Here’s how Mark Zuckerberg made $5.9 billion in 2016

If Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t planning to give away 99% of his family’s Facebook shares before he dies, I bet he’d be a trillionaire at some point in his life. For now, though, he’ll have to settle for a net worth of $51.7 billion, according to Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index. That’s up $5.9 billion year to date as of this writing.

Getty Images

Getty Images

His wealth increase was driven by his 14% stake in Facebook. The stock price increased a solid 13.5% so far this year, although it was up more than double that amount at one point this year. Those gains were offset by the sale of some of Zuckerberg’s stock to fund the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the vehicle through which Zuck plans to donate 99% of his stock.

Chris Salamone

Facebook’s revenue and earnings growth didn’t slow down

Throughout 2016, Facebook consistently posted earnings results that beat analysts’ expectations. Over the last four quarters, Facebook grew its revenue 55% to $24.7 billion. What’s more, its net income grew a whopping 165% to $7.5 billion.

Those strong results were fueled largely by continued user growth, increases in engagement, and more advertising in Facebook’s News Feed and Instagram.

Monthly active users (MAUs) increased from 1.55 billion at the end of the third quarter last year to 1.79 billion today. Daily active users (DAUs) increased from 1.01 billion to 1.18 billion. Engagement also increased as evidenced by the DAU-to-MAU ratio improving to 66% this year.

Facebook also provided an update on average user time spent per day across Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger. Users now spend an average of 50 minutes per day as of the company’s first-quarter earnings report. That’s up from the 40 minutes per day the company reported in the second quarter of 2014.

Additionally, Facebook has managed to display more advertisements in user’s News Feeds and Instagram feeds. Total ad impressions increased 50% in the third quarter, in line with the first and second quarter. What’s more, Facebook has managed modest average ad price increases while increasing its revenue so significantly.

Just a little bit of bad news

But a few pieces of bad news kept Facebook stock from flying too high this year. In February, India’s telecom regulator banned Facebook’s Free Basics app in the country, saying it violates net neutrality principles. Free Basics allowed users to access select apps (including Facebook) without the data counting against their data caps. The ban was seen as a major blow to Facebook’s ambitions in the huge emerging market.

Additionally, despite reporting strong results for the third quarter, investors were scared by comments from CFO Dave Wehner saying ad load would have less of a meaningful impact on revenue growth. “With a much smaller contribution from this important factor going forward, we expect to see ad revenue growth rates come down meaningfully,” Wehner said on the third-quarter earnings call.

The comments sent Facebook shares tumbling from an all-time high of $133.50 before Facebook reported its third-quarter earnings.

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative launches

Zuckerberg has already started to make good on his plan to donate 99% of his wealth to nonprofits over his lifetime. Shareholders approved a complex 3-for-1 stock split in June, which established a new class of shares (class C) that hold no voting power. The new class of shares should enable Zuckerberg to make good on his promise without losing control of his company.

In August, Zuckerberg sold $95 million worth of stock — about 0.2% of his net worth at the time — to fund investments made by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. The CZI’s first investment led the Series B funding round for Andela, an Africa-based coding bootcamp and four-year fellowship program for software engineering. It also led a $50 million round of investments for Byju, an app-centric education start-up based in India.

In September, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative announced plans to invest at least $3 billion over the next decade toward preventing, curing, and managing all diseases by the end of the century.

Overall, it was a pretty good year for Mark Zuckerberg. He’s about $6 billion richer than he was last year, and he’s been able to help make the world a better place.

Chris Salamone 

Posted in Business, Entrepreneurship, Leadership | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Secrets to Being Super Successful

The difference between who you are and who you want to be is what you do

Super successful people understand that there are traits, behaviors, and actions they must take in order to succeed.

Their thinking is, “I will do what it takes to get to where I want to go” They know success doesn’t come to them. They have to go out and get it for themselves.

Here are 13 ways super successful people manage to be so successful.

1. Super successful people are always prepared.

Prepare for opportunities by creating a comprehensive strategic plan incorporating your vision, values, and goals. This means a strong understanding of the new knowledge environment. To multiply the options available to you and make the most of them, keep learning and becoming better at what you do every day.

2. Super successful people speak their mind.

Be consistently candid and honest. Make it a point to speak what’s on your mind without fear of judgment. By speaking the truth and being honest, you can support your words with actions that will help you pursue your success. Simply thinking for yourself can make you unforgettable.

3. Super successful people honor their values.

Formulate your own code of conduct based on your most important values, and make sure your conduct is grounded in it. If you value excellence, make everything you do excellent; if it’s teamwork, make everything about doing things together.

4. Super successful people harness their mental toughness.

Everyone faces challenges and obstacles. Whatever yours look like, overcome them with hard work, resilience, and tenacity. Surround yourself with good people who can see things from a different perspective and shed light on the darkest of situations. Finally, walk through your fears to make yourself mentally tough. When you do, you will begin to attract more opportunities and be known as someone who can take the heat.

