Business

More than a third of the UK’s fastest-growing technology scale-ups have no women on their boards, according to new research that highlights a striking gap between rhetoric and reality on diversity in Britain’s tech sector.

The report from global growth consultancy Think & Grow found that women occupy just 18% of board positions across the UK’s leading tech scale-ups, while 36% of these companies have no female board members at all.

This is despite an overwhelming 94% of board members and key decision-makers saying they believe a diverse board is essential for success.

The findings expose a clear disconnect between the industry’s stated commitment to inclusion and its execution in practice. The data, published in Think & Grow’s latest study, Breaking and Remaking the Next Generation of High-impact Boards, suggests that diversity is not yet a boardroom priority for many fast-growing tech firms.

In comparison, listed technology companies perform far better: women now account for 41% of board members across FTSE 350 tech firms, more than double the figure seen among scale-ups. This improvement has been driven in part by the Financial Conduct Authority’s diversity and inclusion rules, which require at least 40% female representation on boards.

The contrast underscores the importance of regulatory frameworks in driving change and the need for scale-ups—unbound by such requirements—to proactively embed diversity in their governance models.

The underrepresentation extends beyond the boardroom table. Just 12% of the UK’s fastest-growing tech firms are led by a female CEO or founder, and the same proportion have a female chair.

While these figures mirror the FTSE 350 tech sector, larger listed firms are significantly more likely to include women in other senior roles such as Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, or Senior Independent Director. Across the FTSE 350 technology sector, 28% of senior leadership roles are held by women, and 80% of companies have appointed at least one woman to a top executive position.

The Think & Grow report also draws a connection between diversity and commercial outcomes. More than a third (35%) of senior decision-makers believe diverse boards improve customer representation, while others cite enhanced problem-solving and better identification of blind spots.

Notably, companies with annual revenues above £50 million reported 22% female board representation, compared with 15% among smaller peers—suggesting that greater gender balance may correlate with stronger performance and maturity.

A similar pattern is seen among listed firms: those with revenues over £500 million reported 42% female board representation, compared with 37% for smaller firms.

Despite the sobering statistics, there are early signs of improvement. Start-ups founded within the past five years have, on average, 25% female board representation—more than double that of older firms. Nearly all board members surveyed (93%) agree that progress on gender diversity has been made in recent years, signalling cultural momentum among the next generation of tech businesses.

Jonathan Jeffries, CEO and Co-Founder of Think & Grow, emphasised that diversity is not merely a moral imperative but a business advantage: “There is a clear correlation between diverse boards and strong corporate performance—yet many UK tech companies are failing to appoint board members with diverse backgrounds and expertise, which risks curbing growth.

“Enhancing diversity is not just a social responsibility, it’s a strategic advantage. Founders who prioritise inclusion from day one build boards that solve problems faster, see around corners and understand a broader range of markets and people.”

Founded over 16 years ago, Think & Grow has advised some of the world’s most innovative tech firms—including Stripe, Square, Dropbox, Peloton, and Etsy—helping them navigate the challenges of scaling in competitive global markets.

Read more:
UK tech scale-ups lag on gender diversity as over a third have no women on their boards

Imagine you need to build a team of 150 professionals from scratch, in a country where critical infrastructure isn’t finished, while the entire world prepares to watch.

You have officials from every continent speaking dozens of languages, three separate organizational bodies with competing priorities, and a construction site that should already be a world-class tennis venue. Welcome to Olympic officiating.

When Soeren Friemel arrived in Rio de Janeiro in December 2015 for his pre-Olympic site inspection as head of tennis officiating, he found a sobering reality: “Everything was in need of improvement.” Construction firms were changing, points of contact were unclear, and the timeline was unforgiving. Yet fourteen months later, the tennis competition would run flawlessly before a global audience. The journey from that chaotic December day to Olympic success reveals universal leadership lessons about building international teams, managing complexity, and protecting integrity under extreme pressure.

Building International Teams When Nothing Goes According to Plan

The scale of Olympic officiating coordination is staggering. For the 2016 Rio Games, over 700 officials applied from across the globe. The selection process required narrowing this pool to 110 individuals—50% Brazilian to leverage local knowledge, 50% international to bring diverse expertise. This wasn’t diversity as an abstract ideal; it was operational necessity. Tennis events at the Olympics span two weeks of continuous competition across multiple courts, requiring officials who understand not just the rules but the cultural nuances that prevent conflicts and build trust.

Each official selected represented more than technical competence. They needed language capabilities, cultural fluency, and the ability to integrate quickly with colleagues they’d never met. The coordination challenge extended far beyond the matches themselves. Soeren Friemel managed international travel logistics, coordinated accommodations across Rio’s sprawling geography, organized transportation to and from the Olympic Park, and created duty rosters that balanced workload with fairness. Some officials needed detailed routing assistance just to reach Brazil; others arrived with equipment challenges or last-minute questions about Olympic protocols.

