Waymo’s lawsuit against Uber alleging the ride-hailing giant stole driverless car secrets is headed for a public jury trial. Uber had sought a private resolution by arbitration.
A federal judge ruled against Uber’s request Thursday night and referred the Google spinoff’s claims to the U.S. Attorney’s office for investigation into the possible theft of trade secrets. That leaves the door open for possible criminal charges, depending on the investigation’s outcome.
“The Court takes no position on whether a prosecution is or is not warranted, a decision entirely up to the United States Attorney,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup cautioned in his order.
Waymo accuses Uber of orchestrating and paying a former Waymo executive to steal valuable self-driving technology on its behalf, an accusation Uber staunchly denies.
“This was a desperate bid by Uber to avoid the court’s jurisdiction,” a Waymo spokesperson told HuffPost in an emailed statement. “We welcome the court’s decision today, and we look forward to holding Uber responsible in court for its misconduct.”
In a separate order late Thursday, Alsup also made a ruling on whether or not Uber could continue working on its self-driving car program as the case moves forward. Alsup’s decision on the so-called preliminary injunction was released under seal, however, as it contains confidential information, meaning the scope of its impact is unknown at this time.
In a statement to HuffPost, Uber said it was disappointed in the ruling, but insisted it is innocent.
“It is unfortunate that Waymo will be permitted to avoid abiding by the arbitration promise it requires its employees to make,” the company said in an emailed statement. “We remain confident in our case and welcome the chance to talk about our independently developed technology in any forum.”
At the center of the case is Uber Vice President Anthony Levandowski, who was formerly a Waymo engineer. Waymo has strong evidence that Levandowski downloaded some 14,000 of its confidential files before abruptly leaving the company in January 2016. The files included valuable schematics for a Waymo circuit board that controls an important piece of self-driving technology known as lidar.
Without lidar, both Uber’s and Waymo’s self-driving cars would be unable to “see” their surroundings and navigate appropriately.
Almost immediately after Levandowski left Waymo, he started a rival company, Otto, which Uber acquired for $680 million just six months later. Waymo lawyer Charles Verhoeven argued in court this month that Otto was little more than a shell company for Levandowski to sell trade secrets to Uber, including lidar tech.
Verhoeven said emails between Levandowski and Uber while the engineer was still at Waymo prove this point.
“There was this clandestine plan all along that Uber and Levandowski had a deal,” Verhoeven said.
Despite compelling evidence of Levandowski’s misdeeds, however, Judge Alsup initially thought Waymo lacked a “smoking gun” that proved Levandowski stole files at Uber’s direction.
That matters because Waymo’s case is against Uber, not Levandowski.
Waymo also struggled to prove Uber made use of its documents, despite having stumbled across a lidar circuit design Waymo says is suspiciously similar to its own.
Uber said it searched its servers extensively and found no record of the files. It’s possible Levandowski brought the information to work on his personal laptop, but that’s hard to prove.
“We are adamant that we did not use any of their secrets,” Gonzalez told the judge.
Complicating matters, Levandowski asserted his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify ― a tactic Uber denounced, yet that also gave it a reason not to turn over additional, potentially incriminating documents.
In his ruling Thursday night, Alsup let his disdain for the tactic be known, accusing Levandowski of obstructing the efforts of both companies.
“Even though he is not a defendant here,” he wrote, “Levandowski’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege has obstructed and continues to obstruct both discovery and defendants’ ability to construct a complete narrative as to the fate of Waymo’s purloined files.”
Designing anything, let alone a massive building, is not a simple task. It requires pragmatic decision-making coupled with bold creativity. As with any form of art, the designer ultimately strives to make something striking and original. Sometimes this effort pays off in the form of a lasting structure — a work that transcends time and place. While other times, well, not so much. Of course, it’s not always the architect’s fault. In some instances, like Tour Montparnasse in Paris, the designers are a bit unlucky. Had they erected their work in any other location other than the City of Light, maybe it wouldn’t stick out like a sore thumb. But, alas, architecture, like all creative endeavors, is a cruel venture. As such, AD rounds up the 23 ugliest skyscrapers from around the world, ones that began with high intentions but eventually didn’t quite meet the mark.
Located in Bangkok, the Elephant Building was completed in 1997 by architect Sumet Jumsai. While playful in design, the structure does little to push the integrity of Thai architecture.
