Why copying Big Tech in 2026 will hurt most teams
Three early signals about power, work, and responsibility
Hey there,
And just like that, we are already two weeks into the new year.
I received many thoughtful replies to last week’s issue about Venezuela and the United States. People who live in the region or work with Venezuelans sent emails, messages, and quiet notes. I’m grateful for that. When I have direct experience and real context through the people I work with, I’ll share it again. I want to offer perspective based on reality, not quick opinions.
This week feels different. It’s not noisier, just clearer. A few signals are starting to appear that say a lot about what 2026 might look like for companies, teams, and careers. These signals aren’t new, but seeing them come together so early in the year is worth noticing.
Let’s get into it.
🌐 News Shortlist
1. Large companies are bringing employees back to the office, but most teams shouldn’t follow their lead
Recap: Newsweek recently highlighted several big companies, like Meta, Microsoft, NBCUniversal, Paramount, TikTok, and major banks, that are enforcing stricter return-to-office rules for 2026. Many now require employees to be in the office four or five days a week, and some are ending hybrid work altogether. Executives say they are doing this for reasons like culture, collaboration, and productivity.
If you look closely at the list, a clear pattern appears. These are huge companies with well-known products, stable structures, lots of infrastructure, and a long track record of profits. They are not trying new things—they are focusing on what already works for them.
What often gets lost is that these companies are solving very specific problems. Office mandates help justify long-term real estate costs, reassert managerial control, and quietly reduce headcount without announcing layoffs. That logic can make sense at scale, but it does not translate cleanly to smaller or faster-moving teams.
The broader trend here is imitation without context. When high-profile leaders bash remote work, it creates pressure to follow along. But copying the constraints of companies that are ten times your size often hurts more than it helps. Structure is useful only when it matches where you actually are.
Advice:
Before you decide to rent office space or end remote work, take a moment to think about the problem you want to solve. If your company gains from being flexible, hiring talent from anywhere, or keeping costs low, those advantages are still important. Often, the quickest way to lose ground is to copy others when your situation is different.
2. Claude Cowork didn’t kill entry-level jobs, bad leadership will
Recap: Anthropic released Claude Cowork, an AI agent that can autonomously read, create, and modify files on a user’s computer. The tool can plan and execute multi-step tasks with minimal supervision, and reactions online were immediate. Many people argued this signals the end of entry-level and junior roles, especially in knowledge work.
A lot of the reaction focused on replacement. The idea that AI agents will simply wipe out junior roles and that companies can run leaner teams by cutting people. That framing misses where most organizations actually fail: not in task execution but in judgment, coordination, and accountability.
From a leadership perspective, the real leverage is not removing humans from the loop. It is upgrading them. A person who understands the business, knows how to prompt and supervise these tools, and can catch mistakes will consistently outperform an unsupervised AI agent. Tools raise the ceiling for good operators; they do not replace the need for them.
The broader pattern is familiar. New tools always look like labor substitutes at first. Over time, they become force multipliers for teams that invest in training and clarity, and sources of chaos for teams that treat them as shortcuts. The difference is not the technology. It is how seriously leadership treats enablement versus cost-cutting.
Advice:
If you are running a team, do not start by asking which roles you can eliminate. Start by asking who on your team actually knows how to use these tools well, and who you need to train. AI without ownership creates risk. AI paired with capable people creates leverage.
3. When people trust a chatbot with their health, something else is broken
Recap: OpenAI introduced ChatGPT Health, a special mode for health and wellness questions, after saying that over 230 million people ask ChatGPT about health each week. This feature lets users talk about symptoms, fitness, and medical information in a private space. OpenAI says it is meant to support, not replace, doctors.
We should ask ourselves how we reached this point. The real question isn’t why people are interested in AI, but why so many feel okay turning to a chatbot for questions about their health and medical choices. This change didn’t happen because AI became more trustworthy. It happened because other options became harder to get.
This isn’t just a story about technology—it’s about the bigger system. Long waits, high costs, confusing care, and limited access have led people to search for answers wherever they can. ChatGPT Health didn’t create this need. It simply filled a gap that was already there.
For leaders and policymakers, this is a worrying trend. When millions depend on a system that works by probability for health advice, it’s hard to know who is responsible. AI can help explain, summarize, and get people ready to talk to professionals, but it can’t take the blame if something goes wrong. That responsibility still belongs to institutions that are already under pressure.
Advice:
If you are building products, teams, or policies around AI, pay attention to why users show up in the first place. Adoption at this scale is rarely about novelty. It is usually a signal that existing systems are failing to meet basic needs, and that is where the real work begins.
That’s it for this week.
If there’s one thing these stories have in common, it’s that when pressure rises, organizations often try to control things before improving their skills. Offices take the place of trust. Tools stand in for training. Shortcuts are used instead of building real systems.
This doesn’t mean remote work is always the answer, that AI is risk-free, or that institutions can’t be fixed. It does show that when leaders are under stress, their true priorities come out fast.
As you plan for the rest of 2026, notice which problems you’re really solving and which ones you might be putting off. That difference is more important than following any trend.
If you’d like to discuss what this could mean for your team, your hiring plans, or your approach to structure this year, feel free to reach out. I’m available to talk.
Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa