My friend Jessica Kriegel often warns her clients about the action trap, the urge to do somethinganythingwhen things arent going well. Yet while taking action might make us feel better, its no guarantee well get results. Many leaders fall into this trap, confusing taking action with making an impact, which can blind us to the underlying problem.
The truth is that you cant change fundamental behaviors without changing fundamental beliefs. It is, after all, beliefs, in the form of norms, that get encoded into a culture through rituals that drive behaviors. So unless you make a serious effort to understand the underlying problem youre trying to solve, any action you take is unlikely to be effective.
Thats why you need to start by asking good questions. While coming up with answers makes us feel decisive, those answers will close doors that should often be left open and explored. Good questions, on the other hand, can lead to genuine breakthroughs. With that in mind, here are three essential questions you need to ask before embarking on a transformational initiative.
1. Is this a Strategic Change or Behavioral Change?
Every change effort represents a problem, or set of problems, to be solved. A strategic change starts at the top and needs effective communication and coordination for everybody to play their role, like the famous case at Intel, when Gordon Moore and Andy Grove made the fateful decision to move out of memory chips and bet the company on microprocessors.
In a strategic shift, resistance is not particularly relevant. That doesnt mean it doesnt exist. As Grove recounted in his memoir, Only the Paranoid Survive, there were plenty at Intel who questioned the decision. But as chairman and CEO, Moore and Grove had full authority to allocate budgets and convert factories, and the change was going to happen whether people liked it or not. Thats why traditional change management methodologies, like Kotter’s 8 Steps or Proscis ADKAR (awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement), tend to be effective for strategic changes.
Yet research shows that change itself has changed. In 1975, 83% of the average U.S. corporations assets were tangible assets, such as plants, machinery, and buildings, while by 2015, 84% were intangible, such as licenses, patents, and research. That means the changes we grapple with today have less to do with strategic assets like factories and equipment and a lot more to do with the things people think and do every day.
Clearly, that changes how we need to approach transformation. Because often the most important changes involve collective action, which can be maddeningly complex. People adopt things when they see others around them doing so. Success begets more success, just as failure begets more failure. Big communication campaigns can ignite early resistance and backfire, while isolated individual efforts rarely scale.
For collective action problems, we need to focus on, as network science pioneer Duncan Watts put it to me, easily influenced people influencing other easily influenced people. You build momentum and reach critical mass not through persuasion but through connectionby empowering early adopters and helping them influence others.
2. What are the Shared Values?
Humans naturally form tribes. In a study of adults who were randomly assigned to leopards and tigers, fMRI scans revealed signs of hostility toward out-group members. Similar results were found in a study involving 5-year-old children and even in infants. Evolutionary psychologists attribute this tendency to kin selection, which explains how groups favor those who share their attributes in the hope that those attributes will be propagated.
Our ideas, beliefs, and values tend to reflect the tribes we belong to, and sharing our thoughts and feelings plays a key role in signaling our identity and belonging to these groups. For instance, expressing an expert opinion can demonstrate alignment with a professional community, while sharing a moral stance can signal inclusion in a particular cultural group.
Every organization has its own tribes, with their own values, customs, and lore. Divisions and functions develop their own norms, rituals, and behaviors, shaped by their institutional needs and priorities. As the workplace expert David Burkus told me, there isnt really any such thing as an organizational culture because each organization contains multitudes of cultures.
So before you start trying to evangelize a transformational initiative across those myriad cultures, with all of their internal biases and emotional trip wires, think about the values they share and build an inclusive vision. That may sound simple and straightforward, but its harder than it seems, which helps explain why so many transformational efforts fail.
The problem is that when were passionate about something, we want to focus on how its different, because thats what makes us passionate in the first place. We want to talk about how innovative and disruptive it is. Yet while that may honor the idea itself, it doesnt do much for the people we want to adopt it. If we want them to share our priorities and aspirations, they have to believe that they share our values.
3. What are the Sources of Power?
We like to think of transformation as a heros journey. Theres an alternative future state that we want to reach, and wed like to think that if were good enough, we do all the right things, and our cause is righteous, well eventually get to that place.
Yet the truth is that change is always a strategic conflict between that future state and the status quo, which always has soures of power keeping it in place. These sources of power have an institutional basis and form pillars supporting the current state. It is only through influencing these pillars that we can bring about genuine change. Without institutional support, the status quo cannot be maintained.
Thats why to build an effective transformation strategy, we need to identify the institutions that support the status quo, those that support the future state, and those that are still on the fence and as yet uncommitted. These institutions can be divisions or functions within an organization, customer groups, government agencies, regulators, unions, professional and industry associations, media, educational institutionsthe possibilities are almost endless.
Whats important is that they have power and/or resources that can either hold things up or move them forward. Thats what makes them viable targets for action. If you can influence the sources of power upon which the status quo depends, genuine transformation becomes possible. But make no mistake: As long as the forces upholding the status quo stay in place, nothing will ever change.