When the Žižkov Television Tower was completed in 1992, Prague's skyline forever changed. The project, designed by Václav Aulický, took seven years of construction, stretching some 708 feet in the air.
Located in central Hong Kong, the Lippo Center is a twin-tower skyscraper completed in 1988 by American architect Paul Rudolph.
The Tianzi Hotel, in China’s Hebei province, is a series of colorful building depicts Fu, Lu, and Shou, the Chinese gods of good fortune, prosperity, and longevity. Guinness World Records named the hotel the world’s "biggest image building."
Another structure located in Bangkok designed by architect Sumet Jumsai, the Robot Building was completed in 1986 for roughly $10 million.
More: 10 Hotels with Unbelievably High-End Amenities
Completed in 1997 and located in Newark, Ohio, Longaberger's former headquarters building, modeled on a Longaberger Medium Market Basket, was designed by American architecture firm NBBJ.
No matter that North Korea's Ryugyong Hotel is, after three decades, still under construction, we can already tell this skyscraper won't be the most beautiful on the planet. Designed by Baikdoosan Architects & Engineers, the 1,083-foot-tall structure has continuously remained vacant.
Located in Abu Dhabi, UAE, and designed by the Lebanese-based firm MZ Architects, the Aldar headquarters building was opened in 2010.
The Fangyuan Mansion, which was completed in 2001, was designed by C.Y. Lee & Partners. Located in Shenyang, China, the structure cost nearly $500 million to build.
New York City's Verizon Building, which was designed by Rose, Beaton & Rose and completed in 1975, is not only aesthetically displeasing but it's located in downtown Manhattan, near the Brooklyn Bridge and East River. Which is to say, it's wasting a great opportunity in a prime New York real estate space.
More: The 10 Best New Luxury Cruises
Located in London and completed in 2010 for roughly $146 million, the Strata SE1 (which is also referred to as the "Razor" or "Electric Razor") was designed by the U.K.-based firm BFLS.
Although the National Library of Belarus was founded in 1922, the current structure, which houses all its books, wasn't completed until 2006. The building was designed by architects Mihail Vinogradov and Viktor Kramarenko.
Designed by Dennis Lau & Ng Chun Man, the Grand Lisboa Hotel in Macau was built in 2008, nearly one decade after the region was no longer a Portuguese territory.
The Slovak Radio Building in Bratislava was completed in 1983, after 16 years of construction. The structure, which looks like an inverted pyramid, was designed by Štefan Svetko, Štefan Ďurkovič, and Barnabáš Kissling.
Designed by the Dutch-based firm MVRDV, the Mirador Building in Madrid is a collection of different neighborhoods stacked vertically around a public sky-plaza. The structure was completed in 2005, after four years of construction.
More: The World’s Best Oceanfront Hotels
The Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral, which was designed by architects Frederick Gibberd and Edwin Lutyens, was completed in 1967.
Completed in 2012, the National Fisheries Development Board Building is located in Hyderabad, India, in the southcentral part of the country.
The Russian Embassy in Havan, which was designed by Soviet architect Aleksandr Rochegov, was completed in 1985.
The National Library of Kosovo was designed by Croatian architect Andrija Mutnjaković and completed in 1982.
It certainly doesn't help Tour Montparnasse's cause that it was built in one of the most architecturally significant cities in the world. But the structure, which was completed in 1969, is currently the third-tallest building in Paris, and possibly the ugliest.
More: 22 Incredible Indian Palaces (You Can Stay At)
With its 7,351 rooms, Malaysia's First World Hotel & Plaza, which was completed in 2008, is the world largest hotel. But for all it has in size, it certainly lacks in beauty.
The 1,535-foot-tall Oriental Pearl Tower is the second-tallest skyscraper in Shanghai. Designed by architects Jia Huan Cheng, Zhang Xiulin, and Lin Benlin, the structure was completed in 1994.
Not everything beautiful needs to flash like gold. The Trump Tower in Las Vegas is a perfect example of that. Completed in 2008, the 620-foot-tall structure is an eyesore even in a city filled with over-the-top architecture.
More from Architectural Digest:
See What's Inside Donald Trump's Former Superyacht
Jan Fichtner, University of Amsterdam; Eelke Heemskerk, University of Amsterdam, and Javier Garcia-Bernardo, University of Amsterdam
A fundamental change is underway in stock market investing, and the spin-off effects are poised to dramatically impact corporate America.
