De Blasio dismissed the comptroller's concerns over the purchase of cameras by Vievu, which claims competitor Taser is a sore loser.

The NYPD and Mayor Bill de Blasio are proceeding with a body camera contract over objections by the city's chief auditor. The decision comes amid concerns about the quality of the cameras, which are made by Seattle-based Vievu, and what the mayor called a behind-the-scenes effort to "denigrate" the company by its main competitor, Taser International.

The mayor made his accusation during a press conference on Monday, the same day that an attorney for the City of Phoenix, Arizona sent a letter to Taser's CEO reprimanding him over what he called an attempt by the company to "improperly influence" that city to choose Taser's body cameras.

On Friday, the last day that New York City's $6.4 million, 5,000-camera contract with Vievu could be approved, the city's Comptroller Scott Stringer declined to sign off on it, citing an ongoing investigation. On Monday, defenders of the contract—including NYPD officials and Mayor Bill de Blasio—insisted that all requirements for the city Comptroller's approval have been met, and that, in spite of recent reports in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, there are no known investigations into or allegations of fraud or corruption in the awarding process.

The decision by the Comptroller—who may challenge de Blasio in the city's next mayoral race—appeared to stem from a 2015 Department of Investigation report that highlighted 23 concerns with the purchasing process, but the NYPD said it had addressed those concerns. "The fact that the Comptroller did not cite any of the statutory (reasons) . . . or raise an applicable objection, the Contract is deemed registered," Deputy NYPD Commissioner for Legal Matters Lawrence Byrne wrote in a letter to Comptroller Stringer's office, according to a DNAInfo report.

Last year, a nine-member panel at the NYPD studied more than 50 proposals from 17 body camera vendors before narrowing the choice down to Vievu's L4 and Taser's Axon Body cameras, which scored nearly identical marks on their equipment, as DNAInfo reported. But the companies' blind bids were far apart, with Taser seeking $17 million compared to Vievu's $6.4 million.

A Lobbying Battle, With "Free" Cameras

The debate has drawn attention to concerns about the use and reliability of cameras, and the comparative advantages between different models. But the controversy also highlights the costs of the cameras, and the intense behind-the-scenes battle among police manufacturers for a slice of a lucrative market. Scottsdale, Arizona-based Taser, known for its eponymous electroshock weapons, is now considered the body camera industry leader, with contracts at 35 city departments, it says, with a market capitalization of $1.4 billion. Vievu, which is a subsidiary of Florida-based, privately held police supplier Safariland, commands a smaller portion of the market, with notable contracts in Oakland and Aurora, Illinois.

After the NYPD contract was awarded in October, Taser, whose stock dropped 14% on the news, mobilized a pricey lobbying effort to derail the deal. It has claimed that Vievu was selling its cameras and a year of online storage "near or below cost." Vievu has said it has a leaner business model—it doesn't have the robust software division that Taser does—which allows it to pass those savings to customers.

Taser launched a complaint with the police commissioner, citing field test reports from the Los Angeles Police Department and three other police agencies that chose Taser's cameras over Vievu's. In one report cited by Taser, the Cincinatti police department compared Vievu's and Taser's cameras and found that Vievu's to be lacking in field of view, low-light performance, battery life, and storage software.

In October, Taser also quietly hired a top political consultant at a price of $15,000 a month, and waged what appeared to be a coordinated PR campaign against Vievu. As part of the effort, Politico reported, a group of Harlem pastors raised questions about the quality of Vievu cameras, while a city councilmember gave interviews to a number of local publications, including the New York Post and the New York Observer, in which he raised concerns about Vievu.

Vievu has also hired lobbyists to make its case to the city. In June, the company signed its first New York State lobbying contract, a $15,000-per-month agreement, to retain Freddy Ferrer, the well-known former Bronx Borough president and two-time mayoral candidate, as an advocate for the company.

At a press conference on Monday, Mayor de Blasio praised the NYPD's record on technology and fired back at critics, saying "a lot of information has been put out to try and denigrate" Vievu. "I don't think it's the first time in the history of the free enterprise system that we've seen one company try to smear another," he said. "But the NYPD is very, very careful in how it makes its technology choices."

Steve Tuttle, a Taser vice president, sent Fast Company documentation of five cities where Vievu cameras had been discontinued amid concerns over quality, and two cities where the cameras had received low evaluation scores. "Contrary to Mayor De Blasio's accusations, we simply let the public record about our competitor's performance speak for itself," he wrote. "We compete all around the world against other body camera companies and each has to stand on their own merits or limitations. It is critically important to law enforcement agencies and their communities that their body camera programs are successful, and that the evidence generated is secure and reliable."

A spokeswoman for Vievu, Aura Reinhard, said, "The City of New York and the NYPD conducted an exhaustive request-for-proposal process, evaluating more than 50 companies, and determined that Vievu is superior—with respect to both technology and pricing. We believe our competitor is now attempting to spread false and misleading information about a fair and public process because they lost."

The campaign by Taser against the NYPD contract is part of a pattern of aggressive and sometimes uncompetitive efforts aimed at capturing body camera contracts, the company's competitors have alleged.

Two weeks after the camera contract was awarded, for instance, the company offered the NYPD 1,000 cameras for field testing "as a gift to the city of New York." The police department declined Taser's offer.

Last month, as the City of Phoenix was preparing to end a body camera contract with Vievu and readying a new request for proposals to meet recent advances in technology, Taser also made an offer of "free" cameras to the city's police department. In a letter sent on Monday, the attorney for the city warned Taser CEO Rick Smith that an offer of "free" cameras during an open solicitation for camera proposals was "clearly out-of-bounds and legally impermissible." Such an offer, attorney Brad Holm wrote, violates the city's procurement code, "creates the appearance of ethical impropriety," and buttresses allegations made in court by Digital Ally, another body camera maker, "that Taser's pattern of procurement misconduct is anticompetitive and monopolistic." If Taser "fails to comply with this directive," the letter warned, "the City will consider debarment proceedings against the company."

In New York, where the city is complying with a 2013 federal court order related to its use of "stop and frisk" techniques, a total of 1,000 officers are slated to wear cameras by the end of the year. By 2020, the city intends to equip all officers with cameras. New York has not yet issued a request for proposals for its next camera purchase, but the contract with Vievu stipulates options to increase the total number of cameras before the end of its five-year term. Under contract renewals, the agreement could last long as 14 years, scale up to as many 18,000 units, and generate revenue of up to a quarter of a billion dollars.

Corrected to note that only Taser made an offer of "free" cameras to the NYPD.

Divorced mom Sheri Atwood, founder and CEO of SupportPay, spotted a unique need, went all in, and scored major Series A funding.

When former Silicon Valley exec Sheri Atwood landed $4 million in crucial Series A venture capital funding for SupportPay, an app designed to streamline child care payments, a lot of attention was focused on her personal story. She was a divorced mom and child of a painful broken marriage—so the show-me-the-money skirmishes were familiar territory.

But there was a second storyline at play that made SupportPay's December VC win all the more significant: Atwood's gender.

Last year in the U.S. just a handful of fintech companies founded by women raised Series A or Series B funding. In New York, there were two investment platforms—Sallie Krawcheck's Ellevest ($9 million) and Wise Banyan ($3.5 million), and insurance broker PolicyGenius ($15 million). And in California there was online lender ApplePie Capital ($16.5 million), along with SupportPay ($4.1 million). Overall, billions poured into the sector.

Fast Company first spoke with Atwood last spring. We connected again last week, to talk about how her Series A score ultimately came together.

Why did you start SupportPay?

My parents had a horrific divorce. It felt as a kid that the only thing that mattered was the money. Deadbeat dad, and an uneducated single mom struggling to raise three kids on her own. I left and got married at 19, had daughter at 25. We got a divorce shortly thereafter and swore that it would be amicable, I didn't want to put my daughter through what I had gone through. It cost us $350, and it worked. We went out for a drink to celebrate. But [my ex-husband] wasn't good with money while we were married; he was even less good after we were divorced. The only time we ever saw each other was when we were handing over our daughter, and so during those times all those conflicts came up.

At the time, I was a vice president of global solutions and campaigns at Symantec, traveling the world. I was their youngest VP ever, and I ran into the typical big-company political issues. I remember my first performance review, after being promoted to VP, I was told that I was "too effective." Excuse me? I realized that I was being told I was making my male peers look bad, and they didn't like that. For me, it was like, if you're going to pay me this amount of money I just want to do a good job. I left and went to a smaller company, where I faced even worse issues in terms of sexual harassment.

Then I found out my daughter had to have emergency brain surgery. (She's totally okay now.) It put everything into perspective: If I'm going to be working this many hours, I want it to be on something I'm passionate about. The idea came across when I was doing an expense report. You submit a receipt and you get reimbursed. Why can't we do the same for child support expenses?

How did you get started?

I'm the least likely person to become an entrepreneur. I was literally trying to find every reason not to do it. I thought, well, maybe I'm the only person with this problem. I interviewed a ton of parents, legal professionals. I found that in the U.S. alone there are 55 million parents that live apart. I quickly realized this wasn't just a "me" problem, a lot of people were suffering from this. Then, I was interested in why parents weren't paying. What I heard consistently was, I have no problem paying, I just want to know the money is going to my kid, and not to support my ex's lifestyle. But there's no system to keep a record of the payments. The onus is on the person paying to keep those records and have proof.

In the beginning I funded it myself. I didn't want to take anyone's money unless I knew I was in this 100%. I taught myself how to code, and coded the first version myself. I started beta testing it and did that for a good year on my own. After that I started bringing people on board and started the fundraising process.

And how did that go, at least initially?

It was at the peak of those news stories about fundraising—the 27th food delivery startup was getting millions, biggest seed round ever. I thought, I'm actually solving a problem that impacts so many parents, this shouldn't be that hard. I was very wrong. I got to the point where I liquidated all my assets—my house, my stock. I was a week away from shutting down when I ended up getting [seed round] support from a group of investors led by [DFJ founding partner] Tim Draper and Salesforce Ventures.

What did they see that you think other investors missed?

They saw the need and also the social benefit it was providing. Especially here in the Valley, investors are more than willing to fund the 22-year-old white male problems. But all these problems facing the typical American over the age of the 30: No one is willing to do it. Unfortunately everybody is looking for a Mark Zuckerberg. When I say that I code, I've been tested in meetings. I wonder, have you ever asked a guy this? I passed their test.

What did it take to pull of your Series A?

We closed $4.1 million in December, led by Fenway Summer Ventures. It was incredibly difficult, compounded by the fact that the world changed. When we raised our seed capital, the consensus was to focus on user growth. Just get users on board, get them active and using the product. We weren't focused on revenue. Then around March of last year, revenue became investors' only focus. It required a huge shift in product, in strategy, in development. The whole rules of the game changed. At the time we were giving the product away for free, with the idea that eventually the it would be a monthly subscription. Our focus had to become getting users to convert to paid. We turned on revenue in June and started collecting revenue in July. That's when we could start having conversations.

With revenue coming in, what kind of questions did you face?

The biggest question I faced and continue to face—is this that big of a problem? Or, if it is, isn't someone doing this already? SupportPay combines fintech, law, family. You would think it was blue ocean. But we don't fit squarely into any of their boxes.

If I learned anything, I learned that I should have turned on revenue a long time ago. Your growth is slower, but you're only capturing people who are willing to pay and you prove that it's a big pain that people are willing to pay for. Customer growth without revenue is more subjective—how many of your millions are users actually using the product?