The Power of a Question
All too often, transformational initiatives are presented as a fait accompli. A strategy is set, a plan is made, and everything is announced with a lot of hoopla at a big launch event. Questions are treated as a nuisance, something to be batted away rather than engaged with. Change leaders, in an effort that seldom succeeds, try to act as if they have all the answers.
Yet while answers tend to close a discussion, questions help us open new doors and lead to genuine insights. Asking What kind of change is this? is essential to building a strategy to overcome challenges. Investigating shared values is key to getting widespread buy-in. Analyzing sources of power is how you identify institutional targets for action.
The truth is that every great breakthrough starts with a question. As a child, Einstein asked, What would it be like to ride on a bolt of lightning? which led to his theory of special relativity. He then asked a second question, What would it be like to ride an elevator in space? and that led to his theory of general relativity.
Change leaders often feel they need to have all the answers, but what they usually need is to ask moreand betterquestions. Thats the essence of the changemaker mindset: Its not about building consensus around a plan and executing it, but about building a coalition to explore possibilities that lead to a better future.
Youre at your usual weekly team meeting. The team leader asks for ideas, and you immediately come up with the best one. Its not just clever. Its perfect. You rush to say it, glowing with anticipation. Silence. Nobody reacts. You walk out deflated, wondering how a group of smart people could ignore the obvious answer.
The assumption is simple. If the idea is sound, it should carry weight. We tend to believe that the one with the best ideas has the greatest impact. We take for granted that influence flows from competence and that those who are right, early and often, naturally shape decisions. But decades of research in social psychology and decision science tell a different story. In group settings, being right doesnt automatically translate into influence. In fact, one of the reasons ideas fail to land is that being right too early can undermine your influence.
Heres why even brilliant ideas face immediate resistance.
1. The Ego Threat
You may think youre helping, but solving the puzzle first can make others feel small. People don’t just want the answer. They want the sweat equity of finding it together. Theyre not rejecting your idea because its bad. Theyre pushing it away because it feels forced on them, not discovered together. They feel threatened rather than persuaded.
2. Logic vs. Shortcuts
Wouldnt it be wonderful if our ideas were judged purely on logic and data (diagnostics)? But most of us are busy, tired, distracted, or just want to move on with our next task. So, groups often rely on shortcuts such as who sounds confident, who talks the most, whos more assertive (proxies). Such shortcuts may drive quick decisions, but they rarely lead to results. If you drop a maverick idea before the group is ready, youre basically asking an overwhelmed group to do the hard work of thinking outside the box. Chances are theyll rely on proxies rather than substance such as diagnostics. Influence isnt about having the loudest voice. Its about having the best-timed one.
3. The Consensus Comfort Zone
Groups love sticking to what feels familiar. Its safer and lets everyone feel like theyre working together. If you toss out a big, unusual insight right away, you dont look like a visionary. You look like youre playing a different game than the rest. The team will reject the disruption because unconsciously they protect the direction and rhythm of the group.
How to Make Ideas Land
To stop being the “ignored expert” and start being the influential leader, you need to stop selling facts and start managing social currency and timing. Heres what works:
1. Practice strategic silence
Dont jump in with the solution. Practicing strategic silence means that you first consider issue relevance, issue readiness, and target responsiveness, before speaking up. Let the group feel the problem. Listen to others perspectives. When you finally speak, tie your answer to what they care about in that moment. Now your idea will feel more like a relief.
2. Show the “why,” not the “what”
If you just drop the answer, youre asking people to trust your brain rather than the facts. Instead narrate your logic. By sharing your logic and the why, youre giving them the map you used plus time to process. Now theyre on the same page as you.
3. Lower the ego shield
Present your idea as a 90% complete thought and leave the last 10% for the group to solve. For example, you can ask questions like What obstacles do you see?, or What would make this easier to implement? Youre not lowering your confidence. You invite collaboration. In return, you arent just right anymore; youre the person who helped the team find the right answer together.
Accuracy is essential, but social recognition is the currency of influence. Start thinking less about winning with facts and being the first to offer a solution. Think more about how people want to arrive at a conclusion with you.
Much like its peers in the tech industry, Oracle is pouring money into AI infrastructure. The tech giant inked a lucrative $300 billion deal with OpenAI last year to build out AI data centers, in a bid to compete with companies like Amazon and Microsoft. But the deal requires Oracle to spend a significant amount of money upfronta move that is now pushing the company to cull its workforce.
According to recent reports, Oracle is planning major layoffs that would reportedly affect thousands of jobs. The company had already earmarked about $1.6 billion for restructuring costs this yearlargely due to employee severance costsindicating there would be job cuts. As of February, that sum has now increased by $500 million, bringing overall restructuring costs to $2.1 billion. Bloomberg has reported that the layoffs would impact many parts of the business and could take effect this month; some of the job losses will also target roles that AI is rendering less essential.
The forthcoming job cuts were framed as broader than Oracles usual rolling approach to layoffs; the company typically avoids large-scale layoffs that merit a public announcement. Oracle would also effectively freeze hiring in its cloud division, according to Bloomberg.