In the past, individuals and large institutions mostly invested in actively managed mutual funds, such as Fidelity, in which fund managers pick stocks with the aim of beating the market. But since the financial crisis of 2008, investors have shifted to index funds, which replicate established stock indices, such as the S&P 500.
The magnitude of the change is astounding: from 2007 to 2016, actively managed funds have recorded outflows of roughly US$1,200 billion, while index funds had inflows of over US$1,400 billion.
In the first quarter of 2017, index funds brought in more than US$200 billion – the highest quarterly value on record.
Democratising the market?
This shift, arguably the biggest investment swing in history, is due in large part to index funds’ much lower costs.
Actively managed funds analyse the market, and their managers are well paid for their labour. But the vast majority are not able to consistently beat the index.
So why pay 1% to 2% in fees every year for active funds when index funds cost a tenth of that and deliver the same performance?
Some observers have lauded this development as the “democratisation of investing”, because it has significantly lowered investor expenses.
But other impacts of this seismic shift are far from democratising. One crucial difference between the active fund and the index fund industries is that the former is fragmented, consisting of hundreds of different asset managers both small and large.
The fast-growing index sector, on the other hand, is highly concentrated. It is dominated by just three giant American asset managers: BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – what we call the Big Three.
Lower fees aside, the rise of index funds has entailed a massive concentration of corporate ownership. Together, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have nearly US$11 trillion in assets under management. That’s more than all sovereign wealth funds combined and over three times the global hedge fund industry.
In a recently published paper, our CORPNET research project comprehensively mapped the ownership of the Big Three. We found that the Big Three, taken together, have become the largest shareholder in 40% of all publicly listed firms in the United States.
Figure 1: Network of ownership by the Big Three in listed US firms. (See our paper for explanation of colours).
Fichtner, Heemskerk & Garcia-Bernardo (2017)
In 2015, these 1,600 American firms had combined revenues of about US$9.1 trillion, a market capitalisation of more than US$17 trillion, and employed more than 23.5 million people.
In the S&P 500 – the benchmark index of America’s largest corporations – the situation is even more extreme. Together, the Big Three are the largest single shareholder in almost 90% of S&P 500 firms, including Apple, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, General Electric and Coca-Cola. This is the index in which most people invest.
Figure 2: Statistics about the ownership of the Big Three in listed US firms.
Fichtner, Heemskerk & Garcia-Bernardo (2017)
The power of passive investors
With corporate ownership comes shareholder power. BlackRock recently argued that legally it was not the “owner” of the shares it holds but rather acts as a kind of custodian for their investors.
That’s a technicality for lawyers to sort. What is undeniable is that the Big Three do exert the voting rights attached to these shares. Therefore, they have to be perceived as de facto owners by corporate executives.
These companies have, in fact, publicly declared that they seek to exert influence. William McNabb, chairman and CEO of Vanguard, said in 2015 that, “In the past, some have mistakenly assumed that our predominantly passive management style suggests a passive attitude with respect to corporate governance. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
When we analysed the voting behaviour of the Big Three, we found that they coordinate it through centralised corporate governance departments. This requires significant efforts because technically the shares are held by many different individual funds.
Hence, just three companies wield an enormous potential power over corporate America. Interestingly, though, we found that the Big Three vote for management in about 90% of all votes at annual general meetings, while mostly voting against proposals sponsored by shareholders (such as calls for independent board chairmen).
One interpretation is that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are reluctant to exert their power over corporate America. Others question whether the Big Three really want this voting power, as they primarily seek to minimise costs.
Corporate American monopoly
What are the future consequences of the Big Three’s unprecedented common ownership position?
Research is still nascent, but some economists are already arguing that this concentration of shareholder power could have negative effects on competition.
Over the past decade, numerous US industries have become dominated by only a handful of companies, from aviation to banking. The Big Three – seen together – are virtually always the largest shareholder in the few competitors that remain in these sectors.
This is the case for American Airlines, Delta, and United Continental, as it is for the banks JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citigroup. All of these corporations are part of the S&P 500, the index in which most people invest.
Their CEOs are likely well aware that the Big Three are their firm’s dominant shareholder and would take that into account when making decisions. So, arguably, airlines have less incentive to lower prices because doing so would reduce overall returns for the Big Three, their common owner.
In this way, the Big Three may be exerting a kind of emergent “structural power” over much of corporate America.
