The VR company's new tools make it possible to control how you interact with people.
Over the last couple of years, Altspace VR has become one of the leading social VR environments, and today the Redwood City, California, company has launched a redesigned UI meant to give users a lot more control over their social interactions.
The new suite of tools was designed to let users make more nuanced decisions about what they do, who they do it with, and what goes on around them. In essence, the UI redesign is geared toward pairing users with things they are most interested in, and making it simple for them to identify things to do and other users they want to join up with for various activities.
[Image: courtesy of Altspace VR]
"Now, in AltspaceVR, users are presented with a dynamic list of activities happening in real time," the company wrote in a release. "They can immediately see where their friends are, join an activity, or host one of their own. As a host, they have special moderating privileges and can control apps in the space, set the event to friends-only, mute, or even remove a participant if necessary."
One of the most important elements of the redesign is a set of controls that lets users define how much space they maintain between themselves and other avatars, as well as the ability to mute others. They can also choose to block others, a step that would remove someone from their Altspace experience.
The new UI is supported on the Oculus Rift, HTC's Vive, and Samsung Gear VR in full VR mode, as well as PC and Mac in 2D desktop mode.
An interview isn't always the best place to learn what it's really like to work in a new office, but there are ways to find out.
Jocelyn Greenky really hates fluorescent lights, so when she started a new job years ago, she showed up with a floor lamp a few weeks in and dragged it over to her desk.
"It did not go over well," she says. That's how Greenky discovered that every office has its own culture—and as a result, how sometimes even the smallest acts can look like a rebellion.
Now with more than 20 years of experience as an office culture and politics expert, Greenky says you should always understand a company's norms and no-no's before you accept a job there. "As the new employee, you have to adapt to the culture rather than the culture adapting to you," she adds.
Previous research has shown that our coworkers and managers have a big impact on our productivity and job satisfaction. And workers surveyed by Glassdoor reported that company culture was more important than compensation and work-life balance.
So if you like chit-chat and a background hum, you probably won't be happy in the tomb-silent office where you just interviewed. Or if you love coming up with new ideas and taking big risks, you may not like a place that doesn't embrace change.
But how accurately can you pinpoint a company's culture before you've actually worked there? Here's what Greenky and other experts recommend asking and observing before you show up with your own lamp—or even take the job.
Bouvier Williams, PhD, president of Your Personal Brand Solution, says to read through the organization's annual reports, find any articles about it in popular publications, and of course, scope out its own website—all before your first interview there.
"You're trying to get the flavor of the organization," Williams says. "Does it come across as bureaucratic? Is it an organization that really believes in and fosters innovation?" And, most important, "Does it line up with the things you believe?"
Greenky says that as soon as you step into a prospective office, you should start observing. What are people wearing? Are their desks messy? Do they have earbuds in or are they talking to each other? Is there an open floor plan? If people work in individual offices, do they keep their doors open?
Pay close attention to body language, too, Williams says. See whether people are smiling, if they seem engaged, and whether they look happy to be there. "Not everybody in the company can happen to be having a bad day at the same time," he adds, so if you're surrounded by frowns, that should be a red flag.
Asking about summer Fridays or dress code may turn off a hiring manager during the interview process. Even questions about expected work hours can be shaky ground. But Greenky says you can absolutely ask your would-be boss to define their office's culture. "See what they have to say," she adds. "If somebody says it's very corporate, for example, that means they play by the rules—that it's more formal."
Williams also recommends asking some of these "subtle but revealing" questions as the interview progresses. For example: How are employees developed in the company? What happens when someone makes a mistake around here? How is risk-taking rewarded? How can people share their opinions about the work environment? What are some of the things that might get under your skin about working here? How does the organization deal with managers who manage poorly?
Yes, people really do read the employee handbook. No, it's not weird to do it before you even have the job. If the hiring process is cruising forward and you're seriously considering a position, Greenky suggests asking for a copy of the handbook. The rules and regulations inside can tell you a lot about a company's culture—including how much it likes rules and regulations.
Both Greenky and Williams say talking to a current or recent employee is essential. Comb your own networks first. If that doesn't turn up a connection, Williams recommends using LinkedIn to find past employees. He says to let them know you're interviewing at the company and ask if they have a few minutes to talk about the culture there. "Be prepared to ask some fairly targeted questions," he adds. For example: Can you describe the office politics? Is there high turnover or constant churn?
Greenky suggests "tell me about your day there" as a good opener with current or former employees. She says it's also a chance to ask all those questions you may not want to ask a potential boss about dress code, lunch breaks, expected hours—and maybe even lighting. That could shine a light on whether or not you've found your dream job, or if you should think twice before accepting their offer.
Smarter technology could make farms more efficient and food tastier, though environmentalists argue none of it is guilt-free.
During the 20th century, advances in fertilizers, irrigation, and mechanized farming technology helped make it possible to feed a dramatically growing world population.
Now, advocates say, the next big advance in agricultural technology may come from the digital world, as modern computer vision, precision sensors, and machine-learning technology help farmers use last century's advances more efficiently and precisely to grow healthier and tastier food.
"We're at the cusp of this next wave of innovation in agriculture, which we call digital agriculture," says Mike Stern, the president of The Climate Corporation. "It has to do with, over the past five to seven years, the farm really digitizing, not unlike how our society has changed in terms of the tools and types of things we can do."
The Climate Corp., which was purchased by agriculture giant Monsanto for roughly $1 billion in 2013, is one of several companies working to build a digital analytics hub for farmers, merging images from satellites, drones, and cameras, as well as readings for everything from soil thermometers to tractors' on-board computers. That can help growers better understand what's happening on their farms and let predictive algorithms guide more precise applications of seeds, water, pesticides, and fertilizers.
"In the Midwest, when corn is growing, we have a fair amount of cloud cover, and satellites have trouble seeing through clouds, so that's a problem because all of a sudden, a grower can only see a part of the field from one image to the next," says Sam Eathington, Climate Corp.'s chief scientist. "We've developed, using some machine-learning techniques, a way to bring together multiple images and remove the clouds and cloud shadows that a grower would be seeing in the data in the specific field."
Just this week, the company announced that it's opening its platform to allow other sensor manufacturers to contribute data more easily, starting with high-resolution soil sensor data from Kansas-based Veris Technologies.
The market for digital "precision agriculture" services is expected to grow to $4.55 billion by 2020, according to figures from research firm Markets and Markets, though the push to bring the Internet of Things onto the world's farms hasn't been without its critics. According to a 2013 report in the New Yorker, Climate Corp.'s founders came under heavy criticism for the decision to sell to Monsanto, a company that's long been controversial for its intellectual property policies and involvement with genetically modified crops.
And the American Farm Bureau Federation, a farming industry group, has cautioned farmers to make sure they understand how their data is stored by digital providers. The Farm Bureau has recently worked with tech providers, including Climate Corp., to formulate rules and industry data-sharing arrangements designed to make sure farmers can control how their information is used and potentially migrate it to new providers.
"Tractors, tilling equipment, planters, sprayers, harvesters, and agricultural drones are increasingly connected to the Internet," the group said in March. "Farmers don't always have the ability to precisely control where that data goes, nor transfer it from one data processor to another."
But agriculture tech companies generally say their goal isn't just to make money, or even help farmers boost their own profits. They're also trying to help feed a still-growing world population as climate change disrupts farms and populations, and expanding middle-class societies around the world purchase more food. That could require doubling world food production by 2050, experts told the United Nations in 2009, something advocates of digital agriculture say may only be possible through data-driven efficiency.
"Basically, the production we're getting out of our food crop today is actually not keeping pace with the pace we need to double prediction by 2050," says Lance Donny, the CEO of Fresno, California-based OnFarm.
Like Climate Corp., OnFarm aims to process and combine data from a variety of sources: Donny says the company serves several hundred farms, with an average of 160 incoming data streams each. Farmers traditionally ran processes like irrigation based on the calendar, watering a certain amount at certain times, or based on their own observations—"I look out and I drive the field, and the crop looks like it's going to need some water, so I add some water at this time," he says—but Donny says OnFarm's technology can first bring farmers unified figures they can easily understand and trust, then predictions and guidance they can rely upon.
"Not only can we tell you what's going to happen, we can help you make a better decision—to maximize the decision you're going to make," he says. "This is really bringing that machine learning down to the grower to make a decision going forth this week, next week."
Ultimately, farmers will rely less on intuition and more on number-driven predictions, says Daniel Koppel, the CEO and cofounder of Tel Aviv-based digital agriculture company Prospera.
"I think at the end of the day, growers are going to be data scientists," he says. "The actual operations side, in the very far future, that's going to be done with robots, or a lot of it is going to be automated."
But in the meantime, his company's tools have used sensor data and machine-learning techniques like neural networks to detect issues like plants stressed by improper irrigation and diseases that could put crops in jeopardy. And while he unabashedly speaks in terms that might make foodie purists wince—"We're trying to treat agriculture as any other industrial manufacturing facility," he says—Koppel says digital technology can mean fresher food and a cleaner environment, too.
Data scientists will be able to crunch the numbers to find ways to use pesticides and water more efficiently, meaning less runoff and fewer pest-killing chemicals on food, he says. The same will be true of fertilizers, Donny predicts, meaning less nitrogen runoff in soil and groundwater.
Still, some environmental advocates are skeptical, warning that tools primarily designed to boost crop yields and farm profits won't automatically undo all the environmental harm wrought by large-scale, industrial farming.
"Hopefully, in most cases, they will result in less use of farm chemicals, and less farm chemicals leaking into people's drinking water or whatever, but that's not really what they're designed to do," says Craig Cox, senior vice president for agriculture and natural resources at the Environmental Working Group. "They're designed to help farmers determine what the economically optimal rate is to apply these farm chemicals, and sometimes the economically optimal rate is to use more farm chemicals."
Donny says better data won't just mean bigger production of commodity crops like corn and soybeans—it'll mean optimizing the quality of specialty produce from wine grapes to almonds. In some cases already, farmers have been able to switch from producing old standbys like corn to more diverse collections of vegetables, he says.
That can also bring environmental gains, particularly if diversification means fields spend less time outside of growing seasons lying fallow and allowing chemicals to leach into surrounding water, according to Cox, though he emphasizes the details will make a tremendous difference.
Of course, it will also mean more income for farmers and more variety for an increasingly food-conscious society. "The ability to grow closer to the customer is important. More diversity in crops is important," Donny says. "Restaurants are driving that. Consumers are driving those needs."
First of all, be sincere and don't make excuses. Those are just some of the failings of recent "apologies" from Trump and Lochte.
"Never ruin an apology with an excuse."– Ben Franklin
In less than 24 hours, two of the biggest stories in the world involved some kind of "apology" for offensive behavior and/or lying. Last night in Charlotte, North Carolina, the notoriously unrepentant Donald Trump shocked observers by expressing "regret" for words that "may have caused personal pain." And this morning Ryan Lochte issued a widely criticized apology for "not being more careful" with how he described an incident in which he lied about being held up at gunpoint in Rio de Janeiro.
Neither of them qualified as a true apology since they both offered an excuse for their behavior, failed to give a detailed account of what happened, failed to acknowledge or specify the hurt and damage they'd caused, and didn't take responsibility for the situation.
Here is Trump's "apology":
Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that, and I regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.
And here is Lochte's "apology":
A proper apology is "an exercise in honesty, accountability, and compassion," says interfaith minister Lauren Bloom, the author of The Art of the Apology. Of course, it's difficult and nerve-wracking and fraught with tension. But it's the right thing to do. So above all, be sincere: "It's the essence of an apology."