Now that the money is in the bank, where do you go from here?

We're adding additional functionality in terms of payment methods, calendaring, in-app messaging. That's step one. Step two, we're expanding into the family law market. Family law professionals are now maybe 20% of our customer acquisition. Our goal is to make that 40% and capture customers as they're going through a divorce or separation. Third, we're working with the state and government systems. Every state has its own system, and they're incredibly difficult to use from a case worker perspective as well as a parent perspective. Our platform is much cheaper, and we don't have to re-architect our product. (We built our system based on the architecture of the state systems.) Right now we're in active talks with four states.

Aside from fundraising, what's the biggest challenge you faced as a leader last year?

It's hard to retain talent. Silicon Valley was not sustainable. I started exploring relocating the company, maybe to North Carolina or Texas. Then Sacramento approached me—why don't you come here, we'll offer you all of these resources. Now we have new office space with incredibly cheap rent, and they paid for the construction. They're making connections with the state. Then of course the cost of living. As I'm hiring, employees are far more committed to staying with the company. We moved in September.

Don't let the casual vibe take you off your guard. And don't order the dan-dan noodles.

Ah, the lunch interview—an audition that combines the stress of a job interview with the awkwardness of a first date. To ace it, you'll need to make a professional impression in a casual environment. That's no easy feat.

"Hiring managers typically do lunch interviews because they want to see your personality come out and see how you behave in a casual setting," says Amy Wolfgang, CEO at Austin, Texas-based Wolfgang Career Coaching.

But as the interviewee, you need to be strategic in your approach. "There's a temptation to let down your guard and let it become a social event, but it's still a job interview," says Carole Martin, job interview coach and author of Boost Your Interview IQ.

The good news: "If a hiring manager is going to expense a meal for you, the person is seriously interested in hiring you," says Martin.

Follow these ground rules to crush it at your next lunch interview:

Be Courteous To Everyone

From the moment you walk into the restaurant, your social skills are under the microscope. "The interviewer is watching how you interact with the host or hostess, the wait staff, even the person who comes to clear your plate," says Wolfgang.

Schmoozing with the staff is similar to cozying up to the office receptionist in that it can affect the hiring manager's perception of you. Translation: You need to be polite to and appreciative of everyone.

This is particularly crucial if you're interviewing for a client- or customer-facing position. "If you're going to represent the company, hiring managers want to see how well you engage with people," says Martin.

Make Smart Small Talk

Lunch interviews by nature are more casual than traditional office interviews, so you'll need to up your chitchat game. But remember: "This is a business meeting, not a social event," says Martin. Read: Don't bring up politics or religion—and save the Kardashians for your friends.

"Weather and holiday plans are safe topics," says Mikaela Kiner, CEO at Uniquely HR, a career coaching and HR consulting firm; so is observational small talk (e.g., "The vibe here is fun, don't you think?"). And, regardless of how the food tastes, you should avoid making negative comments about the meal—this could be the hiring manager's favorite restaurant.

Order Strategically

While we're on the topic of etiquette, you need to be mindful of what you order. Avoid messy foods (anything that you need to eat with your hands), soups (no slurping!) and salads (do you really want lettuce stuck in your teeth?). Also, "absolutely no alcohol," says Martin. "Alcohol relaxes you and loosens your tongue, and loose lips sink ships."

Moreover, pay attention to price. "You don't need to compare dollar-for-dollar to what the hiring manager gets, but order within reason," advises Kiner. In other words, don't order the most expensive food on the menu. Also, mind your manners and let the interviewer order first.

Bring Your Application Materials

Just like you would do for an office interview, take copies of your resume and any work samples with you. "You may not get the opportunity to present them, but you can at least leave them with the hiring manager," says Wolfgang. Also, bring a pen and paper to potentially take notes in between courses.

Come Prepared—And Say Thank You

Although you're interviewing in a more relaxed setting, you don't want to become overly focused on dining etiquette and lose sight of other important prep work. You should still be ready to respond to some of the most common interview questions.

Of course, you'll want to send the hiring manager a meaningful thank-you email—followed by a handwritten letter by mail. Be sure to refer to something funny you discussed or comment on the meal (e.g., "The burger was absolutely delicious."). You can be a little more informal with your thank-you note, but "follow-up is essential no matter what type of interview you have," says Wolfgang.

This article originally appeared on Monster and is reprinted with permission.

Traditional credit scores are not always useful when it comes to credit-averse millennials. Some lending platforms have a backup plan.

FICO is falling out of fashion. Last year Social Finance, or SoFi, started using its own proprietary underwriting score in place of FICO when evaluating applications for its student loan, personal loan, and mortgage products. As the company's CEO told the Wall Street Journal at the time, "We just don't think the score itself is a real driver to credit performance."

It was a bold move for a young company with little performance history, but SoFi is not alone: Affirm, Avant, and Earnest have all distanced themselves from traditional credit scores.

And now they're joined by Float, a Los Angeles-based lending startup, whose founders also say they have no plans to use FICO. The platform is launching today, and a look at its business model reveals why it thinks it can survive without it. Float is an app designed for lending small amounts of cash to customers in a pinch. If you're facing the possibility of an overdraft, for example, a Float credit line, ranging from $50 to $1,000, can help you stay in the black. As with a classic American Express charge card, repayment is due in full the following month. Float also levies a flat 5% transfer fee.

Everything about the product is designed to appeal to millennials, who have become notorious for their aversion to the trickster fine print associated with banks and credit cards. One-third of millennials have never bothered to apply for a credit card, and the percentage of Americans under 35 with credit card debt is at its lowest level in more than 25 years, according to the Federal Reserve. A recent study found that millennials use cash and debit cards at far higher rates than older Americans. Over time, those preferences will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as millennials without credit histories will struggle to get credit.

For Float cofounders Kevin Bass and Max Klein, that changing behavior presents an opportunity. "People need or want credit in that moment. We're the fastest on the market," says Klein, Float's CEO. "We also give the customer the flexibility to use this line of credit for whatever they wish."

Instead of pulling a FICO score, Float looks at two years' worth of transaction history in an applicant's bank account. "It's a more inclusive credit system," says Bass, who serves as president.

It's also cheaper: Pulling credit reports adds enormous expense to the underwriting process.

Since June, when Float launched in beta, the company has been testing its model and refining its criteria. "The more times that your transactions have the word 'cash,' that's predictive of a poor borrower," says Klein. "It's the little things like that we're looking at."

Float has also noticed that customers who arrive via Instagram are better borrowers than those who arrive via Facebook. "Everything is being computed and inputted into our score," Klein adds.

Right now, the average credit line hovers around $280. More than 90% of customers return for additional credit the following month. During beta, both approvals and delinquencies were high, but in the coming months, Klein and Bass hope to cut their delinquency rate in half as they grow outside of California and Utah, where their operations have been based. "We want a lot of people in the platform now, we want the data," Klein explains.

Today, they announced $3 million in seed financing, which will help support that expansion. Their backers include Camp One Ventures, FundersClub, and 500 Startups.

Bryan Bradford, an individual investor, also participated in the round. "The problem with a lot of lending businesses, generally, is that the people who start them are folks like us with good educations, high incomes, in that bubble," he says. "Most of America, the great majority, is in a very different financial situation. They need quick access to cash for situations that come up."

Of course, serving prime borrowers is good for business. SoFi and its ilk know that well, and make no apologies for it. (Despite growing criticism: "Even Good-Guy Student Loan Startups Still Favor the Rich," a BuzzFeed headline proclaimed this past week.) Float is tackling a huge market, but it is also a market that the online lending industry's early movers have chosen to avoid.

As for FICO, not everyone is ready to sound its death knell.

"Will it be replaced? I don't think anytime soon," says Lend Academy's Ryan Lichtenwald. Companies that securitize their loans, in particular, often need FICO scores for the benefit of their investors, who use the score to normalize loan performance across wide portfolios. "But millennials don't have a lot of credit history and it's interesting to see these companies do more with data," Lichtenwald adds. "Whether it proves to be effective over the long-term remains to be seen."

Kenneth Lin, CEO of Credit Karma, has turned credit scores and reports into a business worth over $3.5 billion. He's not worried, even if FICO itself loses some of its power: "Over time the credit report will have more and more dominance and the score will fade away," Lin says, particularly as the data that goes into underwriting becomes more complex. Regardless, consumers will still have to monitor their credit histories. "Credit is the best predictor of risk."

You have to keep your investors in the loop, even when you aren't fundraising. Here's how.

So you raised your first round of funding. Good for you! Seriously, it takes a tremendous amount of work to close a round, so you should feel great about that. But regardless of the size of your round or the stage of your company, the hard truth is that you're probably going to have to fundraise again.

Right off the bat, that's potentially bad news. Fewer deals are getting done right now than just a few years ago. According to the National Venture Capital Association, "8,000 deals were completed in 2016, representing a 22% year-over-year decline and the lowest count since 2012, a clear indication that venture investors are being much more critical of their investment opportunities." It's particularly tough for entrepreneurs trying to make it from seed stage to Series A (the dreaded Series A crunch). So how do you compete for dollars?

The short answer: by email.

The slightly longer one: by figuring out how to engage your existing investors right now—when you're not actively raising money. This way, when the time comes, they'll not only invest in you again, but they'll connect you with other investors and serve as glowing references in the process.

And pulling that off may come down to writing one simple email—continuously.

Why You Need Regular, Standardized Email Updates

To be sure, there are multiple strategies you can (and ideally should) use to keep your investors engaged. But one of the most important and low-effort things you can do is send out a standard group update email in a consistent format. This should happen regularly, on a monthly basis. There are startups that send quarterly investor updates, and that's okay, but monthly is better.

Here's the thing, though: If you wait until you need to raise again to talk to your investors, they won't be happy. Investors probably won't be paying attention to your every move. And they may not respond to your update emails even if you send them regularly. But more likely than not, they are reading them. This information is how they evaluate your performance—and whether you're worth pouring any more money into.

When it comes to investor communication, put one person in charge, ideally a founder. Founders are busy too, but they should never be too busy to talk with investors. And the information you should be tracking for them should already be at your fingertips.

To marshal it into a quick, effective monthly email update to investors, you just need to follow a few basic rules:

• Keep the format consistent. Use the same subject line so it's easily searchable.
• Longer isn't better. You want an email short enough for an investor to read in the car from one meeting to another.
• Stick with the same categories and metrics. Identify the ones that matter most to your business, then compare this month's stats with last month's.
• End with one or two "asks" at the bottom. Investors are always saying they want to be helpful—let them prove it.

This is a rough template of what this type of email looks like:

Hello all,

[One-paragraph introduction sharing whatever your focus has been over the past month.]

Top priorities:

• [Priority #1]
• [Priority #2]
• [Priority #3]

Product:
We've made [summary of latest product updates]. See them at this link.

Money in bank:

• We have $[_____] in the bank. This gives us a runway of [__] months at our current burn rate.
• [Any other relevant funding updates.]

KPIs:

• Revenue last month: $[_____]
• Revenue this month: $[_____]
• [Other important metric last month]
• [Other important metric this month]

Other updates:

• [Big win #1]
• [Press coverage #2]
• [Other update #3]

[One ask for investors—in bold.]

