Patience Is Not Passive. It Is the Hardest Active Choice Most People Never Make

Posted on by

Patience gets treated as the absence of action: the thing you’re doing while you wait for something else to happen. The clearest evidence says that’s backwards, not from child-development research, but from what happens when trained professionals are given a straight choice between waiting and acting. Patience is usually the harder, more active choice, and impulsive action is often the easier one dressed up as decisiveness.

 

Retiring the Marshmallow Test

Any conversation about patience eventually reaches for the marshmallow test, the classic finding that children who delayed eating one marshmallow to get two later did better in life. A 2024 replication study in Child Development, using far larger and more representative data than the original, found the test doesn’t reliably predict adult outcomes at all: nearly every regression-adjusted relationship between childhood marshmallow performance and adult achievement, health, or behaviour came back statistically insignificant. The honest version of patience research doesn’t lean on a famous but shaky finding about children. It looks at what patience actually costs adults making real decisions.

 

The Bias That Makes Patience Feel Wrong

Behavioural economists have a name for the instinct patience has to fight: action bias, the tendency to act even when the evidence says waiting is the better choice, because acting feels like doing the job and waiting feels like doing nothing. A widely cited study of professional goalkeepers facing 286 penalty kicks found this bias in its purest form: goalkeepers dive left or right the overwhelming majority of the time, even though staying in the centre of the goal is statistically the better strategy, since kicks go there roughly 29% of the time. Goalkeepers dive anyway, because conceding a goal while standing still feels worse, and looks worse, than conceding one while visibly trying.

Medical research on “intervention bias” finds the identical mechanism in physicians: doctors reliably feel more satisfied recommending a treatment than recommending watchful waiting, “giving a sense of greater activism in their patients’ care,” even when the evidence supports doing nothing. Neither of these is really about competence. Both are about how much easier it feels to have visibly acted, regardless of whether acting was actually correct.

 

What Patient Leadership Actually Looks Like

A qualitative study of leaders who are known for patience found something specific underneath the trait: patience functions as a decision-making framework in its own right, not an absence of one, guiding a distinct process for weighing a situation before committing to act on it. A separate survey of 578 working professionals found leaders rated as more patient saw their teams’ self-reported creativity and collaboration rise by an average of 16%, and productivity by 13%.

A six-year study of more than 20 pairs of executives working in genuinely volatile markets coined the useful term for what this looks like in practice: active waiting. Not paralysis, and not indecision. Deliberate preparation during a lull, so that when a real opportunity actually opens, the leader can act decisively rather than reactively.

 

Why the Harder Choice Rarely Gets Made

None of the research above suggests patience is passivity’s better name. It suggests the opposite: patience requires resisting a bias that’s actively working against it in the moment, on a soccer pitch, in an exam room, or in a boardroom under pressure to be seen doing something. The impulsive decision is usually the one that requires less discipline, not more, because it removes the discomfort of visibly not acting while everyone is watching.

 

The Actual Choice Worth Making

The next time waiting is the objectively better move and doing something still feels necessary, the honest question isn’t whether patience is the right call. The research says it usually is. The question is whether you can tolerate looking like you’re doing nothing for exactly as long as doing nothing is correct.

Governance Fatigue Is Real, and It’s Killing the Governance That Matters

Posted on by

Every governance failure gets the same response: add a committee. Nobody ever asks which of the five committees already in the room should be deleted.

I have watched this play out on the same programme, twice, thirteen months apart. An incident happens. A review is commissioned. The review recommends a new gate, a new sign-off, a new board with a name that sounds important. Nobody asks whether the five existing boards had already covered this ground and simply were not being used properly. The new layer gets built. The old layers stay exactly where they were, because retiring a control is a much harder conversation than adding one, and nobody wants to be the person who removed the safeguard right before something went wrong.

Multiply that pattern across a few years of incidents, mergers, audits and regulatory nudges, and you get an organisation with more governance than anyone can actually operate.

 

The sprawl nobody planned and everybody built

Governance frameworks get bloated one reasonable-sounding addition at a time, not in a single decision. A near-miss produces a new checkpoint. An audit finding produces a new form. A departing executive leaves behind a committee that made sense under their sponsorship and none under anyone else’s. Each addition was defensible in isolation. Nobody ever sat down and asked what the whole structure looked like once you added them all together.

The organisations most proud of their governance maturity are often the ones carrying the heaviest version of this problem. More boards. More gates. More documented sign-offs. It reads as rigour on an org chart and feels like wading through treacle to anyone actually trying to get something delivered.

 

Fatigue looks like silence, not rebellion

The expensive part is what people do once the meetings stop making sense to them, not the extra meetings. They do not object. They do not escalate the absurdity of an ninth sign-off. They quietly learn which boxes can be ticked without real scrutiny, which approvals are theatre, and which route gets something through fastest regardless of whether it is the correct one.