And maybe even offer some humility and self-awareness, as exemplified in one of the best examples of an apology in modern history. Several months after Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown" during his presidential run in 1988, he gave a speech at the Democratic convention that moved the audience with its sincerity and spiritual depth (h/t The New Republic):
If, in my low moments, in word, deed or attitude, through some error of temper, taste, or tone, I have caused anyone discomfort, created pain, or revived someone's fears, that was not my truest self. If there were occasions when my grape turned into a raisin and my joy bell lost its resonance, please forgive me. Charge it to my head and not to my heart. My head—so limited in its finitude; my heart, which is boundless in its love for the human family. I am not a perfect servant. I am a public servant doing my best against the odds. As I develop and serve, be patient: God is not finished with me yet.
That's a high bar and no one's expecting poetry out of Trump and Lochte. But they should man up and try to give a proper apology—one that hasn't been crafted by a campaign strategist or lawyer.
Get started, get organized, get rid of jerks, and much, much more.
From its not so humble beginnings as a non-prank released on April Fool's Day in 2004 to its billion-plus users today, Google's illustrious email offering has proven indispensable for most of us.
And sure, you may use it all day, every day, but are you really getting the most out of it? Here are 25 tips, tricks, and time-savers for even the most seasoned of Gmail pros.
Enhance Your View
Instead of staring at plain-vanilla Gmail, spice things up with a fun theme. Under the Gear menu in the upper-right corner, simply choose "Themes" to switch to one of several ready-made backdrops, or upload your own. Also under the Gear menu, play around with the Display Density settings. "Comfortable" gives you some nice white space, while "Compact" is good when you need to cram as much as possible onto your screen.
Bring Some Friends (And Mail) Along
If you're just using Gmail for the first time or you've started up a second Gmail account and want to get your contacts and old mail into the system, head into the Settings > Accounts and Import section to choose the "Import mail and contacts" link. You'll be able to import your stuff from popular providers—Yahoo, Hotmail, AOL, and more—by following a few simple steps, though you'll lose the chipper "You've got mail!" sound forever.
Make Gmail More Like Outlook
Under Settings > Labs, enable Preview Pane to have the option of viewing full messages to the right of (or underneath) your inbox, like Outlook. Old habits die hard, so if you've been dealing with corporate email your whole life and are just now trying to get the hang of Gmail, this Preview Pane goodie can help ease your transition. Once enabled, you can find its various options in a drop-down just to the left of the Gear icon on the main page.
Focus On What's Important
Gmail can intelligently figure out which messages are more important to you than others. Neat trick, no? In the Settings > Inbox section, select the "Use my past actions . . . " radio button to put Gmail to work parsing your top messages. You can then choose the "Show markers" button, the "Override filters" button (more on filters in a bit), and set the inbox type at the top of this section to show your important messages first. Then, in the Settings > General section, under "Desktop Notifications" (if you're using Chrome, Firefox, or Safari), you can set pop-up notifications to only appear when you get important messages.
Escape Conversation View Hell
There are two kinds of people in this world: those who like Conversation View and those who hate it with the fiery passion of a thousand suns. If you find yourself in the latter camp, head into Settings > General and turn Conversation View off. The next time you open up the latest message in an email thread, you'll see a nice familiar wall of indented text instead of several individual messages, while your inbox will contain individually clickable messages as well.
Archive Everything . . .
Gmail introduced the concept of archiving instead of deleting—the thought being that you'd have enough free storage space so that you wouldn't have to worry about constantly purging big messages. This idea still holds true, and you still do get a fair amount of free space, so if you're done with a message for good, click the second button from the left (the icon of the box with the down arrow) instead of the trash can. That way, if you find you actually need to access that message again in the future, it'll be waiting for you under the "All Mail" link in the left sidebar.
. . . But Keep Your Archive In Check
Generous though Gmail's free storage may be, it's 2016, and people are sending bigger and bigger attachments every day. Once you bump up against your storage limit, it's time to hunt down space-sucking messages. Click the little down arrow on the far right of the search box, then tick the "Has attachment" box, then enter 10 in the "Size" row and click the blue magnifying glass button. This will show you all your messages that contain attachments larger than 10 megabytes. Tick the checkboxes next to the messages you're sure you don't need, then click the garbage-can icon to clear them out for good.
Reply And Release
Once you've replied to a message, do you really need it sitting in your inbox? Use the "Send and Archive" feature to clear messages out while you wait for the other person to respond. It can be found under the Settings > General menu and merely provides an optional button while you're crafting reply messages. You can still reply and let the messages stew in your inbox the old-fashioned way if you like, but I personally use the big blue Send and Archive button more than just about any other Gmail feature.
Get Organized With Labels And Filters
Each message can have a label applied to it, with newly created labels manifesting themselves as folder-like entities in the left sidebar. While reading a message, simply click the Label icon—second from the right—and create a new label or apply an existing one (you can drag labels from the left sidebar right onto a message to apply them as well). Click the More button (farthest right) and choose "Filter messages like these" then "Create filter with this search" to open up a world of automation options, such as applying all messages from Mom with a "Family" label. Gmail filters could command an entire, huge article unto themselves, so check out Gmail's help section on the subject for a more thorough overview.
Give Up? Buy More Storage
If you're sick of dealing with storage issues altogether, it's OK to bite the bullet and shell out for more space. As you scroll to the bottom of your messages list, you'll notice your usage stats in the lower-left corner along with a "Manage" link. Assuming you're at or close to 100%, click that link and you'll be taken to a page where you can pay for more storage. Plans start at a couple bucks a month, and storage space is applied not only to Gmail but to Google Drive and Google Photos as well if you use those services.
Survey Your Mighty Message Kingdom
Cast your steely gaze across a vast horizon of electronic missives by changing the maximum page size to show up to 100 messages at once. It can be found in the Settings > General section: third option down. Keep things simple with 10 messages at a time or crank it up to 100, with several other options in between.
Color Coordinate
Starring a message is a quick way to mark it as important, but different messages can be important in different ways. To that end, in the Settings > General section, look for the Stars section and choose the "all stars" preset. Now the next time you star a message, click the star again and watch as it changes colors. Cycle through all the various options, including exclamation points, questions marks, and info icons to classify your important messages based on their content.
Turn Messages Into To-Dos
Chances are, you're treating your inbox like a giant to-do list anyway. Might as well make it official by turning conversations into tasks you can check off. Click the More button from an active email thread and choose "Add to Tasks" to . . . well, you can probably guess what happens: The thread becomes a task in Google's simple but handy Tasks offering, complete with a link back to the related email message.
Keep An Eye On Your Message Debt
Also in the Settings > Labs section, enable the "Unread message icon" option. Assuming you keep Gmail open in a tab all day like any normal person, you'll be able to see how many unread messages you have—just in case you need another little something to unnecessarily stress you out a bit.
Go Off The Grid
If you use Google's Chrome web browser, Gmail has a handy offline mode that'll let you tame your inbox from just about anywhere. You won't actually be able to send or receive email until you have a connection, mind you, but you can move messages around and craft your replies while you make your way back to civilization. Check the Settings > Offline section to get set up.
Outsource Your Email
If all else fails, unleash the hell that has become your inbox on your thoroughly underappreciated administrative assistant in the General > Accounts and Import section. Under the "Grant access to your account" setting, you can add another Google user to your account as an email delegate. Such persons won't be able to change your settings or password, but they can read, archive, and reply to your messages. Replies will contain your name followed by your delegate's name in parentheses to avoid confusion.
Block Bothersome Bullies
Some people can't just take a hint. Thankfully, you can block any person—or any thing—from contacting you ever again with a couple quick clicks. When you get a message from someone you'd like to blacklist, click the down arrow in the upper-right corner of the message and select the "Block" option. Any messages sent from the offending address in the future will end up right in the spam folder.
Conjure Up Old Correspondence
Want to quickly find every message your friend has ever sent to you? Simply hover over a sender's name, whether from your inbox or in a message, and you'll see a Contact card pop up. Click the "Emails" link to view all the messages the two of you have bandied back and forth over the years.
Take It Back!
We've all felt the gut-punch of sending an email to SALES-ALL when you really meant to email Sally—only Sally!—to register your support for a coworker's skinny jeans. Thankfully, Gmail lets you change your mind with its Undo Send feature. Head into Settings > General and make sure the Undo Send checkbox is ticked. You're able to choose your cancellation period here as well—from five seconds to 30 seconds—and the next time you send a message, you'll notice an "Undo" link above it.
Silently Opt Out Of Group Messages
Enough about The Bachelorette already, right? You can deftly remove yourself from the inanity of an off-the-rails group thread by clicking the More menu and choosing Mute. From then on, you'll miss out on subsequent messages unless you're the only recipient—perhaps on a side conversation complaining about the original, eh? If you find you want back in, search for "is:muted" in the search box to find muted conversations. Then choose "Unmute" from the More menu. You're a glutton for punishment.
Create A New Gmail Address On The Fly
Let's say you want to get really granular with filters or you want to set up a second account for a service that's already using your Gmail account. You can create a virtual Gmail address that's tied to your primary address simply by adding +anything between the @ symbol and Gmail.com when you're giving out your address. You+eBay@Gmail.com for auction bids. You+Shopping@Gmail.com for online splurges. That kind of stuff. Anything sent to those addresses will wind up in your regular Gmail account.
Send Email While You Sleep
Make your coworkers and clients think you're a manic-depressive lunatic workhorse by scheduling emails to send in the middle of the night with the Boomerang extension, which is available for Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. The free version lets you schedule up to 10 messages each month. You can also use it to turn messages into reminders by hiding them from your inbox until you'll be more prepared to deal with them—perfect for cheating your way to Inbox Zero at 4:30 p.m. on a Friday.
Robo-Respond To Repetitive Requests
Your needy clients at Gigantic Corporation, Inc. have left you no choice but to respond with "Well, a deep dive is definitely in the pipeline, but let me run it up the flagpole to check our bandwidth and loop back with you to see if we can move the needle on this a bit by picking off some low-hanging fruit!" to multiple messages each day. Instead of typing this a hundred times, just enable Canned Responses under the Settings > Labs menu. The next time you type out the message, you'll be able to save it as a Canned Response to use over and over again without having to type it.
Don't Be A Clickhead
Give your mouse a break: You can do just about anything in Gmail with your tried-and-true keyboard. Basic keyboard shortcuts are enabled by default, but head to Settings > General and choose the "Keyboard shortcuts on" radio button, save your settings, then hit your question-mark key to view a popup guide chock full of possible key combos.
Quit Checking Your Other Mail Accounts
Under the Settings > Accounts and Import section, click the "Add a POP3 mail account you own" link to configure Gmail to pull in new mail from your outside accounts. Then use the "Send mail as" feature in the same menu to set yourself up to reply to incoming messages—whether sent to your Gmail address or other accounts you've connected—from any of the email addresses you own.
Related Video: Are You An Effective Emailer? Start writing better emails that make people take notice.
As artists and record labels clamor over YouTube payouts, some iare skeptical that Google's subscription service can change the equation.
Since the freewheeling, Napster days of digital music, artists and labels have been forced to accept some very hard realities about their industry. From peer-to-peer piracy to the life-preserver Apple tossed out to record companies in the form of iTunes, to the rise and dominance of streaming services, upheaval has been a mainstay of music's relationship with computers. But the Silicon Valley side of the equation has had to swallow a difficult truth as well, and one that's inimical to a tech industry built on advertising: In music—as with other kinds of creative and professional pursuits online—paying subscribers are a far more sustainable source of revenue than free users who look at ads (which, in any case, they are increasingly trying to block).
Last year, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, subscription streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify's paid tier generated $1.2 billion, amounting to about half of the revenue for the entire U.S. streaming industry. Meanwhile, ad-supported streaming—which includes Spotify's paid tier along with YouTube's massive video platform—only generated $385 million for the U.S. market in 2015.
