Wellable Weekly

In this week's episode, Nick sits down with the Oracle of Remote Work, Darren Murph. A former journalist with a Guinness World Record in publishing, Darren pioneered the Head of Remote role at GitLab and now coaches organizations globally on distributed work and organizational design. The conversation covers why the remote versus in-office debate is a false binary, how AI is making remote-first knowledge management unavoidable, and two bold predictions about the future of careers.Key TakeawaysEvery company of scale is a distributed company (multiple offices, floors, and time zones) with the same coordination challenges as remote work, making the remote versus in-office debate a false binary that distracts from the real question: how intentional are you about your work design?The return-to-office wave is best explained by complexity theory: humans revert to their last known state of coherence when exhausted by change, which is why legacy companies with deep in-office culture will likely stay there, and that's okayRemote work failure is almost always a hiring problem: people who lack autonomy and self-direction will underperform in distributed environments regardless of the tools, and building that into your hiring criteria matters more than any policyMeeting hygiene is one of the highest-leverage things distributed teams can invest in; Darren stresses that connection before content, five-minute buffers, and actively seeking disconfirming evidence at the end of every meeting all compound over timeCompanies that ignored knowledge management during COVID are now paying for it as AI that relies on undocumented or conflicting institutional knowledge with no reliable baseline often hallucinates and ultimately and is forcing the knowledge management conversation that should have happened years ago

In this week's episode, Nick and Geoff cover two timely benefits stories. First, EY announces a $100 million bonus pool for employees who demonstrate human skills, a notable signal from one of the world's largest consulting firms about what it still values in an AI-saturated environment. Then, a Business Group on Health survey reveals that 14% of US employers have dropped or plan to drop GLP-1 coverage from their 2027 benefits. Nick and Geoff debate where employer adoption goes from here.Key TakeawaysEY has allocated $100 million in bonuses for employees who demonstrate human or people skills, signaling that in a consulting business built on client relationships, AI cannot replace the value of human judgment and connectionGeoff, a former EY employee, notes that consulting is a business where the partner selling the engagement, putting a narrative around data, and building long-term client trust is doing work that AI simply cannot replicate, making the $100 million commitment less surprising than it might appearHealthcare costs are rising well above general inflation, with health insurance costs up approximately 8.5% last year and projected to rise 9.2% for 2027, creating real budget pressure on employer benefits decisionsA Business Group on Health survey found that 14% of US employers have or plan to drop GLP-1 coverage from their 2027 benefits, a meaningful difference considering 36% cover the drug for diabetes and weight loss (60% cover it for diabetes only)The key difference between enthusiastic GLP-1 adopters like Bank of America and the 14% walking away is likely not disagreement about the drug's efficacy but workforce profile—high-turnover employers bear the medication cost without capturing the long-term health benefits that justify it

In this week's episode, Nick and Geoff discuss a recent study that finds AI dramatically improves students' homework scores and speed but meaningfully hurts exam performance, creating strong lessons for how employers think about talent development. They also examine new research which links the four-day work week directly to lower obesity rates and discuss what employers who cannot yet make that shift can do to capture similar benefits.   Key TakeawaysA study of tens of thousands of students found that AI users saw homework scores improve by 18% but exam scores decline by 20%, signaling that AI is helping students complete work without actually learning the underlying materialFindings from the study translates directly to talent development risks in the workplaceZynga founder, Mark Pincus, recently spoke on the issue's core risk: AI can get you to a B+, but it will not get you to an A—and if you have never done the foundational work, you cannot even recognize what an A looks likeAccording to the Financial Times, an investment bank made fewer return offers to its 2025 intern class after senior financiers found that interns' initially impressive work seemed shallow once probed furtherResearch across 33 OECD countries found a 1% reduction in annual working hours correlates with a 0.16% decrease in obesity ratesA four-day work week represents roughly a 20% reduction in hours, suggesting meaningful population-level health effectsEmployers who cannot implement a four-day work week can pursue similar benefits by stacking smaller interventions: stress management programs, healthy food access, structured breaks, and flexible scheduling all address the same underlying mechanisms without changing the work arrangement itself

In this week's episode, Nick and Geoff dig into two stories. A National Bureau of Economic Research study identifies "LinkedIn time traveling," where candidates retroactively edit old job entries to stuff AI keywords and exaggerate skills. Then the episode turns to new data showing AI is significantly worsening an already acute workplace loneliness crisis, with 44% of employees now choosing AI over collaborating with a colleague. They dig into practical strategies for what employers can do about it.  Key TakeawaysOne in five LinkedIn users engage in "time traveling", the term for a newly uncovered practice of retroactively editing past job entries to add AI keywords, remove DEI references, and inflate skills The behavior is being driven in part by candidates attempting to game AI screening tools, stuffing profiles with keywords designed to pass algorithmic filters, and to make them appear more fit for certain rolesThe US Surgeon General has equated the health impact of chronic loneliness to smoking 15 cigarettes a day, yet most employers are not treating it with anything close to the urgency they would apply to a physical health risk of equivalent scale44% of employees choose AI over collaborating with a colleague, 75% seek advice from AI rather than a coworker, and 37% use AI for brainstorming out of fear of judgment, a pattern that is accelerating workplace isolation The most effective employer response is intentional collaboration: stack projects with multiple people, use AI in shared team settings rather than in isolation, and reframe AI as a team member rather than a private tool

In this week's episode, Nick and Geoff dig into a single story with wide implications for every employer thinking about GLP-1 coverage. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan disclosed that the company spends $250 million annually on GLP-1 medications—one-eighth of its total healthcare spend—and called it a good investment. Nick and Geoff unpack what that means for employers of all sizes, why adoption has quietly plateaued at 36%, and why the direct-to-consumer market may be the most sustainable path forward for companies that can't absorb full coverage.Key TakeawaysBank of America spends $250 million annually on GLP-1s—one-eighth of its $2 billion total healthcare spend—making it the fastest-growing benefits category by a significant margin, up from effectively zero just four or five years agoMoynihan called it a good investment but acknowledged that access is gated through a health coaching program, a guardrail that reduces early dropout and creates accountability on both sides of the investment29% of employees say they would switch employers to access GLP-1 coverage, making it one of the only pharmaceutical benefits with genuine recruitment power alongside salary and remote work flexibilityGLP-1 employer adoption has plateaued at 36%, up only two percentage points from 2024, reflecting real hesitation among companies that haven't yet covered it and quiet anxiety among those that have about cost trajectory and the difficulty of removing the benefit once offeredThe direct-to-consumer (D2C) subsidy model, where employers contribute a fixed monthly amount toward an employee's own D2C purchase rather than covering the drug outright, may be the most practical and sustainable path forward for mid-size and smaller organizations, since D2C prices tend to decline as scale grows unlike employer-plan drug prices