That is governance fatigue, and it is far more dangerous than having too little governance in the first place. An organisation with no controls at least knows it is exposed. An organisation with too many controls believes it is protected, right up until the one decision that actually mattered slipped through a gate everyone had stopped taking seriously.

 

Clarity beats volume, every time

The research on decision rights backs this up more directly than most governance debates acknowledge. Itonics’s analysis of partner and programme governance found that organisations using a properly maintained RACI framework report 70 per cent fewer “who decides” disputes and 25 per cent faster decision cycle times. RACI works by replacing ambiguity with a single, shared answer to a question that used to require a meeting to resolve, not by adding another layer. The gain comes from governance that is unambiguous enough that people stop needing to ask, rather than from adding more of it.

That is the distinction most organisations miss when they respond to a failure by adding structure. The problem was usually oversight so diffuse that nobody could say, without checking three separate documents, who actually held the decision.

 

The discipline of taking something away

Fixing this requires a habit most organisations have never built: retiring governance on purpose. Every new control should come with an audit of what it is replacing, not just what it is adding. Every steering board should have to justify its existence against a simple test: if this group disappeared tomorrow, what decision would genuinely not get made anywhere else? If the answer is “nothing, it would just move up a level,” that board is inertia with a calendar invite, not governance.

The organisations that manage this well treat their governance structure the way a good engineer treats a system under load, asking what is carrying weight it no longer needs to carry and taking it out, rather than just adding capacity when something breaks.

Governance was never supposed to be heavy. It was supposed to be clear. Somewhere along the way, most organisations mistook the two for the same thing.

 

What We Found When We Measured Adoption, Not Just Deployment.

Posted on by

A go live report is easy to write. Every site is on the new system, every licence is issued, every training session delivered on schedule. Three months later, the usage dashboard tells a different story, and it is the dashboard nobody puts in front of the steering committee.

 

The Metric Everyone Reports

Deployment is countable in a way adoption never is. Percentage of sites migrated, number of licences activated, hours of training delivered, these are the figures that go into a programme status report because they can be measured on the day the rollout finishes. None of them says whether anyone is still using the system a quarter later, or whether they have quietly gone back to the spreadsheet it was meant to replace.

 

The Number Nobody Puts in the Steering Deck

IBM’s 2026 Global CEO Study, based on more than 2,000 chief executives surveyed worldwide by the IBM Institute for Business Value, found that only 25 per cent of workers use AI regularly in their jobs, even though 86 per cent of CEOs believe their workforce already has the skills to do so. Eighty three per cent of the same CEOs said AI’s success depends more on people’s adoption than on the technology itself. The rollout finished on schedule. The adoption did not follow.

 

What Poor Adoption Actually Costs

A Forrester Consulting study commissioned by Whatfix, surveying 335 senior decision makers at large organisations across North America, Europe, APAC and India, put a figure on what that gap costs a mid-sized enterprise, $10.9 million a year, plus 728 hours lost per employee navigating systems that were rolled out but never properly embedded. That is not a training budget line. It is the ongoing cost of a deployment nobody followed up on. The same research found a wide gap between organisations with adoption maturity and those without, 53 per cent of mature adopters reported improved user experience against 28 per cent of the rest, and 56 per cent reported stronger return on investment against 28 per cent.

 

Why Deployment Metrics Miss This

Programme reporting is built around milestones a PMO can close off: go live achieved, training complete, licences distributed. Adoption behaves more like a curve than a milestone, one that keeps moving long after the project has been marked complete and the team has moved on to the next initiative. By the time low usage shows up in a satisfaction survey or a renewal conversation, the people who owned the rollout are three programmes further down the roadmap.

Part of the reason adoption rarely gets measured is that almost nothing in a typical programme is set up to reward it. Vendor contracts are frequently structured around go live milestones rather than usage thresholds, so the commercial incentive to keep measuring stops the day the system switches on. Programme teams are resourced to deliver a rollout, not to own what happens to it afterwards, and by the time adoption data would be available, the team has usually been reallocated to the next initiative. None of this is deliberate. It simply reflects a reporting structure and an ownership structure that both end at the same milestone.

 

What We Started Measuring Instead

On some programmes I have run, the fix had less to do with better software and more to do with what the steering committee agreed to look at. We started tracking active usage at 30, 60 and 90 days after go live, alongside a simple drop off rate, how many people who logged in during week one had stopped logging in by week twelve. We also moved benefits realisation sign off away from the go live date and tied it to a usage threshold instead, so a project could not be closed as successful until people were actually using what had been built. It is a small governance change, and it surfaces problems a deployment report never will.