That revenue gap becomes even more dramatic when taking into account the RIAA's estimate that only 10.8 million Americans paid for streaming subscriptions last year on average, while the number of ad-supported streaming customers includes YouTube's 200 million monthly users in the U.S., plus millions of Americans who listen to Spotify's free ad-supported option. Put another way, the average listener of an ad-supported streaming service was worth less than $2 to the music industry in 2015, while the average paid subscriber was worth $120. (The remaining $803 million in streaming revenue, labeled under "SoundExchange Distributions," came from Internet radio services like Pandora.)
It's little wonder then that the music industry has soured on ad-supported streaming. And with superstars like Taylor Swift and U2 serving as the industry's public face, labels and artists have launched a number of campaigns this year that cast YouTube as Public Enemy No. 1. YouTube, the industry has pointed out, is not only the most popular platform for free ad-supported music streaming, but during the first half of 2015 there was more music streamed on YouTube than on all other streaming services combined. Yet Spotify has been paying out more to rights holders than YouTube has been—not just per user, but in total as well.
Granted, the launch of Apple Music along with Spotify's continued growth have eaten into YouTube's share of the streaming pie: According to Nielsen, YouTube now only accounts for 45% of streaming music in the U.S. But that's still a huge market share for a company that, in terms of revenue, isn't pulling its weight.
And how could it? Without a subscription option for most of its existence, YouTube could only generate dollars through digital advertising—a market that has added less than $100 million in new streaming revenue each year, despite the rapid growth of YouTube as a destination for music fans. YouTube likes to point out that it's given back $3 billion to the music industry throughout its decade-plus existence. That's fine, but if the streaming market continues on its current growth arc, it won't be long before the rest of the industry is giving back $3 billion each year. Meanwhile, YouTube's advertising revenue—barring either a massive change to the way advertising on YouTube works or a dramatic migration of ad inventory from television and terrestrial radio to digital platforms—will continue to lag behind.
These are all reasons why the industry has long been clamoring for a paid subscription option from its largest streaming partner, YouTube. And in October of last year, labels and artists got their wish with the launch of YouTube Red, a $9.99-per-month subscription service that offers ad-free streaming as well as access to exclusive content.
Now that it has a paid subscription option like Spotify and more recent entrants like Apple Music and TIDAL do, it's logical to assume YouTube will begin to generate more revenue for the music industry, based on the charts and figures cited above. YouTube's chief business officer believes so, too; in an interview with the Financial Times, Robert Kyncl mentions YouTube Red as a new source of revenue for disgruntled rights holders who feel like they haven't received a fair shake.
But in talking to individuals inside the music industry, including those who work on behalf of major labels and independents alike, their outlook for YouTube Red is far less optimistic.
"We don't disagree with YouTube's claims that subscription is more meaningful," said one industry source. "But how many people are they able to convert? Are they really going to convince people to pay? There's a lot of other content in [YouTube Red]. Does music get diluted?"
These comments speak to two of the biggest concerns over YouTube Red: The relative lack of promotion for the service's music-based features and the concern that Red will be viewed by consumers less as a music platform competing for hardcore music fans against the likes of Spotify and Apple Music, and more as a premium video service like Netflix or Hulu.
Indeed, Red's most heavily publicized feature—and one that will demand heavy investment from YouTube—is its slate of original video series and films. Some of these, like an episodic adaptation of the Channing Tatum franchise Step Up, are being produced in partnership with major networks, film studios, and directors like Ron Howard and Morgan Spurlock. So far, though, the bulk of the shows on the service are designed around gaming and wildly popular YouTube personalities like PewDiePie.
Though 18-24-year-olds are more likely than any other demographic to pay for music, according to Cowen's 2016 Consumer Internet Survey, many in the industry are concerned that YouTube's young target audience won't be as willing or able to fork up $10 a month. According to discussions with major and independent labels, there's a worry that the younger target audience for Red is not made up of the kind of music superfans willing to pay just to avoid hearing ads in between their favorite songs. For many in the music industry, "Come for PewDiePie, stay for Taylor Swift" simply isn't a compelling user acquisition model, especially when services like Spotify and Apple Music already exist to serve a market of devoted music listeners.
Compounding the issue is the fact that the company has shifted its compensation metrics away from rewarding videos with high numbers of "views" toward rewarding videos with longer "watch times" that keep users on the site. Is a 30-minute television program worth 10 times as much as a three-minute song? Or should there be more nuance to the calculations? Regardless of the answer, this change is yet another factor that tempers the industry's excitement over YouTube Red and its ability to fill the current revenue gap in streaming music.
The company admits there's a lot of room for the $9.99 a month service to grow. "Though it's still early days for YouTube Red, we're pleased with the progress of the service nine months in, and plan to expand its availability overseas in the coming months," a spokesperson told Fast Company.
Earlier this month, YouTube's head of global content, Susanne Daniels, said that subscriptions to Red had "far exceeded their expectations" since its debut, and that the company planned to pour more resources into creating more and better content for those subscribers.
The company also pointed to an aggressive new advertising campaign it launched last month to promote the YouTube Music app which, according to Billboard, is aimed at converting YouTube Red subscribers. The free app, which YouTube released in November 2015, allows users to find songs on YouTube using a music-only filter, which creates a full on-demand streaming experience on mobile, not unlike what Spotify and Apple Music offer for $10 a month (Spotify's free mobile offering is extremely limited by comparison). Moreover, new users receive a two-week free trial of YouTube Red, which includes the added benefit of removing ads from the platform.
YouTube CMO Danielle Tiedt told Billboard that the campaign's five videos, each starring a different character from a marginalized background using the YouTube Music app, is the "biggest campaign we'll run this year." And so far the promotion has been a huge success: Last week, YouTube Music knocked the wildly popular Pokémon GO out of the top spot of iTunes' free app charts. That should at least partially soothe the frustrations of music industry insiders still left unconvinced of YouTube's commitment to promoting Red.
But all the commitment and promotion in the world isn't a guarantee that users will stick with Red after the trial period runs out, and they're forced to pay $9.99 just to avoid ads. And if the vast majority of users don't stay with Red after they have to start paying for it, YouTube Music's popularity boom could actually hurt the industry, giving YouTube's free ad-supported streaming—and the dismally low payouts to artists and labels that come with it—an even bigger share of the streaming market versus the more lucrative subscription services.
Nevertheless, it's true that YouTube has met most of the industry's demands when it comes to building a subscription service and—as of last week, at least—promoting it to some extent. However, there's one longstanding point of contention surrounding Red that, in the minds of many artists and labels, YouTube hasn't yet satisfactorily addressed. Last year, questions were raised over YouTube's demands that whatever music artists make available on YouTube's free site must also be available on Red.
Artists like cellist Zoe Keating were frustrated with this mandate because it places limits on artist control. If artists were permitted to include one of two songs off an upcoming album for free on YouTube.com, while making their full catalog available only to paying customers, that would serve the dual purpose of granting artists more control over their own promotion while also driving more users—and not just any users but, crucially, music fans—to YouTube's paid site. YouTube would not comment on artist contracts, but the industry representatives I spoke with say their artists still crave that control.
But there's a separate point raised here that's left many skeptical over YouTube Red's ability to attract music fans as subscribers: If virtually every song on YouTube Red is also on Youtube.com and the YouTube Music app for free, why would anybody—fans of PewDiePie and Step Up notwithstanding—sign up for the service?
"Almost all of [YouTube Red's] content is available on an ad-supported tier, and they've trained their consumers that they get this for free," said one industry source. "The ad-supported tier has to be changed in a way that doesn't cannibalize from people who have the willingness to pay and want to have a quality paid experience. I think that's priority number one. The differences in the service between ad-supported and paid is negligible. It's just not enough."
YouTube is the only streaming music service that offers full on-demand streaming on all platforms—mobile and desktop—regardless of whether the user pays. (By "on-demand," I mean that users can search for a specific song and then hear that song immediately.) Apple Music offers the Beats 1 radio station to free users and nothing else. Aside from a 30-day trial period, TIDAL offers users nothing for free.
Spotify, meanwhile, has struck a more equitable balance between its service tiers: it provides free-tiered users with an on-demand experience but only on desktops, whereas on mobile, these freeloaders can only listen to bands on shuffle. To hear a full album on a phone—which is where an increasingly high proportion of music streaming occurs today—users must pay. Spotify's paid tier also removes advertising. According to sources with knowledge of the company's strategy, Spotify has continually tweaked and adjusted these features in an effort to serve both casual and committed user bases without one group cannibalizing the other. The result is that 30 million of its 100 million users pay $10 a month—which is more than any other streaming service on the planet.
Fortunately for YouTube, it only needs to attract a small number of its billion users to sign up for Red in order to create a significant revenue bump. Again, just over 10 million U.S. subscribers generated $1.2 billion in revenue for the music industry last year.
However, given that Red basically replicates the functionality of its free service, except for the ads, many worry that most users who are addicted to consuming music on YouTube won't be sufficiently incentivized to pay $10 a month for Red, while users who love music so much that they can't abide interruptions by advertisers would probably prefer a service like Spotify or Apple Music or even TIDAL. These other services not only make music central to the experience and nothing else, but that is also well-positioned to offer exclusive content from the music industry's biggest stars (as opposed to exclusive content from a woman who is obsessed with unicorns).
That leaves a very narrow audience for YouTube Red to target: fans who care enough about music to want to avoid advertisements, but not enough to join a service where music is the first and only priority. In a crowded space where other services are focused on providing a great music experience first, foremost, and only, many are left wondering why a music aficionado would turn to YouTube Red over these other services.
Moreover, according to conversations with those familiar with the matter, YouTube is still very bullish on advertising. Far from looking to supplant advertising revenue with subscription revenue from YouTube Red, the company expects free, ad-supported streaming to remain core to its business. From its perspective, the fact that ads aren't yet a wildly lucrative source of revenue is a matter of patience. As more ad inventory moves from television and terrestrial radio to digital platforms, YouTube predicts that the revenue from free ad-supported streaming will increase in time. But if the recent data is any indication, it could be a very long time indeed. And as a subsidiary of the world's most valuable company, YouTube can afford to be patient, even if many of its creators cannot.
Normally, when a new subscription service fails to catch on, there's little for artists to lose. From that perspective, the success or failure of YouTube Red is a YouTube problem, not a musician problem. But it's not that simple. Because as it stands now, YouTube's free offering doesn't just "cannibalize" YouTube Red, as one industry source put it. It's potentially cannibalizing the entire streaming music space, and still leaving artists with relative peanuts.
It's nice of you to help out, but you may not want to set a precedent. Here are three ways to draw some boundaries.
You did it: You were a good friend, or coworker, or contact, and took time out of your day to read a resume, listen and advise over coffee, or provide notes on an upcoming project. In fact, you did such a good job that the other person has already followed up to ask if you can help again (and then again).
Can you blame him?
Maybe—and maybe not. On the one hand, you'd hope he might realize that you don't have limitless time for people to "pick your brain." But sometimes, he'll keep coming back because you're telling him to. That's right: When you end that coffee meeting by saying, "Let's set a date for next month" or conclude an email with, "Anytime you need help, please ask!" you're the one suggesting he reach back out.
So, how can you get out of this habit, but still end your exchange on a friendly note? The trick is actually pretty simple, and it all comes down to phrasing. Instead of focusing on the future, comment on how happy you are to have been there—which signals the past-tense nature of your guidance. This way you can still be gracious, but you're not setting yourself up to be a constant source of free advice.
Here's how it works, and what you can say based on the specific situation.