Whether or not they sought to, the Big Three have accumulated extraordinary shareholder power, and they continue to do so. Index funds are a business of scale, which means that at this point competitors will find it very difficult to gain market shares.
In many respects, the index fund boom is turning BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street into something resembling low-cost public utilities with a quasi-monopolistic position. Facing such a concentration of ownership and thus potential power, we can expect demands for increased regulatory scrutiny of corporate America’s new “de facto permanent governing board” to increase in coming years.
Jan Fichtner, Postdoctoral Researcher in Political Science, University of Amsterdam; Eelke Heemskerk, Associate Professor Political Science , University of Amsterdam, and Javier Garcia-Bernardo, PhD Candidate, University of Amsterdam
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
About a month ago, I spoke at Lilly School of Philanthropy in Indianapolis about millennials ― people born roughly between 1980-2000 ― and their sizable impact on the social sector. Some stats I mentioned that day have stuck with me.
The first was this: an astounding 9 out of 10 millennials would switch brands to businesses associated with a good cause. (That translates to 91 percent of millennials vs. 85 percent of the general U.S. population).
The data for millennial moms was equally impressive. A whopping 94 percent of them were “very or somewhat likely” to switch brands based on the cause it supported, as reported in the 2015 Cone Communications Millennial CSR Study.
These findings give me hope in the many ways that this younger generation is changing our world for the better. Those of you working at nonprofits, foundations, or B-Corps might should tap into these powerful trends around consumer purchasing power, if you haven’t already.
A final stat warrants mention. A resounding 85 percent of females control their family’s shopping budget. This fact underscores the idea that women have substantial leverage to advocate for causes they strongly believe in.
Mother’s Day, May 13, is just around the corner. That day, millions of families across America will find themselves without enough food to eat. Why not honor your own mom by helping other mom whose families may be food insecure? You can donate to my organization, Feeding America, or volunteer at one of our member food banks across the nation. However you celebrate the day, remember the power of the purse strings. Next time you’re at the grocery store, take a few minutes to closely examine what you’re buying. Make this holiday a chance to support whatever good cause your mother believes in.
It goes without saying that the first time ― for anything ― rarely ever reaches perfection. I am the classic ride-the-train-for-as-long-as-possible “first” kind of person. In college, when a professor spoke about anything beyond the syllabus on the first day of school, it was like I’d been wronged. Did they not get the memo? It’s the FIRST day of school!
So when I embarked on my first year of business, I went in giving myself a little bit of grace, knowing perfection wouldn’t be in the cards anytime soon (or ever, for that matter). I’m a creature of having to make the mistakes to actually learn from them.
And boy, learn from them, I did.
Sunday dance parties > Sunday scaries. 💃🏼💃🏼💃🏼 Last few hours to snag 15% off newbies with code HEYGIRL. Hop, skip and jump to it, #prettyfunthing! 🎉 // 📸: @ironandhoney
A post shared by Alice & Wonder (@aliceandwonder) on
1. Thoughtfully decide when to “go big.”
Making your business stand out is what will make you thrive. But test before you invest. If your ideal customer is someone like you, or people you might know, or people in a specific market, ask them their real thoughts on what you’re planning to offer.
I’m not saying spend money on focus groups or even hours reading industry books (which, side note, can’t hurt). I’m talking walk out your front door and ask people what they like. What they need. What will they actually spend money on.
This winter, our store made a holiday doormat, the first product that we solely created, and it was downright exciting. After convincing myself this was the best thing ever, I immediately jumped to, “How many should we make? 500? 350? 200?” This was going to be BIG.
After chatting with friends, friends of friends, and my husband (who was crossing his fingers this silly doormat would work), I quickly went from 500 in production to 70, ensuring all factors were met in order to make it sellable. The design had to be right, the product had to be quality, and the price had to be fair.
Had I jumped the gun at first glance and placed an order for 500, this post may have been titled, “Why You Should Buy A Holiday Doormat In February.” But really, while our costs to produce 70 were higher than what they would have been to produce 500, the experience allowed us to test a new product and see its selling potential. This in turn will allow us to leap a little farther on our next go around.
Whatever your business may be, find a way to test your market ahead of time and thoughtfully decide when the “go big” time strikes. It may take longer in the beginning, but whatever you’re offering will benefit in the end. This is your marathon ― not sprint ― moment.