Rollout dates and licence counts still matter, deployment discipline was never the issue. What most programmes are missing is a second dashboard sitting next to the first one, what deployment made possible, and what adoption is showing three months after anyone stopped watching. The programmes that quietly fail are rarely the ones that missed a go live date. They are the ones that hit it, reported it as a win, and never checked what happened next.

Your Reputation Travels Faster Than You Do. Act Accordingly.

Posted on by

Most executives manage their reputation like a local matter: how you’re seen in this room, on this team, in this market. That’s the wrong frame. Reputation moves through networks faster and further than any individual career move, and it arrives in the next room before you do.

 

The Research Behind Why Word Travels

A 2022 study in Science, based on five years of randomised experiments across 20 million LinkedIn users, 2 billion new connections, and 70 million job applications, found that professional information travels most efficiently through weak ties, not close friends. The loose, wide network of people who know you a little, rather than the small circle who know you well, is what actually carries information about you into rooms you haven’t entered yet.

That mechanism cuts both ways. It is exactly how good work gets you noticed somewhere new. It is also exactly how a reputation for cutting corners, mistreating people, or leaving a mess behind you gets there first.

 

What Happens to Reputation That Travels Badly

The clearest, most rigorously measured evidence of this comes not from executive search literature, which is surprisingly thin on hard numbers, but from corporate governance research on company directors. A 2005 study in the Journal of Accounting Research tracked 409 US firms that restated their earnings between 1997 and 2001. Directors of those firms lost roughly a quarter of their positions on other, unrelated companies’ boards afterward, not just the one where the restatement happened. A related 2007 study in the Journal of Financial Economics found that outside directors named in shareholder fraud lawsuits saw a measurable decline in how many other directorships they held, even at companies with no connection to the original case, at an estimated cost of roughly $1 million per lost seat.

That is reputation travelling, quantified: conduct in one boardroom measurably closing doors in boardrooms that had nothing to do with it.

 

Real Cases, Not Hypotheticals

Steve Wynn resigned from Wynn Resorts in 2018 following sexual misconduct allegations. The consequences did not stay in Nevada. Massachusetts gaming regulators, investigating a market he had never previously operated in, fined the company $35 million and forced it to strip his name from its brand-new $2.6 billion property before it opened, renaming Wynn Boston Harbor to Encore Boston Harbor specifically to distance the business from him. He personally paid $10 million in 2023 to permanently exit the Nevada gaming industry. A reputation formed in one state travelled into a state where he had never done business, and shaped how a market he’d never worked in treated him before he arrived.

Travis Kalanick’s departure from Uber followed him into an entirely new, unrelated venture years later. Coverage of his food-delivery startup CloudKitchens traces his Uber exit “amid a firestorm of privacy concerns, allegations of widespread sexual harassment and gender discrimination,” then quotes a former CloudKitchens executive calling it “the most toxic place I’ve ever seen or experienced,” and an operator who said the company “tried to destroy” the brand he had built there. The new business was never assessed purely on its own merits. It was read through the lens of the one he had just left.

Not every case ends the same way. Andreessen Horowitz invested $350 million in Adam Neumann’s new venture Flow in 2022, valuing it above $1 billion before it had launched, despite WeWork’s collapse from a $47 billion to an $8 billion valuation under his leadership. Marc Andreessen’s public justification leaned on second chances: “we love seeing repeat-founders build on past successes by growing from lessons learned.” Reputation still shaped every headline, every term, and every question asked about the deal, even though it never blocked the capital.

 

Acting Accordingly

One caveat is worth stating directly: nobody has produced a clean statistic for how much weight boards or recruiters place on informal, back-channel reputation versus formal references. That data mostly doesn’t exist, and anyone who claims otherwise is making it up. The mechanism, though, is well documented: wide, weak professional networks carry information fast, and reputational damage in one role measurably reduces opportunity in entirely unrelated ones.

The practical implication isn’t paranoia. It’s that the version of you that shows up in a room you’ve never been in was written by people you may not remember meeting, months or years before you walked in. Act like the story is already there, because it usually is.

Pre-Mortem: The Big Four’s AI Citation Problem

Posted on by

On 28 July 2026, PwC Middle East responded to an investigation into four of its own published reports. The investigation, run by the AI-detection company GPTZero, had found fabricated citations, non-existent sources, and, in one report, a teenage blogger with 280 followers cited as an authority on a JPMorgan initiative. PwC’s statement: the company “takes the accuracy of our published research seriously” and was “updating a limited number of supporting citations.”

PwC was not first. It was the fourth.

This is the sixteenth piece in the Pre-Mortem series. Five questions, applied to the public record, before the outcome is known.