Best,
[Name]

Still Send The Email When Things Are Going Badly

When things are going poorly, you may be tempted to skip the email updates. Don't! Investors will know something is amiss if you stop communicating with them, and that may affect how much they trust you. Also, you waste an opportunity to engage them in finding a solution to your problems—for instance, by connecting you with a strategic hire, bridge financing, etc. If things are going badly, now is the time to fix it.

A second caveat: Don't deviate from your structured email format when things go wrong. You may be tempted to write a long explanation for what's happening, what corrective actions you're taking, and why it's all going to be okay. Don't! You want to be transparent with your investors, but you don't want them to think you are becoming unhinged. And a long, rambling email will send that signal.

You Need Investors' Trust All The Time, Not Just While Fundraising

If you wait until you need something to reach out to your investors, you've already screwed up. You've just shown them you aren't capable of maintaining even your basic business network, so they should stop investing any more time and money into you. Here's how Julian Counihan at Red Sea Ventures put it: "Startups that are not speaking to their investors are throwing away a free call option. You don't know if you'll need it, but it costs nothing and is extremely valuable."

This is particularly true when it comes to bridge financing, short-term funding to tide you over until you can find longer-term investments. Bridge financing only happens on the basis of trust—and often when things are going south. At times like that, you need an investor who will take a risk on you when every sign indicates they shouldn't. To win that leap of faith, there's no substitute for regular, forthright communication.

So take the time to build trust with your investors now. It's never too late to start writing those update emails, and sometimes a clear-cut formula is exactly what you need.

Clara Brenner is cofounder and managing partner of the Urban Innovation Fund, a venture capital firm that invests in transformative urban technology. She is also the cofounder of Tumml, an urban ventures accelerator. Check out this video for more tips and follow Clara on Twitter at @clara_brenner.

If you're looking for a way to make your voice heard in 2017, the civic tech site PopVox is a good place to start.

Following the events of Tuesday, November 8, many citizens who were disappointed with the election results began to express a desire to become more active politically, and more effective in that activism. If your Facebook feed looked anything like mine, it was filled with questions, comments, and pleas about what to do next. A much-circulated post in my network (and possibly yours) urged people to call New York Senator Chuck Schumer, imploring him to protest the appointment of Steve Bannon as chief strategist to Donald Trump.

Marci Harris saw that post in her own social network in California. And while it didn't bother her at all—she likes to see ordinary citizens expressing themselves politically—she knew it was slightly misinformed. Harris, who worked on the staff of former California Democratic Representative Pete Stark, knew that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer really only answers to his own constituents in New York. She also knew that Bannon's appointment would not come before Congress and was an internal White House matter. "There's certainly utility in making your feelings known to your own representatives," she says. "But many were acting as if Bannon needed to be confirmed by the Senate, and that was just not the case."

Helping ordinary citizens become savvier about what sorts of actions are likely to have an impact on elected officials is what Harris does. Several years ago, she founded PopVox, an online platform that tracks legislation and allows people to express support or opposition digitally. (She's made Fast Company's Most Creative People list more than once.) Rather than ineffectually tweeting your representative in Congress, PopVox encourages you to register through the site and send certified communications to your representatives that support or oppose specific pieces of legislation.

For plenty of Americans, the presidential campaign and election made 2016 one of the most politically charged years in recent memory. But for PopVox, it was mostly a year of rebuilding the site's technology following a $1.3 million "philanthropic investment" from LinkedIn's Reid Hoffman. (Though mission-driven, PopVox is currently a for-profit company. "The right model for civic tech for public good doesn't exist yet" in this country, according to Harris.) Since PopVox focuses on legislation and governing—as opposed to elections—Harris is hopeful about 2017. "We're expecting this to be a growth year," she says.

Now that Congress is back in session, state legislatures are meeting, and our new president is issuing sweeping executive orders, it may be time to get acquainted with PopVox. Not only can you track national legislation that interests you, but a new feature of the site also allows you to follow laws being made on the state level. Harris feels that a new focus on state policy making is likely to be a major trend in the near future. Republican messaging has long called for returning power to the states, and that seems as good a bet as any for many heavily blue states under a Donald Trump administration.

In this tumultuous political moment, Fast Company caught up with Harris to learn more about trends she sees in politics, technology, and how the two interact.

Right after the election, I saw such a flurry of people wanting to be active and effective in their advocacy, and it seemed like they should be aware of PopVox.

Marci Harris: It was kind of a weird time because PopVox only works when Congress is in session. So it was a funny time to see all this post-election energy, but not to be able to ride the wave. We needed the 115th Congress to start and for bills to start coming into our system. It's important for energy to be channeled in a way that's both effective and sustainable. If it's just scattershot activism, with a lot of energy but not a lot of impact, people are going to burn out from that.

Since PopVox's founding in 2011, users have been able to track legislation, and express opposition or support to their representatives in Congress. Now, though, you've built a new feature: People can track legislation coming out of all 50 states.

We've been asked to do a state version ever since we started. So much policy is happening at the state level that's actually more impactful on people's lives. In 2014, for instance, there were approximately 24,000 bills passed at the state level, compared to about 300 in Congress at that time. And yet there are very few resources actually covering the state level, with fewer state house reporters. It's the great unobserved level of government.

I don't think most people think a lot about state legislatures or how they work.

I've learned so much trivia about state government. There are anomalies. Nebraska has a unicameral government. New Hampshire is one of the smallest states, but it has the most lawmakers, 400 members of the New Hampshire lower house. There's some crazy differences between state legislatures. Some stay in session year-round, some are in session for a month. Some have full-time paid lawmakers, others get $12,000 a year. In Texas, it's only $7,200 a year.

How are you feeling about democracy right now overall?

Our systems have certainly changed because of technology. Now it's really up to us to use this technology to make sure people are better informed. I think a functioning democracy depends on good information, on people paying attention. For the most part, we at PopVox don't do original reporting, we curate and link out to the work of others, like the amazing Capitol Hill press corps, though we do have a team of interns right now attending all confirmation hearings to give people a taste of what it's like to sit in the room and listen to questions. A big theme for us is to make the legislative process more accessible, less intimidating, more welcoming. It can feel so difficult even to take the first step. I remember when we were having our first conversations about PopVox, we said we wanted it to feel the opposite of these big intimidating marble staircases with huge columns.

I feel like a lot of people want to be more politically active, but don't quite know where to start. It's like resolving to go to the gym.

That's a good way to put it. Especially right now with things moving so quickly, everyone feels overwhelmed, even veteran politicos. We at PopVox try to help with that through our weekly emails, explaining what's ahead in Congress on Monday and wrapping up the week on Friday. Our readers, both in D.C. and across the country, tell us that it helps them get a handle on all that is happening, and they appreciate a tone that is neutral, not clickbait or looking to promote a position. We're working to make those more personalized and relevant, especially as we incorporate what's happening at the state level. For those of us who have spent years trying to get people engaged, we recognize that something special is happening right now. It's important to have productive, effective ways for this attention and enthusiasm to sustain over the long term.

PopVox's core product tracks Congress. A major question now is how much power Congress will actually have as a check on Trump. What is your feeling?

We need to set high expectations for our elected officials. Congress has hobbled itself in the past few decades, slashing its own resources and undercutting public trust through shutdowns and partisan bickering. But we need it to be strong now. People should put pressure on Congress and hold it accountable. They should also tell it when it's doing something right. Members of Congress are human. They care and are moved by the stories they hear and the input from their constituents. They want to do a good job. Sometimes that requires adhering closely to the will of their constituents, but sometimes that requires a personal judgment about what is best for the country as a whole. Often, especially in the Senate, it requires nuance and compromise. This new era of political activism will require a deeper level of understanding that preserving what is important in the long run sometimes requires working with people you disagree with in the short term. I am optimistic that both the Congress and the people will put in the work and rise to the challenge.

This interview has been condensed and edited.

And it all comes down to making a timeless product that the customer will hold on to for many, many years.

How do we make the fashion industry more sustainable? For Paul Dillinger, head of global product innovation at Levi Strauss & Co, it's not enough to simply plant a few trees to offset carbon dioxide or use less toxic dyes. To make a real impact in the world, you need to help change the way people think about clothes.

Levi's has always been a leader in sustainability. In 1991, it established "terms of engagement" that laid out the brand's global code of conduct throughout its supply chain. This meant setting standards for worker's rights, a healthy work environment, and an ethical engagement with the planet. "It wasn't an easy thing to do," Dillinger says. "At the time, we were worried that doing this would drive up our own costs and prices." In fact, what happened was that these practices were quickly adopted by other companies, who used it as a template to write their own rules. "We were actually leading industry toward new standards," he says.

These days, Levi's continues to focus on how it can push the envelope when it comes to being green. Dillinger believes that part of the solution is encouraging people to stop thinking about clothes as disposable. As a designer, his goal is to create durable jeans that customers love and feel good wearing because this increases the likelihood that they will care for them better and keep them longer. In this Creative Conversation, we discuss what it will take to create a real paradigm shift in people's thinking about fashion.

You're tasked with creating a product that is fairly timeless and less subject to trends. Are you intentionally changing the narrative about consumption?

Yes. In my wildest dreams, we'd be helping to cultivate a Levi's consumer who values durability and demonstrates a real attachment to an object. We'd be nurturing the person who doesn't purchase because of immediate seasonal change, but who purchases for lasting value. This would mean there are shared values between our brand and our consumer.

This seems to run counter to the fashion industry, which values new looks and trends.

Yes, most companies are focused on convincing the consumer that they are not pretty unless they radically change their look; they're not going to be in, attractive, or cool. They create a false appetite that directly leads to a pattern of hyper-consumption. If someone is pushing boyfriend jeans on you real hard this season, they're probably going to be pushing a super skinny jegging on you next season. This radical oscillation in silhouette preference is going to make you feel that the thing you just bought is no longer valuable.

Instead, what we're trying to do is encourage our consumer to be conscious that when they purchase a pair of jeans, that is not an isolated event. The garment had an impact before they purchased it, in terms of people that made it and the waste that was involved in creating it. And its going to exist long after they're done owning it.

What would happen if we could change culture in such a way that consumers imagined the end of life of the product they bought? So, what if we said that you could mulch your jeans, put them in your garden, and see how the decomposition of your Levi's could feed the food that you were growing. That's conceivably how we might dispose of garments in the future. That would prompt the consumer to think about little details like how the color was applied to the garment in the first place. Would the chemicals in the dye affect the garment, my food, and my body? This is the kind of holistic thinking we want to spur in our customers. Fundamentally, asking them to take into account the impact they're responsible for in the whole system, from the supply chain to the eventual disposal of the garment.

How do you cultivate that consumer?

It starts with the product. Take the 501: It is an anchor product that has endured over time. Sure, it has evolved in some ways, but we don't offer radical changes in silhouette. We're owning the history and the provenance of our brand that makes essential, archetypal pieces of clothing.

What we do is we try to maintain a fit portfolio where we ensure that we have the fit you feel best in, not the one you've been told to feel best in. Then we make that product available consistently. When you love a pair of jeans, you develop an emotional connection not just with that object, but with the brand. You know that the brand has served you well. If we can make clothes that are really worth loving, then hopefully people will love them longer and care for them better.

We're choosing not to participate in the fashion cycle. Instead, we're choosing to cultivate long-term relationships with the consumer and deliver against their needs. And hopefully that participates in the recalibration of consumption broadly, though that is a lofty goal.

You're known for your forward thinking when it comes to incorporating technology into fabrics. How do you do this, but also ensure that you are making these classic garments?

