Remember the 1993 movie Groundhog Day? A cynical television weatherman covering the annual Groundhog Day event in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania becomes caught in a time loop. He’s forced to relive February 2 over and over.

Is the 2026 version a work treadmill? We’re constantly sprinting to “transform” our work organizations and ourselves, but the finish line keeps moving. We all keep running – often speeding up – but we’re basically staying in the same position.

This thought – nightmare – came to me after submitting my latest Forbes Coaches Council article about liminal space for editing. For several years now, the concept of liminal space has helped my clients and me deal with disruption. When you’re in liminal space, you’re in a “betwixt and between” state where old patterns have dissolved but new ones haven’t yet emerged. You can use this space to your advantage first by naming it and then taking intentional actions to support yourself, your team and organization, as explained in this article, How to rewire the chaos of liminal space into a better future state.

My unwritten assumption for the article was that we’d exit liminal space for a somewhat stable situation. I wasn’t sure what this future state would be, but I was hopeful it would be a better state.

But as I reflected on my just-published article, I concluded my assumption for future stability was overly optimistic. We’re facing unresolved uncertainty in so many areas: AI advancements, ever-changing geopolitical conditions and other surprises that aren’t on anyone’s bingo card.

The implications for our work world are many and unknown. For instance, does the uncertainty mean organizations stay in liminal space indefinitely? If so, what does navigating “permanent liminality” look like? Or do organizations evolve and adopt new work models that provide a sense of stability? Or will something else develop?

Moving into a state of “stagility”

While researching the possibilities, I came across Deloitte’s prediction about organizations adopting a state of “stagility.” In this scenario, leaders find the “right balance between the stability that workers crave and the agility that organizations need to create” using special anchors for the work, the organization and the workers. For example, leaders within organizations commit to a set of anchors, such as a shared purpose and shared values supported by deep-seated psychological safety. These anchors work together to keep people grounded, focused and able to navigate work along with the constant change.

The organizations and the people who thrive at stagility recognize that uncertainty is part of the design, not a problem to be solved. Yet how realistic is it for people to stay aligned as they move, probably more rapidly compared to days of old?  And could this “stagility” morph into “stagnation” if you’re moving so fast that you don’t have time to reflect, grow and develop? And are there other models emerging out there?

These questions swirled in my head as I flew to Boston for the recent Coaching in Leadership and Healthcare Conference sponsored by the Institute of Coaching. (I’m an IOC professional fellow member.)

To my delight, one of the conference speakers, Brian Glaser, Google’s Chief Talent and Learning Officer, talked about these concepts. In particular, he explained how Google is dealing with continuous reinvention in this era of AI, especially to unlock human potential. Brian highlighted three actions that Google leaders are encouraging Googlers to learn and adopt, moving from:

1. Being an expert to becoming an explorer and practicing more curiosity.
2. Requiring perfection to rewarding courage to boost greater learning and risk taking.
3. Analyzing to telling stories to appeal to people’s emotions and compel them to act.

Also, from an organizational perspective, Brian shared that Google has replaced its detailed strategic planning with scenario planning. This helps decrease the  “whiplash” effect when everyone has to put on the brakes and change course when the external situation changes yet again. He explained that leaders now figure out potential actions to take based on various scenarios, rather than committing to picking one destination to move to.

Yet people need to continuously rewire their mental models and reinvent how they work in an environment in which uncertainty is constant, stability is unattainable, and disruption is common, Brian observed. And this is mentally exhausting for everyone.

And Googlers aren’t the only ones. Leaders and employees everywhere are feeling the exhaustion. And it doesn’t seem like anyone is predicting the external chaos will let up any time soon. It’s as if we’re now all running on a treadmill without a destination to head toward. To say it another way, the treadmill may be replacing the “post-liminal” finish line. 

Running on the “agility treadmill”

This treadmill feels like an “agility treadmill,” different from, yet conceptually similar to the “hedonic treadmill” that I worked with as a work/study student for Dr. Phil Brickman at Northwestern University. A few years earlier, he and Dr. Donald Campbell had coined the term “hedonic treadmill” to describe the endless pursuit of pleasure that keeps us running in place.

The 2026 agility treadmill version describes the endless pursuit of relevance and adaptation.  Organizations – and their employees – keep sprinting to “transform.” But  because the finish line (the post-liminal state) keeps changing, no one achieves “transformation.” No matter how hard we all keep running, we stay basically in the same position.

Compared to the hedonic treadmill, the agility treadmill shifts the focus from happiness to survival through change. For example, as we’re adapting, the environment alters, which means we need to adapt again yet in a different way.  In a sense, we’re always learning, reinventing and reinvigorating.

This could be stimulating, exciting, and rewarding with one crucial caveat. We need to remember that we’re human beings, not machines. To survive and thrive, we need to maintain our energy and protect our wellbeing, including our cognitive capacity. This requires being able to step off the treadmill—figuratively and literally — for the day and ideally more often too. (Otherwise we can collapse from exhaustion.)

We human beings are capable of taking these actions. However, our current track record of adjusting to our “always on” environment is less than desirable for our brain and overall health. (For improvement tips and the rationale behind them, read How simple steps can help you think better and give you more ideas.)

Yet we can try harder. Plus we can take solace in the lessons of “Groundhog Day.” If you remember, Bill Murray’s character used his time loop (a form of a treadmill) to change himself and help others.