The complexity multiplied when managing competing stakeholder interests. Olympic officiating operates at the intersection of three powerful institutions: the International Olympic Committee, the International Tennis Federation, and local organizing committees. Each brings legitimate priorities that don’t always align naturally. The IOC thinks universally across all Olympic sports, applying standards designed for swimming or track and field. The ITF understands tennis-specific requirements—that players spend entire days at the venue, not just brief competition windows. Local organizers face on-the-ground realities of infrastructure, security, and public expectations.

These groups, each with distinct priorities and institutional cultures, required careful coordination to align their objectives. Navigating this requires more than project management skills; it demands diplomatic finesse. You’re not simply coordinating people—you’re translating between institutional worldviews, finding compromise without sacrificing standards, and building consensus when time pressure makes patience difficult.

The crisis management challenge was equally demanding. That initial December site visit revealed construction delays, evolving plans, and uncertainty about when facilities would be ready. Building a tennis venue near swimming facilities in Barra Olympic Park meant coordinating with multiple construction teams, understanding interdependencies, and maintaining quality standards when contractors changed mid-project. The leadership principle that emerged: Don’t become discouraged by obstacles—become more deeply involved in solving them.

Perhaps most revealing about Olympic leadership is the 24/7 nature of the role. When you’re managing people from every timezone working in an unfamiliar environment, accessibility becomes currency. “People can come to me at 1:30 AM or 7:00 AM—my bus leaves at 7:30,” reflects the reality that building trust in high-pressure international teams requires being present when people need guidance. The goal isn’t just completing tasks; it’s creating systems resilient enough to function even when you’re not in the room. That resilience comes from relationships built through consistent availability and demonstrated commitment.

Protecting Integrity When National Pride and Pressure Collide

Olympic tennis carries unique pressure that distinguishes it from even Grand Slam tournaments. Athletes aren’t competing for themselves alone—they represent entire nations. Fans in the stands wave national flags. Media coverage emphasizes national medal counts. The temptation exists, subtle but real, to favor host country athletes or accommodate bigger names who generate more attention and revenue.

This is where systems protecting integrity become essential. Soeren Friemel emphasized that fairness must be structural, not dependent on individual virtue. Olympic tennis employs multiple officials per match—a minimum of eight for regulation play. This redundancy isn’t inefficiency; it’s intentional accountability. When several officials independently observe the same play, bias becomes harder to sustain. When protocols are clear and consistently applied, preferential treatment becomes visible.

The core principle: “It doesn’t matter if it’s the world number 1 or another player—you can’t let yourself be influenced.” This sounds straightforward until you’re making a call that disappoints an athlete carrying their nation’s hopes, or enforcing a rule that eliminates a marquee name from medal contention. The principle only becomes real when applied under conditions that make deviation tempting.

One controversial but visionary Olympic decision involved the IOC’s mandate for younger officials at Rio. Experience typically dominates officiating selections, but the mandate forced balance between seasoned judgment and fresh perspectives. The short-term trade-off was accepting less experience on some matches. The long-term gain was significant: officials trained at the Rio Olympics now work Grand Slams globally, their Olympic experience having accelerated development that might have taken years through traditional pathways.

This reflects broader thinking about talent development in high-stakes environments. Creating mentorship culture within teams, investing in next-generation capability even when experienced alternatives exist, and accepting that education sometimes requires real-stakes opportunities—these choices compound over time. The Olympic investment in younger officials didn’t just serve Rio; it elevated officiating quality globally for years following.

High-stakes moments tested these systems repeatedly. The Rafael Nadal versus Juan Martín del Potro semifinal represented exactly the scenario where bias could creep in—two beloved players, massive viewership, and intense emotional investment from fans. Ensuring fairness required vigilance across every official involved, clear communication about expectations, and confidence that the system would support correct but potentially unpopular decisions.

Players at this level often sought guidance directly, from Murray to Williams and others navigating the unique Olympic environment. Managing these interactions required balancing accessibility with appropriate boundaries. Being helpful without becoming partial. Answering legitimate questions while maintaining the professional distance that protects objectivity.

The broader lesson extends beyond sports. Any leader managing complex environments with multiple stakeholders faces similar challenges: maintaining integrity when pressure encourages compromise, building systems that make fairness structural rather than aspirational, and developing talent even when experience seems safer. Olympic officiating exemplifies these challenges in compressed, high-visibility form.

The Leadership That Endures

Olympic officiating reveals that leadership under scrutiny isn’t fundamentally about technical knowledge—though that’s essential. It’s about building diverse teams across cultural boundaries, managing stakeholder complexity without losing institutional mission, and protecting integrity through systems rather than rhetoric alone. When Soeren Friemel finished his Olympic responsibilities in Rio, he immediately began preparing officials for the US Open. The work never stops, but the principles remain constant.