Technology is a loaded word: It implies gadget. We're engaged in scientific dialogue with a lot of different people, but not all of it lights up the way you'd expect when you think of tech. There are ideas that we're bringing to market that you might never notice. One that comes to mind is coming out in the next six months. A lot of people expect performance from clothing now. It's one of the reasons that yoga pants are winning the market. The solution for performance has often been a mechanical or chemical application to a garment, often in the form of a synthetic fiber blended in. Often these technologies really flatten and dull the vibe of a jean. It starts to look like franken-jean: a jean from an unhappy future.

How do you bring that performance to a garment that is, in many ways, very similar to its original archetype that is now almost 150 years old? We've been working on this for two and a half years. The proposition is to bring jeans to market that will be 100% cotton, but that have hollow yarn architectures. We had a polyester that was woven into the yarn, but after weaving the [yarn] together [to make the denim], we were able to dissolve it out. What happens in that process is that we have the ability to wick away moisture and hold in warm air, but the jeans look and feel the way an authentic pair of Levi's should.

But I imagine that it is hard to create profound change as one isolated company.

Yes, absolutely. If you look at how the food industry has evolved and shifted, it's not one chef, or one farmer, or one supermarket choosing to align itself around different values. It's a whole evolving system of consciousness. Personally, I can only take responsibility for my own behavior and advocate for these values.

But I also think there are other likeminded people that we can seek out. We have a program called the Levi Strauss Collabatory where we bring small designers who share our values and help them integrate sustainability into their young new businesses. We give them the support they need to bring that to life. So we can help nurture the ecosystem.

As a large company, what are you doing to make your manufacturing process more sustainable?

I think it's important to focus on making products sustainable in every place that we manufacture. It's very important not to use offshoring as a way to hide the way that we are manufacturing. We believe in transparency. It's incumbent on us to know that water is a precious resource everywhere in the world. And it's important for everyone across the entire supply chain—from the farmers to the factory workers to the people disposing of the products—to be conscious of resource conservation. To do this, we have a life cycle assessment that looks at the impact at every stage of the process, all around the world.

It's also about educating the customer, telling them that there are better ways to care for their clothes. You don't have to wash your jeans every time you wear them; in fact, this is bad for them. If you hang them to dry, they'll last longer. A simple message like that allows us to involve the consumer in a much bigger effort to carefully, deliberately draw down on resource consumption.

And importantly, when we unlock proprietary data about water or waste, the best thing we can do with that is share it with everybody. Last year, we hosted a conference here at Levi Strauss where we brought in our competitors and anyone in the industry who was interested, to share every bit of knowledge we had about water-saving best practices. If you figure out how to save water and you don't tell people about it, you're kind of a jerk.

New research shows how web behavior can be traced to a person's real-world identity based on who they follow on Twitter.

As you browse the internet, online advertisers track nearly every site you visit, amassing a trove of information on your habits and preferences. When you visit a news site, they might see you're a fan of basketball, opera, and mystery novels, and accordingly select ads tailored to your tastes.

Advertisers use this information to create highly personalized experiences, but they typically don't know exactly who you are. They observe only your digital trail, not your identity itself, and so you might feel that you've retained a degree of anonymity.

But, in a paper I coauthored with Ansh Shukla, Sharad Goel, and Arvind Narayanan, we show that these anonymous web browsing records can in fact often be tied back to real-world identities.

To test our approach, we built a website where people could donate their browsing history for the purposes of this study. We then tried to see if we could link their histories back to their Twitter profiles using only publicly available data. Seventy-two percent of people who we tried to deanonymize were correctly identified as the top candidate in the search results, and 81% were among the top 15 candidates.

This is, to our knowledge, the largest-scale demonstration of deanonymization to date, since it picks the correct user out of hundreds of millions of possible Twitter users. In addition, our method requires only that a person clicks on the links appearing in their social media feeds, not that they post any content—so even people who are careful about what they share on the internet are still vulnerable to this attack.

How It Works

At a high level, our approach is based on a simple observation. Each person has a highly distinctive social network, comprising family and friends from school, work and various stages of their life. As a consequence, the set of links in your Facebook and Twitter feeds is highly distinctive. Clicking on these links leaves a tell-tale mark in your browsing history.

By looking at the set of web pages an individual has visited, we were able to pick out similar social media feeds, yielding a list of candidates who likely generated that web browsing history. In this manner, we can tie a person's real-world identity to the nearly complete set of links they have visited, including links that were never posted on any social media site.

Carrying out this strategy involves two key challenges. The first is theoretical: How do you quantify how similar a specific social media feed is to a given web browsing history? One simple way is to measure the fraction of links in the browsing history that also appear in the feed. This works reasonably well in practice, but it overstates similarity for large feeds, since those simply contain more links. We instead take an alternative approach. We posit a stylized, probabilistic model of web browsing behavior, and then compute the likelihood a user with that social media feed generated the observed browsing history. Then we choose the social media feed that is most likely.

The second challenge involves identifying the most similar feeds in real time. Here we turn to Twitter, since Twitter feeds (in contrast to Facebook) are largely public. However, even though the feeds are public, we cannot simply create a local copy of Twitter against which we can run our queries. Instead we apply a series of techniques to dramatically reduce the search space. We then combine caching techniques with on-demand network crawls to construct the feeds of the most promising candidates. On this reduced candidate set, we apply our similarity measure to produce the final results. Given a browsing history, we can typically carry out this entire process in under 60 seconds.

Our method is more accurate for people who browse Twitter more actively. Ninety percent of participants who had clicked on 100 or more links on Twitter could be matched to their identity.

Many companies have the tracking resources to carry out an attack like this one, even without the consent of the participant. We attempted to deanonymize each of our experiment participants using only the parts of their browsing histories that were visible to specific tracking companies (because the companies have trackers on those pages). We found that several companies had the resources to accurately identify the participants.

Other Deanonymization Studies

Several other studies have used publicly available footprints to deanonymize sensitive data.

Perhaps the most famous study along these lines was performed by Latanya Sweeney at Harvard University in 2002. She discovered that 87% of Americans were uniquely identifiable based on a combination of their ZIP code, gender, and date of birth. Those three attributes were available in both public voter registration data (which she bought for US$20) and anonymous medical data (which were widely distributed, because people thought the data were anonymous). By connecting these data sources, she found the medical records of the governor of Massachusetts.

In 2006, Netflix ran a contest to improve the quality of its movie recommendations. They released an anonymized dataset of people's movie ratings, and offered $1 million to the team that could improve their recommendation algorithm by 10%. Computer scientists Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov noticed that the movies people watched were very distinctive, and most people in the dataset were uniquely identifiable based on a small subset of their movies. In other words, based on Netflix movie choices and IMDB reviews, the researchers were able to determine who those Netflix users actually were.

With the rise of social media, more and more people are sharing information that seems innocuous, but actually reveals a lot of personal information. A study led by Michal Kosinski at the University of Cambridge used Facebook likes to predict people's sexual orientation, political views and personality traits.

Another team, led by Gilbert Wondracek at Vienna University of Technology, built a "deanonymization machine" that figured out which groups people were part of the social network Xing, and used that to pinpoint who they were—since the groups you are part of are often enough to uniquely identify you.

What You Can Do

Most of these attacks are tricky to defend against, unless you stop using the internet or participating in public life.

Even if you stop using the internet, companies can still collect data on you. If several of your friends upload their phone contacts to Facebook, and your number is in all of their contact lists, then Facebook can make predictions about you, even if you don't use their service.

The best way to defend against deanonymizing algorithms like ours is to limit the set of people who have access to your anonymous browsing data. Browser extensions like Ghostery block third-party trackers. That means that, even though the company whose website you're visiting will know that you're visiting them, the advertising companies that show ads on their page won't be able to gather your browsing data and aggregate it across multiple sites.

If you are a webmaster, you can help protect your users by letting them browse your site using HTTPS. Browsing using HTTP allows attackers to get your browsing history by sniffing network traffic, which lets them carry out this attack. Many websites have already switched to HTTPS; when we repeated our deanonymization experiment from the perspective of a network traffic sniffer, only 31% of participants could be deanonymized.

However, there is very little you can do to protect yourself against deanonymization attacks in general, and perhaps the best course of action is to adjust one's expectations. Nothing is private in this digital age.

Jessica Su, PhD student at Stanford, Stanford University This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Sometimes being spontaneous can hurt your career. Here's how to stay on message without seeming fake or forced.

Work life is filled with chatter. You walk in from the parking lot with a coworker, bump into your friend in the elevator, or get together with your team for a meeting. Or maybe you're just casually trading notes with your boss on Slack.

For the most part, it's easy to launch into these conversations without much forethought, and they generally go well. But some informal situations take a little advance prep work—winging it is a risky move. Here's what to avoid in a few of the more common workplace scenarios, and what it takes to stay on script without being inauthentic.

Job Interviews

Job interviews are highly scripted rituals, and they put lots of people on edge for precisely that reason. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Your nerves aside, having a message sketched out in your head—and sticking to it—is really the only way to do well. Like it or not, every word you say in an interview is going to be weighed, so while spontaneity may feel more "you," it's probably a bad strategy.

How do you stick to your script? For starters, study the job description to see what they're looking for. Then grab your resume and a notepad—or just open a Google doc—and actually write out a script, in full sentences. (Relax, it's just an exercise.)

Begin by thanking the interviewer for the meeting, then move to your key message ("I think I'm really well suited to the position because . . ."). Express your excitement about the opportunity and show how much you know about the company. Then elaborate on a few of the main reasons you feel equipped to do the job. Close by asking about next steps.

Then read over what you've written—and don't worry, the point isn't to memorize this and repeat it like a robot. Having a script sketched out in your head won't make you sound fake once you open your mouth. You'll internalize the main points. You'll have worked out ahead of time a few of the best ways to frame your experience and phrase your questions.

And because this forces you to practice talking about yourself, you'll be able to get across all your points during the interview—even if you're feeling on edge. You won't leave thinking, "Crap, I wish I had mentioned that other thing!"

Related:How You Should Answer The 10 Most Common Interview Questions

Project Updates

Under the surface, sharing project updates on what you're working on is always a little more than just that. What you're really doing is selling them on your work and why you think it matters—and why you believe they should, too. To do that well, you need to have your message worked out in advance.

People usually think of project updates as information dumps, so they say "this happened, that happened, here's where we are, blah blah blah." That's mind numbing, and a terrible way of presenting your case, since you're basically just giving a selection of good news and bad news all jumbled together. No one will be buying if that's how you're selling it.

Instead, start by delivering a positive message for your project, no matter what stage it's in—one key idea that will inspire your listeners or your boss. For example: "Project A is on track to deliver higher revenue for our sales people." Or even something as simple as, "We're on a roll with Project B." (Same goes as for a job interview, by the way: Write it down or type it out.)

Then jot down three or four reasons why you believe that. On your way to work, run through that messaging in your head. You don't need to memorize it word for word (in fact, don't), but you do need a mental outline and a few key phrases on standby.

Networking Events

Networking often feels like an "OMG just kill me" experience. And few things sound less fun than actually sitting down and preparing for a networking event. But it's not so scary if you do exactly that. If you just get ready for spontaneous chitchat, that's the last thing you're likely to have.

To avoid the stilted conversations, you first need to figure out why you're going. What do you want to get out of it? And no, "some new contacts" isn't a good answer. What do you want those relationships to lead to? Think selfishly! And specifically. To help you answer those questions, find out who will be there. Anybody whose title or employer catches your eye as something you'd like to hear more about?