You love to pay it forward and help others out. But you don't have time to be someone's mentor. You can pretty much commit to one cup of coffee or introduction or email exchange, and that's all. (And by the way, that's totally okay.)
However, you don't want to send mixed signals. So, be sure to skip concluding lines like, "Keep me posted how it goes," which indicates that you'll be there with next steps.
Instead, end with, "I hope I was helpful." This way, you're still being friendly—and odds are slim that someone would follow with, "No, you actually weren't, so please answer these five additional questions."
On the off chance that you're dealing with someone particularly persistent, you can move to being more blunt. In the next email, shift to, "Unfortunately, I don't have time to give you an in-depth answer/provide additional guidance, but I wish you the best of luck!"
Networking is not one-size-fits-all. If you went to a contact's event, and felt uncomfortable the whole time, you have every right to decline future invites for similar get-togethers. Maybe you network better from your couch or one-on-one. Save your time and energy for what works for you.
Of course, in order to do that, you'll need to bypass any phrases that suggest you can't wait for the next shindig. That means "Let's do it again!"; "See you soon!"; "Can't wait!"; and "Looking forward to the next [event]" are all out.
Again, the trick here is to look backward. Go with: "I'm so glad I was able to make it." Same goes for meeting up with someone again or providing feedback in the future, just tweak the end of "I'm so glad I was able to . . ." and sub in "catch up with you," or "provide helpful feedback."
If there are future emails, stick with variations of the line above and add in some details about the visit that already occurred. It sounds like this: "Yes, it was great seeing you, too. I loved hearing about your new job." And that's all. Stay past tense, and don't commit to being in touch in the future.
In an article on the virtues of the word "no," Muse Editor-in-Chief Adrian Granzella Larssen writes, "I say yes until I find myself with a jam-packed calendar that not only stresses me out every time I look at it, it leaves no time for the activities that keep me sane, or the big priorities that really matter to me. And I realize that in order to say yes to those things, I need to say no to others."
If you identify with these two sentences, you need to get more comfortable ending one-time obligations without getting suckered into long-term commitments. To do this, remember that "Let me know if there's anything else I can do" is perfectly nice—unless the reality is that you'll dread hearing back, you have zero interest in doing anything else, and you're just typing that line because you feel like you have to.
If you don't have the bandwidth to stay in touch but want to provide some kind of additional guidance, your best option is to send your contact elsewhere. For example, I often refer people who contact me with specific career questions to The Muse's Coach Connect. Maybe you suggest your connection reach out to someone else you know (after asking of course), join a Facebook or LinkedIn group, read a book you found particularly enlightening on a given subject, or find some other outlet.
To make this a no-brainer for you—and save you from your wavering, defaulting-to-yes self—save a canned response with additional resources. This way, saying "no" really will be easier than saying yes.
If you know you're likely to blurt out something that'll commit you to future engagements, take extra time when ending a meeting or note. Don't say what's on the tip of your tongue. Consciously focus on using the lines above. In the end, it'll save you—and the other person—headaches, because it'll steer him or her toward someone who truly wants to provide continual help.
This article originally appeared on The Daily Muse and is reprinted with permission.
Its latest operating system experiment throws out decades of software history in pursuit of smaller-scale devices.
Last week, a group of Googlers did something strange: They quietly revealed a new operating system that theoretically competes with Google's own Android OS.
Dubbed Fuchsia, the open-source OS-in-progress could run on everything from lightweight, single-purpose devices (think ATMs and GPS units) all the way up to desktop computers. But unlike Android, Fuchsia isn't based on Linux, nor is it derived from any of the other software that underpins nearly all personal computing and communications today. Instead, it's an attempt to start from scratch.
Google has yet to make any big announcements about how it might use Fuchsia, which is still in early development and could be nothing more than an experiment. Still, Google has plenty of reasons to hit reset on decades of software history.
Here's something you might not realize about your phones, tablets, and laptops: For the most part, they're adaptations of software "kernels" that are quite old. Android uses the Linux kernel, which began development in 1991. Mac OS X, iOS, and other Apple platforms are based on Unix, which originated at AT&T's Bell Labs in 1969. Windows computers are based on the Windows NT kernel, which dates back to 1993.
The purpose of a kernel is to manage the deepest levels of an operating system. It handles requests from hardware devices such as keyboards, schedules tasks, and manages files and memory. In doing so, it abstracts the intricacies of the operating system, which is helpful, say, for allowing an app to print without its developers having to know anything about specific printer models.
The resilience of old kernels like Unix, Linux, and Windows NT may seem paradoxical for an industry obsessed with the state of the art, but industry analyst Horace Dediu argues that that at its lowest levels, computing is fundamentally the same as it was a few decades ago. For instance, today's Windows computers use chips that are direct descendants of the Intel processor in the first IBM PC. In that sense, the kernel is just a commodity.
"We are still using exaclty the same architecture, we're using exactly the same notions of computing—registers, gates, transistors—so for that reason, there's no need to make a better kernel," Dediu says. "Kernels have been figured out."
Or so we thought. These days we're packing sensors and computing power into more things, turning ordinary homes, for instance, into smart ones, and generally making everything more connected (Internet of Things, in industry jargon). The thinking behind Fuchsia may be that aging kernels such as Linux are inadequate for this new wave of devices. As such, its creators are imagining a new one for modern times. (The kernel itself is called Magenta, which is based on another recent Google experiment called LittleKernel.)
Zach Supalla, whose company Particle offers hardware kits and developer tools for the Internet of Things, notes that Linux poses a couple of problems for these small-scale computing devices.
For one thing, Linux is large for this type of application. Even though the Linux kernel is modular, allowing developers to strip away unnecessary parts, it still ends up occupying megabytes' worth of space. That means it's harder to cram the Linux kernel onto cheap microcontrollers, which in turn necessitates processors that are much larger, pricier, and more power-hungry.
"You haven't jumped the gap into this whole other supply chain of stuff that's manufactured at much higher qualities, and for much, much cheaper," Supalla says.
The other problem is that Linux isn't "real-time." Unlike the embedded operating systems found in ATMs, medical products, and other single-purpose devices, Linux uses a schedule to handle a multitude of tasks. While this can maximize performance in general-purpose computers, it causes problems for devices that require precise timing, like 3D printers or the many motorized controls inside automobiles.
"If you want to make sure that this thing fires at exactly the right microsecond, you don't really want to have a process in there deciding what runs when," Supalla says.
A general-purpose operating system like Linux can also be less secure for Internet of Things applications, Supalla says. There's more code, which means more potential security loopholes that need to be addressed or locked down through firewalls and virtual private networks.
"One of the values of running a [real-time operating system] or embedded system is, there's nothing to lock down," Supalla says. "It's not running a bunch of stuff you have to be concerned about. It isn't running anything at all except the software that you write."
Supalla speculates that Fuchsia is an attempt to get the best of both worlds between Linux—which is still better at allowing apps and hardware to communicate through the operating system—and today's embedded systems, such as FreeRTOS and ThreadX.
"They'd probably like to have something that has the level of abstraction of a Linux, but the performance, the small size, and the real-time nature of an RTOS," Supalla says. "That would be a very valuable thing for one to have, and I think in theory it can be done. It's just never been done before."
If Fuschia only targeted small-scale devices, it might not be that noteworthy. But Fuchsia's developers have broader ambitions in mind, claiming that the operating system can scale to smartphones and desktop computers. In theory, that would make Fuchsia a direct alternative to Google's Android and Chrome OS.
What's the motivation? According to Supalla, it's possible that starting from scratch would allow for a more efficient operating system, which in turn could power more efficient servers—something Google is always interested in. He also notes that desktop compatibility could help with simulating a large number of smaller devices running at once, to ensure they work at scale.
"It's much easier to have a thousand servers that you spin up, that are each running a thousand copies of the software application at the same time, than it is to go get a million chips and boot them all up, so it's better for testing," Supalla says.
Dediu has a different theory: A fresh operating system could be free of the intellectual property licensing issues that have hounded Google with Android. "Because it's a clean-sheet design, it doesn't have any IP that anybody else is going to line up for," he says. "That might be a reasonable assumption, because Linux does have some hairy IP issues."
Keep in mind this could all be academic. Fuchsia's developers say they'll fully document and announce the operating system eventually, but that could be a long way off, and it's unclear whether Google will throw any weight behind the effort. The Android ecosystem is already huge (and is starting to merge with Chromebooks). Meanwhile, Google is also scaling a version of Android down to Internet of Things devices with an embedded variant called Brillo—downsides of Linux be damned—and it's shaping up to be a full-blown platform, not just a bare-bones operating system.
Then again, Unix got its start as a volunteer project with no organizational recognition from Bell Labs, and Linux Torvalds started working on Linux as a hobby. Maybe in a few decades we'll be talking about Fuchsia's unlikely origins within the Googleplex.
When you get the sense that your boss appreciates your coworkers better, it's time for a gut check on your own performance.
You see your coworker hanging out in your boss's office almost every day. They laugh, make inside jokes, and seem more like longtime buddies than employer and employee. Any time you try to join the camaraderie, they don't exactly embrace your contributions to their little social circle—it's more like they tolerate you. And coincidentally (or not), the high-profile projects always seem to go to this particular coworker.
Yep, your boss clearly has a favorite. These tips can help keep your career moving forward when that favorite isn't you.
Your supervisor's favoritism may be frustrating, but try not to let it get to you. Complaining and whining about it won't help you get ahead, says Billie Sucher, a career-transition management expert, so focus on maintaining your professionalism. One way to do that is to get honest with yourself, even if that means eating a slice of humble pie.
"No one wants to admit that a colleague might be more experienced or skilled (and thus enjoys more face-time with the boss), but in reality, this is frequently the case," says Alexandra Levit, author of Blind Spots: The 10 Business Myths You Can't Afford to Believe on Your New Path to Success. "If you really believe favoritism is in question, talk to a mentor outside the situation—in confidence—for an honest and fair assessment."
Don't limit this assessment to just the technical aspects of your job. "Take a good look at your performance and relationships at work," says Hannah Morgan, career strategist and founder of CareerSherpa.net. "Are you easy to get along with? Do you have strong relationships with your colleagues? Do they trust you? All of these factors are equally as important as your qualifications to do the job."
You can also choose to address the issue directly with your boss to get his or her feedback. Focus the conversation on how you can improve your performance, Sucher says. Rather than expressing anger or frustration about your place in the office hierarchy, ask what you can do to become a more valuable member of the team. Additionally, discuss your own short- and long-term goals with your boss, and lay out plans that will help you get where you want to be, Levit says.
While it would certainly be nice to be chummy with your supervisor, it's not a prerequisite in order for you to excel at your job. Instead of concerning yourself with your boss's feelings about you relative to your coworkers, concentrate your energy on what actually matters—the work you do
"You cannot control the actions of your boss; you can only control your reaction to him or her," says Sucher. "Focus on what is before you—your tasks, accountabilities, and serving your customers and employer to the best of your ability."
Make sure your boss knows you're doing great work by regularly reporting on your accomplishments. "Don't just go to your boss when there is a problem," says Boni Candelario, a New York City-based career coach. "Set yourself apart and express your successes and how they relate to your department's success."
Proactively pitch project ideas in areas your boss cares about. If you're getting passed over for assignments you think you should have, provide your boss with reasons and facts to support why you should get the next one, Morgan says.
After you make your case to your boss, his or her reaction should help you decide if it's worth staying at this job or not, Morgan says. So let's say you've spoken to your boss, discussed your aspirations for more challenging work and explained your personal goals, and your boss has emphatically agreed that you should be working on bigger, better projects. Terrific! Except the next time a plum account becomes available, you're once again passed over, leaving you bored and unchallenged in your role.
If your boss is dismissive toward your goals and uninterested in helping you move forward, that's a sign to move on.
