More Customers, Worse Numbers

Sole Searching

What do you get when a $4 billion wool sneaker brand sells its entire identity for $39 million and reinvents itself as an AI GPU rental company…in 16 days? Finance expert Jaime Peters [https://substack.com/profile/348724692-jaime-peters] and leadership researcher Cindy Goodwin-Sak [https://substack.com/profile/286060070-cindy-goodwin-sak] untangle the wild, woolly tale of Allbirds' transformation into NewBird AI, asking the uncomfortable question every manager should face: when a publicly traded company completely abandons its original mission, who exactly authorized that flight path? And, does it even matter if the stock surges 700%? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit whatcouldtheybethinking.substack.com [https://whatcouldtheybethinking.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

More Customers, Worse Numbers

OpenAI may be the most talked-about company in tech, but even visionary companies have to pass the budget test. In this episode, Dr. Cindy Goodwin-Sak and Dr. Jaime Peters pick up where they left off on OpenAI’s business model and go deeper, this time into the IPO mechanics that could affect everyday investors whether they realize it or not. Jaime breaks down exactly how an IPO works: what it means to shift from private to public accountability, why fewer companies are going public today than in the 1990s, and what a trillion-dollar valuation actually represents in terms of new cash versus converted private equity shares. (Spoiler: the $40 billion and the $960 billion are not the same thing.) Cindy brings the leadership lens with what it means organizationally when you suddenly have millions of eyes on your decisions instead of a handful of private investors, and why the forcing function of public scrutiny might actually be good for OpenAI’s long-term health. Together they work through the uncomfortable math: rising compute costs, shrinking margins, a cash burn projected to hit $190 billion by 2030, and what all of that means for the everyday Americans who hold index funds in their 401(k)s, and who may have no choice but to own a piece of whatever comes next. The takeaway for managers? Demand isn’t the same as health. Know your costs. Build optionality. And tell your team the truth when things are changing, even when the hype says otherwise. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit whatcouldtheybethinking.substack.com [https://whatcouldtheybethinking.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

OpenAI's Data Center Gamble

What does it actually take to run an AI company? And can OpenAI afford it? This week, Cindy Goodwin-Sak [https://substack.com/profile/286060070-cindy-goodwin-sak] and Jaime Peters [https://substack.com/profile/348724692-jaime-peters] kick off a multi-part series diving into the business of being an AI company, not just using one. It all started with a CNBC article on OpenAI’s data center pivot that had them talking for days. So they decided to break it down for you, starting from the ground up: what goes into a data center, why AI requires specialized (and expensive) computing hardware, and just how much energy and water these facilities consume. Spoiler: think the combined electricity usage of Chicago, LA, New York, Dallas, and St. Louis, and then double it. They also unpack OpenAI’s original strategy for scaling its infrastructure (the Stargate initiative, its partnerships with Microsoft, Oracle, Amazon, and SoftBank) and what any manager can learn from those moves around vertical integration, vendor diversification, and cost control. But here’s the catch: OpenAI generated $20 billion in revenue last year, and their projected compute bill through 2030 is $600 billion. The math isn’t mathing. Tune in next week to find out what happens when reality sets in. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit whatcouldtheybethinking.substack.com [https://whatcouldtheybethinking.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Daylight Saving Time: Scam, Tradition, or Terrible Policy?

Twice a year, society agrees to a completely unnecessary group project. This week on Seriously, What Could They Be Thinking?, Dr. Cindy Goodwin-Sak [https://substack.com/profile/286060070-cindy-goodwin-sak] and Dr. Jaime Peters [https://substack.com/profile/348724692-jaime-peters] tackle daylight saving time: the policy that promises efficiency, delivers exhaustion, and somehow survives year after year. They explore the history behind DST, whether it actually saves energy, what the research says about health and workplace performance, and why leaders so often leave bad systems in place long after the original rationale has faded. What starts as a conversation about the clock turns into a bigger discussion about policy inertia, decision-making, and what leaders owe the people affected by their choices. Inside the episode: * the wartime roots of daylight saving time * the myth that farmers wanted it * the shaky evidence on energy savings * the more convincing evidence on health, safety, and productivity costs * the debate over permanent standard time versus permanent daylight time * practical manager takeaways on friction, policy review, and decision criteria It is sharp, funny, and uncomfortably relatable for anyone who has ever looked at a long-standing policy and thought, this cannot possibly still be the best idea. If the system is making people tired, annoyed, and less effective, familiarity is not a good enough excuse to keep it. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit whatcouldtheybethinking.substack.com [https://whatcouldtheybethinking.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Why Employers are Frustrated...

Employers are noticing a troubling pattern. Graduates and young professionals increasingly ask for step-by-step instructions for everything, from routine assignments to basic workplace decisions. Tasks that once required judgment and initiative now often trigger a request for detailed guidance. In this episode, Cindy Goodwin-Sak [https://substack.com/profile/286060070-cindy-goodwin-sak] and Dr. Jaime Peters [https://substack.com/profile/348724692-jaime-peters] explore what might be driving this shift. Drawing from recent conversations with employers, classroom experiences, and emerging research (including a widely discussed MIT study on AI and learning) they examine how a mix of pandemic disruption, over-structured learning environments, and new AI tools may be contributing to something psychologists call learned helplessness. The result?A growing discomfort with ambiguity, reduced ownership over work, and fewer opportunities for people to develop the judgment that organizations depend on. But the conversation doesn’t stop at the problem. Cindy and Jaime also discuss how leaders and managers can begin to rebuild learned industriousness by changing how they delegate work and develop employees. Instead of narrating every step, they argue that great managers focus on three things: * Clear outcomes * Smart constraints * Real decision authority They also offer practical advice for professionals who want to avoid becoming stuck in “instruction-following mode” and instead build the kind of judgment and initiative that drives career growth. If work increasingly feels like a checklist (or if you manage people who constantly ask what to do next) this conversation will challenge some assumptions about how we learn, lead, and grow. Keep your spreadsheets handy and your coffee strong! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit whatcouldtheybethinking.substack.com [https://whatcouldtheybethinking.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]