Commit 30 minutes or so to doing your standard-fare career research: Study their profiles on LinkedIn or their other social media accounts. Then write down the message you want to get across to one or more of those key people, along with some bullet points. Maybe you want to ask an exec for some career advice. Your message might be: "I'd really love to hear your take on where I should go next." From there, your bullets might be:

• "You know the PR field really well."
• "I'd be happy to tell you more about my goals."
• "I'm at the point where I need expert input like yours."

Then end by asking to exchange contact info so you can grab a coffee later.

You may not have a chance to talk with the exact VIP you'd set your sights on, but your script should be transferrable to someone else at their level. To adapt it, just listen well, ask questions, and (yes) try to have fun. Then start your pitch when you have an opening. Maybe after a pause, say, "There's actually something I'd like to ask you," or "You know, I'd love to hear your take on this."

Related:How To Approach A VIP At A Crowded Networking Event

Elevator Chitchat

What, prepare for elevator conversations!?

Actually, yes—if you want them to be productive! In one sense, the elevator is the most democratic space in your entire office: Everybody rides it. Think about the key people you might encounter there—mentors, execs, clients, team members, your boss, your boss's boss, etc. It helps to have a message cued up in your head that you can draw on when you need to.

One of my clients, a chief information officer at a big tech company, told me he prepares for impromptu chats by lining up one question or comment for each exec he might find himself stuck with once those shiny doors slide closed. Maybe you'd say to an HR colleague, "I'd like to talk to you about a new hire" or to a colleague in sales, "I have this idea I've been turning over about picking up some new customers."

These chance encounters can actually be great opportunities to position yourself as a go-getter, not just somebody who's constantly bringing up the weather. Just be careful to explore those topics when there's some privacy, and the VIP in question seems receptive to chatting.

Related:What To Say When You're Stuck In The Elevator With Your Boss's Boss

Knowing what you're going to say doesn't kill your authenticity. It just spares you from the worst havoc that your unplanned utterances can wreak on your career—and maybe even moves it forward. Worth it, wouldn't you say?

WayUp helps hiring managers spot unconscious bias and break out of their recruiting ruts.

There are plenty of recruiting tools that aim to tackle the persistent "pipeline" problem that the tech industry in particular often cites as a reason they can't find diverse candidates who are qualified for top tech positions.

By virtue of their featured artificial intelligence, a new wave of these platforms are also working to eliminate unconscious bias in the hiring process. For instance, HiringSolved's recruiting platform called RAI (pronounced "ray") helps predict candidates' gender and ethnic backgrounds to help companies reach diversity targets. Its latest tool, TalentFeed+, takes it a step further by mining and consolidating companies' internal hiring databases. Machine learning reviews a company's hiring patterns to ensure the candidate pool is diverse.

Mya is an AI chatbot that gets candidates through the automated first phase of resume sorting, so those who are qualified won't necessarily get eliminated because they aren't using certain keywords in their application. Others like Blendoor and Interviewing.io either mask or change qualifying information (like vocal tone) so that hiring managers' decisions won't be colored by implicit bias.

Another entrant to this rapidly burgeoning field is WayUp, a three-year-old marketplace that connects a user base of 1 million students and recent graduates with potential employers. But WayUp is taking the opposite approach by focusing on transparency. The way its 26-year-old CEO, Liz Wessel, sees it, employers can use WayUp to work towards achieving their diversity goals with the use of dashboard analytics that visualize trends and inconsistencies. Highlighting the demographics and diversity of the applicant pool is then made possible through every step of the interview process.

Wessel tells Fast Company that when a user signs up, it's optional for them to tell WayUp their gender or race. Most people do, says Wessel, as approximately 70% of applicants complete their profiles on the platform. The difference, she explains, is that WayUp doesn't show this information on an application. "Rather," she says, "we show this in aggregate to an employer for the sake of being able to observe trends." Wessel claims that no other job marketplace they've seen does this to help employers audit themselves.

And the reason they created this new feature was because the companies themselves were asking for it. "We often heard claims like, 'We just don't get enough diverse applicants when we go on campus,'" Wessel says. "So, they'd come to WayUp, where employers knew we had an active user base of diverse students." Wessel confirms that 73% of WayUp's user base is composed of "underrepresented minorities" that they count as including female, transgender, Hispanic, or black.

As companies went through the hiring process on WayUp, Wessel says they observed a few businesses would get high numbers of diverse applicants but wouldn't end up with a diverse pool of hires. "That's when we dug into the data," she says.

They discovered that despite WayUp sending a qualified and diverse group of candidates to the employers, the interview process was filtering them out. "We learned it was an issue on their end with unconscious bias," Wessel says.

Taking that lesson to scale, WayUp launched its analytics dashboard to show companies (in aggregate only) what the gender and ethnic breakdowns are for people who apply for their jobs, so that they can see how these breakdowns change throughout the hiring process, says Wessel. She says that some Fortune 100 companies were able to see how they started with a candidate pool made up of 40% underrepresented minority job seekers, but that number would drop to just 4% of hires. "Without our data, they may never have been able to realize that the problem was in their interview process," she maintains.

Another point of bias that WayUp's dashboard data reveals is whether women are more or less likely to apply for a job after reading the job description, says Wessel. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University analyzing Google's job advertisements recently discovered a bias towards male users, while other reports have revealed that many job descriptions and recruiting emails loaded with corporate jargon are implicitly speaking to the white, male candidate who is most likely to respond to that language.

"So, for example," Wessel explains, "you can see that 70% of people who read your job description were female, but only 20% of applicants were female." Wessel underscores that the data is served up in aggregate for the sake of revealing trends rather than singling out specific candidates. Still, this gives the company an opportunity to reframe the job description in more gender-neutral language.

So far, Wessel says, the company has scaled to its current user base while maintaining a level of one candidate in every three who apply for a job through the platform getting hired at a company. It's free for candidates, and WayUp's revenue comes from the over 12,000 companies that pay a subscription fee to get access to applicants. For now, the dashboard is still in its nascent stages, so the true measure of impacting diversity is still a way off. But every little glimpse into the process offers hiring managers the opportunity to become more aware of unconscious behavior, and perhaps make a concerted effort to change.

Owning a Chromebook is no longer an exercise in self-restraint.

Within an hour of setting up Samsung's Chromebook Pro, I was doing things that used to be impossible on these laptops. I found a decent Markdown editor in Epsilon Notes and used a OneDrive sync application to pull in all my online documents. I plugged in my Xbox 360 controller, installed Moonlight, and started streaming games over Wi-Fi from my desktop PC. I even signed into multiple Slack teams without having to open multiple browser tabs.

All of this was possible because the Chromebook Pro—finally—runs Android apps.

For every new Chromebook from this month onward, along with a few from last year, users are no longer limited to web-based apps. Instead, we can install anything we want through the Google Play Store. Owning a Chromebook, in other words, is no longer an exercise self-restraint.

For Chromebook's existing devotees, this might seem like heresy. Chromebooks are supposed to be fast, simple, and secure, and the addition of Android apps inevitably creates trade-offs. But while I was once among the skeptics, I've come around to believing that those trade-offs are worthwhile.

Made For Android

The Samsung Chromebook Pro isn't strictly a laptop. Like some of the convertible designs we've seen in Windows PCs, this Chromebook has a touch screen that flips around 360 degrees to become a tablet. It even has an accelerometer and gyroscope so you can play tilt-based games.

Not that you'd want to go full tablet mode too often. The Chromebook Pro weighs 2.5 pounds, so the arms tire after holding it for too long. (The superior, yet underrated, approach with these convertible designs is to fold the screen around partially, with the keyboard side down and the screen facing you on angle.)

The Chromebook Pro also includes a stylus, which slides out of the laptop's right side. Although the stylus isn't pressure-sensitive, certain apps, such as Google Keep, will record thicker lines from faster pen strokes. The Chromebook Pro also supports palm rejection system-wide, so you can rest your hand on the screen while sketching in Android apps like Autodesk SketchBook, Adobe Draw, and Microsoft OneNote.

I have some minor quibbles with the Chromebook Pro hardware: The delete key is so small that I often miss it, and the volume rocker doesn't recognize when you've flipped the device into tablet mode, so pressing down in that orientation turns the volume up.

Still, Samsung's Chromebook Pro won't be the only laptop-tablet hybrid running Google's operating system in the near future. Lenovo has promised a couple of waves of new Chromebooks in March and September, borrowing from its Windows hybrid designs, and Acer has shown off a rugged, convertible Chromebook for education. Samsung's also launching the Chromebook Plus, which is similar to the Pro but with a lightweight ARM processor. These new designs, along with Android apps, will likely play into a big consumer Chromebook push in this year.

App Awkwardness

Before Google revs its marketing engines for Android apps on Chromebooks, the company might want to iron out some kinks that I've run into over the past couple of weeks. (The Chromebook Pro I tried was pre-production hardware; the Google Play Store for Chrome OS was in beta.)

The strangest example was the way some Android apps flickered on the screen when switching from tablet to laptop mode. I also found that double tapping and dragging on the trackpad was unreliable for highlighting text or moving things around the screen in Android apps. And because Android apps have their own file system, which is mostly inaccessible from Chrome OS's own file explorer, you need a separate file management app to access locally saved Android files.

Some individual apps are also error-prone. Microsoft Office would not respond to scroll gestures on the screen or trackpad, and a game called 3D Labyrinth would not display properly on the screen. At one point, the racing game Asphalt Xtreme wouldn't offer touch controls, because it was convinced I had a game controller plugged in, and I couldn't get HDHomeRun View—an app for watching antenna broadcasts over a local network—to recognize my TV tuner.

Even apps that work properly aren't always properly optimized for larger screens, keyboards, and trackpads. MobiSystems' PhotoSuite doesn't support keyboard shortcuts such as Ctrl-Z to undo, the official Reddit app only runs in a phone-like vertical window, and I've yet to find an app that offers the kind of contextual right-click menus that come standard in desktop software. Although Google has been asking top app makers to optimize their software, most apps still feel like they were made for phones and tablets.

Getting More Stuff Done

Aside from those issues—which will likely subside over time—Android apps also introduce some inherent compromises.

Storage space, for instance, must become a bigger consideration for Chromebook buyers, because the old norm of 16 GB isn't really enough to store a lot of apps. (The Chromebook Pro comes with 32 GB instead.) Android apps can also put a greater strain on system resources, especially if you're running lots of them at once, so buyers might want to seek Chromebooks with more RAM and processing power. I'm also mildly worried about security and privacy, given the history of malware slipping into the Google Play Store, and the tendency of some apps to request more data than they really need.

Yet despite all of these issues and concerns, here I am using a Chromebook in ways I never did before, and wondering whether I really need a Windows laptop anymore. Unlike my Microsoft Surface Pro 3, Chromebooks start up almost instantly and update themselves unobtrusively, and now they have a better selection of touch-enabled apps. For the type of detachable and convertible laptop designs that Windows pioneered, Chrome OS now seems like a better fit.

Argo AI, founded by former Google and Uber execs, will work with Ford with the aim of delivering an autonomous vehicle by 2021.

Ford is going all in on self-driving tech. The automaker said today it plans to invest $1 billion over the next five years in Argo AI, an artificial intelligence company founded by former Google and Uber employees to develop autonomous driving technology.