Oracle joins a growing list of companies that are trimming headcount due to AIbut as with many other employers, theres limited evidence that the company is replacing workers with AI en masse. Instead, these layoffs largely seem to be driven by Oracles extensive investments in AI, which could take years to pay off. Oracle is currently raising $50 billion in debt and equity to finance its AI aspirations, and analysts have said the company will likely continue losing money on this venture until 2030.
Last month, Jack Dorsey announced major layoffs at his fintech company Block, which drew widespread consternation. Dorsey framed those job losses, which affected 40% of the companys workforce, as the direct result of efficiency gains from AI. But many companies have also used AI as a convenient explanation for more pedestrian cost-cutting measures, even as economists have argued that AI is not yet displacing workers on a large scale. Some companies have cited AI rather than blaming issues like immigration policy and tariffs, which might not be as politically expedient or appealing to shareholders.
Others, like Oracle, are slashing jobs over AIbut not necessarily because theyre outright using AI to replace workers. Microsoft, too, has made sweeping investments in AI, spending tens of billions of dollars on data centers while laying off over 15,000 in 2025. The layoffs at companies like Microsoft and Amazon have also targeted middle managers, the sorts of jobs that cant exactly be replaced by AI at the moment.
The AI boom has also helped cement an era of forever layoffs, in which even big tech jobs no longer hold the promise of stability. Since the pandemic, tech employers have become especially reliant on layoffsa trend that has been accelerated with the rise of AI. Whether or not workers are getting explicitly displaced or ousted due to automation, few jobs are now safe if companies value AI over human capital.
With its many extraterrestrial guest stars, The X-Files was always meant to be a spooky show. One of its earliest episodes, however, is now eerie in a way its creators likely never intended.
In Ghost in the Machine, a first-season standout that originally aired in 1993, a sentient, corporate-created AI turns deadly when it perceives a threat to its existence.
That description may rightly sound near-identical to any number of previous killer-computer plotlines2001: A Space Odyssey being the most obvious touchstone, along with Terminator 2, which had come out just two years earlier.
What sets this X-Files episode apart from other entries in the lethally sentient AI canon is that it pits a safety-minded tech CEO against a belligerent U.S. Department of Defense, which is desperate to use this companys AI in guardrail-free combat operations.
Sound familiar?
A ghost in the machine
Across its nine original seasons, two feature films, and a reboot, The X-Files cultivated an overarching mythology. The shows creators wisely took frequent off-roading adventures, though, with standalone Monster of the Week episodes that helped keep fans on their toes.
Ghost in the Machine is one such excursion, only the monster in this case turned out to be AI.
The show begins with the CEO of too-cutely named software company Eurisko (you risk-o?) writing a memo about shutting down the Central Operating System AI that runs corporate HQ.
Unfortunately, because the AI is surveilling the entire building, it picks up on this plan and chooses instead to shut down with extreme prejudice the CEO himselfvia electrocution.
Enter FBI special agents Fox Spooky Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson). Their investigation quickly leads them to Euriskos founder, Brad Wilczek, who is initially willing to take the fall for his CEOs murder.
By digging a bit deeper, though, Mulder discovers that not only is Euriskos AI the true culprit, the Department of Defense has been trying to get its hands on that AI for years, only to be snubbed each time by Wilczek.
(It’s a learning machine, one character says. A computer that actually thinks. And it’s become something of a holy grail for our more acquisitive colleagues in the Department of Defense.)
Eventually, Mulder and Scully work with Wilczek to fry the AI, much to the chagrin of a Defense Department mole who has been working at Eurisko the whole time. File closed!
Back in 1993, Ghost in the Machine fit snugly into the paranoid truth is out there ethos of a sci-fi show about alien conspiracies. Now, its not closer to the realm of documentary.
Although the show would return to the subject of AI again 25 years later in one of the reboot episodes2018s Rm9sbG93ZXJz, a more Black Mirror-y spin on fearing ones smartphoneits the older and admittedly cheesier outing that is far more relevant in 2026.
Its most glaring point of prescience, of course, is that it appears to have predicted with spooky accuracy the recent battle between the U.S. government and AI heavyweight Anthropicnot to mention the governments use of AI in its current war with Iran.
Our more acquisitive colleagues in the Department of Defense
Unlike his fictional counterpart in The X-Files, Anthropic cofounder Dario Amodei was very much interested in lending his AI model to Uncle Sam. Last July, Anthropic signed a $200 million contract with the U.S. Department of Defense to provide its Claude model for use in classified and operational work.
It was only when negotiations began over what such work might actually entail that irreconcilable differences emerged.
As the back-and-forth dragged on through late 2025 and into this January, the major sticking points involved Anthropics demand of usage restrictions on Claudemainly, that it shouldnt be deployed for mass domestic surveillance or for building fully autonomous weapons without human oversight.
The Pentagon insisted otherwise.
Heres where the similarities between Amodei and Euriskos Wilczek get really interesting. (The fact that Amodei bears something of a physical resemblance to Wilczek cant be ignored either.)