Friday par-tay starts NOW! 🎉🙌🏻🌺 New arrivals are up and our office dancing has commenced! 💃🏼 Now through Monday, take 15% off your entire order with code SUNVIBES. ☀️ Happy shopping, #prettyfunthings! // 📸: @codyhunterphotography
A post shared by Alice & Wonder (@aliceandwonder) on
2. Do it for the “loves” and not the “likes.”
Starting an online business, I knew social media would be something I’d rely heavily upon to grow the company. Yet in a world so dependent on what each of us are individually doing on Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat, it can be hard to carve out space to get customer attention. I typically pride myself on a positive outlook, but for some reason seeing other companies do social media well ― flawlessly, even ― used to be an instant intimidation factor.
When I started to create content of my own, my outlook for our business was based on the amount of engagement my most recent post had received. If a post did well, we were thriving. If a post did terribly, I wasn’t meant for this life, and I must not be able to hack it. It sounds a little crazy to say that. Whether I deemed myself successful in my own business or not was based on the amount of “likes” I got from total strangers!
Social media can and should be used to grow your business, but it shouldn’t be used to define what you do well. You could be a phenomenal stylist, designer, photographer, event planner or, heck, accountant. Creating a big following takes time and investment, just like any other aspect of your business. You might need to work on finding your target market, making more connections with your customers or participating in more (gasp!) in-person events to really make am impact on your followers online. But remember: Getting all the engagement in the world doesn’t do much if it’s not turning into sales.
At the end of the day, you’ve opened a business to generate revenue doing something you’re passionate about. Take your favorite online influencer, for instance. They are a model, a stylist, a chef, a fitness guru, a foodie, or maybe all the things. That is their craft that defines them. And while they’ve become amazing at showcasing their talents through brightly colored images and beautiful words, their business started at the root of the same thing yours and mine did: that one thing they were passionate about.
Social media can and should be used to grow your business, but it shouldn’t be used to define what you do well.
In your business, make sure whatever you’re doing is the absolutely best it can be instead of focusing so much on how it appears online. Marketing is incredibly important, but the needle doesn’t move without a quality product or offering behind it. In a world where quantity is king, be the business that knows the value of quality customers. The customers who are excited to watch you grow. The ones who dig what you do so much, they can’t help but tell their friends. The girl who loves you, which means she’ll come back to “like” you.
K I L L I N' I T. Boom, Wednesday. 👊🏻 (PS: it's 8:30pm in China and we're still chugging coffee. Because that's the American, addicted to caffeine, way. 🤗) #prettyfunthings // New arrivals hit the site next week! In the meantime, grab this guy ☝🏻 in the shop this weekend! 🎉 📸: @ironandhoney
A post shared by Alice & Wonder (@aliceandwonder) on
3. Build a brand that’s bigger than you.
When asked who Alice & Wonder was and what we do, my initial reaction was to say, “Alice & Wonder is for girls like me, and we sell things girls like me would like.”
Convincing, catchy, draws you in ― right?
Nope.
My tone on social media was predicated by what I felt that day. The items I chose to carry were more about what my eye was drawn to than what we, as a brand, should carry. The more I moved forward, the more I figured our brand would formalize itself and customers would just “get it.” I knew who we were. The world would catch on.
It’s these thoughts that make me want to go back and say to myself, “Oh, girl. Stop right there. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 (or any, because you may not have customers).” Being a brand doesn’t just “happen.” It’s established and built upon. I, the PR girl, knew this was true for my big clients but somehow had forgotten my Marketing 101 when it came to building my own small brand.
Being a brand doesn’t just 'happen.' It’s established and built upon.
Establishing the foundation of your brand doesn’t have to be as hard as it seems. Figure out a way to eloquently say who you, as a brand, are in one sentence. Then, define brand characteristics ― e.g., smart, quirky, elegant, passionate. These will give your brand a personality. And finally, give one sentence to who your customer is. Even if it’s someone like you, describe that person. Who is she? What does she value? Where does she spend her time? Create a voice that embodies that tone and those characteristics.
I had a hilarious manager back in my agency days who always told me our projects should be so buttoned up at all times that I could be hit by a bus the next day and another team member could step in and execute seamlessly.
Morbid? Yes. But the point being, there may come a day that you aren’t executing every move your company makes. A day where you will, dare I say, grow, and your company will become so much more than you. So when that day comes, make sure you’ve built a foundation that tells the world who you are, instead of just hoping the world catches on.