"We think automation is going to define the automobile in the next decade, and autonomous vehicles will have as significant an impact on society as Ford's moving assembly line did 100 years ago," Mark Fields, Ford's president and chief executive, said at a press event in San Francisco announcing the partnership.

Argo AI will work exclusively with Ford on building a virtual driver system, with the goal of Ford delivering an autonomous vehicle in 2021. While everything Argo AI works on during that time will be made available exclusively to Ford, over time there's the potential for Argo AI to also license that technology to other automakers.

With the investment, Ford will become the majority stakeholder in Argo AI. The company has been structured to operate with a good amount of independence.

"From an accounting standpoint, Argo AI is a subsidiary of Ford," says Fields; however, he stopped short of calling the partnership an outright acquisition. Employees will all have equity in Argo AI, not Ford as a whole, which means that equity will change in valuation based on the success of just that business.

Argo AI was founded in late 2016 by former Google and Uber employees in Pittsburgh. In stealth until today, the company is now actively recruiting for its engineering hubs in southeastern Michigan and the Bay Area, with the goal of having 200 employees by the end of the year.

"We are at an inflection point in using artificial intelligence in a wide rage of applications, and the successful deployment of self-driving cars will fundamentally change how people and goods move," says Bryan Salesky, cofounder and CEO of Argo AI. "We are energized by Ford's commitment and vision for the future of mobility, and we believe this partnership will enable self-driving cars to be commercialized and deployed at scale."

He says the company understood early on that it would need to partner with a larger entity. With Ford, it will be able to move with the speed of a startup, but also have the funds and strength of a larger company, something that it will be able to use not only for R&D but also to help retain top talent.

With the partnership, a number of Ford employees will also become Argo AI employees.

Here's what you need to do to reduce burnout, which could cost you up to half your workforce.

When work culture demands 24/7 availability, it isn't surprising that more employees are feeling burned out.

A January 2017 survey by Harris Poll and workforce management software company Kronos found that nearly half of HR leaders say employee burnout is responsible for up to half of their annual workforce turnover.

As competition for talent heats up and hiring gets more expensive, the problem takes on a new urgency.

Understanding the root causes of burnout are essential first steps to staving it off. The study found that unfair compensation (41%), unreasonable workload (32%), and too much overtime or after-hours work (32%) are the top three contributors to burnout. Employees also felt overburdened due to poor management (30%), having no clear connection to corporate strategy (29%), and a negative workplace culture. To eliminate burnout, some companies are moving to tackle the key causes head-on.

Compensation

Zappos's well-publicized "holacracy" management approach flattens the traditional hierarchy and gives employees more freedom to direct their own career paths. The rollout caused confusion—it can be tough not having a boss watching over your shoulder. Zappos offered a buyout to those who didn't agree with the structure, and a reported 18% of employees took the deal, bringing Zappos' turnover that year to 30%.

Then the company was left with a new challenge: When people have no titles but similar job roles with varying responsibilities, what's fair compensation? In 2016, the company worked with an outside consultant to review worker pay levels to ensure employees are compensated competitively, says Bhawna Provenzano, Zappos's head of benefits. She says the Las Vegas-based company also shared findings with employees to help them understand how their compensation compared to market data.

"It's definitely something we haven't quite completely figured out," she says.

Autonomy

Having the ability to make at least some decisions about how you spend your time also serves as a hedge against burnout, says Joyce Maroney, director of the Workforce Institute at Kronos. As long as wages are not substandard, employees who can make decisions about job roles and feel they have choices will be more engaged. "And generally speaking, the data says engaged employees do a better job for your customers, they're more loyal to your company, and they're going to stay longer. All good things flow from that," she says.

Giving employees the freedom to find meaning in their work and make an impact pays off, says Michael C. Mankins, coauthor of Time, Talent, Energy: Overcome Organizational Drag and Unleash Your Team's Productive Power, and a partner in management consulting company Bain & Company's San Francisco office and a leader in the firm's Organization practice.

"Some people reach burnout at 40 hours a week, some people reach burnout at 90 hours a week. It's very dependent on the individual, and it's very dependent on how much autonomy and impact that individual feels they have in their job. If you have no autonomy and you're having no impact, you'll probably burn out at 40 hours a week," he says.

Job Fit

At Los Angeles real estate brokerage Halton Pardee + Partners, founder and CEO Tami Halton Pardee used to hire people she liked. But as her business grew, she realized she needed to hire people who were suited to the type of work and high expectations her team had. She and her team developed a survey that measures what a prospective team member's strengths are. That helps her place team members accordingly.

She says that such careful vetting of strengths and preferences—who prefers office work versus being out in the field, for example—helps her place people in roles that better suit them, improving satisfaction. Without such vetting, "they end up failing or frustrated," she says. "You want to play to people's strengths so that they feel good about what they're doing every day."

Pardee organizes leisure activities—going to concerts and hosting dinners at her home—to help her team relax. She also delves more deeply into employees' goals and concerns with an annual vision board project that helps identify their goals for the coming year.

Management Accountability

Managers also need to be aware of how much they're expecting of employees, Mankins says. Helping employees manage their energy to enhance productivity includes reducing the organizational drag of email overload and meetings. Mankins says the amount of time spent on these activities typically grows 7% to 8% per year. That "ineffective collaboration" crowds out more important and effective work, he says. Bain uses Microsoft Workplace Analytics to track the workload managers are assigning employees so they can adjust their behavior accordingly.

When Zappos moved to its flatter management structure, company leaders knew that such a sea change in the organization could be taxing for employees. Provenzano says they put a six-month wellness program in place to help employees manage stress. "We sense whether or not we have tension, then we react to it, and do what we need to do," she says.

Top-Down Policies

Good, old-fashioned workplace policies are still important, Maroney says—even though the Kronos survey found that 63% of full-time salaried employees admit that they would work "off the clock" even if it were against company policy. Employers—especially those with hourly workers—should establish clear boundaries for what's considered work so they are on the right side of compliance and fair labor laws, she says.

In 2016, Kronos adopted an open paid-time-off policy. And while some "unlimited" time-off policies have gotten negative attention because employees tend to take less time off, Maroney says that's not the case at Kronos, because senior leaders take time off and the human resources department provides managers with guidance on how to take time off. That kind of role modeling and prioritization makes a difference, she says.

"Ultimately, employees look to their managers to set the example. If a manager is sending emails on a regular basis after hours, employees will feel pressured to do so, too. Conversely, if a manager treats a day off truly as a day off by unplugging and trusting their coworkers to step up in their absence, their employee will be much more likely to do so, too," she says.

This week's top stories may help you update your LinkedIn profile, spot narcissists, and get out of bed earlier.

This week we learned a shortcut for identifying narcissists, the productivity pros and cons of becoming an early riser, and which common email expressions make people grind their teeth.

These are the stories you loved in Leadership for the week of February 5:

1. What Happened When I Forced Myself To Wake Up At 5 A.M. Every Day For A Month

Carving out an extra hour or two each morning may sound like a dream productivity hack you've never been able to, well, hack. But one writer gave it a shot, and discovered there are pros and cons to rising early. Here's what she found.

2. The Ridiculously Simple, Scientific Way To Test For Narcissism

One team of researchers found that most narcissists are not only aware that they're narcissists—they're also willing to admit it. So while simply asking somebody if they think they're a narcissist doesn't exactly help you parse the nuances of the personalty type, it may be a surprisingly helpful shortcut.

3. LinkedIn Just Rolled Out A Redesign—Here's How To Clean Up Your Profile

LinkedIn just launched a big makeover to its web browser version. That means there's no better time to revisit your own profile. And according to one writer, updating it to fit LinkedIn's new look is all about paring down and ditching old info. Here are four cuts you can make right away.

4. Four Common Email Phrases That Make Recipients Reach For "Delete"

Are your emails coming off as passive-aggressive? Or just unintentionally annoying for other reasons? This week The Muse's Stacey Lastoe breaks down four of the most common email expressions that get under peoples' skin. For instance, she writes, "There's really never a time that 'whatever you think' is read as a flexible and accepting statement."

5. Four Easy Ways To Reboot Your Relationship With Your Boss This Year

"Once you slip into a comfortable routine," career expert Don Raskin points out, "it's easy to take your foot off the gas without realizing it." Here are a few simple ways to shore up your working relationship with the one person in your office who matters most to your career.

When you no longer have a flashy brand name under your job title, your self-confidence can take a pummeling.

A month after leaving my corporate job to start my own business, I was asked to give a talk at a digital marketing conference in London. Only three months prior, I'd delivered a similar talk to a similar audience at a similar marketing conference. But this time around, instead of having instant credibility thanks to my title at a well-known global brand, I was newly self-employed, trying to build my reputation as a public speaker and career expert—all on my own.

I felt completely out of place. All the other featured speakers were from big-name companies like Adobe, Microsoft, and Intel. The networking breaks didn't exactly boost my confidence, either. When people asked me, "Which company are you with?" I stumbled through a clunky response, trying to explain I'd just started my own consultancy—but that I used to work for a big brand. Recently. Yes, really!

I spent most of that day questioning my own legitimacy as a speaker. Moments before my presentation, I was racked with self-doubt, worried that the audience would wonder how this random imposter had managed to sneak on stage.

Fake It 'Til You Make It Is Easier Said Than Done

You've already heard of imposter syndrome, and chances are you've experienced it, too. That moment when you feel like a total a fraud. Like you have no business being trusted to do what you've been hired to do. Psychologists first gave a name to that experience some 40 years ago, but James Lyda, director of mental health services at Minerva Schools at KGI, points out that it isn't considered a psychological disorder—it's a "psychosocial phenomenon"—and it's "especially common when people find themselves surrounded by high-achieving people," he says.

I'd earned reputable degrees from reputable universities, and had done pretty well in my professional roles in the corporate world. But getting up to speak that day, I couldn't help but feel I didn't measure up. It wasn't a totally novel experience—I'd felt similar insecurities before then, whenever I was asked to manage a new team or take over a project I knew little about. But I felt it much more acutely after becoming my own boss. Without a big company to conveniently back my credibility, I constantly felt like my reputation was on the line.

The imposter feeling has been especially poignant whenever I've done something for the first time. For example, I almost said no to giving a TEDx Talk because I didn't feel like my track record as a solopreneur was established enough by that point. When I launched my podcast last year, I was nervous about how I'd sound even though I'd worked in radio many years prior. And when coaching clients, especially older ones, I've caught myself wondering if the value I was delivering truly warranted the fees I charged.

How I Shake My Self-Doubt

Clearly, feeling like a fraud all the time is counterproductive, and over time I've gotten better at shaking myself out of it. Whenever I'm caught up in a cycle of self-doubt, or faced with a daunting situation, I try to force myself to take three deliberate steps to get out of my own way.

First, I start by getting a clear picture of my desired future. I think about how I'll ideally be spending my time. What my reputation will be. How my business will look. Which clients I'll be serving. What types of talks I'll be delivering. How I'll be spending my time. What impact I'll be making. The more specific, the better.

Then, I try to act in a way that's consistent with that person I'm trying to become rather than the person I've been in the past. I'll consider how that future version of myself would behave in this situation—and try to behave similarly right now. If my ideal future-self is a confident keynote speaker, for instance, somebody who regularly gives inspiring talks, I'll spend a few moments convincing myself I'm already that person before I take the stage to give a keynote talk myself. It's not just about psyching yourself up or trying to be someone you're not—it's about matching your current behavior with your sense of who you're trying to become.

