝗦𝗹𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗹𝗲. An analysis using 23 biological-aging clocks found a U-shaped association: both short and long sleep correlated with faster biological aging, while the lowest levels appeared around 6.4 to 7.8 hours. It does not prove sleep duration causes aging, but it reinforces that recovery is part of performance—not its reward. Explore the findings

𝗔𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. A diary study shifted attention from the interrupted person to the interrupter and found some intrusions were positively related to job resources and engagement. The useful question is not “Are interruptions bad?” but “Did this interruption create clarity, help, or needless cognitive debt?” Read the open-access research

𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗼. University of Iowa researchers found the frontoparietal cortex dynamically shifts its connections depending on the information needed for a decision. Flexibility—not simply more effort—is part of intelligent focus. See the neuroscience

— 𝗕𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗘𝗙 —

“𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁” 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲; “𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴” 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁. Across four studies involving more than 2,000 U.S. adults, people were more likely to avoid or distrust someone when they saw the person’s belief as factually incorrect rather than merely different. Before correcting someone, decide whether the conflict is about evidence or values. Read the researchers’ explanation

𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Oxford researchers used ultra-high-field imaging and non-invasive stimulation to identify brain circuits that combine confidence in our decisions with estimates of external circumstances to judge whether we caused an outcome. Agency is not just a feeling; it is an interpretation—and interpretations can be revisited. Explore the study

𝗪𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗔𝗜. Across seven experiments, people attributed greater confidence to artificial agents than to performance-matched humans. The machine does not need to sound certain for us to supply certainty on its behalf. Read the research

— 𝗛𝗨𝗠𝗔𝗡 𝗕𝗘𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗜𝗢𝗥 —

𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆. Narrative-psychology research shows how people use stories to extract meaning from events and construct a sense of who they are and where they are going. The story you repeat about a hard moment can become either a cage or a compass. Explore the science of story

𝗘𝗻𝘃𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Psychologist W. Gerrod Parrott suggests the tug of envy can reveal a desire or value we had not fully recognized. Instead of judging the feeling, interrogate it: What is this reaction trying to tell me I care about? Read the perspective

𝗘𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲. In a mouse study, early-life stress altered how DNA was packaged and primed stress-related genes for stronger responses later; an intervention blocked the effect. This is not yet a human finding, but it is a striking reminder that behavior often has a history we cannot see. Read the research summary

If one of these moments made you think of someone, forward this issue and give the conversation somewhere to begin.

🟨 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗨𝗡𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗠𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧

𝗔 𝘄𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘄 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴

NASA is targeting 7:26 a.m. Eastern today for the launch of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. Its field of view will be roughly 100 times Hubble’s, allowing it to survey enormous stretches of the sky while studying dark matter, dark energy, and thousands of potential exoplanets. Sometimes possibility does not arrive as a better answer. It arrives as a wider lens.

Watch the launch and follow the mission

🟨 𝗧𝗥𝗬 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦

Before one consequential decision this week, divide a page into two columns: What the data can tell me and What I still have to own. Use the first column to improve the decision. Use the second to keep your leadership in it.

🟨 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡

Where would you welcome more data in a decision—and where must human judgment remain nonnegotiable?

Hit reply. I read every response.

Make it a moment,

Brant

P.S. Know someone trying to lead well through all this change? Forward this to them. They can subscribe and join us for the next moment.