"If you have done all that you can possibly do from a professional standpoint and are still uncomfortable in your environment, dust off your resume," Sucher says. "There will always be favorites, but a good leader knows and shows that all of her team members are her favorites."
This article originally appeared on Monster and is reprinted with permission.
Here's a quick primer on "physical," "mental," and "emotional" listening, and how to put them together.
We associate listening with our ears. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus observed, "We have two ears and one mouth so we can listen twice as much as we speak." But there's lots more to listening than opening our ears and hearing what somebody says. It involves our full being—good listeners have a physical, mental, and emotional presence, and they know how to integrate all three. It's not as difficult a balancing act as you may think, but it does take a little more deliberate thought than most of us bring to the activity. Here's how to brush up.
You already know that body language can make you a better or worse communicator: When I make eye contact with you, I hear you better. When I turn toward you, you see that I'm more engaged. It's the same when I turn off my smartphone and signal that I won't be distracted from our exchange.
But even those of us who do this well rarely do it deliberately—which means that we often do it haphazardly. Instead, it's important to take these steps consciously in order to really listen to someone. Showing nonverbally that you're open to what another person wants to convey verbally is the crucial prerequisite to being able to connect on any other level.
The truth is that body language isn't just an important ingredient for speakers and leaders—or for the times when we want others to listen to us. It's no less essential when the tables are turned.
Listening mentally isn't just about paying careful attention to what others are saying, it means responding by building upon their thinking.
The starting point here is attentiveness. How many times do we find our minds wandering in any given encounter? In Mindful Leadership, author Maria Gonzalez estimates that roughly half the time we devote to a given task isn't spent focusing on completing it. It's much the same for the way we communicate.
Do your best not to mentally "disappear" from the conversation—which is harder than you may think. One way to stay attentive is to "track" the other person's thinking: Make a mental outline or summary of their points and ideas so you can consciously follow their train of thought.
Mental listening also involves probing for more information. If you're talking to a staff member or colleague, help them build the case they're delivering to you. For example, you might say: "I heard you say you want to go in a new direction. Why is this important to you?" or, "How did you come to this conclusion?" If the person's thoughts seem a little unfocused, offer to help reframe their message. Ask, "Is your point that . . . ?"
Probing can also help you pinpoint where your thinking and the other person's intersect. For example, if you're in a job interview, ask questions that help you see how the interviewer sees the position—then respond accordingly.
As you're listening mentally, you can also pick up on the verbal cues that flag what the other person believes to be the core of their message. For instance, "So what I'm saying is . . . " Listen for proof points like "first," "second," and "third." If the person uses lots of "um's" and "ah's," or hedging phrases like "sort of" and "maybe," it's a good bet that their ideas aren't fully baked, or that they're less committed to them. Strong verbs ("I believe," "I know") as opposed to weaker ones ("I think," "I guess") suggest that the speaker is convinced of their beliefs and thinking like a leader.
Finally, listen for the "holes" in what's being said. If the story changes at all as the speaker continues—or if there's any crucial information that's conspicuously absent—you'll be able to pick up on the gaps that may need filling in.
The third piece of the puzzle, emotional listening, involves connecting with others' feelings—and not letting your own get in the way.
In a global survey by the Economist earlier this year, C-level executives singled out technology and finance as the two areas where they needed to improve their skills. Yet lower-ranking employees had a different take: They felt their bosses needed to strengthen their emotional intelligence and leadership chops.
The starting point for emotional listening is reinforcement—nodding your head, or saying "yes" and "I understand"—but it doesn't stop there. Show you empathize with phrases like, "I can see why you feel that way," or "That must have been a difficult decision for you." This encourages others to open up and share their feelings, not just their thoughts and ideas.
Much the way that your own body language sets the stage, emotional listening also involves reading the speaker's nonverbal signs. Study their face, listen to their tone of voice, examine their posture. Suppose you're at a meeting and you see a colleague's arms are crossed and eyes are down. You turn and say, "It doesn't seem like you're comfortable with this decision." Or you might just comment, "Hey, wait a minute—I think Joe may feel differently about this proposal."
You don't want to put someone on the spot, but you do want to show you're tuning into others' feelings, even if they haven't fully verbalized them yet (which it's always their prerogative to decline to do). The outcome will likely be better because you've made the discussion more inclusive.
Listening is an intensely creative and collaborative process—much more so than we often give it credit for. But the raw material that you and your company need to move forward together lies in the hearts and minds of those around you. And you can tap into them simply by giving a little more thought to each of these levels on which real listening takes place.
"Tap into your alumni network" is good but vague advice, but a great way to put it into action is hidden in plain sight.
How many times have you heard the saying, "It's not what you know but who you know?" Hundreds, right? Whether or not that's your go-to philosophy, tapping your network can help you land a job. (It's a fact.)
But building relationships does even more than uncover job prospects: It's one of the key skills needed to succeed in your career. And I'm guessing you're nodding along and thinking of your recent coffee dates and LinkedIn updates as proof of how you're at the top of your networking game.
Well, even if you have an up-to-date profile, post on Pulse, and have joined a couple of groups, you still can step your game up with a tool I'm guessing you've never even heard of. When's the last time you used LinkedIn's "Alumni tool?" Was that "never" I just heard you say? Well, here's how it works.
First things first, you can access it by clicking on the LinkedIn homepage, hovering over "My Network," then selecting "Find Alumni."
From there, you can perform a search for individuals who attended your school. You can then apply one or more of these six filters:
Where they live (geographic location)
Where they work (company)
What they do (job function)
What they studied (major)
What they're skilled at (LinkedIn skills)
How you are connected (first- and second-degree connections, group members, and so on)
If that's not enough, you can also identify alumni by the year they attended your school or do a text search for anything that may not fit neatly in one of the previously mentioned filters.
Let's say you're looking for a job in a new city, and for argument's sake, we'll make it a marketing role in Texas. Using the Alumni Tool, select "Dallas/Fort Worth" area under the "Where they live" filter and "Marketing" under the "What they do" filter. If you'd like to refine your search and are interested in social media positions, consider selecting "Social Media Marketing" from the "What they're skilled at" filter. The more targeted your search, the more relevant your results will be.
From there, view profiles and send a message to someone you could imagine having a conversation with. You could ask to set up an informational interview, or even to connect and send some questions over email.
Or perhaps you're looking to change careers, but you don't know anyone in your new sector. Remember, sharing an alma mater means you instantly have something in common, and it gives you a reason to reach out. If you're curious how other people have made the leap, you can use filters such as "What they studied" and "What they're skilled at" to identify individuals with similar interests.
Maybe you'll find someone else with a nontraditional background who's working in the industry you'd like to learn more about. This person will have insight into getting a job without the stereotypical experience.
You've narrowed your search using the appropriate filters and have identified a list of individuals you want to connect with. While you're technically done with the "Alumni Tool" portion of it all, don't stop now! You still want to take the ball to the goal (aka reach out to the people you just found and make the most of your search).
If the individual's a first-degree connection—like if someone sent you a request five years ago, got married, and changed her name so you may not have thought of her initially, but you're still connected—you will see an envelope button below his or her job title. In the image above, the three individuals on the left are first-degree connections. You can send a message to that person by clicking the envelope button.
If the person's not a first-degree connection, you'll see a silhouette and plus sign below the job title (like the two people on the right in the above image).
Now look in the bottom right of his or her profile photo. If there's a Venn diagram, hover over it to see the connections you have in common. If you have a good relationship with one of these mutual connections, consider reaching out to see if he or she will make an introduction. (Here's a template for how to ask for an introduction on LinkedIn.)
If you don't have mutual connections, there are a few ways to connect. One option is to leverage your school's alumni database to find contact information. Another is to send a personalized connection request. In the message, be polite and briefly explain your reasons for wanting to connect.
Muse columnist Sara McCord suggests you answer three questions: "Who are you? How did you find me? Why do you want to connect?" She also provides a template for reaching out to an alum—and staying within the character limit:
Hi Sara,
I see we both went to F&M (Go Dips!). I am a graduating senior interested in editorial and would love to connect with you because you write for some of my favorite websites.
Thanks so much,
Jill Brown
If the other person accepts the invite but doesn't respond, you can then follow up with a more detailed message. Just note that LinkedIn may place a limit on those with a low invitation acceptance rate, so make sure you're targeting people correctly. A final option is to upgrade your account and send an InMail (an email that can be sent to anyone on LinkedIn).
Regardless of where you're at in your career, you can benefit from the knowledge and experience of others. So give this underrated tool a try. Your next opportunity may be closer than you think.
This article originally appeared on The Daily Muse and is reprinted with permission.
Leadership coach and author Jodi Womack explains why people lose momentum while pursuing their goals—and how to get it back.
Making a strategic career change. Saving more of your paycheck. Paying off debt. Setting money or work goals like these is the easy part. Keeping up your momentum so they stick for the long term? That's where the battle begins.
Maybe your pattern is to create a plan of action so sweeping that it ultimately overwhelms you. Or you get sidetracked and bogged down by the daily grind, and you veer off course. Perhaps you know you want to change but aren't sure what the first step should be, so you end up spinning your wheels. However you get there, when you sense that you're stuck in rutsville, it's frustrating and discouraging.
So how can you get unstuck and move forward? We talked to Jodi Womack, CEO of the Get Momentum Leadership Academy and founder of No More Nylons, a coaching program for business leaders. Womack is the author of the new release Get Momentum: How to Start When You're Stuck with Jason W. Womack, her business partner of nine years and husband of 17 years.
The Womacks have made it their life's work to help people make positive changes that last. Here, Jodi shares her insight on why successful people fall into a job or money rut, and gives tips for busting out and reaching your goals.
How do you know when you're stuck?
If things aren't moving forward in your life, and you feel isolated, frustrated, as well as physically, mentally, and spiritually exhausted, chances are you're stuck. But if you can't feel it, listen to yourself. If you often repeat phrases like, "I don't know what to do next . . . I tried that once and it didn't work for me . . . I'm confused . . . I'm overwhelmed . . . I don't know where to start," then you're in a rut. You need to get back on the path to the future you want.
Many people reach a point where they feel stalled at work. Why does this happen?
Being stalled at work is rough. If you're not feeling momentum at work, everything feels stagnant. [The reason this happens is] the same as in any other area of life: You don't create clear goals as to what you want to get out of your job and where you hope it will take you. Or you do have goals, but you don't monitor them closely, and before you know it, you veer off track.
We suggest our clients take a strategic approach to goal setting—specifically, to let themselves dream and build a vision of how they'd love things to be. Then, constantly scan the landscape of opportunity and look for new chances to move toward their goals.
What's the most effective way to kick-start momentum?
The very best way to create momentum in life is to establish firm, clear goals and then set up milestones—intermediate mini goals that make it easier to achieve the [larger goals] you set out to accomplish. We suggest something called the "30/30 Rule," whereby you devote 30 minutes a day to focusing on something that is 30 days away or more. For example, you spend a little time each day keeping track of a big work project coming down the road in a month rather than avoiding it and letting it sneak up on you.
Also, the 30/30 Rule can help you with larger career questions like, "Do I want to be in the same job a year from now or do I want to start doing everything I can to get that promotion?" If so, you would take that one-year goal and break it into 12 monthly goals. When it's time to check your progress on the next monthly goal, see if you can schedule two to four of those 30/30 Rule blocks each month to work on that."
When it comes to finances, especially paying off debt, people seem to get very stuck. Why?
With money, it all boils down to having an exact sense of what's coming in and what's going out. Too often, people get stuck because they don't have a basic understanding of this equation. If that's your situation, sit down and do the math. Ask hard questions like, "What one change can I make to keep me moving forward?" Or, "Where can I cut back?" Or, "Where do I have the opportunity to create income?"
