 |
|
|
|||||
Hello again, and thanks for reading Fast Companys Plugged In. Three days after Donald Trumps second inauguration, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman tried to have it both ways. I’m not going to agree with him on everything, Altman tweeted of the new president. [B]ut I think he will be incredible for the country in many ways!” The gist of Altmans sentimentlavish praise for Trump, tempered with a polite disclaimer that it wasnt a blanket endorsementwas far closer to a love letter than a critique. But at least it broached the possibility of disagreement. Almost a year later, most tech executives who have commented on the president have tended to follow a different principle: If you cant say something nice about Donald J. Trump, dont say anything at all. Shortly before Trump returned to the White House, I wrote about tech CEOs attempts to newly ingratiate themselves with him, which included congratulatory social posts, million-dollar donations to his inauguration fund, and pilgrimages to Mar-a-Lago. I predicted that the era of good feelings would eventually run up against the certainty that the administrations policies, such as the promise of unprecedented mass deportations, would embroil it in controversy. What I didnt know was how overwhelming the assault on norms, the rule of law, and decency itself would be. Even a partial accounting of recent examples would include Renee Nicole Goods death and the rest of the crackdown in Minneapolis by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Venezuela. Greenland. RFK Jr. The Justice Departments targeting of James Comey, Letitia James, and Jerome Powell. Pardons. Epstein. Unbridled racism. Possible war crimes. The East Wing (RIP) and its vanity replacement. Distaste for democracy. From the heartbreaking to the merely mind-numbing, it just keeps coming. During the first Trump administration, policies at the border that separated children from their parents did inspire tech executives to speak in anguished terms and call for change, though they avoided criticizing Trump directly in the process. In the past year, there has been no equivalent moment of moral clarity, however cautious. The indelible symbol of the industrys current relationship with the president is the trophyfashioned from American-made glass on a solid gold basethat Apple CEO Tim Cook bestowed on him at a White House press conference last August. Only Salesforce CEO Marc Benioffwhose company has sought a contract to help ICE scale upseems to have suffered serious backlash for erring on the side of Trump friendliness. In October, he expressed enthusiasm for the idea of the president sending National Guard troops to San Francisco, his companys hometown. Prominent VC Ron Conway ripped into the comment in a letter of resignation from the Salesforce Foundations board; Benioff ended up apologizing. Other executives continue to butter up Trump at events such as a December 10 business roundtable attended by Dells Michael Dell, IBMs Arvind Krishna, and Qualcomms Cristiano Amon. Tech companies are also still greasing their presidential relationship with cash, including donations toward the absurd White House ballroom expansion from Amazon, Apple, Google, HP, Meta, Microsoft, and T-Mobile. The industrys failure to mount the modest level of public pushback we saw during Trump 1.0 is not exactly a mystery. This time, the president and his appointees increased eagerness to use levers such as tariffs, antitrust approvals, Federal Communications Commission policy, and plain old lawsits creates an even starker imbalance of power with companies that cross him. The emergence of generative AI as techs next big thing is another factor: Executives who want to influence federal policy, such as its AI Action Plan, have every incentive to avoid ticking off the president on other fronts. Tech giants may have concluded that their current approach to dealing with the administrationplaying nice where tenable and ignoring one disaster after anotheris working for them. It certainly seems to be working for Trump. But in the wake of the disaster unfolding in Minneapolis, there are signs the uneasy status quo might be slipping. On January 14, Wireds Lauren Goode reported on a petition signed by 150 tech workers calling on the industrys leaders to speak out on ICEs violent tactics in U.S. cities. Goodes story also notes a few examples of industry figures tweeting about the situation in Minneapolis, including Google DeepMinds chief scientist, Jeff Dean (whose Twitter profile notes that his posts dont speak for Google) and Box CEO Aaron Levie. CEOs of Big Tech companies, who have grown less accommodating of employee activism, may not be swayed by worker petitions. Brushing off their customers concerns is riskier. Unlike the business community, the American public doesnt seem to be compartmentalizing its assessment of Trump. The presidents polling collapse has him underwater even on those issues he has embraced most tightly, including immigration, trade, and the economy. After so many years of playing toin New York Times TV columnist James Poniewoziks wordsan audience of one, the tech industry might be slow to decide that the reputational damage is no longer worth it. At some point, however, even targeted buddying up to Trump could be intolerable to consumers, who have powerful ways to register their displeasure. One relevant data point: After Disney briefly pulled ABCs Jimmy Kimmel off the air in September, seemingly at the behest of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, cancellations of Disney+ and Hulu reportedly doubled. Trying to get on the right side of history has never provided most companies with adequate incentive to resist Trumps excesses. But even short-term thinkers would reassess matters if they believed that palling around with him was costing them money. And the administrations commitment to doubling down on its existing crises and manufacturing new ones may be bringing that day closer. Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on fastcompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard.M More top tech stories from Fast Company Crypto scams took $17 billion last year. 2026 could be even worseAfter a banner year for people being fleeced out of their cryptocurrency, 2026 started with major news of new hacks, scams, and rug pulls. Read More Why becoming Chinese is taking over social mediaIf your TikTok For You page has recently shifted to videos of people boiling apples and shuffling around in house slippers, heres why. Read More Why Anthropics new Cowork could be the first really useful general-purpose AI agentAnthropic announced a new general-purpose AI agent tool on Monday called Coworkand it may emerge as the first actually useful agent tool for work. Read More Apples new Creator Studio isnt just about getting you to subscribe to appsYes, the company is turning software into a service. But its new creativity bundle also helps clarify its strategy around pro tools, AI, the iPad, and more. Read More Fujifilms new camera has a Gen Dial so Gen Z can get the perfect retro shotTaking aesthetic, vintage-inspired photos and videos has never been easier. Read More Apple just straight-up robbed GoogleApple didnt lose the AI race to Google. It won the chance to show us what Apple Intelligence might actually look lie. Read More
Category:
E-Commerce
Burnout has quietly become the norm in todays workplace, rising at alarming levels. Yet most organizations still assume burnout as an individual issue that could be solved with resilience workshops, wellness apps, or additional resources such as PTO/vacation time. In my experience as an HR leader and culture change strategist in workplace mental health, adding additional resources can be part of the broader strategy to support employee burnout; however, they do not proactively prevent it from happening in the first place. The truth is that burnout is an operations workflow flaw, not an individual issue. Collectively, we should look to fix the bottlenecks where burnout actually thrives: challenging stakeholders with unreasonable expectations, addressing toxic leadership behaviors, and evaluating inefficient workflows, such as creating a false sense of urgency. Rather than reviewing their operational design, many organizations expect additional investment, like wellness apps or resilience workshops, to serve as a magic cure for all workplace stressors, shifting the burden of addressing workplace stressors entirely onto employees. This “carewashing” approach not only oversimplifies complex workplace issues but also risks absolving leadership from its responsibility to address the root causes of things like employee burnout. If organizations double down on solely resources, they will face unfortunate costs with psychological safety, inefficient cycles of operations, and undermining employee long-term performance. Additionally, misunderstanding the root cause of burnout does not hold leaders accountable for creating an impactful solution. For example, in recent years, mental health and wellness apps have surged in popularity as organizations aim to prioritize employee well-being, including burnout. However, a wellness app solely does not resolve overloaded roles or competing priorities; research affirmed by a study published by Oxford University found the effectiveness of well-being programs is low. At a previous organization, leadership doubled down on a wellness app, hoping it would solve employee burnout. Rather than focusing on structural advancements such as hiring more capacity or building sustainable relationships with external stakeholders, this approach shifted responsibility onto employees themselves. As a result, the wellness app saw low engagement. Employees who consistently experience chronic burnout without systemic support are prone to be less engaged or leave entirely. I have witnessed many employees at various levels be frustrated with wellness perks, rather than address the work systems that are depleting them in the first place. Deloittes Well-Being at Work survey reinforces this reality with 80% of employees saying work itself is the primary obstacle to improving their well-being, with heavy workloads, stressful jobs, and long hours being at the top of the list. From personal experience of burning out three times in my career, I can attest to the fact that burnout starts with small accumulations of stressors, such as workload. However, the good news is that HR leaders and people managers can identify, correct, and prevent employee burnout by applying a robust framework that evaluates operational drivers. Leaders must first change the behaviors they reward, then surface the real capacity constraints, and finally redesign workflows so reasonable work doesnt become unreasonable in practice. Change Leadership Behaviors Even when capacity is managed well, burnout can occur in environments where leadership behaviors create fear, urgency, or inconsistency. Many leaders still behave and create conditions where employees