Finally, I just remind myself that I need to believe in myself before anyone else can. I used to think I'd be able to believe in myself once I'd achieved a goal or reached a certain level of success. But these days, I've gotten better at first believing in myself instead of letting my self-confidence be contingent on some imagined, ever-receding level of success.

Managing The Anxieties You Can Never Completely Kick

But what if you just don't believe in yourself? I realize there's some circular logic going on here: After all, if you did, you wouldn't feel like an imposter, right?

It's true. I have plenty of days when I simply don't believe in myself. When I genuinely feel like I don't have the skills or knowledge to do something effectively enough. When I feel like my business isn't where I want it to be through some fault of my own. When I wonder if a gig fell through because I just wasn't qualified enough. Or when I question if I'm capable of reaching a goal that still feels really far away, despite working on it for so long.

For starters, I try to remember that everyone has insecurities, and they aren't all bad. Sometimes self-doubt can hold some useful career lessons. Second, I try to remind myself how someone else might feel if I constantly questioned them in a similar way. What if I constantly critiqued or second-guessed or challenged them every time they tried to do something bold? I'd imagine talking to someone like that would be deflating, damaging, and demotivating. So with that in mind, I try to remember that I shouldn't tolerate talking to myself the same way—it'll be just as counterproductive.

It's a cliché that we're all our own worst critics, but that's because it's true. If you can find a way to let go of that critique, focus on what you want for your future, and behave in a way that's consistent with it, you'd be surprised how much you can achieve.

Joseph Liu is a career change strategist. Hear inspiring stories of career reinvention on his Career Relaunch Podcast and follow him on Twitter at @JosephPLiu.

You may think you sound flexible and accommodating, but the person reading your message probably doesn't.

There are a lot of ways that an email can be misinterpreted or misunderstood. To make up for the tone of voice that's unmistakable over the phone or the body language that speaks volumes in person, you've got to carefully, sometimes tactfully choose the phrasing you use.

To be honest, I don't love how often I throw in an exclamation point to indicate that things are fine, good, never better, or to show my appreciation for a request being fulfilled—but sometimes there's no other way to show I'm game. Sometimes, though, not even an excited piece of punctuation can save the situation if the meaning of your words contains even an underlying hostility.

Before you dash off a hasty email and risk offending or annoying the receiver, check out these common but unpopular lines and opt for an alternative instead.

1. "Sorry To Be A Burden/Bother"

This is such a passive-aggressive line. In almost 100% of cases when this line is used, the person isn't apologetic at all, and they don't think they're being a burden or a bother. Rather, nine times out of 10, they're employing this phrase because they want to get the attention (and maybe sympathy or pity) of the reader. They assume that taking this approach will elicit a compassionate response from the receiver.

Instead, say: "Thank you for being patient with me."

This indicates responsibility for whatever it is that's taking place, and is far more likely to be met with a generous response and maybe even the reassurance that it's not a problem. And if you really do need a response ASAP, this is the best way to get a follow-up fast.

2. "Whatever You Think"

Okay, let's assume that this has been uttered following a request for input. If the request was sincere but you're annoyed that there's any back and forth whatsoever (your idea was just fine the initial way you presented it, thank you very much), then let me be the first to tell you that these three seemingly harmless words convey your annoyance and frustration in spades.

Instead, say: "I'm open to your ideas and am happy to do some more brainstorming."

This demonstrates that you have an active interest in finding a solution that's agreeable and appropriate. There's really never a time that "whatever you think" is read as a flexible and accepting statement. It doesn't suggest that you're willing to be a team player; it sounds like you're miffed that your idea wasn't accepted without question. Don't be that self-righteous person.

3. "Please Advise"

It's formal and a little bit demanding when you think about it. Furthermore, it doesn't open up the discussion; it's pushy, indicating that you don't have time for this and just need clear instructions on next steps fast. But, unfortunately, not everything turns on a dime. Sometimes, the back and forth and room for discussion is necessary for an agreeable end result.

Instead, say: "Let me know if you have any thoughts on how to proceed with this."

Reframing the response like this encourages engagement and an open dialogue. You're essentially saying that you're open to the other person's opinions on the matter, but are also okay figuring out a workaround yourself if that's preferable.

4. "I Hope It's More To Your Liking"

The person saying this is perfectly pleased with whatever "it" is—and was. But, alas, he's been met with a less-than-thrilled feedback and has adjusted accordingly so that the one assessing it will be happy. The reality, though, is that he doesn't care, since he probably saw no need to make any modifications in the first place.

Instead, say: "I'm interested in your feedback on this update."

Being open to hearing feedback, even if you suspect it may not be 100% positive, is a crucial part of improving and advancing. We can all stand to make adjustments from time to time based on constructive criticism. Even if you're not actually super interested per se, put on your best game face and embrace the feedback.

None of us are perfect or always know exactly what to say, but sometimes it's a simple matter of thinking before you speak and asking yourself if what you're about to say can possibly be construed in the wrong way. Momentarily offending someone to get through your own to-do list won't do you any good in the long run.

This article originally appeared on The Daily Muse and is reprinted with permission.

The nonprofit world kicked off 2017 with a bang and, in some cases, a much bigger budget. That's creating some job openings.

For many in the nonprofit world, 2017 kicked off with a bang. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) continues to rake in record donations, including from tech giants, as many look for ways to push back against some of President Trump's more controversial policies. Likewise, Planned Parenthood is currently gearing up to do battle against political foes seeking to curb its funding. But it isn't just the biggest, best-known organizations long stationed in the political crosshairs that are evolving these days, and activism isn't the only reason why.

As community needs change, nonprofits at every level of the sector are searching for better ways to deliver their services. Like every business, nonprofits are also seeking opportunities for scale and efficiency. They, too, are often walking a fine line between the pressures of meeting today's goals and planning for the future. To do all this, nonprofits will have to invest in both the people and technologies they'll need to fulfill their missions in the future—as many already are. These are three of the top jobs nonprofits will need to fill as that transition unfolds.

1. Chief Culture Officer

Culture, especially in small organizations where staff are regularly connecting with community members, can make or break a nonprofit, just as it can a corporation. It influences public perception, interest in events and programs, and even drive donors to consider investing in the work. Culture also contributes to employee satisfaction, retention, and productivity levels. Other industries have already started adopting chief culture officers (CCOs), and many nonprofits are now following suit.

A CCO's job in the nonprofit world includes managing the organization's relationship with the community, implementing wellness and health initiatives, and drawing up policies for avoiding burnout. They're usually also the person in charge of overseeing hiring and staffing decisions, particularly those that lead to an inclusive and equitable workplace.

Jake Porway, executive director of DataKind, which finds data scientists to do social impact work, says the organization hired a head of culture, "not just because it makes people feel great working here (though it does), but because our mission relies on it." Even more so than businesses, nonprofits like DataKind feel the imperative to walk the walk when it comes to their values.

"We work hard to make sure we're actually living into our values of humility, transparency, expertise, mindfulness, approachability, and equity," says Porway. That's all part of the CCO's job description, as is responsibility for the organization's diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. The more that nonprofits double down on these issues, the more growth opportunities there will be for culture officers to take charge of them.

2. Data Scientist

For nonprofits, just like companies and government agencies, data holds the potential for incredible learning and knowledge. Nonprofits also need metrics on how their programs and services are performing. They need to keep track of how well their clients are accessing those benefits, plus the contextual information about locations, frequency of use, and even staff time associated with delivering them. Armed with better data, nonprofits can stay efficient and effective, even with limited resources. To do that, they need data experts.

This is an idea the sector has already embraced in theory. But for many nonprofits, the challenge in the months and years ahead is putting it into practice. So far, many simply haven't had the time or skills on staff to analyze data for the lessons that may be hidden there. More and more, though, nonprofits are clearing space in their budgets to change that. They're finding that there's no substitute for in-house expertise. Full-time data science employees can help nonprofits identify trends to fine-tune their programming and plug holes in delivery services—all in close to real-time.

3. UX Designer

At the intersection of culture and data is user experience. This isn't solely about making your website better, either (though it certainly includes that!). For nonprofits, full user experience design and evaluation spans the on- and offline processes that clients work through in order to make use of an organization's programs and services. So nonprofits are investing more in hiring in-house user experience experts to help them get that right.

Many nonprofits are used to asking community members and beneficiaries to weigh in with feedback on what they do and how well they're doing it. Until recently, much of that data gather has been tacked on to other job descriptions in the sector. Very few organizations have put someone with user-experience design skills in charge of that process. But many are now realizing that well-intentioned feedback gathering isn't always enough to make the improvements that matter most—especially when it can mean the difference between serving hundreds or thousands of people in need.

"Within any organization, the people who live and breathe the work on a daily basis tend to become steeped in the organization's language, practices, and nuances," says Mollie Ruskin, who worked on the U.S. Digital Service's efforts with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. "So often, we forge ahead doing things the way we've been doing or seen others do for ages, without pausing to assess how the people in our community are able to use or engage with what we're doing." That's where UX designers are beginning to make a difference.

"User experience design encourages a deep engagement with how people respond to the tools you're putting in front of them, how they behave, what's working and what's missing," says Ruskin. As nonprofits come to see the value in that, they're upping their staffing investments. "Something as simple as a frustrating sign-up form or a confusing phone tree," she adds, "can keep people from becoming a leader in your network."

Nonprofits are starting to recognize the value of these roles, and many have even started looking for someone with experience or skills in one of these areas from the corporate world to join the board or lead a pro bono project. That means the need for culture, data analysis, and user experience expertise is only poised to grow in the nonprofit world. As many people start to think anew about the purpose of their work and whether it squares with their values, they may find their talents needed at organizations where they wouldn't have even five years ago.

Your boss may not have cause to fire you but may still be trying to edge you out. Here's how to tell.

Noticing a chill in your office recently? We're not talking about temperature, exactly, but rather the overall vibe. Maybe you're being left out of discussions or your workload is lightening, and there's no real reason for either to be happening.

It may not be all in your head—your company might be hoping you'll quit.

But if your company no longer has a need for you, why wouldn't your boss just let you go? Well, from an employer's perspective, it's much easier for them if you can be encouraged to leave on your own. Whether via a firing or a layoff, if a company takes the initiative to cut an employee loose, there's more paperwork involved, and it creates a stressful atmosphere for those left in the office.

Think your company may be trying to goad you into quitting? Check out these five telltale signs.

1. Your Boss Is Turning Into A Micromanager

You're used to being left alone to do your work and have enjoyed the supportive feedback of your boss for as long as you can remember. Suddenly, your boss begins to nitpick all your work and dole out frustratingly vague criticisms. Bad sign.

Your boss may have lost confidence in you or is looking for justifications for letting you go, says Dele Lowman Smith, an executive coach in Atlanta.

"If your boss's micromanaging is accompanied by constructive recommendations or specific feedback, they more than likely want you to improve," she says. "However, if the criticism is nonspecific, excessive, or focused on issues that have little importance, they may be more interested in seeing you leave."

2. Your Company Now Wants To Document Everything

Feedback on your work used to be informal and undocumented, and any mistakes you made were pointed out to you in private, with a friendly talk. Now everything suddenly involves paperwork. You're being asked to fill out time sheets so the company can keep track of how you spend your hours and minutes; feedback that used to transpire over a coffee break now requires an email chain, with your boss's boss cc'd in.