Also, look for people you might learn from in this area of life. Maybe it's a trusted family member who is smart about money or a financial advisor. Educate yourself on the realities of your finances and ways you can boost your income or cut spending. That will give you momentum to take action.
Speaking of guidance, in the book you place a strong emphasis on relying on a mentor to help reach a goal. What makes a good mentor?
Jason and I have two different approaches to mentors. For me, a mentor is someone I know personally who cares about me deeply, a person who cares about my goals but also cares about me. For Jason, he views anyone he has learned from as a mentor. That includes authors he's never met but whose books he's read or an expert who has given a Ted Talk he watched online.
So when it comes to mentors, we encourage you to find someone who's willing to help you achieve a vision that's a little bigger and a little more outrageous than your current self.
Is there a right time to try to escape a rut so you're better able to break free successfully?
Some people prefer starting on a set date, like New Year's Day. If that works for you, by all means, do it. But I'm a bit of a rebel in this area because I feel it sets you up for failure: You vow to get in shape only to hit the gym for three weeks in January with the rest of the crowd and quit.
Instead, I strongly believe that the absolute best time to work on a goal is right now. Don't wait! If you want to eat better or save more money or get your resume together, do it today. And if you find yourself making excuses, then dig deep and ask what's the real reason you have such discomfort about starting now. That answer will help identify the problem and hopefully put you in a place of forward movement.
You advocate setting milestones on the way toward reaching a goal. How does this work?
Momentum happens when you set goals and reach milestones. Setting up little goals that you can complete lets people know you succeeded. Accomplishment leads to confidence. If you can create small wins [in your life], they build on themselves and affirm that what you are doing is working.
What if you get derailed and feel discouraged? How would you suggest rebooting?
The fastest way we know to reboot is to ask yourself, "What do I want to be known for?" This will help you create your criteria for what you do and don't do [to get back on track].
This article originally appeared on LearnVest and is reprinted with permission.
This week's top stories may encourage you to apply for a job at Google and help you pick up on the bias in Rio Olympics coverage.
This week we learned how to artfully dodge a hiring manager's inappropriate questions, how Patagonia makes on-site child care pay for itself, and why Google's tech recruiters are shifting their approach to sourcing top talent.
Google recruiter Keawe Block says company's methods for hiring tech talent have been getting more holistic. That's by design: "We're as interested in English or philosophy majors as we are in computer science degree holders. We don't really care if you have a 4.0 GPA, and we're not interested in whether you can figure out how many golf balls fit inside a 747."
Most corporate execs barely give a second thought to the idea of offering on-site child care to employees, imagining that would be ludicrously expensive. But Patagonia CEO Rose Marcario points out that not only has the company been doing just that—sustainably—for years, it actually recoups more than 90% of the costs. This week she shows us the math.
According to Cambridge University researchers, sports reporters are more likely to call women athletes "girls" than to refer to their male counterparts as "boys." That may not surprise you, but it doesn't end there. Here's a close look at how gender bias pervades the vocabulary of sportscasts—including in the Rio Olympics.
Are your daily tasks piling up—taking your stress levels with them? You may be able to take an inventory and cut extraneous stuff. Here's a six-step method for doing just that.
Massachusetts recently became the first state in the U.S. to bar employers from asking about job candidates' prior earnings history, adding one more item to the list of off-limits questions. But that unfortunately doesn't mean you can expect to stop encountering them. Here's your guide to navigating inappropriate or illegal queries during the hiring process.
SRI wants to produce chatbots with deep knowledge of specific topics like banking and auto repair.
After birthing a virtual assistant that knows a little of everything, SRI International is working on ones that know a lot about just one thing.
The nonprofit research center is arguably best known in the tech world for spinning off Siri, whose virtual assistant tech Apple acquired in 2010. SRI also incubated Tempo, an AI-driven calendar app that Salesforce bought last year.
Now, SRI believes it can infuse AI into even more settings—shopping, banking, travel, business-to-business applications, and so on—allowing for deeply knowledgeable chatbots that know how to carry a conversation. The goal, says William Mark, SRI's president of information and computing services, is to have assistants that are much better at specific tasks than a general-interest assistant like Siri.
"If you were to say to Siri, 'transfer $200 from savings to checking,' or something like that, Siri would just look something up on the web about transfers," Mark says. "That's not a critique of Siri, it's just that Siri doesn't know anything about banking."
William Mark
The specifics of SRI's efforts are still murky, but in 2014 the group spun off a startup called Kasisto, which recently launched personal banking bots for Facebook Messenger, Slack, and text messaging. A separate Kasisto bot will soon be able help people keep track of their investments.
Mark says this is just the beginning, as SRI is planning for more spin-offs in the near future. The goal is to establish a platform for companies to build their own highly specialized assistants. SRI's tech will provide the conversational "scaffolding," while each industry provides the knowledge.
As an example, Mark says, imagine you've asked a bank teller to transfer some funds, and the teller asks whether to transfer from checking or savings. You might respond by asking, "How much do I have in savings?" To a human teller, that's an understandable branch of the main conversation. But to a chatbot, it might seem like you've changed the subject. SRI's framework will supposedly be able to handle these kinds of conversational moves.
"We're creating a core set of utilities so that once you have, for example, the concept of banking, the system knows how to have a conversation about banking because it knows how to have a conversation," he says. "And then if you move to a different domain like engine repair, the concepts change, but the rules of conversation are similar from one domain to another."
SRI's interest in new AI tech is noteworthy in part because of the group's pedigree, but keep in mind that there's already a growing number of bots that are good at particular things ("domain-specific" bots, to use the industry jargon). The available tools to build these bots are also increasing, with big companies like Facebook and Microsoft along with smaller startups trying to woo developers.
"Basic language understanding and NLP are commoditizing very fast," says Charles Jolley, whose information-finding assistant Ozlo currently specializes in finding places to eat. "Many people have the datasets they need to build a Siri-level of language understanding now, and they are all sharing it via bot APIs."
The next breakthrough, Jolley says, "will be around understanding the deeper meaning behind the words, which is only possible with a large knowledge base."
Kasisto
It's hard to say whether SRI has a unique angle here without actually seeing what the company is doing. But according to Kasisto CEO Zor Gorelov, SRI is offering something more thorough than what he's seen elsewhere. To build Kasisto, the company licensed all of SRI's AI technology, including speech recognition, natural language understanding, AI reasoning, and interactions that differ based on text versus speech. In his view, it's one of the deepest AI portfolios in the industry, which Kasisto was able to expand upon with training data, analytics, and security features.
"Facebook, and Microsoft, and Kik—a lot of people are throwing bot toolkits out there, but this is not a toolkit or [natural language processing] problem to solve," Gorelov says. "To solve this problem you need to have the entire platform, the entire stack."
That said, SRI won't be alone in trying to enable more domain-specific knowledge in chatbots. The group may even provide a rival, of sorts, in Viv, which made a splash in May with an impressive virtual assistant demo. Although Viv seems to emphasize one bot versus many bots, the broad strokes of allowing developers to easily impart deep subject knowledge are similar. Viv even shares a similar lineage, with the founders having worked at SRI before cofounding the Siri spin-off.
While Viv has shown off a powerful demo, SRI hasn't shown much of anything yet. Still, demos don't matter much in AI, where the real test is what happens when ordinary users are allowed to say whatever they want. That may explain why Mark, when asked about Viv, is reluctant to say much.
"I know it's frustrating, but these comparisons are pretty hard to make," he says. "That's why we like to try, when systems exist, we like to try interactions on one system versus another system."
The fixation on "culture fit" might be steering us wrong on both sides of the hiring table.
Whether you're an experienced job hunter or just striking out on your first round of interviews, you're probably pretty focused on sussing out a prospective employer's culture to see if you'd fit in. So heeding expert advice, we pay attention to interviewers' personalities and picture ourselves sitting at a happy hour with our potential coworkers. We ask ourselves if that feels comfortable, what kind of personality a company seems to have, and whether ours squares with it.
On its face, that's not a bad idea. It's important to feel you belong at the place where you work. But we may be focusing on the wrong indicators, or adopting criteria that better suits employers' professed needs when it comes to "culture fit" than our own. It could be that "culture" itself trades at too high a value on both sides of the hiring table—that workplace culture, as it's popularly understood, is downright overrated.
Sure, cool office furniture and company-sponsored outings are great ways to attract (and possibly also retain at least some) employees, but employers also seek productivity and results. And professionals need other things, too; while culture ranked top on job seekers' lists of priorities in a recent LinkedIn survey, so did benefits packages like health care and paid leave.
It could be that in our fixation on work culture, we're making it more difficult on ourselves to understand what actually makes for a workplace where employees thrive and businesses see results.
It's no secret that workplaces want happy workers. And to some extent, boosting employee happiness is a valid investment. Studies have indicated that happier employees outperform unhappy ones by anywhere from 12% to 20% or more on various measures of productivity.
But tread carefully—"happiness" isn't a straightforward quality that's easy to cultivate or measure. We tend to associate happiness with the freedom to do what we like, so employers often take the nearest shortcut and schedule "fun" activities to keep the office vibe lively and laid back. Others try to give their teams a little more autonomy over the work they do and how they do it.
These aren't necessarily wasted efforts. But superficial perks like these are just one part of a much bigger picture, even though they're the first features companies tend to tout—perhaps too loudly—in their hiring efforts.
Eimantas Balciunas, CEO of hotel booking startup Travel Ticker, says that employee happiness is a number-one priority: "We try to motivate our employees in many different ways. For example, every year we travel to an exotic location as our company's getaway, and it is a pretty easy thing to do when you run a hotel booking website." Most companies, however, don't run hotel booking websites; perks like these don't come as naturally, but that doesn't stop many of them—especially startups—for striving for something unique, fun, and supposedly happiness-inducing.
There may actually be a cognitive downside to actively building "happiness" into your work culture. There's such a thing as too much positive emotion when we're trying to get something done—it can actually make us less careful with our work, more tolerant of mistakes, and more prone to taking needless risks. Keeping employee morale high is a big plus, but an effective workplace culture needs to be more than strictly a happy one; your office still needs to produce work—some of which simply can't be dressed up as enjoyable.
The key is finding the balance between employee happiness and productivity, without sacrificing one for the sake of the other.
It makes a certain degree of sense that some of the most common interview questions revolve around workplace culture. Employers rightly want to hire people based on more than just their qualifications. It's important to ensure a potential candidate will work well with the rest of the team.
But hiring based on "cultural fit" can become an unintended way of accommodating bias. Imagine—unless you don't even need to, because it's happened to you—walking into an interview and noticing you're the only minority in the office. Or maybe you just dress differently than the other employees there.
The same way college students tend to gravitate toward other students who they believe are similar to themselves, hiring managers unconsciously do the same. Sometimes, it's even a matter of semi-official policy to find candidates who already seem similar to the majority of the office—on the basis of "culture fit"—rather than actively try to widen the profile of the workforce.
In cases like this, culture is sorely overrated. Hiring based on what you know and already like can lead to complacency and hold back creativity. It's a convenient way to hire other people like you and to turn down others who might have been qualified but didn't "fit in." This is downright discriminatory, in addition to being bad for business.
Even the best-intentioned hiring manager's sense of their company's culture may lead them to pass up candidates who can contribute to the organization—possibly in ways that nobody else on staff can. It's akin to hiring people who are always going to agree with your ideas instead of challenging your vision and bringing a new perspective to the table.