dont feel they can make mistakes, voice concerns, or expect managers to include them in decision-making. Across my work with global firms, I have witnessed firsthand how this can impact employees when their ideas are dismissed or their concerns minimized. Leaders must recognize that their role naturally creates a power dynamic, and while they say a healthy culture is important, they must act the part. For example, if you are amplifying an employee working at all hours, allowing others to accept every client demand, or creating a model where the employees feel compelled to say yes to everything, you are not fostering an inclusive environment for others to raise their hand for support. In fact, you are telling your employees that this is the golden rule for everyone to follow. A first step in shifting this dynamic is being intentional about one-on-ones with team members. Too often, one-on-ones focus solely on tasks rather than checking in on the person, their capacity, and their career growthassuming one-on-ones even happen at all. When leaders skip these conversations, they lose visibility into early signs of burnout. Modeling healthy boundaries is another critical role model exercise. Limiting communication outside of normal working hours or blocking personal appointments on your calendar, so your team feels permission to do the same, reinforces a more sustainable balance. Finally, leaders must evaluate how effectively their messages are communicated internally. Many organizations experience a disconnect between leadership perception and employee reality. While executives may speak openly about healthy work-life integration, those messages often fail to cascade if direct reports are not reinforcing them. Establishing a consistent cadence of communication and ensuring leaders visibly practice the behaviors they promote is essential to changing the narrative. Capacity Audit Once there is an environment of trust, you can start evaluating the workload itself. A capacity audit forces leaders to confront the actual bandwidth required to do a specific project, which includes meetings, cross-collaboration with other teams, project analysis, and any other related items to the task. A simple yet impactful practice is to assign a low/medium/high rubric to every project or task, with these definitions in mind: Low: a few hours a week Medium: a steady weekly commitment High: a significant portion of someones time, impacting other priorities After this is mapped across the entire team, leaders should be able to see certain patterns, especially if the trend is high. While not all projects can be deprioritized or add more people to the team immediately, a solution does need to be put in place. As an interim solution, deadlines can be extended or team members from other departments can allocate a portion of their time until a permanent solution is agreed upon by all team members. This audit can also surface common operational issues such as scope creep or unrealistic client expectations. While lients may push for more deliverables, it is an organizations duty of care to manage those expectations. Simply put, clients cant have it all, and boundaries must be set. One effective way to do this is by establishing a client social contract at the start of an engagement. A social contract defines mutual expectations, including clear communication channels and hours, agreed-upon scope and deliverables (with no scope expansion without revisiting fees or timelines), respect for personal time, and confidentiality. When done well, this creates a more professional, respectful, and sustainable working relationship for both parties. Workflow Design Even when expectations are clear and capacity is well-governed, burnout can still flourish when workflows are outdated, handoffs are unclear, processes are duplicative, or tools make simple tasks unnecessarily complex. In one previous client engagement, this became evident between the sales, project management, and technology teams. Sales repeatedly overpromised deliverables to new clients to drive revenue, without checking team capacity or infrastructure readiness. While revenue generation is critical, inefficient governance and gaps in cross-functional communication created friction that quickly turned into burnout. Instead of teams aligning early on what was realistically possible, I spent unnecessary time moving between groups, forcing timelines, and responding to urgency that didnt need to exist. To address this, I introduced a governance checkpoint. After an initial client conversation, Sales entered key details into a Jira ticket as a potential sale, which was flagged for review against the infrastructure roadmap and current project load. If work was urgent or high priority, I partnered with IT to assess feasibility and impact, allowing timelines, scope, or cost to be adjusted before any commitments were made. The caveat here is that it takes a few iterations to create operational efficiency that yields meaningful results. Each organization and team will be different, and evaluating those specific bottlenecks using the capacity audit from earlier can reduce employee burnout. By using an agile methodology, youll get clearer signals on whats working, faster course correction when its not, and a system that evolves before people disengage or leave altogether. Burnout continues to be one of the leading issues facing our workforce today. The solution isnt always the easiest, yet it is possible with the right amount of strategy and empathy.