 

The Bet

Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC are betting that a pattern spanning five publicly documented reports, four countries, and under two years can be absorbed as unconnected incidents rather than treated as a shared problem with a shared cause. Each firm has responded on its own terms: a partial refund from Deloitte, quiet withdrawals from EY and KPMG, a promise to update “a limited number” of citations from PwC. None has published a shared verification standard. None has described what changes in how AI-assisted work is reviewed before the next report carries its name. The bet is that four reputations, built over more than a century, can absorb five independently verified failures of the most basic check a research report is supposed to pass: that the sources it cites exist.

 

The Assumption

Every one of the four firms has offered a version of the same explanation once caught. KPMG cited guidelines requiring human oversight to validate content and verify sources. PwC cited quality control processes it expects all its people to adhere to. The assumption underneath both statements: that a written guideline is itself a control, that if a policy exists, a human somewhere is presumed to have applied it before publication. EY’s report, “Points of Attack: Uncovering Cyber Threats and Fraud in Loyalty Systems,” carried the names of two partners and a senior manager in its byline. GPTZero’s analysis put the document at roughly 72 per cent AI-generated content, with more than half its 27 sources failing to correspond to anything real. Two partners and a senior manager reviewed that document before it went out, in name. What “reviewed” required in practice is the question none of the four firms has answered.

 

The Sequence

December 2024. PwC Middle East publishes “Agentic AI: The New Frontier in GenAI,” later found by GPTZero to contain fabricated citations.

October 2025. KPMG publishes “Total Experience: Redefining Excellence in the Age of Agentic AI.” GPTZero later finds 45 citations, 5 accurate, at least 16 fabricated.

October 2025. Deloitte refunds AU$97,000 of its A$440,000 contract with Australia’s Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, after a fabricated Federal Court quote and references to non-existent research papers are identified.

November 2025. Newfoundland and Labrador’s C$1.6 million Deloitte health workforce report is found to contain fabricated citations, including one crediting a Dalhousie University researcher as author of a paper that does not exist. Premier Tony Wakeham calls it “concerning.” Deloitte stands by its findings.

27 April 2026. South Africa’s draft National AI Policy is withdrawn 17 days after publication, after 6 of 67 citations are found fabricated. Minister Solly Malatsi calls it “an unacceptable lapse.”

14 May 2026. EY withdraws “Points of Attack” after GPTZero finds more than half its 27 sources do not correspond to real material.

12 June 2026. GPTZero publishes its investigation into KPMG. Five days later, this series covers a separate KPMG story without connecting the two.

28 July 2026. GPTZero publishes its investigation into four PwC Middle East reports. PwC responds that it is updating “a limited number of supporting citations.”

 

 

The Pager

Five public failures, four countries. Three were identified by the same three researchers, Paul Esau, Om Ogale and Alex Cui, working at GPTZero, not at any of the firms and not at any client who paid for the work. Every firm-level response has stopped at the firm: a refund, a report removed from a website, a statement that guidelines exist. No named individual at any firm has been identified as responsible for approving a document whose sources were not real. The one structural change on record did not come from a firm. Newfoundland and Labrador overhauled its own procurement process, requiring disclosure of AI use in future contracts. The government fixed what the contractor did not.

 

The Proof

None of the four firms has published a verification standard: a description of what checking a citation actually involves before a report carries its name. That is the proof measure, not an apology and not a quiet correction, but a public description of the review step, specific enough to be checked against the next report. The IAASB, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, is revising ISA 500, the international standard governing what constitutes sufficient, appropriate audit evidence. That project is still at the research stage and covers formal audit engagements, not the thought-leadership publishing where three of these five failures occurred. Until one firm publishes what verification looks like in practice, every new report each of them publishes resets the same test.

 

Verdict

If one firm publishes a specific, checkable verification standard before a sixth incident surfaces, it becomes the reference point the other three are measured against, the position peer accountability once created around data breach disclosure, where one actor’s transparency made silence from the others harder to sustain. Newfoundland’s government has already shown the structural fix is available: a procurement clause requiring AI disclosure, written in days. If no firm moves first and a sixth incident surfaces, the pattern stops reading as isolated mistakes and starts reading as an industry’s operating baseline. Five failures in under two years, three caught by the same outside team. The firms selling AI governance advisory to clients have not yet demonstrated they can apply the same standard to their own published work. The next report each of them publishes is the test.

EasyJet Fixed an Age Bias in Recruitment. Most Digital Transformation Teams Haven’t

Posted on by

 

The number of easyJet cabin crew aged over 50 has more than doubled since 2022, up 127 per cent, according to the airline’s own figures. EasyJet says crew aged over 60 have “almost quadrupled” over the same period, and the airline has opened a fresh recruitment drive for the 2027 flying season, with applications opening in September. Getting there took a deliberate campaign. A large share of potential applicants assumed cabin crew work was reserved for younger people, and easyJet’s Director of Cabin Services, Michael Brown, put the fix plainly: over-50s bring both the skills to do the job and “a wealth of life experience that is appreciated by our customers and colleagues alike.”