For anyone leading in high-pressure environments, whether sports or business, these fundamentals translate: invest in people, build resilient systems, and never compromise on fairness. His approach to leadership, refined through decades of experience and shared through various insights, demonstrates that the podium may change, but the standards don’t.

Read more:
Soeren Friemel: Behind the Scenes of Olympic Officiating on the World Stage

The regenerative medicine sector has long promised transformative therapeutic interventions, yet commercial viability remained elusive for decades.

Recent developments suggest the field has reached a critical inflection point where cellular therapy technologies transition from experimental protocols to scalable clinical applications. Companies like Celljevity, with their Prometheus Cell therapy demonstrating consistent outcomes across more than 1,000 treated patients, exemplify this maturation process.

The shift from laboratory research to commercial healthcare delivery requires more than scientific validation. It demands sustainable business models, regulatory clarity, manufacturing scalability, and clinical evidence bases sufficient to justify adoption by healthcare systems and individual patients. The regenerative medicine sector now demonstrates progress across all these dimensions, creating conditions where cellular therapies can achieve meaningful market penetration.

Celljevity’s approach to cellular reprogramming through epigenetic modification rather than genetic alteration addresses key safety concerns that previously limited regenerative medicine adoption. By using patients’ own cells and avoiding DNA modification, the technology reduces rejection risks while maintaining therapeutic efficacy. This safety profile, combined with clinical evidence from multiple indications including Alzheimer’s disease and autoimmune disorders, positions cellular therapy as a viable alternative to conventional pharmaceutical interventions.

Clinical Validation Drives Market Confidence in Cellular Therapies

The transition from experimental medicine to established clinical practice requires substantial evidence bases that demonstrate consistent therapeutic outcomes. Early cellular therapy attempts suffered from high variability in results and inadequate understanding of optimal administration protocols. Modern approaches benefit from accumulated clinical experience that enables standardized treatment methodologies.

Celljevity’s clinical evidence across neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune conditions, and osteoarthritis demonstrates the breadth of potential applications for cellular reprogramming technologies. The company’s Alzheimer’s disease study showing minimal cognitive decline compared to natural disease progression provides concrete data supporting regenerative medicine efficacy claims. Such evidence proves essential for convincing healthcare providers and regulatory agencies of therapeutic value.

The zero serious adverse events reported across Celljevity’s clinical studies addresses historical concerns about cellular therapy safety profiles. Earlier regenerative medicine approaches often produced inconsistent results with concerning side effect profiles that limited adoption. Modern manufacturing processes and quality control systems enable consistent production of therapeutic cells meeting stringent safety standards.

Regulatory agencies worldwide increasingly accommodate innovative therapies through expedited approval pathways designed for regenerative medicine applications. These regulatory developments reduce commercialization timelines and provide clearer pathways for companies developing cellular therapies. The improved regulatory landscape enables more predictable business planning and reduces capital requirements for bringing therapies to market.

Academic medical centers now actively collaborate with cellular therapy companies rather than viewing them as speculative ventures. This institutional engagement provides validation that encourages broader medical community acceptance. When leading research institutions partner with commercial entities, it signals confidence in both scientific validity and commercial potential.

Global Healthcare Economics Create Favorable Environments

Demographic trends worldwide create substantial market opportunities for regenerative medicine approaches. Aging populations in developed economies face increasing burdens from degenerative diseases that conventional pharmaceuticals manage rather than reverse. Cellular therapies offering potential disease modification rather than symptom management address unmet medical needs.

Healthcare economics increasingly favor interventions that prevent disease progression over expensive management of established conditions. Celljevity’s approach of addressing root causes through cellular regeneration aligns with this economic shift. While upfront costs for cellular therapies may exceed conventional treatments, potential long-term savings from reduced disease progression create compelling economic arguments.

The global wellness market provides alternative commercialization channels before traditional insurance reimbursement becomes available. Celljevity’s three-phase strategy beginning with premium wellness markets enables revenue generation while building evidence bases for broader adoption. This approach reduces dependence on insurance reimbursement approval timelines that often delay market entry.

European healthcare systems demonstrate growing acceptance of preventative medicine approaches that reduce long-term treatment costs. Celljevity’s commitment to accessible pricing and intellectual property sharing in underserved regions aligns with European healthcare values. This philosophical alignment facilitates regulatory approval and market acceptance in key European markets.

International clinical trial infrastructure enables cost-effective validation of cellular therapies. Celljevity’s decision to conduct trials in Kazakhstan demonstrates how companies can leverage global healthcare systems to reduce development costs while maintaining scientific rigor. This international approach proves essential for achieving sustainable economics in cellular therapy development.