"Most employers have some sort of progressive discipline process that, when used properly, gives an underperforming employee the opportunity to improve," says Lowman Smith. However, if the company wants you gone and implements this with little advance notice, it may be an attempt to psych you out—or "a form of intimidation to make you feel insecure or stressed enough to start looking for a new job," she says.

3. You're Not Being Groomed For The Future

Your professional development is essential to your value as an employee. So if your company has pulled back on growth opportunities for you, they likely don't see you as being around long term.

"When you're not getting new projects assigned to you, it's a sign the boss isn't interested in your future with the company," says Jim Thibodeau, president and owner of StaffScapes, an HR consulting firm in Denver. "Similarly, if you see others in your office receiving more professional development, it may be time to reassess your career path."

4. You're Getting The Silent Treatment

Communication is vital to every department in every company. Your presence at meetings, on calls, and at events, as well as on email correspondence, gives you access to this constant flow of information. When you're abruptly cut off or pushed out of the circle, take note—especially if other coworkers remain in the loop.

Maybe this means your boss leaves you out of key client meetings, keeps rescheduling your weekly lunch date, or oddly skips the hallway hellos. Perhaps the frostiness is coming from your peers, too, making the water cooler feel more like a popsicle stand. That could indicate that those colleagues have picked up on your status as persona non grata, and don't want to become tainted by association.

5. Your Boss Is Taking Your Work Away

A company is like one big team, so if you're used to being a starting player, and then all of a sudden you get benched in favor of other players, you're right to feel suspicious.

Whenever a boss starts giving away tasks that you always do—or that they know you enjoy—without some type of explanation, they're communicating that they either don't value you or don't trust you to do it anymore, says Lowman Smith. The same goes if they're giving you grunt work that's not normally your job, she says.

Trust your gut. If it feels like your company wants you gone, they probably do. Don't wait to find out if you're right. Start searching for a new and better job today. Control the narrative, and work for a company that appreciates just how awesome you are at what you do.

This article originally appeared on Monster and is reprinted with permission.

Trump's orders could prevent trafficking victims in the U.S. from claiming the benefits they need to repair their lives.

The president's executive order barring citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries has caused a lot of chaos over the last two weeks. And while the order has been officially halted by a court order, the president has threatened to take the case to the Supreme Court, making the future of the order still uncertain.

There has been a lot of coverage of those affected by the ban, including many professionals working in the U.S. One vulnerable group affected by the ban that hasn't gotten as much attention are victims of human trafficking.

Human trafficking is essentially a form of modern slavery, in which people are coerced or lured into unpaid or underpaid labor (including, but not limited to, sex work). The U.N.'s Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking estimates that there are 2.5 million victims of human trafficking worldwide, with the bulk of those in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa. (Some other estimates put that number at many millions more.) But fully 270,000—over 10%—of such victims are estimated to be in industrialized countries like the U.S. In the subcategory of sex trafficking alone, it is estimated that some 50,000 women and girls are brought into the U.S. each year.

A U.S.-born citizen can be trafficked, but more often, a trafficking victim in the U.S. is a foreign-born person lured to the U.S. with promises of a "good job," which really turns out to be a position of indentured servitude. It's these foreign-born victims of human trafficking in the U.S. who stand to be adversely affected by Trump's executive orders.

Shani Adess is the senior supervising attorney at the Immigration Law Project of Safe Horizon, which provides legal services to victims of human trafficking. Adess offers an example of how Trump's travel ban could affect someone who has survived trafficking.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and subsequent laws were designed to combat human trafficking, as well as to extend a helping hand to victims of human trafficking in the U.S. Under these laws, if you can prove that you're a victim of human trafficking, you can be entitled to a number of benefits, including a visa to stay in the U.S., not only for yourself, but also potentially for your spouse and children. So if you're a foreign-born trafficking victim who has escaped your situation, you can work to prosecute your traffickers in U.S. courts, thereby preventing them from victimizing other people.

But under Trump's executive order, trafficking victims from the seven banned countries would have to choose between being separated from their families and fighting their cases. Says Adess: "I would have to sit here as a victim of trafficking and choose: Am I going to be separated from my kids or not? Maybe I'm cooperating with the FBI, maybe I have a civil case open to get money for the work I did when I was trafficked." Maybe, too, the victim is benefiting from the medical treatment and psychological care she is entitled to under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. "But all of that would require me to be here in the U.S.," continues Adess. "Now I have to choose whether I'm going to have that, or my children"—that is, by returning to her home country, where she was first lured or coerced into her trafficking situation to begin with.

Another way victims of trafficking could be harmed by Trump's policies, say advocates, relates to the fact that such victims have often been coerced into doing illegal acts (like prostitution). Trump's order "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States" casts a wide net on people to prioritize for deportation. While the Obama administration had favored focusing on undocumented immigrants who posed a threat to "national security, border security, and public safety," Trump's recent order explicitly singles out "aliens who have been convicted of any criminal offense," but also those who "have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved."

Easily imagined scenarios like these, says Adess, underscore "how incredibly poorly thought out and crafted these executive orders are."

Ultimately, though, the greatest effects of his orders and rhetoric may be cultural, rather than, strictly speaking, legal. Kay Buck, the CEO of the anti-trafficking organization CAST (Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking), says that Trump's orders have already had a chilling effect on people who have escaped trafficking and were in the process of claiming benefits or testifying in prosecutions of their traffickers.

Because Trump's order also singles out "aliens" who "have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits," some of CAST's client base are wondering whether claiming any benefits they are entitled to might somehow make them a target. Likewise, there is some fear that collaborating in a prosecution could increase their visibility.

Buck and the lawyers she works with have so far been able to persuade victims of human trafficking to continue to seek the benefits they're entitled to and prosecute their traffickers.

But the sense of panic is hard to shake. And Buck only has information about those who have already escaped their trafficking situation. What about those currently in a trafficking situation who were about to call for help, but are suddenly more fearful than before Trump's orders? "One of the most effective tools that traffickers use to maintain control over someone and make them fearful of seeking help—besides violence—is the threat of the legal system, of law enforcement, or the threat of deportation back to a country where they may have valid fears of returning to," says Adess.

Even if the block on the travel ban remains in place, the executive order has created a climate where people in trafficking situations feel even more powerless. "It's horrible," says Buck of what she sees written in the faces of her clients. "I'm seeing a level of fear that we've never seen before."

Your technical chops may not give you the edge when you're new to the workforce, but your network might.

It used to be that the only way to climb a career ladder was to pick up more skills. Learn how to do X, get paid more for it, and earn job-title Y. Up you went. Each new capability you mastered got you to that "next level," either inside your current company or at a different one. Today, many of those ladders have fallen and shattered, with just a few left standing. Lately there have been efforts to hammer together some new ones, with new skills—usually tech-based—like cybersecurity or coding expertise held up as the new keys to staying competitive in the future job market.

That isn't exactly wrong. Some skill sets really are in higher demand than others, so it makes sense to counsel undergrads and entry-level workers to brush up in certain subject areas in order to gain an edge. But this kind of advice still reflects a "ladder-climbing" mind-set in a world that's looking a lot more like a lattice, where talent—and people's entire careers—are much more fluid.

In order to move up, over, side to side, and double back when you need to, all while making your way upward, the trait you need most is adaptability, not this or that tech skill. And there's no way to adapt if you don't have a great network you can tap from the get-go.

Your Network Is A Job Skill

Unemployment and underemployment are still hitting millennials the hardest these days. For many, that means you now have to look for ways to advance your career outside the traditional corporate hierarchy. But that can sometimes be an advantage. With fewer ladder-like jobs inside big companies, younger workers no longer have to wait as long for someone ahead of them to move on or retire in order to advance.

The gig economy is also a factor here. More employees are ditching traditional nine-to-five models (both by choice and circumstance) for project-based work. And as freelancing becomes more common, especially among cash-strapped millennials, your ability to source new options for work is at least as important as your ability to execute it.

In other words, your skills matter, but they'll only get you so far. In the modern workforce, networked knowledge and experience—when the a team's collective expertise exceeds than the sum of its parts—are becoming as important as individual skills. If you're less than a decade into your career, it's probably time to prioritize building your network the same way the generation ahead of you was told to develop their skills.

Focus On What You Can Actually Control

The ability to understand, interpret, and make informed decisions based on what you know comes with time and experience. So sure, you can brush up on a coding language on your own, but that won't necessarily help you make a strategic choice about an e-commerce site. The internet can't help you there, but your network can.

The fact is that people in the early stages of their careers often have little control over how they develop their skills; their projects, and the skills and experience they gain from there, are dictated by an employer. Finding ways (and the time) to deepen your skill set isn't always easy. But one thing you can work on pretty effectively all on your own is network building.

In fact, there's probably no more crucial task early in your career. Whether you work in a service industry, administration, academia, nonprofits, or the business world, your network can extend your access to knowledge. If you know the right people, you can tap into their skills rather than having to acquire them all yourself. This lets you find better solutions faster—which then becomes your competitive edge.

Show a prospective client or employer how great your network-supported problem-solving chops make you more valuable, and you'll likely find more opportunities more quickly than somebody slogging through a coding bootcamp.

How do you build a network right out the gates, when your limited time in the workforce limits the range of people you've come into contact with? Here are a few tips.

Hit Up Alumni

You already know this one, but it bears repeating. When you're new to the workforce, you haven't had many opportunities to build your professional network. So it's crucial to tap your university resources and LinkedIn to connect with alumni.

But there are a couple of twists to this common advice to bear in mind. First, focus on connecting with grads who are only a few years ahead of you. Their contacts—that is, people they can introduce you to—will still be fresh. Plus, their experiences and pointers won't be outdated. And second, start networking with alumni before you're an alum yourself. Keep in touch with friends who graduate before you do. Use that alumni database to find internships so you won't have to start from scratch when it's time to hunt for a full-time job.

Once you've covered alums from your professional field, broaden to other fields of interest. Alumni are a great starting point because you already have common ground to build on, so those contacts are more likely to convert to network connections.

Rethink Twitter

Twitter isn't just another social network, it's a powerful networking and education platform. Start compiling some Twitter lists of professionals in your field or in fields that intrigue you. See what they tweet about and who they engage with. Chances are they'll help you discover more potential prospects.

Let hashtags be your guide, sending you down rabbit holes of interest areas you don't know much about yet. Join Twitter chats. Engage with others and share your views. Many exchanges that begin on social evolve into full-on network connections. (And while you're at it, take the same approach to Facebook.)

Map It All Out

If networking is a job skill you can develop like any other, it helps to give yourself some structure. As you accumulate connections, it'll get harder to remember where you met and who has what background and skills. So consider using a lightweight contact management tool to add tags to your network so you can easily search and find contacts based on their location, skills, and so on.

Find A Person For Every Passion

Great networks don't happen by chance. They're consciously crafted over time. Think of the areas within and outside the field you're curious about, and look for individuals with experience in that area that you can add to your network. This is often where you can find some great ideas that you can bring back to your own field. And if you find yourself getting drawn in one direction or another, let that be your cue to track down a new connection who can tell you more about it.

Never Stop Giving

The key to a great network is generosity. You have to be willing to give freely of your own experience. This may be hard early in your career, when your experience is limited. But just giving what you can (time, insights, even a couple of shares on social media) help you show your network that you'll be there for them when they need you.

More than any technical skill, one of the best ways to advance your career from the very beginning is to start thinking of networking as part of your day job—even before you land one.