Why did the fictional founder want to protect civilian populations from the U.S. Defense Department using his AI? He explains it himself in the following exchange with Mulder:
Wilczek: After the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Robert Oppenheimer spent the rest of his life regretting he’d ever glimpsed an atom.
Mulder: Oppenheimer may have regretted his actions but he never denied responsibility for them.
Wilczek: He loved the work, Mr. Mulder. His mistake was in sharing it with an immoral government. I won’t make the same mistake.
Amodei publicly presents himself in a similar light, if with less on-the-record talk about government immorality.
He has frequently recommended Richard Rhodess book The Making of the Atomic Bomb in interviews, reportedly used to give copies of the book to new employees, and keeps one on prominent display in the Anthropic library.
Though Amodeis peer, OpenAI founder Sam Altman, has also spoken often of Oppenheimer as a cautionary example, Amodei has now proven more willing to stick to his guns on the issue.
In recent weeks, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave Anthropic an ultimatum to drop its demand for safety guardrails or face consequences. Anthropic refused. As a result, Hegseth made good on his threat, formally designating Anthropic a supply chain riskthe first time the Pentagon has applied that label to a U.S. AI firm.
Anthropic has since sued the Pentagon over this measure. As a bonus, the White House labeled Anthropic a radical left, woke company, and President Trump directed all federal agencies to stop using Claude.
Meanwhile, former Oppenheimer-recaller Altman has agreed to let OpenAI fill the military void, albeit with guardrails, according to the company.
AI at war
The X-Files episode Ghost in the Machine ends with the Department of Defense thwarted and its desired AI, which has ostensibly been destroyed, telegraphing to viewers it is still alive, so to speakthe epilogic hand flying out of a grave in a horror movie.
In real life, though, the government got a hold of its AI without the need for any innuendo.
Despite the formal ban on federal use of Anthropics tools, parts of the U.S. military continue to rely on Claude in combat operations, since they were already deeply embedded. (Removing them completely could take months.) In the meantime, according to the Wall Street Journal, the current war with Iran is demonstrating Claudes usefulness.
AI tools are helping gather intelligence, pick targets, plan bombing missions and assess battle damage at speeds not previously possible, the report reveals. AI helps commanders manage supplies of everything from ammunition to spare parts and lets them choose the best weapon for each objective.
On February 28, at the start of the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, a Tomahawk missile struck an Iranian elementary school, claiming the lives of at least 175 peoplemost of them children. Recent reporting strongly suggests that not only was the U.S. at fault for the missile strike, but that the school was on a U.S. target list and may have been mistaken for a military site.
As of this writing, nobody in the U.S. government has claimed responsibility for the mistake.
The X-Files episode and movies like Terminator 2 stoked the fear that a sentient AI might decide to wipe out all of humanity. They couldnt foresee the more immediate threat in 2026: that an immoral government would decide to wipe out a portion of humanity and let AI take the blame.
James Beard Award-winning chef René Redzepi, who co-founded the iconic, Michelin Starred Noma restaurant in Copenhagen, announced his resignation on Wednesday. The announcement comes following years of allegations of abuse, assault, and the creation of a toxic work environment at the restaurant which is one of the world’s most famous, influential and acclaimed dining spots.
Back in 2017, at the height of the #MeToo movement, entire industries were upended with a long-overdue, global reckoning that held countless high-profile men accountable for past behavior of abuse, leading to widespread cultural and workplace change. The chauvinistic toxicity of the restaurant industry was especially highlighted, with big names like Mario Batali, Todd English, John Besh and many others hit with abuse allegations that triggered restaurant closures and public resignations.
Now, nearly a decade later, the latest incident with Redzepi underscores just how far the workforce, and the restaurant world in particular, may still have to go to create safe workspaces that operate at the most elite levels in their industriesand to hold perpetrators accountable.
Jessica Kriegel, Chief Strategy Officer at workplace consultancy firm Culture Partners, tells Fast Company that restaurants are “pressure cookers,” but asserts that shouldn’t excuse abusein restaurants, or any other workplace led by highly successful leaders highly visible in their field.
Dismantling the mythology of the brilliant tyrant
While abuse claims followed Redzepi for years, the heat on the chef reached a boiling point after an explosive New York Times report was published earlier this month.
The piece detailed Redzepi’s alleged abuse from 2009 to 2017, with reports of a kitchen being run by “unpaid interns” working 16-hour shifts, a habit of “public shaming,” and an explosive episode that involved punching an employee. Employees said that kind of abuse was common: Going to work felt like going to war, former employee Alessia, who didn’t want her surname to be published in the piece, told the outlet. You had to force yourself to be strong, to show no fear.
The bombshell NYT report came just ahead of a new Noma pop-up’s opening in Los Angeles. When the pop-up opened on March 11, a crowd of protesters were outside. Key sponsors like American Express, Resy and Blackbird had pulled their funding the day before. The chef’s resignation soon followed.