Manufacturing scalability remains critical for transitioning from boutique treatments to broadly accessible therapies. Celljevity’s ability to generate over 20 billion therapeutic cells from small skin samples demonstrates manufacturing efficiency necessary for commercial scale. The 90% induction efficiency rate significantly exceeds industry standards, providing competitive advantages in production economics.

The convergence of clinical validation, regulatory clarity, manufacturing scalability, and favorable healthcare economics creates conditions where regenerative medicine can achieve commercial sustainability. Companies like Celljevity that successfully navigate these requirements position themselves to capture substantial market opportunities as cellular therapy transitions from experimental science to established medical practice. The sector’s maturation benefits from accumulated clinical experience, improved manufacturing processes, and growing acceptance among medical professionals and healthcare systems worldwide.

Read more:
How Celljevity’s Approach Signals the Maturation of Regenerative Medicine from Experimental Science to Clinical Reality

There’s something about green gifts that never goes out of style. Maybe it’s because plants feel more personal than a box of chocolates, or maybe it’s the calm they bring into any space. Whatever the reason, plants have quietly become one of the most consistent sellers in the gifting world.

If you run a flower or gift business and you’re planning to buy house plants in larger quantities, you’re on the right track. It’s not just a way to save money — it’s a strategy that builds your brand, gives you flexibility, and keeps customers coming back.

Plants That Sell Themselves

You don’t really have to convince anyone to buy a plant. They fit into every occasion: birthdays, corporate thank-yous, housewarmings, even “just because.” A plant says more than a card ever could.

And unlike cut flowers, they last. That means every time your client looks at that little peace lily on their desk, they’ll remember who gave it to them — or where they bought it. That kind of silent brand reminder is gold.

Buying in Bulk: More Than Just a Discount

When you buy plants wholesale, you’re not only cutting costs. You’re also securing consistency. You can control the look and quality of every plant that goes out under your name. You can plan ahead for busy seasons instead of panicking when demand spikes.

It’s also a great way to build relationships with reliable growers and suppliers. Once they know you order regularly, they’ll prioritize your needs — fresher stock, better packing, maybe even early access to new varieties.

What to Choose

Not every plant works well for gifting or bulk storage. Go for the ones that survive travel, need little care, and still look great after a week in a box.

Succulents and cacti — small, hardy, and look good in almost any container.
ZZ plants and snake plants — office favorites, nearly impossible to kill.
Peace lilies and pothos — low-maintenance classics with broad appeal.
Mini bonsai or ferns — perfect for premium sets or minimalist décor.

It’s also worth thinking about pot size and packaging early on. If your plants ship well and look good on arrival, customers will remember the experience — and that’s half the battle.

Add Value Through Pairing

A plant on its own is lovely. But when paired with something else, it becomes a story. That’s what people actually buy — not just a product, but the feeling it brings.

A potted succulent with a soy candle becomes a “mindful moment” set.
A small fern with coffee and a mug makes a perfect “morning ritual” box.
A plant with a handwritten note instantly feels personal.

Gift sets like these make your offers stand out and often allow for higher margins without feeling overpriced.

Care and Presentation

Plants sell better when they look alive — literally. Keep them hydrated, clean, and rotated while they wait to ship. A dry leaf or bit of dust can ruin the first impression.

And packaging? Keep it simple and eco-friendly. Kraft paper, recycled pots, or even reusable baskets fit perfectly into the “green” story people already associate with plants.

Don’t forget care cards. A short note that says, “Water me once a week, keep me near sunlight,” makes the gift feel complete — and helps the plant survive longer (which means more satisfied customers).

Branding Without Overdoing It

You don’t need loud branding on every pot. Subtle works better. A small tag, a sticker under the pot, or a logo embossed on the box is enough. The goal is to let the plant speak — and let your brand quietly stay in the background.

People share photos of their gifts online. If your product looks good and feels authentic, that natural visibility will do more than any ad campaign.

Timing and Planning

Plant demand isn’t flat — it grows around certain seasons. Spring always brings a bump, as do winter holidays and corporate gifting periods. Ordering ahead means you’ll have inventory ready when buyers come looking.

And remember: healthy plants can’t wait forever. Stock rotation is key. Move older plants first, check soil moisture daily, and give your team a clear routine.

The Bottom Line

Buying house plants in bulk isn’t just about filling your storage. It’s about setting up your business for steadier growth. You save on cost, you gain control, and you offer something that feels timeless.

Because when someone gives a plant, they’re not just giving a gift — they’re giving something alive. And in a world full of disposable presents, that makes your business stand out.

Read more:
Why Buying House Plants in Bulk Is a Smart Move for the Small Business

Short answer? Black boxes track your driving. Telematics understands it.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. If you’ve been shopping for car insurance and keep bumping into terms like “telematics” and “black box”, here’s what’s what—and why one might save you more money (and stress) than the other.