A post shared by Alice & Wonder (@aliceandwonder) on
4. Have absolutely no shame in your game.
I sat with girlfriends the other day, chatting about what makes an entrepreneur successful, and we came to this stunning, yet extremely obvious, conclusion: The people who will go far in business have literally no shame. They see an opportunity? They go for it. There’s a chance an idea could work? They take it. They get shot down 10 times? They ask 10 more. Something fails? They move on. Zero shames given (PG version of that phrase, I know).
I, on the other hand, have always landed myself somewhere between the area of “no shames” and “shame city.” I rarely walk into a networking event solo. I’m into talking about my business, but only quickly, for fear of being too self-promoting. After gathering the courage the ask someone for help, I’ve been known to quickly follow up with word vomit ― something like, “But it’s totally not a big deal if you don’t want to. I shouldn’t have asked. I mean, if you want to, that would be great, but seriously, NBD.”
Giving off that Monica vibe is my specialty. Breezy.
Over the last year, though, it’s been made clear to me that as a business owner, you’ll hear “no” a whole lot more than you’ll hear “yes.” And short of locking the office door and dwelling on all the rejection, a thick skin has to become second nature in order to survive.
When you start a new business, you’re constantly in the realm of asking people for things, which has always been an uneasy spot for me. When you start from scratch, it’s easy to feel like you’re always asking for things and rarely have something to offer back.
The trick I’ve discovered is an easy one: Give them a reason ― a good reason, in fact ― to say “yes.” Can you provide a service for free? Give them an experience they may not otherwise get? Allocate just a little budget to not pay them directly but pay for something they may need? Bring someone else into the offer that they might be interested in working with? The more creative the request, the more I find people appreciate the offer.
As aforementioned, I still receive my fair share of “no,” or worse, no response at all. But as a whole, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the amount of people I’ve been fortunate enough to work with, learn from, and even create friendships with ― all because I didn’t give them a reason to say “no.” Maybe you land in the realm of 10 requests sent and only one offer accepted. But as along as you end up with zero shames given, you’ll be just fine.
Ali Reff is the owner of Chicago-based apparel and gifts shop Alice & Wonder. Nicknamed “Alice” by her family, Ali started Alice & Wonder in 2015 after leaving her job managing influencer relations and real-time engagement for McDonald’s. The inspiration to start a small business began after Ali moved to Chicago and quickly discovered the city lifestyle can come with a price tag, and budget-friendly style shouldn’t be so hard to find. Since the company’s inception, Ali began writing pieces on her small business journey in hopes of inspiring other strong female leaders to pursue their passions and share her learnings along the way. Ali lives with her husband in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of Chicago and can best be found over on Instagram @aliceandwonder or via email: ali@aliceandwonder.com.
There is a generally-unspoken, but well-understood rule of the workplace: keep your emotions, unless they are positive, tightly held. What does this look like in practice? Don’t show vulnerability or weakness. Don’t get down, upset, or express discomfort or unhappiness. Be grateful for the opportunities that you have been given, be a good team player, maintain a positive attitude. If you’re going to cry or complain, do it somewhere where you can’t be seen or heard, and don’t come back until you get it in check.
Nobody cares for the colleague who is constantly negative and seeing the glass as half-empty. But as this interview with psychologist Susan David in The Atlantic points out, there is value in acknowledging and making room for these emotions in the workplace. Humans aren’t robots (not yet, anyway), and we bring to work a whole range of emotions and experiences that are equally valuable.
There is critical data to be found in people’s emotional responses to what is happening at work. Ignoring those responses or encouraging people to suppress them only hides that data, which can have serious ramifications on the functioning of the workplace and individual well-being, particularly during times of change or high stress.
This is just one aspect of emotional labor at work: the burden that people feel not only to do their jobs and to do them well, but also to do them with a constant sunny disposition. Emotional labor is when we feel pressured to act like “everything’s fine” to make other people feel better.
Emotional labor is also when we feel obligated to do emotional care-taking for others at work. For women, especially, this sort of labor hits particularly hard. Women are assumed to be better at this sort of work due to their “soft” personalities; therefore, they are more frequently burdened with roles like mentorship. But these roles typically aren’t valued by organizational measures of success, which makes those who do them less able to achieve that success.
How can you better navigate these sometimes tricky waters?