I have worked to be a better leader and Noma has taken big steps to transform the culture over many years, Redzepi wrote on Instagram following the opening. I recognize these changes do not repair the past. An apology is not enough; I take responsibility for my own actions. In a post just days earlier, Redzepi also acknowledged his abusive behavior, which he admitted involved physical acts of aggression, and said he was simply “not able to handle the pressure.”
Fast Company has reached out to Noma for comment.
While workplace culture has undeniably changed in recent years, as individuals (especially women) have spoken out more frequently about workplace harassment and abuse thanks to the #MeToo movement, challenges still exist. Working in an office and a restaurant are drastically different experiences, for examplethe latter tends to be an extraordinarily fast-paced environment that can lend itself to toxic conditions.
Kriegel says that more recent representation on shows like The Bear, coupled with brave employee voices, could be helping to bring about some long-awaited change within the industry. The Emmy-winning Hulu hit features toxic bosses at world-class restaurants, but it also shows the impactincluding traumato employees.
“Workers are speaking up, and audiences are starting to see the human cost behind the mythology of the ‘brilliant tyrant,'” Kriegel explains.
“Shows like The Bear are great because they dont just glorify the chaos of the kitchen. They show what it does to people.”
According to a 2021 survey of 4,700 restaurant workers from Black Box Intelligence, 49% of restaurant workers experience emotional abuse from managers, and 15% reported being sexually harassed by managers or coworkers. (Thats not even including abuse from customers: 62% of respondents said they receive emotional abuse or disrespect from customers, and another 15% are sexually harassed by them.)Kriegel says that the narrative is definitely beginning to shift, even when it comes to the restaurant industry. “The world is moving away from tolerating abusive leadership simply because someone is talented,” Kriegel explains.
If Redzepi’s resignation is any indication, that may be true.
Nothing says springtime like a canvas tote drop from Trader Joe’s. That’s right. The highly anticipated shopping bags are back and ready to fly off the shelves (and, probably, the resale sites) once again.
Trader Joe’s totes are historically massively popular. The brand’s mini totes, which are just 13-by-11-by-6 inches, first dropped in 2024 and became an instant sensation after going mega-viral on TikTok. Once they sold out, they quickly began popping up on resale sites. While the totes only cost $2.99 in stores, resellers majorly marked them up, with some listing the bags for hundreds or even thousands. Since 2024, Trader Joe’s has released a few other versions of the totes as well, like Halloween-themed bags, which were also massively popular.
Now, the bags are coming back, and this time, you can get one in a larger (more practical?) size. Nakia Rohde, a Trader Joes spokesperson, told Fast Company that the “next new bag will be a large canvas bag with lavender handles and a pink logo.” That means you’ll be able to hold way more TJ’s goods.
But if your heart is set on the mini bag, don’t fret. They are heading back to stores this spring, and they’ll be popping up in the same springtime colors as last year: delicate pink, baby blue, mint green, and lovely lavender.
Still, you’ll have to stay nearby Trader Joe’s if you want to snag one. Rohde did not give an exact date that any of the totes will be available nationwide, but said they should be in stores by mid-March, with dates varying based on location. It may also be a good idea to refer to your local TikTok influencer.
TJ’s tote bags are certainly not the first item to experience viral fame that leads to an instant surge in purchases. Stanley tumblers, mini waffle makers, beauty products, and tons of other everyday items have, too. However, the Trader Joe’s totes have not seemed to lose their luster since they first arrived on the scene. And, remarkably, it all happened without the brand even having to advertise the bags at all. Our Mini Canvas Tote Bags certainly sold more quickly than we anticipated, Rohde told AP News in 2024. Before we had the opportunity to promote them in any way, customers across the country found them at their neighborhood Trader Joes.
Pay transparency laws were supposed to address the pay disparities that tend to impact women and people of color in the workplace. Over the last decade, 15 states have introduced laws that require varying degrees of disclosure from employers, from including explicit salary ranges in job postings to verbally sharing those details with prospective employees during the interview process.
But new research out of Cornell University indicates that those laws have not been as effective as intendedin part because many employers fail to truly comply with them.
These laws often do not clearly articulate how broad a salary range should be, and simply instruct companies to provide a good faith salary range. (The pay transparency law in New York, for example, states that at the time a job is posted, the range must be the minimum and maximum annual salary, or hourly rate the employer believes, in good faith, they are willing to pay.) As Fast Company has previously reported, this means some employers provide broad salary ranges that technically abide by the law, but are of little use to job applicants.
Cornells findings show that these wide salary bands can have the exact opposite effect than was intended by advocates of pay transparency: Across four studies, researchers saw significant variation in the breadth of salary rangesand a clear pattern of women preferring jobs with narrower salary bands compared to their male counterparts. So even as pay transparency laws have sought to put all applicants on even footing, women are often discouraged from applying to jobs with wide salary ranges, reinforcing gender-based pay gaps. But it turns out women face obstacles even when they opt for jobs with narrower ranges.