 

This Is a Bigger Problem Than One Airline

The Centre for Ageing Better’s State of Ageing 2025 report shows why that perception carries a cost well beyond one airline. The UK’s employment rate for 55 to 64 year olds sits at 65 per cent, against 75 per cent in the Netherlands and Switzerland and 81 per cent in Iceland. The wider 50 to 64 employment rate sits 14 percentage points below the 25 to 49 rate. Closing that gap by 2030 would add an estimated £9 billion a year to the UK economy and £1.6 billion in annual tax and National Insurance revenue, according to the same research. That is the scale of value sitting behind a single, correctable assumption about who is fit to do a job.

 

The Same Bias, Earlier and More Expensive

The same assumption shows up earlier, and more expensively, in technology. CWJobs, working with the Centre for Ageing Better, surveyed 2,000 UK workers plus 250 people in tech who had experienced age discrimination, and found that tech employees start experiencing age bias at 29 and are considered “too old” by 38, roughly a decade before most people reach senior delivery roles. Forty-one per cent of tech workers report observing ageism at work, against 27 per cent across other sectors. Forty-seven per cent say they weren’t offered a role because of their age, and 31 per cent say they were passed over for promotion for the same reason. “Digital skills shortages mean discriminatory attitudes against age makes no business sense,” CWJobs director Dominic Harvey said when the findings were published, a point that has only got truer as the skills shortage he was describing has continued.

 

The Bias Has Already Reached a Tribunal

In Selazar Limited v McCabe, a tech company’s 29-year-old founder was found to have instructed a recruitment consultant to find “a younger team member who was more in tune with a young tech start company” in place of the firm’s 55-year-old finance director. The tribunal awarded her £125,604.98, including £20,000 for injury to feelings, and heard evidence that the founder had also signalled to potential investors that she was “too old to understand” the business. The case puts a figure on the same instinct easyJet had to overcome in reverse: treating experience as a cultural mismatch with a “young”, “digital” or “agile” identity, rather than as a straightforward capability question.

 

What Transformation Programmes Are Actually Short Of

That instinct is expensive in a way that goes beyond tribunal awards. Transformation programmes run into trouble for reasons that have nothing to do with technical skill: unclear governance, resistance treated as a communications problem rather than early diagnostic information, decisions made by people who have never been accountable for the outcome. Institutional knowledge, stakeholder trust built over years, and the judgement to recognise when a plan won’t survive contact with how the organisation actually operates are not junior capabilities. Screening for “young and agile” screens that experience out at precisely the point a programme needs it most, and does so before anyone has assessed whether the person applying could actually do the job.

 

The Fix Was Never Complicated

EasyJet’s fix did not require lowering a bar. It named the specific bias, redesigned recruitment and onboarding around it, then published the retention data alongside the recruitment numbers rather than stopping at the headline. Technology employers already have research going back years, and a tribunal ruling now sitting on the public record, telling them the same bias exists inside their own hiring and promotion decisions.

 

The Question Worth Asking Before the Next Senior Hire

What’s missing isn’t evidence. It’s a leadership team willing to treat this as a workforce design problem rather than a hiring afterthought. Before the next transformation lead, architect, or programme director role goes out with language built around “energy” or “digital native” instincts, it is worth asking what specific capability that language is actually screening for, and whether the organisation can afford to keep losing the experience it screens out along with it.

Nobody Owns AI in Your Organisation. That Used to Be Survivable.

Posted on by

 

In most organisations, nobody owns AI, not really. Not officially, not on an org chart, not in a way anyone could point to under pressure. For the last few years, that has been fine. Everyone touched AI a little, so no one needed to own it entirely.

That fuzziness is now expensive.

Two things changed the maths. The first is regulation. From 2 August 2026, the EU AI Act’s transparency obligations became enforceable: AI systems that interact directly with people, generate synthetic content, or use emotion recognition or biometric categorisation now require disclosure (European Commission), with providers facing fines of up to €15 million or 3 per cent of global annual turnover, whichever is higher (Cooley). A regulator does not care whether your organisation has formally assigned AI ownership. It cares who signs the compliance filing.

The second is spend. Global AI spending, including infrastructure capital expenditure, is on track to reach $2.5 trillion this year, a 44 per cent increase on last year, according to Gartner research reported by Fortune. Next year, Gartner expects that figure to climb to $3.3 trillion. That is capital being committed at a scale that normally comes with a name attached to the decision, not pocket-change experimentation.

