Two weeks ago I released the first half of my predictions for 2026 and today I have part two for you. Leaders wrote in with concerns, questions, and stories about the early signs they are already seeing inside their organizations. That feedback set the stage for last week’s live webinar, where I walked through all nine predictions and heard directly from the people who are navigating these shifts every day.
Here is the follow up with the remaining five predictions…
5. Unemployment Breaks 6 Percent
I can credit John Frehse with this one. In our CEO Daily Brief episode he predicted that in the second half of 2026, unemployment crosses six percent and stays there longer than expected. I agree. This is not a dramatic crash. It is a slow unwind shaped by interest rates, muted hiring, and shrinking demand for early career talent. New grads feel the shock immediately(their unemployment rate is already above 6%). The labor market we have known for a decade begins to reset.
6. A Disturbing Stock Market Correction
And along with that one we see a stock market correction that arrives in the form of a familiar dip but without the comforting bounce back. It lingers. Mid-market private equity faces the harshest pressure as debt loads collide with frozen deals. Companies that relied on cheap capital learn quickly that the era of easy money has closed. Winners separate from the rest because they prepared for a slower, more disciplined market.
7. AI Gets the DEI Treatment
Companies will repeat the mistake they made with DEI by turning AI into a checklist instead of a capability. We will see task forces, training programs, dashboards, and fanfare while very little work is done to transform the beliefs people have about AI. The organizations that adopt AI quickly are the ones that address AI belief systems that shapes how decisions are made and how people think. The ones that isolate it inside a department will celebrate activity but never generate the same results.
8. The First AI CEO
You may have heard me predict this in past posts. I think 2026 will be the year a company hands the top spot to an AI system. It may be a PR stunt, but it’s coming. A real AI CEO. Whether the move comes from a startup hunting momentum or a major player trying to signal the future, the announcement lands with global impact. Leadership takes on a new meaning when a company decides a machine can do it.
9. Global Corporate Power Begins to Overtake Government Power
As governments debate, companies act. Apple sets privacy norms. OpenAI shapes AI ethics. Amazon defines logistics. Consumers trust these institutions more than elected officials, and companies step into the vacuum. The question of who actually governs the rules we live by becomes harder to answer. Corporate influence moves from strong to dominant, and the implications reach far beyond business. (Some on the webinar said it already has… what do you think?)
These five predictions round out the full list of nine. If you want to hear the complete walkthrough you can watch the recording from last week’s session here: https://www.bigmarker.com/culture-partners/the-leadership-reset-2026-trends-shaping-the-future-of-work?utm_bmcr_source=JK-Newsletter
The signals are already visible. The organizations that take them seriously will shape the year instead of reacting to it.
And to start your year off right, why not join us for the Surrender To Lead Virtual Summit where you will hear from leaders and their stories as they enter 2026. They will share how they are navigating uncertainty, aligning culture to results, and rethinking what leadership requires in a year defined by disruption. If these predictions are already showing up in your world, this is where you can learn from the people who are living them.
Most leaders will enter 2026 reacting. You do not have to. The leaders shaping the year ahead are already comparing notes, sharing what they are seeing, and preparing to lead through disruption instead of waiting for it to arrive.
You will see how the themes from our upcoming book Surrender To Lead move from pages to practice as executives open up about the choices they are making and the outcomes they expect. If you want clarity going into 2026, register now and join the room where leaders are already looking forward.
Register now at https://www.surrendertolead.com/summit/
Elsewhere In Culture
https://www.npr.org/2025/12/08/nx-s1-5637272/paramount-warner-brothers-wbd-netflix
This showdown over Warner Bros. is a culture war. Paramount is clinging to Hollywood as we knew it, hoping that legacy identity still matters. Netflix is playing a different game. It wants to turn the entertainment industry into a tech ecosystem built on data, global reach and predictive programming. The Ellisons may have more cash, but Netflix is offering the future. What is being bid on is not content. It is the authority to decide how the next generation of storytelling will be shaped and who gets to control it.
Which is why this moment is so revealing. Paramount is throwing money at time, trying to slow it down. Netflix is accelerating it. Hollywood thinks it can buy relevance, yet audiences already voted with their habits long ago. The question is no longer who owns Warner. It is which operating philosophy wins. Legacy production culture or algorithm culture. One is fighting to preserve its mythology. The other is building a new one. The deal that prevails will not just reshape studios. It will decide the rules for how influence, narrative, and power work in entertainment for the next twenty years.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/08/apple-tim-cook-pressure-2026.html
The headlines focus on who left, but the real conversation at Apple is about the culture they are trying to reshape. Fragmented visions for AI, design drift, regulatory pressure, and global operational strain have created a moment where the old leadership rhythm no longer works. When departures span AI, legal, design, and core technology, the signal is not chaos. It is an admission that what got us here won’t get us there. Apple built its reputation on alignment and execution. Now it is confronting how far it must evolve to compete in an era where AI is the operating logic, not just a feature.
This is why the shake-up matters. You do not rewire this many critical roles without preparing a new playbook. Our Stanford research shows that culture has to change when strategy changes, and Apple appears to be stepping into that reality. The pressure next year will not just be about delivering new products. It will be about proving that the leadership model can produce innovation again. Apple is signaling it understands the stakes. What comes next will reveal whether that understanding translates into the kind of performance shift the market has already decided it expects.
If you have read the article, just know they missed the point completely. The story frames SHRM as hypocritical and harsh, but that framing rests on an outdated belief about what HR is supposed to be. HR today is asked to drive performance, protect margins, accelerate strategy, and build aligned systems inside environments that shift week to week. That requires clarity, enforcement, and leadership, not emotional management.