As a new employee: Pay attention to how people interact with one another and how they treat one another in times of stress. What happens when someone questions authority? What happens when someone complains or gets frustrated? What happens when someone expresses fear or anxiety? And, if you don’t see anyone expressing any of these emotions, what does that mean? Find a trusted mentor or wise counselor who can help to walk you through what you are seeing and experiencing, and who can advise you on the best way to share your emotions with others. If it does not seem like a safe environment to express less-than-positive feelings, find a trusted friend with whom you can periodically confide. Even if the organization doesn’t support it, constantly suppressing your emotions is not productive to your long-term health and well-being.
As a seasoned employee: Pay attention to the emotional labor that you carry on a daily basis. Do you routinely suppress your true feelings in order to “toe the party line”? Do you find yourself sitting in meetings and questioning decisions but keeping silent out of fear of retribution? Do you have a trusted colleague or mentor with whom you can discuss these feelings? Also, how do you support the vulnerability of others? The next time that a colleague expresses anxiety, fear, or unhappiness, first thank them for sharing it and acknowledge that what they are feeling is real. Then ask if and how you can be helpful.
As a leader or manager: Pay attention to the culture of your organization and how your employees interact. Does everyone always enthusiastically support ideas? When someone offers a criticism, is your immediate reaction to defend your stance and tell them why they are wrong? Before your start a new project or implement a change, take the time to take everyone’s temperature on it, and do so again at various points throughout. Unearth the hidden data that will make your organization stronger. Pay attention to who does the emotional care-taking of others, and make sure that burden is fairly shared among employees. Give everyone the tools that they need to be successful, both personally and professionally.
Employees aren’t robots, nor are they just numbers on a spreadsheet. Employee engagement, we know, has a profound impact on organizational success. And most of today’s employees are not engaged. As the folks at Gallup, who study employee engagement, remind us, “Employees don't check their personalities at the door when they come to work. Knowing that they are respected as individuals at work can have a significant impact on how employees view their overall lives.” Emotional labor, just like the day-to-day tasks that occupy us, impacts every employee’s ability to feel valued and engaged at work. We all must take ownership for creating organizations that value individuals for the full spectrum of who they truly are.
LOS ANGELES, May 8 (Reuters) - The owners of a giant rabbit named Simon who was found dead after a United Airlines flight demanded on Monday that the airline pay damages, order an outside investigation and re-evaluate how it handles animals on flights.
Attorneys for Simon’s owners, who purchased him in hopes of winning the title of world’s largest rabbit at the Iowa State Fair this summer, said they would take legal action if United failed to respond within seven days.
The lawyers say it is possible the 3-foot-long (1-meter) hare died after being placed in a freezer for 16 hours upon landing in Chicago on a flight from London. They say the airline then destroyed his remains without permission.
“United Airlines can issue any statement they like but their company’s credibility is under question when they immediately cremate the giant rabbit Simon without anyone’s consent,” said Guy Cook, lead attorney for the three-person investment group that owned the rabbit. “They destroyed the proof.”
United Airlines spokesman Charles Hobart denied Simon died in a freezer. He said in a written statement the company was reviewing a letter outlining the claims, was saddened by Simon’s death and takes its responsibilities for transporting pets seriously. The statement did not say how much the owners were seeking in damages.
EXCLUSIVE: Valuable giant rabbit dies on United Airlines plane https://t.co/CGQJKjnPCS pic.twitter.com/86Xa5EX32T
— The Sun (@TheSun) April 25, 2017
Hobart said the hare arrived in Chicago in apparent good condition and was seen moving around his kennel some 35 minutes later.
“Shortly thereafter, a kennel representative noticed Simon was motionless and that he had passed away,” Hobart said. He did not address the cremation allegations.
Cook said it would be difficult to establish a cause of death because the rabbit’s remains had been destroyed but, in the letter, demanded that United turn over all records of its investigation, including closed-circuit television footage.
The attorney also requested an independent investigation as well as compensatory and economic and punitive damages.
Cook said that Simon, a Continental rabbit whose father is considered the world’s largest hare, was expected to exceed his father’s size to claim that title and that his owners should be compensated for their potential economic losses from exhibiting him.
The investment group purchased Simon from a breeder in England and was flying him to the United States, where he would have been displayed at the Iowa State Fair in August and ultimately crowned world’s largest rabbit, Cook said.
(Reporting by Dan Whitcomb; Editing by Bill Trott)