Except it doesn’t. A Pearl Meyer survey of board members, CEOs, C-suite executives and senior managers found that just 34 per cent of C-suite executives say it is consistently clear which executive or team makes the calls on AI, the lowest confidence score of any group polled. Board members are considerably more settled, at 53 per cent. Senior managers below the C-suite, who carry out the actual AI work day to day, are more confident still, at 57 per cent. The C-suite sits in the middle of that gap, managing expectations from above and execution from below, and is the only group unsure who is actually in charge.

Meanwhile, PwC’s 29th Global CEO Survey, drawn from 4,454 CEOs across 95 countries, found that 56 per cent report no significant financial benefit from their AI investment so far, and only 12 per cent report gains on both cost and revenue (PwC). Spend accelerating, returns lagging, ownership unclear: three symptoms, one disease.

 

Governance Failure Wearing an Investment Story

I have watched this exact pattern play out on transformation programmes long before AI made it fashionable. A programme gets funded because the business case looks compelling on a single slide. Nobody sits down and decides who has the authority to stop it, slow it, or redirect it once it is underway. The absence of that decision does not read as a problem at the time, because everything is moving and everyone is busy. It reads as a problem eighteen months later, when the programme has drifted from its original purpose and there is no single person whose job it was to notice.

AI is running the same play at a faster clock speed. A RACI chart is not corporate theatre. It is the difference between a decision someone made on purpose and a decision that happened to everyone by default. Right now, most organisations have the second kind.

 

What an Actual Owner Looks Like

Contrast that with the UAE’s approach to its own AI commitment. In April 2026, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum announced that 50 per cent of UAE government services and operations would run on agentic AI within two years, making it the first government in the world to commit to autonomous AI at that scale (Khaleej Times). Whatever view you take of the ambition, the governance structure was not an afterthought. Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan was named to oversee implementation. Mohammad Al Gergawi was named to chair the taskforce running it. Before the programme scaled, someone’s name was attached to it.

It is not that most organisations lack ambition for AI. It is that they have skipped the one governance step that made every other major technology rollout survivable: deciding, on purpose, who is accountable before the spending accelerates past the point where anyone can meaningfully intervene.

 

Three Things That Actually Fix This

Name a single accountable owner for AI decisions at the level where spending actually happens. Not a committee. A person.

Separate who evaluates AI performance from who decides whether to scale it. Those are different jobs, and conflating them is how bad bets survive their first review.

Treat AI spending with no named owner attached to it as a governance red flag before it becomes an investment number on a board slide, not after.

 

None of this requires new technology. It requires the same discipline that used to be applied to every large capital commitment, before AI convinced everyone the normal rules no longer applied. They always did. The bill has simply arrived: from a regulator, from a survey, and from a CEO’s own board asking where the money went.

Pre-Mortem: NHS Federated Data Platform

Posted on by

 

On 3 August 2026, NHS England apologised. The apology confirmed what National Data Guardian Nicola Byrne had identified five days earlier: the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for the Federated Data Platform had stated that only NHS staff could access identifiable patient data. That statement was wrong. Palantir staff held access to identifiable patient information within the national data integration environment, an arrangement the DPIA had not disclosed.

This is the fifteenth piece in the Pre-Mortem series. Five questions, applied to the public record, before the outcome is known.

The Bet

NHS England is betting that a £330 million platform built on Palantir’s proprietary Foundry software can serve as the trusted data infrastructure for NHS analytics, and that the governance commitments made publicly about data access are auditable in practice. The bet has been partially called already. The DPIA that underpinned the programme’s public accountability framework described access controls that did not match operational reality. NHS England acknowledged the error and corrected it. The bet that now matters: that the February 2027 break clause decision, whether to extend or exit, can be made on the basis of accurate information.

The Assumption

The single belief the whole framework rests on: that NHS England can demonstrate meaningful oversight and control of a platform whose codebase NHS analysts cannot read or edit. Palantir owns the Foundry software. NHS analysts work within the platform but cannot examine or modify the code that shapes its outputs. The National Data Guardian (NDG) criticism was triggered by the gap between what was publicly asserted about data access and what was operationally true. If the accountability assertion in the DPIA did not survive scrutiny, the assumption that NHS England can verify what Palantir staff do with patient data inside a proprietary system deserves the same examination.

The Sequence

November 2023. Palantir wins the £330 million FDP contract.

April 2026. Parliamentary debate on the FDP. NHS England officials warned staff internally not to criticise the platform’s performance.

12 May 2026. NHS England confirms Palantir staff have administrative access to identifiable patient data in the national data integration environment, contradicting earlier assurances.

June 2026. The government announces a formal review of the Palantir contract, following a Science, Innovation and Technology Committee report that branded the company “an unacceptable point of weakness” in UK public sector infrastructure.