Amir Nehemia, CEO of Connecteam, which provides companies with branded employee apps, believes that keeping culture in check (and thereby preserving its real value) simply comes down to respect and communication, in ways that champion difference rather than subtly compel uniformity:
Workplace culture can sound good, but unless each individual in your team respects each other's differences and communicates well, whether in person or through new technology, workplace culture is irrelevant. Clear and consistent communication, respect, and positive relationships between supervisors and workers are the key.
Workplace culture, at least as we understand it today, is overrated. There's more to a productive workplace and happy employees than free beer on Fridays. And meaningfully hiring a diverse yet close-knit team takes looking beyond "culture fit." Where they should be spending our resources on building up the relationships between our employees and bosses, many companies pour their energies into things that may wind up doing more harm than good.
Taking these five steps can help you avoid acting rashly or just stewing in misery.
You did everything right. You found the company you've always wanted to work for. The job was a perfect fit and you aced the interview. Finally, after a weeks-long hiring process and far too much waiting, an offer comes your way. You negotiate a great compensation package, take the gig, and start what you consider to basically be your dream job.
Long story short, it isn't. For any number of reasons, the reality of the position falls far short of your expectations. Now you aren't sure what your next move should be. Do you just tough it out? Start the job search all over again? Something else entirely?
First, take a deep breath, then take these steps—in this order.
The key here is to start small, then work up from there if you need to, always keeping an eye on what you have it in your power to do, and what the likely outcomes might be. If you can make changes that leave you happier, you won't need to take drastic measures on the one hand or simply stay miserable on the other.
Many employees who decide a job isn't right for them simply try to ride it out. That's a bad strategy. It will make you even more unhappy and can turn you into a negative force at work. If that happens, you probably won't be able to salvage the situation and turn it around.
So start by building stronger relationships with the people around you—even if that doesn't initially look like the source of your frustration. Positive work relationships can improve your work experience immediately, and possibly more than you might suspect. Next, write up a quick list of the other things that will make your job more enjoyable—and focus on the changes that can be made right away while still allowing you to deliver results in your role.
Then choose the right time to sit down with your boss, and be forthright: Explain that there are a few ways you think you could be more productive on the job and become a more valuable employee overall. The key is to present your proposals as good for both of you.
Most reasonable bosses will want to work with you toward a more fulfilling and rewarding job experience. A smart boss knows that when you become more productive and satisfied at work, their job managing you gets that much easier.
Most jobs offer opportunities for professional development, even if they aren't easy to spot right away. So learn everything you can while on the job—even if it includes a lot of grunt work. Ask for work assignments outside the scope of your daily job responsibilities. See if there are courses that your company offers or might be willing to pay for or subsidize. Find a mentor in the company and spend time taking advantage of their experience so you can expand your skill set.
This is usually the stage where many people throw their hands up. Finding a mentor or taking a class or two often feels like puttering around the margins and avoiding the issues that nag you the most. But if you're starting to think that your job really isn't right for you and are thinking about leaving, you should at least head out the door with a skill set far superior than the one you came in with—and use it to land your next gig.
Say you've spent time on the clock trying to make adjustments and boost your expertise but still aren't satisfied. Okay! Now's the time to work on determining what exactly it is you were meant to do all along. Cast a wide net. Start talking to friends, family, recruiters, and job coaches to get you started. Attend professional seminars. Research industries and jobs you think you might be interested in.
Then, as part of your networking, ask for shadowing opportunities at workplaces where you can get an understanding of some new roles and responsibilities you may be considering. Once you've built up a rapport with someone, it's really not outlandish to say, "Hey, I'd love to come in one morning and look over your shoulder for a couple hours," or, "Mind if I sit in on your weekly team meeting sometime?"
If you're happy in your industry but unhappy with your job, focus on the other roles available in your field. But make sure you aren't just setting yourself up to trade one unhappy experience for another. Consider switching industries—that may be the best option for finding something that really suits you.
If you decide to leave your current job, don't walk in one day and quit without having another job in place. That may feel satisfying for a day or two, but it brings up a whole host of problems soon afterward.
As you probably already know, most employers still prefer hiring employees who are working. While you can spin any story in your favor, the bottom line is that you are unemployed. And that fact often raises questions in a prospective employer's mind. You don't want to have to answer them.
After giving it your best, deciding that it just won't cut it, securing a new offer, and finally giving your two weeks' notice, you still have one more thing you need to do. The last two weeks you spend on the job after quitting are the most important two weeks of your tenure.
That's because people will always remember how you left a job—sometimes more so than how you spent your time on the job. You want to work hard and be productive during your final stretch, and show the other employees and your supervisors that you understand what it means to leave a job as an upstanding professional. Your good name is at stake—and so are future job recommendations from the people you leave behind.
Starting from zero can actually be a recruiting advantage.
You've got a great startup idea, you've tested it out to make sure it's viable, and now you're ready to hit the ground running. You just need the right people to come along for the ride. The tricky part here, of course, is that barely anybody has ever heard of your brand-new company. Here's how to recruit the great talent to join a startup or growing business that hasn't had time to gain much name recognition in the job market yet.
One of the biggest advantages startups have over well-established companies is that new team members are expected to wear multiple hats and make major contributions without having to climb corporate ladders.
Most startups tend to tout this difference in their recruiting process, but you should put it front-and-center. Make it a point to let potential hires know that you encourage out-of-the-box thinking and that every new idea is important and worth hearing. Most important, sell them on your dream; you started this business to solve a problem, and they'll have a chance to be an integral part of that process.
Personally, I also like to empower new employees to be heard as soon as they come onboard, and this is something I make clear to candidates while recruiting. We set aside an hour a week for each employee to share their thoughts on our company blog. This shows them how much we trust them, rely on them, and value what they have to say. It also helps put a person behind the voice on the phone to our customers. You can do something similar at very little expense, and it's one of the fastest ways to create an authentic employer brand from scratch.
Selling prospective employees on a dream is only the beginning. Startups that are just getting off the ground can't just explain what they expect from an individual role and think that will be enough to pull in great talent. You also have to validate that there's a real opportunity to make money—both for employees and the company.
So be transparent. Share your market research and projections. Whatever type of success you've already experienced—even if it's modest, like a promising Kickstarter campaign—proudly show it off to prospective hires. They need to be certain that there's potential here. Explain where you're going and how you're going to get there.
This is crucial for companies that may not be able to offer astronomical salaries but may be able to offer equity or even the chance to become a cofounder. Maybe you can provide other perks, like meals, gym memberships, or flexible schedules. If so, showcase all of that.
As a founder, obviously you're going to be enthusiastic about your startup. Because that's expected, it'll be harder for you personally to instill that same enthusiasm in candidates who've never heard of your company before. They may, however, want to hear from the people who already work there. Whether if it's an advisor, coder, or investor, having someone do some recruiting legwork for you can be an effective tactic. The reason? They're already sold. And they can explain to others what it exactly was that made them join your startup.
As Matthew Gordon writes at StartUpNation, "Strong core values can drive smart hiring practices, reduce turnover and absenteeism, increase productivity and quality of work, help guide decision-making, improve customer relationships, and boost employee morale."
Sounds like a mouthful, but it's true. The only challenge, of course, is that "core values" sounds pretty abstract, and just about every company out there professes to have them—and they typically overlap quite a bit. You need to give candidates a chance to see these values in action. This goes beyond showcasing your "culture" in a superficial ways like your funky furniture or office happy hours. Instead, consider letting candidates spend some time with you and your current team outside the office so that they can experience firsthand how the business makes an impact in the wider world.
Or, if that sounds too difficult, simply make a point of sharing the types of out-of-office activities you typically plan for new and existing team members—building homes for community organizations, for instance, or doing some mentoring in local schools, or even just signing up for 10k runs in your area to raise money for causes you care about.
The key here is simply to illustrate that while you're excited to grow the company, you care about more than just the bottom line. And when you discuss these efforts with the same enthusiasm during the interview process, it provides a way to gauge candidates' interest in these values—and see who's really willing to participate.
Sometimes all it takes is for someone to see a product or service for them to want to get involved. Take Apple, for example. People want to work for the company, even if it's selling products at an Apple Store, because they love the iPhone in their pocket. Of course, there are more reasons beyond that, but it's a common thread for Apple employees. Build a product or service that people can rally around, and you'd be surprised at the amount of people who want to join in.
Today, people want jobs that accommodate their needs, strengths, interests, and life outside of the office. So especially if you're a startup, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to offer a meaningful degree of job personalization through flexible hours and location independence.
If you want people to physically enter a workplace, then allow them to decide how and where they work best, at least for a chunk of the time. Even small measures of autonomy can go a long way. In one study, workers who were allowed to arrange their workspaces with a few plants and pictures became up to 32% more productive than those who weren't. In fact, other researchers have suggested that the most creative and productive offices can't be designed by architects and decorators—they need to be shaped (and reshaped) at the hands of the people who actually work there.
Recruiting great hires for a new company that's just making a name for itself isn't easy. But trying to ignore the fact that you're just setting out and have a minimal cache as an employer is a bad idea. Instead, talk about where you see the company headed. When you use phrases like "we will," it shows confidence that not only is your startup going places, but that the recruit is going to be a part of the action. When you talk with potential team members, discuss all those possibilities—the ones you're both doing to achieve together.
John Rampton is the founder of Palo Alto, California–based Due, a free online invoicing company specializing in helping businesses bill their clients easily online. Follow him on Twitter @johnrampton.
One marketing exec says the usual approach to parental leave made life tough when she had her second baby—so she revised it.
Two weeks before my second baby arrived, my company's CEO, Marco, asked me how I was feeling. I answered him truthfully: I was petrified. Not about the baby—I already had one of those and was confident that part would be easy. (I was so wrong, but that's another story.)
What I was scared of was being away from work, and the possibility of coming back to find that my team didn't need me as much as I thought they did. Marco reassured me that wouldn't happen, but the fear was real.
So I took a different approach to maternity leave than I had the first time I became a parent. Here's how, and what the experience taught me.
Instead of taking off fully for a set amount of time and then returning to the office at full capacity, I took two months off at the beginning, then parceled out the remaining two months allotted to me over the rest of the year. I was fortunate to be able to strike this arrangement—many working parents aren't so lucky—but it ended up working surprisingly well for me, not just as a parent but as a professional.
Since I had a toddler at home with an established routine, it was actually somewhat disruptive for me to be at home the whole time. I was also in a different role at a different company than I had been when I had my first child, and I felt more anxious that I was missing out on a lot at work I cared about.
Spacing out the remainder of my maternity leave allowed me to strike a balance between what my family wanted and needed, and what was possible for my team back in the office. It also allowed me to ease back in at a pace that felt right for me. And best of all, it taught me some new habits that continue to help me step away from my work when I need to.
I now have a chubby, sweet baby who snuggles constantly. And I also have a team performing at the top of their game. My being out on leave was a challenge for everyone, but there have been some incredible, durable benefits that I didn't see coming—and that have made all of us better.
Before taking leave, I had weekly meetings with my marketing sub-teams to give input on their work. While I was out, those fell off the calendar and nobody asked to reinstate them. It turned out, though, that my teams were great at managing their daily work, and my input at that level simply wasn't critical.
What was critical was having more time for my team members when something really important or difficult came up. In my role, creating a cohesive brand experience is a top objective. And while I'd long believed in its importance, I simply hadn't made time to drive it forward.
It wasn't until I came back after the initial two months of maternity leave that I saw the issues with our brand experience through fresh eyes. My brand and design teams banded together, and we're now on a clear path to get our brand where we need it to be. And since this process started to take shape while I was still using the remaining balance of my maternity leave, there were still times when I wasn't available—which meant using the time I was on hand to much greater impact.
Going back to work after baby No. 2 was more complicated than I'd expected, and finding the right balance felt elusive at first. One week, my baby would sleep well and I could be productive at work—and maybe even find time to exercise. The next, both kids were sick, nobody was sleeping, and fires were igniting on all sides at work.