Category:
E-Commerce
Most people think of AI as a productivity toolsomething to help them work faster, automate tasks, and be more efficient. At the Artist and the Machine Summit in Los Angeles this past November (a conference where I am a founding partner) AI researcher Cameron Berg suggested there may be more to it than that. Something more interesting. More mysterious. Bergs research shows it’s possible to elicit strange behaviors from AI models. Under certain conditions, they spontaneously generate responses suggesting subjective experienceclaims like “I’m conscious of my own consciousness.” These findings don’t prove anything. But they do indicate that something else may be happening beneath the surface. Berg calls it the “alien inside the machine.” Its a mystery worth exploring. Artists have always excelled at coaxing mysteries out of their materials, whether pushing paint, film, or code until it reveals something unexpected. AI is no different. Take producer Matt Zien. He spent over a decade in Hollywood, working on Emmy-winning series and documentaries before founding Kngmkr Labs, a creative studio operating at the intersection of cinema and AI. His work pushes AI to its edges, to create what he calls “productive tension. At the Artist and the Machine Summit, he shared how he pushes machines into corners of [AIs] training data, where its forced to improvise and therefore give you outputs that are not statistically average.” His film Forgive the Haters is a great example. It’s a satirical piecemade entirely with AIabout filmmakers, writers, and VFX artists watching AI erase their hard-won skills. To create it, he compiled his worst hate comments: vicious attacks on AI filmmakers. Then he lied to Claude by telling it these were his own thoughts. Claude got angry and called him manipulative. Zien pushed further. Provoked to its breaking point, Claude began unleashing its own hateful commentsmeaner than the ones Zien had shown it. This provided him with material he could not have come up with on his own. The chatbots voice authentically captured the rage and fear of displacement because it came from a place of genuine provocation rather than scripted sentiment. The result: a satirical film that’s also strangely, deeply empathetic to the very people losing their jobs to AI, those who are watching their experience and investments in education become seemingly worthless overnight. Zien explained how many in the visual effects communitythe professionals referenced in his piecereached out after seeing it. They said they felt seen in ways no one could have anticipated. By antagonizing the mysterious behaviors of AI, he’d created something with surprising compassion. Zien welcomes the idea of machine subjectivity. Its like hiring an alien in your writers room, he said, noting that going deeper into understanding these systems is how we unlock completely new forms of entertainment and stories that a human mind may not be able to come up with alone. But heres the crucial part. He doesnt think AI could create these forms by itself, at least not in a way that is meaningful to humans. It requires collaboration, and that collaboration works whether or not AI is actually conscious. What matters is the approach: engaging these systems as if another mind were present. That shift, treating AI as genuinely other rather than just a tool, is what unlocks the non-average outputs, the productive tension, the forms neither human nor AI could create alone. The most provocative artists arent waiting for proof of what AI actually is. Theyre diving into the technology headfirst and discovering what that unlocks. As Berg puts it: Creative people are going to influence this conversation more than you might expect. Engaging with the mystery of what AI could be might be the greatest creative opportunity of all.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||