9 July 2026. The Health and Social Care Committee writes to the Health Innovation Minister recommending the exercise of the February 2027 break clause, citing “serious mistrust” among the public towards Palantir.

29 July 2026. National Data Guardian Nicola Byrne formally criticises NHS England for inaccurate DPIA disclosure.

3 August 2026. NHS England apologises and confirms the DPIA error.

The Pager

The National Data Guardian used her statutory function and the result was a public apology from NHS England. The named individual who authorised the submission of a DPIA that did not accurately describe Palantir staff access has not been identified publicly. Jules Hunt, interim Director General for Technology, Digital and Data, holds the relevant executive function. The chief digital and information officer role has not had a permanent holder since at least early 2025; the most recent interim departed in April 2026, before the DPIA error became public. The programme sits with interim leadership in the window immediately before the most consequential procurement decision of its lifespan.

The Proof

February 2027 is the break clause decision point. The Department of Health and Social Care must actively trigger the first extension; if it does not, the contract lapses in spring 2027. The Health and Social Care Committee’s recommendation is on the public record. The government has not yet responded. The outcome measure is binary and specific: the break clause is exercised or it is not. Whether the platform’s actual adoption record across NHS trusts factors into that decision is the proof measure.

Verdict

If the government exercises the February 2027 break clause, it becomes the first time a cross-party parliamentary committee recommendation, a National Data Guardian rebuke, and a public apology from the contracting body have together produced a procurement exit in NHS technology history. That would be a significant accountability signal for every future public sector AI contract. If the contract is extended, the question shifts to what changed in the governance architecture to justify continuation, and whether the interim executives carrying the programme can demonstrate what that change looks like in operational terms. The break clause is not a threat. It is a proof point with a date.

Pre-Mortem: A Billion Workers Scored in Secret. Is It Legal?

Posted on by

On 20 January 2026, two job applicants filed a class action against Eightfold AI Inc. in a California state court. The complaint alleged that the company had scraped personal data on over one billion workers, scored every candidate on a zero-to-five scale, and discarded low-ranked applicants before any human saw their application. The legal basis is the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The plaintiffs’ central claim is not that the algorithm was biased. It is that the algorithm existed in secret.

This is the fourteenth piece in the Pre-Mortem series. Five questions, applied to the public record, before the outcome is known.

 

The Bet

Eightfold AI and the companies deploying its platform are betting that an AI system which aggregates third-party data, including social media profiles, location data, and online tracking cookies, to score individuals for employment purposes does not meet the legal definition of a Consumer Reporting Agency under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint names Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Starbucks, BNY, PayPal, Chevron, and Bayer as companies using Eightfold in their hiring process. Co-Founder and CEO Ashutosh Garg responded with a public statement on responsible AI, noting that the platform undergoes third-party bias audits and that data comes from candidates or employers, not third-party scraping. The bet is not about whether the algorithm is accurate. It is about jurisdiction: whether the FCRA, written before algorithmic hiring existed at this scale, reaches far enough to cover what Eightfold built.

 

The Assumption

The single belief the whole framework rests on: that an AI platform scoring candidates for employers is categorically different from a consumer reporting agency, because the platform does not produce a consumer report in the form the FCRA contemplates. Eightfold filed a 35-page motion to dismiss arguing precisely that. The hearing was held on 4 August 2026 before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland. No ruling has been published. If the assumption is wrong, the compliance obligations the FCRA places on consumer reporting agencies, including disclosure, consent, and accuracy mechanisms, apply to every AI hiring platform operating on third-party data at comparable scale.

 

The Sequence

20 January 2026. Class action filed by former EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang and the nonprofit Towards Justice. The complaint: Eightfold AI functioned as an unregistered consumer reporting agency across a dataset of over one billion workers.

18 June 2026. Plaintiffs’ opposition to Eightfold’s motion to dismiss filed.

22 June 2026. In the parallel Mobley v. Workday case, a federal judge denied Workday’s motion to dismiss claims of race, age, and disability discrimination through AI hiring tools.

9 July 2026. Eightfold reply brief filed.

4 August 2026. Motion to dismiss argued in Oakland before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. No ruling published as of 16 August 2026.

13 August 2026. Eightfold AI named “Agentic AI HR Solution of the Year” at the HR Tech Breakthrough Awards.

 

The Pager

Kistler et al. v. Eightfold AI Inc., No. 3:26-cv-01768 names Eightfold AI as defendant. No talent acquisition leader or CHRO at Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Starbucks, or any other company deploying the platform has been named as a defendant, and no deploying company has publicly committed to disclosing the tool’s existence to applicants. The pager sits with the vendor. The question of who carries it at the companies deploying the platform remains unanswered.