In terms of the implications of this work, those that applied to narrower pay ranges then negotiated less assertively, says Alice Lee, the lead author and assistant professor of organizational behavior at Cornells School of Industrial and Labor Relations. If women are sorting into jobs with narrow pay ranges, that is then constraining their likelihood to negotiate assertively for a higher salaryand these policies that are intended to mitigate these gaps might be actually perpetuating these gaps.
Lees research team conducted a collection of studies to understand the effects of pay transparency laws. In an analysis of nearly 10 million job postings, they found a broad spectrum of pay ranges. Two following studies looked at how applicants responded to different job postings, along with how they negotiated when they started interviewing. A final study tested out a few interventions that the researchers thought might encourage women to apply to jobs with wider ranges.
There were a few things that did seem to make a difference for female applicantsnamely, being more transparent about how compensation was determined in the original job posting. We just included some clarifying information to the job ads in addition to the pay ranges we provided, Lee says. It was just two sentences that informed applicants of the typical starting salary, as well as sort of the qualifications and the system through which pay is determined . . . for those that saw the job ad with this clarifying information, women applied just as frequently as men to jobs with wider pay ranges, and we also saw no gender gap in negotiation behavior.
As Fast Company has reported, overly broad salary ranges have been a recurring issue in states that have enacted these laws. The language of these pay transparency laws leaves room for interpretation, and many employers are not particularly incentivized to volunteer more information than necessary. (Pay transparency laws could impose stricter limits on salary bands, as is the case in states like New Jerseythough this might be a tough sell in regions where corporate interests hold more sway.) The state agencies that enforce these laws tend to prioritize the most flagrant violationsemployers who openly flout the law and do not disclose any salary range, for examplewhich means there are fewer repercussions for companies that effectively try to get around the law by posting unhelpful salary ranges.
In New York City, for example, the New York City Commission on Human Rights brought 33 complaints against a variety of employers in the year after the citys pay transparency law took effect in late 2022. But the vast majority of those complaints focused on companies that had neglected to include any salary information in their job postings. While the agency did bring a handful of complaints against companies that used very broad ranges, Fast Companys reporting found that there were other major employers who posted jobs with salary bands that spanned about $100,000.
Employers have their reasons for posting wide salary ranges. Many of them want to stay competitive to attract the best talentwhich can mean leaving some room for negotiating compensation, even if that might exacerbate pay disparities. Sometimes companies dont have a clear compensation strategy and scramble to come up with an appropriate salary band, which is especially likely for AI roles that are in demand and can command high salaries.
But companies can send the wrong message when they use broad salary rangesin turn alienating prospective employees. Lee says there is an element of risk aversion that also plays into why women are more likely to steer clear of broad salary ranges. Job applicants may also make assumptions about how much a company values equitable pay practices or the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion more broadly. If a company cares about [diverse talent]which I think, personally, all companies shouldthen they should absolutely care about what their pay ranges are signaling, Lee says.
For employers who purport to care about pay equity, Cornells research suggests that employers only need to take a few steps to embrace the spirit of these pay transparency laws. Providing even minimal context on how compensation is determinedalong with a typical starting salarygoes a long way. The researchers found that women responded positively to relatively basic language, which noted your exact offer will reflect your relevant experience, skill level and the responsibilities of the role, in line with our standardized compensation guidelines. In some cases, Lee says, it might make sense for a company to use a large salary band, but outline specific pay tiers within that range, based on experience and qualifications.
Lee points out that these laws do give workers an opening to ask more questions about compensation and advocate for themselves. But ultimately, its companies who hold a lot of power in those negotiations, regardless of legal protectionsand many of them may not even be aware of the message they are sending to prospective employees.
I do thinkI hopethat some employers do truly care about attracting [diverse] talent, and you might be constraining and preventing many of those people without even knowing so, Lee says. I think these findings might come as a surprise to some people.
Fancy a chauffeur? Uber is courting the well-heeled with a new ride option that will see it extend its reach from a taxi alternative to offering a more exclusive, limousine-style service.
Uber announced Thursday it will launch a chauffeur ride optionUber Elitethat will offer a luxury ride experience targeting executives and other frequent travelers. Uber Elite will become the rideshare operators most expensive option, and will be offered on an invite-only basis for current Uber Black and Uber for Business clients in San Francisco and Los Angeles, followed soon by New York.
Uber is banking on a market for a more elevated experience, though the accompanying cost may be difficult to justify for some people.
Just consider the hypothetical ride that the company shared as an example in its announcement. An Uber Elite customer could request a ride from the San Francisco International Airport to the citys Union Square, with an option for a meet and greet at baggage claim, for a whopping $177.95 for the roughly 13-mile journey. Thats more than three times the cost of an UberX, a standard ride-alone option, while the citys BART system costs only $11.80 for that same journey.
PREMIUM PRICING FOR PREMIUM EXPERIENCE
The premium pricing is seemingly justified by a premium experience: Uber Elite will partner with fleet companies that employ professional chauffeurs driving luxury vehicles.
In addition to the option to be met at baggage claim by the chauffeur, riders can expect complimentary amenities that some Uber drivers already offer in quest of a 5-star rating: Chargers, bottled water, mints, and hand-sanitizing towelettes. Riders can also make special requests, like champagne, which surely come at an extra cost.