First things first: what is black box insurance?

Black box insurance is the OG version of behaviour-based car cover. It involves fitting a small device into your vehicle—usually behind the dashboard—that records how you drive. That means speed, braking, cornering, and all the other things your driving instructor used to raise an eyebrow at.

It’s mainly aimed at new drivers or those with limited experience. Insurers use the data to decide whether you’re safe enough to keep your premium low—or if it’s time to bump things up.

But here’s the rub: it’s fixed to the car, not to you. Which means if someone else borrows your car and drives like they’re in Mario Kart, your score takes the hit.

So, what’s different about telematics?

Telematics does the same job—but smarter. It tracks your driving through your phone, not a box bolted under the bonnet. It still looks at your speed, braking, and cornering, but it knows it’s you behind the wheel (or not).

Telematics insurance uses smartphone sensors and GPS to measure real driving behaviour.

With app-based telematics, there’s no need for garage visits, hardwiring or post-it notes saying “don’t speed”. It’s plug-and-play, with your driving score updating in real-time. And some apps go beyond just tracking—you get coaching, feedback, and in Zego’s case, actual perks for good driving.

Real talk: why does this matter?

Because it puts you in control. Traditional insurance pricing relies heavily on age, postcode and driving history—stuff you can’t change overnight.

With telematics, your price is based on how you actually drive—not just who you are or where you live.

For example, Zego’s Sense app tracks your driving and adjusts your renewal price accordingly. Drive safely and consistently? You could save at renewal. Drive like you’ve forgotten the brake exists? Well… maybe not.

And unlike black box systems, the Sense app can also tell when you’re not driving. So if someone else takes your car, you’re not penalised.

What about Zego’s car insurance prices?

Here’s the ballpark:

Zego’s sense telematics Car Insurance starts from £578.51 a year.
 (That’s what 10% of customers paid or less in the six months before 21 October 2025).

But remember—your price depends on how you drive, what car you’ve got, and whether you’ve installed the Sense app (which is mandatory, by the way).

The bottom line

If you’re deciding between black box and telematics insurance, here’s the TL;DR:

Black box = rigid, car-based tracking, often with less feedback and more faff.
Telematics = app-based, driver-focused, smarter pricing and real-time coaching.
Zego’s Sense = a telematics app that doesn’t just watch how you drive, it helps you drive better—and rewards you for it.

So, if you’re into simple tech, fewer wires, and insurance that’s built around you, not your demographic telematics is the way forward. And if you fancy trying it without a full commitment? Zego’s app lets you “test drive” Sense before you even buy.

Not the insurance thing to do but it might just be the good thing.

Read more:
What’s the difference between black box insurance and telematics?

The traditional annual review is dead. You’ve heard it before, but by 2026, the corpse will be long-since buried, replaced by a dynamic, digitized, and deeply human-centric model.

For millions of workers worldwide, the coming years won’t just bring subtle tweaks to performance management—they’ll deliver a total structural overhaul.

This isn’t about new forms or buzzwords; it’s a fundamental shift in corporate culture. The forces of rapid technological change, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI), and a competitive talent market demanding continuous growth have converged to redefine how we measure success. The new engine for high-performance organizations? An unyielding focus on Coaching, Training, and Certification.

The End of the “Ratings Regime”: Coaching Takes Center Stage

For decades, the manager’s role in performance was that of a judge—an annual arbiter of ratings and rewards. In 2026, that role has officially been rebranded: The manager is now a Coach. This is more than a semantic change; it’s a strategic imperative.

The Rise of the ‘Always-On’ Coach

The once-dreaded “check-in” is transforming into a continuous performance conversation. Fueled by AI-driven insights that flag potential roadblocks or celebrate micro-wins in real-time, these conversations are proactive, not retrospective.

“The data is clear: employees crave development, not judgment. A real-time coaching model fosters psychological safety, which is the bedrock of high-performing, agile teams.”

The best managers of 2026 won’t be those who excel at paperwork, but those who are masterful listeners and effective coaches as a result of effective performance management training courses. Their focus is not just on what an employee achieved, but on how they can grow their capabilities. This approach is intrinsically tied to the hybrid work model—coaching conversations become the critical human connection that prevents disengagement across dispersed teams.

Feedback as a Gift: The term ‘feedback’ is being superseded by ‘feed-forward’—focusing on future actions and development rather than past mistakes.
The Empowerment Model: Coaching empowers employees to own their career trajectory. By asking powerful, open-ended questions instead of delivering prescriptive instructions, managers cultivate self-reliance and accountability.

Training Transformed: From Compliance to Capability

Performance management systems in the past often treated learning as an administrative task—a mandatory module to check off a box. By 2026, Learning and Development (L&D) is merging directly with performance, creating a skills-first organizational culture.