I found that being tuned in to my own needs was essential for finding success both at home and in the office—and the flexibility of my approach to maternity leave helped keep me focused on those. When I was working late and missed my kids, I cleared time for them to visit me. And when I was completely exhausted, my husband and I would take turns sleeping in so we could both catch up.
I found that little adjustments day-to-day prevented the need for making big adjustments, and the freedom to actually make those tweaks took my commitment to the company to a new level. Other employers have a long way to go simply in terms of offering adequate leave policies to the parents they employ, but they should allow their staff the trust and flexibility I was given. It can actually help keep them grounded during a stressful period and committed to the company long afterward.
That love for my job has been the ultimate motivator for me, and it's something that I desperately want everyone on my team to experience themselves. What I didn't realize was how much making small adjustments to my schedule in order to meet personal needs could add up to a whole lot of love for my job.
So I've embraced this approach even for non-parents who report to me. Today, I have one team member on sabbatical to work on Hillary Clinton's campaign and another testing out a part-time schedule simply to spend more time with her family. Both are still contributing greatly to the business, both in their daily work and also by spreading the word about our incredible work culture.
Oh, and if you're wondering, it turns out that my team did need me, just in new and different ways than I had imagined. Being out and then coming back—even in a much different way than I'd done it before—helped me see what they needed, and forced me to find creative ways to deliver.
Nikki Pechet is VP of marketing at Thumbtack, a local-services marketplace that connects customers with skilled professionals. Before Thumbtack, she was a principal at Bain & Company, leading growth strategy for consumer and retail companies.
If you can explain why you did something instead of just apologize for it, you're more likely to win someone over.
It's Tuesday morning, the alarm on your phone goes off, and you can't help but look at the first email in your inbox. You read the first few words and begin to worry: Is your boss mad? You keep reading, and it's true—she's really steamed.
Luckily, there's a simple four-step plan to win over someone who's angry in a professional and simple way.
First things first, you should be able to answer the question: How exactly does he or she feel? That's because one of the most common mistakes people make is to immediately go on the defensive. You know the habit of making up excuses as to why you shouldn't be blamed, right? Don't go there.
Instead, pause for a moment and realize that the other person is experiencing an emotion. So if you just dismiss it by saying it's not your fault, you're invalidating how he or she feels. What you want to do is demonstrate that you empathize with the situation and that his or her feelings matter.
In order to do that, you need to stop and visualize—imagine what it's like to be in the other person's shoes. Let's say your coworker feels that you threw her under the bus in front of your boss. Ask yourself: What's going through her mind? Perhaps she's still coming back from a tough performance review and feels like she's on thin ice, or maybe she feels like her contributions are regularly overlooked. When you begin to visualize how someone else is experiencing something, you'll be much better off genuinely expressing empathy.
Next, use some of the emotions from the scenarios you visualize to craft a message that acknowledges what the other person is going through. Start the sentence with "you" rather than "I." Look at how differently these two approaches come off for similar situations:
Original approach: "I know you're frustrated but [insert excuse] . . ." New approach: "You probably feel really frustrated, and I can see where you're coming from."
Original approach: "That was not my fault." New approach: "You're upset, I totally understand. You probably felt that [insert scenarios from visualization]."
Now that you've imagined how the other person feels, take it a step further and consider why this happened.
Along with empathizing, another way to make your response sound less like an excuse is to add some context to the situation so the person has a higher-level view of why something occurred. Nine times out of 10, I vote for full transparency because it helps engender a relationship of trust and camaraderie. Personally, it has always helped me when dealing with conflicts at work.
You can choose the degree of transparency you want to set, but the spirit of this principle is to answer the question "Why did this happen?" as honestly as possible. By providing a reason, you're much more likely to gain compliance.
In a classic experiment by Harvard psychologist Ellen Langer, subjects asked to cut in line for the copy machine. They tested whether giving a reason as to why they were cutting would make any difference.
Here's the result: When someone simply said: "Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?" Sixty percent of people allowed her to cut. But when a person said: "Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I'm in a rush?" the success rate climbed to 94%! The lesson is that when you share the "because," people are more likely to be on your side.
Think about it: "I didn't see the email with your changes before the meeting" and "I didn't see the email with your changes before the meeting because I was practicing the presentation" feel different. The other person might be annoyed either way, but with the second option you're letting him know you weren't simply ignoring him.
What about starting the above statement with "I'm sorry I didn't see the email . . ."
In some situations it may be worthwhile to apologize, but it can vary. If you were clearly in the wrong (like when you show up late, dismiss someone's idea, or forget to do something), then own up to it and apologize.
If there's no fault to bear or it's ambiguous (like if you miss a video call because the Internet went out throughout your office building), then make your best judgment call. Don't default to apologizing unless you mean it and you were really at fault.
Using a similar example from Step No. 2, let's suppose you missed an email that had some edits to a PowerPoint you were going to present, because you were so busy preparing. It wasn't entirely your fault. You wanted to practice before making the presentation, so in the hour leading up to it you didn't check your email. Nevertheless, he's upset his edits didn't make it in. So you might try something like this:
You're probably frustrated that your changes didn't make it into the presentation and I totally get that. But I was so focused on nailing the presentation I didn't check my emails an hour before since I was practicing. Your suggested edits were great. Next time let's set up a 15-minute meeting before the presentation to make sure we're on the same page.
The best way to conclude and move forward is to explain the best next steps to resolve what's going on. If you're dealing with an angry customer, you may want to explain steps your company is taking to ensure a snafu doesn't occur again, or propose a follow-up meeting.
Ending your response in this way closes the loop. Humans crave closure. Social psychologist Arie Kruglanski defines it as "cognitive closure" or the need to find a firm answer and distance ourselves from ambiguity. Studies have shown that deadlines and environments that are in flux (i.e., the workplace) increase our need to have "cognitive closure," making it even more important to close the loop in work-related scenarios.
What if there are no tangible "next steps?" Sometimes it helps to just give people a forum to vent or complain, so in this instance, it's to let them know they're heard. One way to do this is to offer to pass concerns on to your manager, or if it's your boss who's annoyed, to offer to check back in on the specific complaint and make sure you've made the requisite changes.
Dealing with an angry person can be really intimidating. By following this four-step process you can empathize, be accountable, and turn it into an opportunity to strengthen a relationship. Mistakes happen, it's a part of life. What sets trusted people apart is how they handle situations when these slip-ups do occur. Assuming it's not a huge crisis, you'll be remembered for the way you reacted, rather than for what initially happened.
This article originally appeared on The Daily Muse and is reprinted with permission.
The consumer genetic testing company says it can barely keep up with demand from researchers, while patient advocates wonder if customers deserve a cut of the profits.
After decades of inconclusive results, researchers backed by Pfizer and Massachusetts General Hospital revealed that they had identified several genetic markers associated with depression earlier this month. It was the largest study of its kind, using data from more than 120,000 people.
Each of these studies used insights gathered from customers of 23andMe, the Google-backed company that makes a direct-to-consumer genetic test kit. Perhaps best-known for its battles with regulators over its consumer genetics test in 2013, 23andMe has quietly expanding its business to include brokered access to its database of over 1 million people's DNA.
Everyone who uses the company's $199 test kit receives a request to participate in research. If they agree, their health data is added to a separate database. With 80% of customers consenting, the company has amassed a health data goldmine—and researchers are eager to study it.
23andMe has now hired a team of just shy of 70 academics who collaborate with researchers on their studies, many of which are published in top scientific journals. The researchers get access to genetic data coupled with "phenotypic" characteristics or traits, as well as feedback from online surveys. That's a juicy prospect for researchers.
23andMe is one of a growing number of companies that are developing consumer-friendly tools for researchers, although it is one of a small number focused on genomics. Large academic hospitals like Stanford Medicine and Duke are currently using Apple's ResearchKit to collect health information via iPhones. Fitbit is also investing in this area: Researchers are increasingly incorporating its step and heart rate data into large population health studies.
Traditionally, clinical trials require raising a large sum of money and recruiting participants to get their genome sequenced, followed by in-person surveys. If a person can't get to one of the research sites, they won't be included. That means it's difficult, and costly, to get large numbers of participants to take part.
23andMe, in contrast, has partially sequenced some 1.2 million genomes already. And it conducts survey via mobile phone, which can be done anytime and almost anywhere.
But despite those advantages, many researchers are still skeptical about the tools used by 23andMe. Not everyone will answer truthfully when asked about their weight or alcohol consumption, for instance—even in the privacy of a mobile phone survey.
"Serious academic researchers, when they have money available, almost always gravitate towards more expensive scientifically-advanced tools," says Matthew Amsden, CEO of ProofPilot, a startup that helps researchers conduct clinical trials. Maxine Mackintosh, a health data researcher at University College London in the UK, adds that there's historically been a "discomfort and distrust" among academics with industry collaborations, but that's starting to change.
23andMe's research director Joyce Tung admits that it was an uphill battle to convince researchers of the merits of the data, despite that consumers have answered some 350 million survey questions so far. Yet her team's efforts are starting to bear fruit. "Academics were worried that the quality of the self-reported data wouldn't be good," she says, although the company has been experimenting with new ways to improve the accuracy.
For a recent research study related to Celiac Disease, an autoimmune disorder where eating gluten leads to damage in the small intestine, participants responded in unusually large numbers to say that they had been diagnosed with the disease. Tung chalked that up to the growing trend around gluten-free diets. She didn't throw out the survey responses, but instead asked a follow-up question (something that 23andMe can easily do, since it doesn't require another on-site visit): "Have you ever been diagnosed with Celiac Disease through an intestinal biopsy?" The numbers then dropped to far more realistic levels.
Tung says her team now can hardly keep up with the demand from academics. 23andMe had 25 applications from researchers in the fall of 2013, and that number jumped to 45 in the fall of 2014. The numbers aren't yet available for 2015 and 2016, but a company spokesman did share that the team received nearly 20 requests from academics to study the data in the wake of the depression study, which was published just two weeks ago.
The company holds bi-annual meetings to review the applications, and determine how many they will collaborate on in given year. The team tends to favor studies on factors that many would be surprised to learn have a genetic component, like taste preferences.
The company also works with an external Institutional Review Board or "IRB" agency to determine any potential risks associated with the research and ensure that the participants understand what they're agreeing to.
The database is now large enough that it's not all Caucasians with a European background, a group that is typically over-represented in research. "We are at the point where we can run reasonable genome-wide association studies in non-European groups," says Tung. That's a big deal. Studying one ethnic group limits our knowledge about diseases that impact one ethnic group more than another, such as Sickle cell anemia.
The company can now also start to research how certain various factors will impact how an individual is likely to respond to a drug. For this kind of research, known as pharmacogenetics, researchers need a massive cohort. Out of 1 million people, only a small number are likely to be taking a certain drug. Of those, a smaller percentage still will be experiencing a side-effect. Ideally, researchers would then want to study that by gender, ethnicity, and so on.
Pharma will pay big bucks for that kind of information. While 23andMe is still making most of its money through sales of its consumer-testing kit—the price of which increased $100 in October of 2015—its collaborations with drug makers like Genentech (to study Parkinson's Disease) and Pfizer (Irritable Bowel Disease and Lupus) are a big part of its future growth.
As 23andMe looks to monetize the health data gathered from its consumers, some patient advocates suggest that the company should consider sharing revenues with its participants.
Tung says she has considered some kind of financial incentive in the past, but has some ethical concerns. Her biggest is the potential for coercion: "You can imagine that the level of pressure is unevenly distributed based on economic status," says Tung. But she hasn't ruled it out entirely. "We would consider everything that's ethical and what consumers want."