[Image: Uber]
But there is a notable perk for anyone who has dealt with the frustration of trying to reach a human through Ubers customer support options: Uber Elite riders will have access to premium 24/7 phone support, which will be available before, during, and after the trip. Whats more, riders can call their chauffeur directly before pickup and rides can be arranged with as little as one hour notice or up to 90 days in advance.
Chauffeur services have become the new battleground for rideshare companies. In October, Lyft acquired TBR Global Chauffeuring for about $110 million, expanding its reach into the luxury market in more than 3,000 cities in 120 countries. That said, Lyft has also been appealing to more budget-conscious customers recently, with recent blog posts touting the benefits of opting for rideshare versus car rentals and car ownership.
Since its founding in 2009, Uber has steadily expanded its options to corner nearly every transportation option, from bikes to air taxis in select markets. Last year, riders booked more than 13.5 billion trips with Uber, the company reported last month.
Even so, Ubers stock has stalled; its fallen more than 27% from an all-time high in October and slumped nearly 2.8% in mid-day trading on Thursday.
René Redzepi, the chef behind Copenhagen’s Noma, has resigned from the iconic restaurant he co-founded and its food non-profit MAD, amid abuse allegations. The move comes after protesters gathered outside Noma’s 16-week Los Angeles pop-up Wednesday.
A recent New York Times article reports that former employees of the restaurant allege a pattern of abuse, including “punching, slamming, screaming,” from 2009 and 2017. The Times interviewed dozens of former employees throughout 18 of the chef’s 23 years at the restaurant. The report also alleges unpaid interns worked 16-hour days.
On Wednesday, protestors outside Noma’s L.A. pop-up chanted and held up signs that read Unpaid Labor Built Your Empire, and No Michelin Stars for Violence. (The price for dinner at the L.A. residency is a staggering $1,500 a person.)
Fast Company has reached out to Noma and Redzepi for comment on the allegations and protest.
Noma, which under Redzepi, put New Nordic cuisine on the map, holds three Michelin stars and is considered one of the best restaurants in the world, if not the best.
“An apology is not enough; I take responsibility for my own actions,” Redzepi wrote on Instagram. I have worked to be a better leader and Noma has taken big steps to transform the culture over many years. I recognize these changes do not repair the past.”
“After more than two decades of building and leading this restaurant, Ive decided to step away and allow our extraordinary leaders to now guide the restaurant into its next chapter,” he added.
As a result of the controversy, a number of corporate sponsors have withdrawn their support for the L.A. pop-up, including American Express and its booking playform Resy, Blackbird, and Cadillac.
Redzepi’s fall from grace is especially surprising given the number of accolades the chef has received over the years and the cult-status Noma achieved.
However, he is not the first celebrity chef to resign amid accusations of abuse. Perhaps the most notable is Mario Batali, who was forced out of his Italian food-hall Eataly in 2017 after sexual harassment and assault accusations, and had to sell his minority stake in the company. He was later found not guilty in a Boston court while on trial for indecent assault and battery in 2019.
In 2020, Waymo began offering fully driverless rides to the public in Phoenix, turning the city into the closest thing the U.S. has to a real-world laboratory for autonomous vehicles. What began as a cautious pilot has since grown into a sprawling robotaxi network that now includes freeway travel and service to Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
Since then, Waymo has expanded to cities including San Francisco and Austin, while rivals like Tesla and Zoox are racing to deploy their own autonomous fleets. But the technologys spread has come with a steady stream of logistical and political questions for the cities hosting it (especially since Phoenix, with its wide roads and relatively simple grid, represents one of the easier environments for autonomous vehicles to navigate).
Fast Company spoke with Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego this week at Austin’s South by Southwest festival about what its actually like to govern a city where driverless cars are more fully integrated into the transportation system. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Youve overseen Phoenix during the whole arc of Waymos rollout. Whats changed in the city once AVs moved from a pilot to something residents can actually use?
People have really appreciated Waymos expansion onto the freeways, because they can get where theyre going more quickly if its a longer distance. When we started, we were the first airport to have autonomous service in the world, which is a point of pride for Phoenix. We originally started pickups at our Sky Train, and now weve moved to the curb. We tried to be very safety-focused and make sure we tested and piloted before we did full deployment. Its a point of pride for us that we were the first in the world to have autonomous vehicle service at the airport. We think it really shows were a technology-forward city and that were willing to embrace innovation.
Whats been the biggest benefit of having those Waymos on the streets in Phoenix?
We had a real shortage of drivers, so more people have the ability to get where theyre going, particularly during hours like overnight when its harder to find people who want to be working. So its really improved quality of life for riders. Weve also seen some traffic-calming impacts. The Waymos go the speed limit. Phoenix has above-average traffic speeds for big cities in the United States, so speeding and red-light running are challenges for us. Waymos follow traffic rules, so thats helped have a traffic-calming effect.