Personalized Learning Journeys

The blanket training programs of yesteryear are being replaced by hyper-personalized learning paths. AI and performance data work in tandem to pinpoint skill gaps and recommend specific, just-in-time training modules, essentially creating a GPS for professional growth. If an AI system detects a dip in a team member’s presentation scores, it immediately suggests a micro-learning course on virtual communication, complete with a practical exercise tied to their current project.

This is the ultimate evolution of the growth mindset: employees are not just rated on their current output but valued for their potential and adaptability. The performance review becomes a skills-inventory assessment, constantly refreshed to align individual capabilities with the organization’s future strategic needs.

Micro-Learning and ‘Skill Stacking’: Short, impactful learning bursts—the 5-minute video, the quick simulation, the one-hour certified workshop—are replacing multi-day seminars. This allows employees to continuously acquire and ‘stack’ new skills without disrupting high-tempo workflows.
The Internal Mobility Engine: When L&D is linked to performance, it fuels internal mobility. Employees see a clear, data-driven pathway from their current role, through targeted training, to the next opportunity—a vital tool for retention in a tight labor market.

Certification as Currency: The Validation Imperative

The final, critical piece of the 2026 performance puzzle is the growing importance of formal Certification and credentialing. In a world where skills change every 18 to 24 months, a traditional degree is no longer a sufficient marker of current capability.

Verified Skills for a Dynamic Market

Certification acts as verified, external validation that an employee possesses a critical, in-demand skill—be it in AI ethics, agile methodology, or advanced data visualization. These credentials are the new currency for internal and external job markets.

Driving Pay and Promotion: Performance systems are beginning to integrate certification achievement directly into compensation and promotion models. Achieving a high-value certification (like a PMP, a cloud architect credential, or an ICF coaching certificate) automatically signals readiness for a higher-level role or a pay increase, creating a transparent, merit-based advancement structure.
The Manager Certification Mandate: The new coaching role is so vital that organizations are now mandating coaching certification for managers. This ensures they have the foundational skills—active listening, non-directive questioning, emotional intelligence—to effectively unlock their team’s potential. Certification transforms the manager from an accidental, untrained evaluator to a skilled, professional developer of talent.

The Bottom Line: Performance as a Growth Lever

The trends for 2026 signal a profound realization: performance management is not a bureaucratic exercise; it is the primary engine of organizational growth and talent retention. The integration of AI for real-time data, the shift from judging to coaching, and the formalization of development through certification are all converging to create a system that is fundamentally more human and more strategic.

Companies that successfully navigate this paradigm shift will not only see higher productivity but will also emerge as magnets for the world’s most dynamic and growth-oriented talent. The performance review isn’t vanishing—it’s finally becoming what it was always meant to be: a continuous, empowering conversation about the future.

Read more:
Performance Paradigm Shift: Why Your 2026 Review Won’t Be What You Expect

Phoebe Gormley, founder of Savile Row’s first women’s tailoring house, launches Fit Collective — an AI-powered platform aiming to cut billions in clothing returns.

The entrepreneur behind Gormley & Gamble, the first women’s tailoring business on London’s Savile Row, has raised £3 million for her new venture Fit Collective, a technology start-up using artificial intelligence to fix one of fashion’s most expensive challenges — inconsistent sizing.

Phoebe Gormley, 31, said inaccurate sizing was costing the global fashion industry an estimated $230 billion a year in returns, with premium womenswear return rates reaching 50 per cent in the UK alone. “Consumers are frustrated and retailers are losing a hell of a lot of money,” she said.

Fit Collective’s platform analyses how garments fit across different body types, drawing on sales, returns and fabric behaviour data to give design and production teams “clear, actionable insight” on improving fit and reducing waste.

The company, based in Holborn, employs ten people and plans to double its workforce within a year, focusing on hiring engineers. Founded in June 2023, Fit Collective already manages more than £1 billion in retailer revenue and counts Rixo and Boden among its clients.

The £3 million seed funding round, which values the company at £11 million, was backed by Albion Capital, SuperSeed, and True Capital, alongside angel investors from Net-a-Porter and Farfetch.

Gormley’s tailoring background gave her both the expertise and data to tackle fashion’s sizing crisis. After dropping out of university in 2015 and using her tuition fees to start Gormley & Gamble, she built a business dressing “princesses, CEOs, schoolgirls and everyone in between.” Across clients, she noticed one universal complaint: poor sizing.

Her experience produced what she calls “the only data set in the world that has body measurements and garments” — a foundation that informs Fit Collective’s technology.

Gormley said most existing online “find my size” tools are flawed because they rely on incomplete user data and ignore how each brand defines sizing. “They don’t know if a garment is designed to run three sizes too big or two sizes too small,” she said. “Only around 3 per cent of shoppers even use them.”