Look closely at the complaints. People are upset about punctuality expectations even though there was a full hour to arrive. They are upset about dress codes, reorganizations, and a CEO pushing for higher accountability. None of these things qualify as ethical violations. They are decisions made inside a competitive landscape where expectations rise because the stakes rise. Yet the response has been emotional, as if discomfort alone should count as misconduct. It should not.
SHRM is clear about how they see themselves, and their own statement reflects that clarity. They say they stand proud of their business, their people, and the culture they have built. They say they will not allow selective narratives to distort the reality of who they are. They describe their commitment to an inclusive and respectful environment as unwavering. They remind the public that a handful of disgruntled former employees do not represent the experience of the hundreds who thrive across global offices. And they point out that the Business Insider article cherry picked anecdotes and ignored the core of their organization. They see a company where teams collaborate, colleagues support each other, and employees rally around a mission that is bigger than any one individual. They are not apologizing for holding a high bar. They are not apologizing for protecting their standards. They are operating with conviction.
That is the part getting lost. SHRM is growing. They are influencing national policy. They are expanding membership and shaping the agenda for HR at a moment when clarity is rewarded and hesitation is punished. When expectations increase friction will always follow. That friction does not equal cruelty. It does not equal abuse. It often means a shift in identity. It often means some people were used to seeing HR as a shield instead of a strategic engine.
The HR community has been split for years. One group still holds onto the comforting version of HR that prioritizes harmony above progress. The other understands that HR now sits at the center of business outcomes. SHRM is aligned with that second model. They are repositioning HR to operate at the speed of business. That kind of evolution always triggers backlash. The louder the resistance, the clearer the shift.
The real concern is not what SHRM is doing. The concern is the impossible expectations placed on HR as a function. HR is being asked to transform organizations, protect people, guard the brand, interpret data, redesign workflows, deliver speed, and soften every impact for the workforce. No function can do all of that while also serving as the emotional cushion for every uncomfortable moment. The environment is too volatile and the responsibilities are too contradictory.
This criticism is not about misconduct. It is about discomfort. Discomfort with higher standards. Discomfort with organizational pace. Discomfort with a people function that is finally operating like a strategic engine. The irony is that HR has been telling leaders for years to drive accountability and lead through clarity. SHRM is doing exactly that. Now that HR itself is living those expectations, people do not like how it feels.
Adaptation rarely feels good. It often feels unfair at first. But progress does not begin in comfort. SHRM is not abandoning HR principles. They are applying them with urgency.
The future of HR will look more like this moment than the nostalgic version many hope will return. Not because empathy is going away, but because clarity generates more trust than comfort ever has. While empathy still matters, accountability matters more. HR cannot lead transformation while clinging to emotional norms designed for a slower era of work.
SHRM is not the villain in this story. SHRM is the mirror. And right now a lot of people do not like their reflection.
Elsewhere In Culture
Americans keep hearing that inflation has cooled and incomes are rising, yet frustration is deepening because the math of daily life no longer works. Michael Green argues that our official poverty line is a relic from the 1960s, built on the assumption that food is the primary household expense. Today food makes up a small sliver of a family budget, while housing, health care, childcare, education, and transportation have taken over the balance. When those categories are updated to reflect modern costs, the real threshold for basic stability climbs to roughly one hundred and forty thousand dollars. This explains why families earning six figures feel stretched thin and why the older poverty line feels like a measurement of starvation rather than a measure of societal well-being.
Green’s second point cuts even deeper. He describes a Valley of Death where families trying to climb from forty thousand to one hundred thousand lose benefits faster than their wages rise. Support disappears just as expenses skyrocket, which means the system cushions people at the very bottom but punishes anyone who attempts to move upward. The resentment playing out in politics is less about hostility toward the poor and more about anger at a government structure that makes working harder feel like a penalty. Families are not frustrated because they lack empathy. They are frustrated because they feel abandoned in the middle, trapped between incomes too high for help and too low for stability.
If you think 140,000 dollars being the new poverty line sounds crazy, you are not alone, although Cowen argues the conversation requires far more nuance than a single viral headline can hold.
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-myth-of-the-140000-poverty-line
Cowen believes the figure caught fire because it reflects how heavy life feels for many families, yet he reminds readers that the poverty measure used today already adjusts for a broad mix of expenses rather than the outdated food formula people repeat online. When researchers look at what families can actually buy instead of the fluctuations in their income, they see a long decline in poverty alongside steady gains in living standards. Homes are larger, healthcare is more advanced, and essential services have expanded in ways earlier generations never experienced. Families still feel squeezed, but the squeeze is happening in a country that is progressing and straining at the same time, which makes the affordability conversation far more layered than a single number can capture.
He also pushes back on the foundation of the 140,000 dollar claim, since it is drawn from one suburb, one family structure, and one narrow stage of life when costs peak. When he widens the frame to include two-earner incomes, regional differences, and long-term patterns in spending and demand, the picture shifts. High prices often reflect the sheer number of people who can afford to participate in the economy rather than evidence that the middle class is collapsing. In his view, the real challenge lives in policy. Housing, childcare, and healthcare are shaped by systems that have not kept up with how people live and work today. The strain families feel is real, but calling 140,000 dollars the new poverty line pulls attention away from the structural issues leaders actually need to confront. only read as strength when they’re part of a compelling story. Without that, they’re just a warning sign.
Most leaders will enter 2026 reacting. I do not want to react. I want to see what is coming before it arrives. That is why we are bringing leaders together for the Surrender To Lead Summit on January 13.
You will hear from executives who are already shaping the year ahead and you will see how the themes from our upcoming book Surrender To Lead come to life in real decisions and real results.
If you want clarity going into 2026, register now and be in the room where leaders are already looking forward.
Register Now At https://www.surrendertolead.com/summit/