Have you seen any evidence in Phoenixcrash data, traffic incidentsthat verifies Waymos are making the roads safer? Are there other metrics you look at?
We look at Waymos crash data, and the Waymos crash less than traditional human drivers. I dont know that weve done a full analysis, but we couldwe probably should. Youre the second person to ask me that today, so maybe Ill take the hint and do that analysis.
Based on the Phoenix experience, whats something cities tend to underestimate when they first start integrating AVs into the roads? What adjustments do they have to make?
Its really important to have good communication. If there are issues with the programming, you want to make sure Waymo knows and can fix them. When weve reported issues to Waymo, theyve been great about adapting the programming.
What does the communication pipeline between your office and Waymo look like?
Our first responders work directly with Waymo. If were going to have an unusual event or an emergency were responding to, they have the ability to work directly with the company. We also work directly with Waymo to report any incidents or opportunities, or if we want to partner on anything.
Fast Company has reported on incidents in San Francisco where robotaxis can stall and take time to clear off the roads, partly because theres no human driver to communicate with. Have there been incidents like that in Phoenix?
Early on, we had a street closure for an arts festival and a bunch of Waymos got very confused by it. We shared the incident, and Waymo updated the programming. We havent had a repeat of the issue. Generally, when weve had challenges, theyve been fixable. We dont have the same problem repeatedly. Weve trained our first responders, and its important to me that as new entrants come into the autonomous vehicle market, first responders can communicate with vehicles from outside the car. Thats worked fine with Waymo.
In Arizona the state regulates autonomous vehicles. The city does not. But its been a partnership. For example, we had an issue where a Waymo drove into a pole in an alley. We shared the issue, and they updated the programming. I think they reported it to the federal government, but we werent their regulator. We were more like their partner.
When you say they update the programming, what does that mean?
I think they go out, look at what happened, and make sure the system understands how to react to that type of object or situation.
There was an issue in another community where there was a stop sign in the bed of a pickup truck. The Waymo saw the stop sign and stopped, because it was programmed to stop when it sees one. But it wasnt aware of a moving stop sign driving down the street. Once they programmed it to understand that situation, it was fixed.
Are other AV companies coming to Phoenix?
Right now we have Waymo and Tesla. Zoox announced last week that it plans to come, but it hasnt arrived yet.
Is there a point where there could be too many AV companies operating in a city?
I chaired the U.S. Department of Transportations Transforming Transportation Advisory Committee, and one of our recommendations was that certain safety standards should be common across companiesfor example, first responders should be able to communicate with vehicles from outside the car.
In Phoenix were also starting to think about how to design cities for more autonomous vehicles. Do we need more drop-off and queuing space in front of buildings? Should we adjust parking ratios? Some people in Phoenix imagine having their own autonomous vehicle that drops them off at work, then goes and makes money as a robotaxi and comes back later. I think were a ways away from that.
But we do think about whether traffic might move differently if there are more AVs. That could have environmental benefits and reduce the need for pavement. I care a lot about climate action and emissions. Waymos are lower-emission compared to our average vehicle fleet, and reducing tailpipe emissions helps us with our air-quality challenges. I grew up with asthma, so thats something Ive cared about for a long time.
Have there been actual changes to urban design yet, or is that still theoretical?
Were really looking at our parking minimums. Id love to see Phoenix devote less space to pavement and more to active uses. That could help enable better mass transit as well.
There are ongoing discussions about bringing Waymo to New York. Do you think the calculus changes in a much denser city?
In some ways there could be benefits. A Waymo can see many things at oce, whereas a human driver has a limited field of vision. But cities should be ready to train first responders and make sure all stakeholders understand how to work with the technology.
What does transportation look like five or 10 years from now in Phoenix?
We recently went to voters with a ten-year plan. As part of that, we talked about advanced transportation technologies. Im really interested in how these technologies can help Phoenix grow up rather than outencouraging more density and more sustainable land use.
And voters approved that plan?
Yes, with 78% approval. It was our general plan for the city. We also passed a regional transportation sales tax and set aside $250 million for advanced technology.
Are other cities asking you about Phoenixs experience with Waymo?
Yes. Weve had people from all over the world come visit. Delegations from the European Union, officials from Prague, and others have come to see how our regulatory system evolved and how the safety systems work. Ive taken visiting officials on Waymo rides when theyre interested in bringing the technology to their own cities.
The first head of government to ever ride in an autonomous vehicle was the Dutch Prime Minister in Phoenix in a Waymo. The Secret Service was very nervous about protecting him, so they did a lot of test runs. We had this bizarre parade through downtown Phoenix where there was a relatively small Jaguar with the prime minister surrounded by large armored Secret Service vehicles.
Have you taken Waymos yourself?
Yes. I was the first customer when we expanded service to Sky Harbor Airport. It was a good experience, except there were a bunch of cameras watching as we drove up, and I unbuckled early so I could get out quickly. The Waymo stopped because I had unbuckled. So it was my fault. As mayor, Im glad theyre responsive to safety issues. As a human, it was a little embarrassing.