To demonstrate the problem, she bought 20 pairs of women’s jeans, all labelled size 28. “The biggest one was a 74cm waist and the smallest one was a 66cm waist — that’s a 12cm gap, or about three and a half sizes difference,” she said.

By helping brands standardise sizing and reduce returns, Fit Collective hopes to make fashion not only more profitable but more sustainable — cutting down on the carbon and financial cost of ill-fitting clothes sent back each year.

Read more:
Savile Row entrepreneur Phoebe Gormley raises £3m for AI fashion sizing start-up Fit Collective

Carmakers say Rachel Reeves’ plan to tax employee vehicle ownership schemes will backfire — cutting sales, jobs and Treasury revenue.

Britain’s leading carmakers have warned that a Treasury plan to impose company car tax on employee car ownership schemes (Ecos) could cost the Exchequer £500 million in lost revenue and threaten thousands of manufacturing jobs.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said the proposed tax changes, due to take effect in October 2026, would “seriously impact” new car sales, penalise workers, and undermine investment in the UK’s transition to green transport.

The move, announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves last autumn, would see Ecos vehicles taxed as benefits in kind — ending their exemption and aligning them with salary sacrifice schemes already subject to company car tax.

Under the current system, Ecos allow employees to buy new cars from their employer via a credit agreement, saving employers and workers millions in National Insurance contributions. The schemes are especially popular among car company staff, who can drive new models at discounted prices for around six months before the vehicles are sold on as “nearly new” stock.

According to SMMT analysis, around 100,000 cars are currently provided to workers through Ecos each year — roughly 5 per cent of the UK’s new car market. The group predicts that figure would collapse to just 20,000 if the tax goes ahead, leading to a £1 billion revenue loss for carmakers, 5,000 jobs at risk, and a £500 million fall in VAT and vehicle excise duty receipts.

The Treasury estimates the change would raise £275 million in its first year, falling to £175 million by 2030 as the market adjusts. However, industry leaders argue the real-world impact would be the opposite.

Mike Hawes, SMMT chief executive, said: “The Government has supported the automotive sector through EV incentives and trade deals, helping to drive growth and decarbonisation. But scrapping Ecos would undermine that progress — penalising workers, reducing Exchequer income and putting green investment at risk. At a time when the Budget should fuel growth, this measure will do the exact opposite. It’s time for a rethink.”

Robert Forrester, chief executive of Vertu Motors, previously warned that the policy is “likely to reduce income to the Exchequer rather than increase it.”

An industry insider described Ecos as a “win-win” for workers and manufacturers: “It’s a good scheme for staff — they get to drive the newest cars at a discount — but the system also supports sales and the used car market.”

In its policy paper, the Treasury said: “Private use of a company car is a valuable benefit, and it is right that the appropriate tax is paid on it. This measure will ensure fairness with other taxpayers, reduce distortions in the tax system, and reinforce the emissions-based company car tax regime that incentivises zero-emission vehicles.”

The row comes as SMMT figures show the UK new car market grew 0.5 per cent in October, with 144,948 cars sold, including 36,830 electric vehicles (25.4 per cent of sales) — up from 20.7 per cent a year ago.

Petrol models remained dominant, accounting for 44.4 per cent of sales, down from 50.5 per cent last year. The figures follow the launch of the government’s new electric vehicle grant, offering up to £3,750 off the cost of new EVs.

The Treasury declined to comment further.

Read more:
Carmakers warn company car tax shake-up will cost Treasury £500m

Sir Charlie Mayfield says ill-health is driving millions out of work, costing employers and the economy billions — but the problem is “not inevitable.”

Britain is at risk of an “economic inactivity crisis” as the number of sick and disabled people out of work continues to rise, according to a government-commissioned review led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, the former John Lewis chairman.

The report warns that 800,000 more people are now out of work due to health conditions than in 2019, costing employers £85 billion a year in lost productivity, sick pay and staff turnover. Without intervention, a further 600,000 workers could leave the labour market by 2030.

“This is not inevitable,” Sir Charlie said, as he launched a new taskforce aimed at helping people return to work and tackling what he described as a “vicious cycle” of poor health and economic inactivity.

The report, commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) but produced independently, found that one in five working-age people is now out of work and not seeking employment — a major reversal after decades of improving participation.

Sir Charlie said sickness is costing the UK far more than just business losses.

“Work is generally good for health, and health is good for work,” he said. “For employers, sickness and staff turnover bring disruption and lost experience. For the country, it means weaker growth, higher welfare spending and greater pressure on the NHS.”

According to some estimates, illness-related inactivity costs the wider economy £212 billion a year — almost 70% of annual income tax receipts — through lost output, welfare payments and additional healthcare costs.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) expects spending on health and disability benefits for working-age people alone to reach £72.3 billion by 2029–30.