Garg’s public statement on responsible AI is a creditable position. It does not address what obligations the companies using Eightfold carry, or what those companies owe to the candidates who may have been scored and discarded before a human saw their application.

 

The Proof

The motion to dismiss ruling is the first proof point. A denial advances the FCRA question to discovery and the merits. It would be the first federal answer on whether AI candidate scoring constitutes consumer reporting. A grant sends the question back to the FTC and Congress, where progress has not matched the scale of deployment. The outcome measure worth watching is not which side wins the motion. It is whether any major Eightfold client commits to applicant disclosure before the court decides whether disclosure is legally required.

 

Verdict

If Judge Gonzalez Rogers denies the motion to dismiss, the case advances and the FCRA question gets its first federal answer in the context of AI hiring tools. That ruling will matter to every organisation using algorithmic screening, not only Eightfold’s clients. A denial does not mean Eightfold loses; it means the question gets answered in a setting with evidence, argument, and binding precedent. If the motion is granted, the accountability gap returns to regulatory and legislative channels, where the pace has not matched the scale of the deployment. What would change this assessment is action of a different kind: a major employer publicly committing to applicant disclosure before the court makes the decision for them.

Your Gates Aren’t Protecting the Business. They’re Protecting Themselves.

Posted on by

Nobody sets out to build a bureaucracy. Every heavy stage-gate process started as three good intentions: get bad projects killed early, get good projects through fast, and keep a clean record of why each call was made. Then it grew a review board nobody remembers approving, and the good projects started waiting as long as the bad ones.

That is the actual failure. Not that gates exist. That almost nobody still measures them against the job they were built to do.

 

The Test a Stage Gate Was Actually Built to Pass

Governance run properly delivers three things, and nothing else matters as much as these: faster decisions, so a good project stops waiting weeks for a yes. Earlier kills, so a weak one frees up capital instead of quietly draining it for another two quarters. And a clean audit trail, so nobody has to reconstruct the reasoning after the fact. Get those three right and a stage gate speeds decisions. Miss them and it slows every decision down, good and bad alike, because the mechanism has stopped doing the job it was built for.

Someone genuinely has to decide which projects live, which pivot, and which ones are quietly draining the business. That much was never in question.

 

Why the Mechanism Rots

Four patterns do most of the damage, and each one accumulates quietly rather than arriving as a single bad decision. Entry gates get heavy while exit and kill discipline stay weak or disappear entirely, so zombie projects clog the funnel and starve the strong ones of attention. Panels grow larger and meetings grow longer until authority is spread across so many people that nothing actually gets decided. Reviews turn into theatre, rubber-stamping or deferring rather than choosing, and momentum dies in the gap between gates. And decision rights stay ambiguous enough that nobody is the clear owner of the yes or the no, so everything escalates and stalls at once.

Each of those four is a governance design that stopped serving the teams running through it and started serving itself, not a process flaw you fix by adding another step. The entry gate feels productive, so it keeps growing. The exit gate feels harsh, so nobody wants to own it, and that imbalance is where most of the trouble actually starts.

 

The Numbers Behind the Frustration

The frustration shows up in real operating numbers, not just complaints. At Vivix Vidros Planos, a Brazilian flat-glass manufacturer, resolving a customer complaint used to take weeks, long enough for a buyer to lose patience and take the next contract elsewhere. After building an AI-powered chatbot into its existing production and quality data, that shrank to minutes, an 80% reduction in complaint resolution time. Responses to production-line issues sped up by a further 85%. Both figures come from Vivix’s own case study, published jointly by Siemens and AWS. The underlying pattern holds regardless of the exact numbers: the real cost of a slow gate shows up as lost trust and lost contracts, not just lost hours.

 

What Minimum Viable Governance Actually Looks Like

The fix is sizing each gate to the actual risk in front of it, rather than running every decision through the same heavy process regardless of what it actually requires. A low-risk process tweak does not need the same panel as a bet-the-quarter platform launch, and treating both the same is exactly how standing committees fill up with work they should never see in the first place. High-risk decisions keep full board review, because that rigor is proportionate there. Mid-tier decisions get a lightweight gate with a single accountable owner. Low-risk work proceeds by default through a simple intake form, with oversight applied only if something in it actually warrants it.

The useful design target sits between two failure modes: above a ceiling, controls become bottlenecks and teams quietly route around them; below a floor, real risk creeps in unmanaged. Getting that band right is not abstract. One organisation that tightened its policy down to the minimum viable version halved the time complex decisions took and surfaced three times more opportunities than peers still running the heavier version.

 

The Test Most Gates Would Fail

Pick the last three projects your organisation killed at a gate, and the last three it approved. If the kills took longer to reach than the approvals, the gate is not protecting the business from bad decisions. It is protecting itself from having to make any decision at all.