Mayfield said the surge was being fuelled by a “sharp rise” in mental health conditions among younger workers and chronic musculoskeletal problems — such as back pain and joint issues — among older staff.

His taskforce will also work with GPs, who he said often face pressure from patients to issue sick notes but find it difficult to assess whether someone could work in a modified role.

Business groups broadly welcomed the taskforce but warned that parts of Labour’s Employment Rights Bill risk discouraging firms from hiring people with existing health conditions.

The Bill includes guaranteed hours and restrictions on zero-hours contracts — measures that some retailers fear will make flexible hiring harder.

Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, said retailers were committed to supporting employees with ill-health but that “the government’s goals and policies are at odds with one another.”

“While encouraging employers to invest in workforce health and provide flexibility, they risk making it more difficult,” she said.

In response to the report, the government announced a partnership with over 60 major employers, including Tesco, Google UK, Nando’s and John Lewis, to test new health and wellbeing initiatives aimed at reducing sickness absence and improving return-to-work rates.

Over the next three years, these programmes will form the basis for a voluntary national workplace health standard, expected by 2029.

Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said the partnership was “a win-win for employees and employers.”

“This is about keeping good, experienced staff in work and supporting people to stay healthy for longer,” he said.

Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said the review “accurately identified a culture of fear, a dearth of support and structural barriers to work” as key issues behind Britain’s worsening inactivity rate.

The CIPD, representing HR professionals, welcomed the focus on prevention. Its chief executive, Peter Cheese, said the report’s success “will depend on how well its recommendations are understood by business and backed by national and regional policymakers.”

Dr Roman Raczka, president of the British Psychological Society, said the shift toward “rehumanising the workplace” was overdue, but warned that not everyone could or should return to work.

“The workplace itself can be a root cause of poor mental health,” he said. “Those signed off sick deserve timely access to safe, compassionate care.”

Read more:
Ex-John Lewis boss warns UK faces £85bn sickness bill and economic crisis

Michael Burry, the investor famed for predicting the 2007 subprime mortgage collapse and inspiring The Big Short, has wagered $1.1 billion against two of the world’s most prominent artificial intelligence stocks — Nvidia and Palantir Technologies.

Regulatory filings show that Burry’s hedge fund, Scion Asset Management, has bought put options — which profit when prices fall — on one million Nvidia shares worth around $187 million, and five million Palantir shares valued at $912 million as of September 30.

The move marks Burry’s latest contrarian stance against one of Wall Street’s most hyped trends. Writing on X (formerly Twitter) in his first post for over two years, he warned followers of an emerging AI bubble, stating: “Sometimes, we see bubbles. Sometimes, there is something to do about it. Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play.”

His disclosure coincided with a broader market pullback, as fears of overheated valuations in the AI sector sent US indices lower on Tuesday. The Vix volatility index, Wall Street’s so-called “fear gauge,” rose toward a two-week high.

Nvidia, which recently became the first company to reach a $5 trillion market valuation, dropped 4 per cent to $198.69 in New York trading. Palantir, whose stock has surged more than 360 per cent over the past year, slid 8 per cent to $190.70.

Despite reporting record quarterly revenue on Monday, Palantir trades at nearly 250 times its 12-month forward earnings estimates — far higher than Nvidia’s 33 and Microsoft’s 29.9.

Alex Karp, Palantir’s chief executive, dismissed Burry’s bearish position in an interview with CNBC: “The two companies he’s shorting are the ones making all the money, which is super weird. The idea that chips and ontology is what you want to short is batshit crazy. He’s actually putting a short on AI.”

Meanwhile, Wall Street heavyweights Ted Pick, chief executive of Morgan Stanley, and David Solomon, head of Goldman Sachs, cautioned that a 10–15 per cent market correction may be due after this year’s AI-driven rally.

Pick told the Global Financial Leaders’ Investment Summit in Hong Kong: “We should welcome the possibility of drawdowns that are not driven by some macro cliff effect.”

Solomon added: “When you have these cycles, things can run for a period of time. But there are always shifts that change sentiment — and none of us are smart enough to see them until they occur.”

The surge in enthusiasm for generative AI has drawn comparisons to the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, when speculative investment in internet companies drove valuations to unsustainable levels.

Yet, some analysts argue this cycle is different. The companies leading today’s AI revolution — such as Nvidia, Microsoft, and Alphabet — boast robust earnings and are largely self-funding their multibillion-dollar AI infrastructure, unlike the debt-fuelled exuberance of the dot-com era.

Whether Burry’s latest short bet will prove prescient remains to be seen — but history suggests that when The Big Short investor spots a bubble, markets tend to listen.

Read more:
Big Short investor Michael Burry places $1.1bn bet against leading AI stocks