5. Super successful people embody their self-assurance.

Be confident in yourself without requiring constant input or feedback from others. Instead, develop the ability to get work done independently without any hand-holding as a path to confidence in your own capabilities and competence. Lead with confidence but ask for help when you need it.

6. Super successful people manage their stress.

There will always be something that goes wrong, something that causes stress, something that isn’t working, something that’s upsetting. Learning the stress management techniques that work for you will not only make you successful but help you become a positive example to others.

7. Super successful people are constantly pushing past their status quo.

The difference between someone who’s highly successful and someone who’s simply in a position of authority is easy to spot — the highly successful person will continue to work on improving his or her skills. After a certain amount of success, the temptation to maintain the status quo is great, but a commitment to always keep growing, learning, and evolving will always pay off.

8. Super successful people successfully maintain their discipline.

The key to a disciplined life is identifying the most important things to you and establishing barriers to protect those things. There will always be people, opportunities, ideas, and distractions coming at you all at once, but by being disciplined and purposeful, you can be open and still stay in control. Knowing what to say yes to and what to turn down can be the difference between success and failure.

9. Super successful people are always challenging themselves.

It’s a wonderful thing when you can find a new way to express a concept — to see with fresh eyes and communicate the things most people overlook. Work every day to find new perspectives on challenging ideas and new ways to convey them that bring others on board.

10. Super successful people know how to embrace their discomfort.

Learn to become comfortable with being uncomfortable. Many people start out with great intentions but are unable to move forward because they fear rejection, failure, or a bruised ego. Find ways to identify and process your fear, leave your comfort zone, and embrace the things that challenge you.

11. Super successful people are exemplary conductors of their lives.

Most successful people are adept at planning, coordination, and collaborating — and they got there by building habits of organizing, arranging, systemizing, and scheduling to make things happen. You can start today to do the same, become a conductor, bring together different elements seamlessly and effectively. This will be the hallmark of your success.

12. Super successful people are consistently working on their impact.

Influence is about being able to cajole, encourage, and incentivize people. It’s not about elevating yourself but lifting up others. Other forms of power are limited by what you can command or control, but working on your impact allows your ideas to expand far beyond your personal limits.

13. Super successful people are always holding themselves to a higher standard.

More than anything else, high standards are a prerequisite for success. You will always have opportunities to cut corners, do things halfway, and show up halfheartedly, but if you hold yourself and others to a higher standard, you’ll be surprised at how much they (and you) can stand out and succeed.

Chris Salamone

Posted in Business, Entrepreneurship, Leadership | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What companies get wrong about motivating their people

Duke University professor and author Dan Ariely. (Photo: Center for Advanced Hindsight, Duke University)

Duke University professor and author Dan Ariely. (Photo: Center for Advanced Hindsight, Duke University)

A few years ago, behavioral economist Dan Ariely conducted a study at a semiconductor factory of Intel’s in Israel. Workers were given either a $30 bonus, a pizza voucher or a complimentary text message from the boss at the end of the first workday of the week as an incentive to meet targets. (A separate control group received nothing.) Pizza, interestingly, was the best motivator on the first day, but over the course of a week the compliment had the best overall effect, even better than the cash. “When I get the money, I’m interested, when I’m not getting the money, I’m not so interested,” Ariely said in a recent interview. “Even relatively small bonuses can reframe to people how they think about work.” 

Ariely describes this study, and others, in his new book, “Payoff: The Hidden Logic that Shapes our Motivation.” Short and readable, it is part of a series of TED Books that go beyond the talks but aren’t as long as a typical book. Ariely’s latest exploration of why we do what we do looks at intrinsic motivation, the importance of a sense of creation and mastery on the job, and even how our own mortality shapes our motivation. Many of its observations focus on how people are paid in today’s companies — and where companies go wrong.

The Post spoke with Ariely, a Duke University professor of psychology and behavioral economics who has also written popular books about dishonesty and what leads to irrational decisions, about everything from CEO pay and cubicles in the workplace to finding meaning in our careers. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

What was your motivation for doing a book about, well, motivation?

Doing research with companies on motivation is unbelievably difficult, time-consuming and rare. The experiment we did with Intel, for me, was so important because as I spend more time with companies, I see that the largest line item is salaries and compensation. It’s a problem that people in companies are not spending enough time on and thinking enough about. And then, as a social scientist I think it is such a general problem to think about: The marvels of human motivation.

One of the things I found most interesting in it was the discussion on meaning and work. Talk about “purpose” has become a big buzzwords in Corporate America today. But meaning at work can be as simple as getting to do work where your projects aren’t killed off or you’re actually creating something and seeing it through. What do corporations get wrong about this?

Often what it means is that the CEO picks a charity that they give money to. That’s often corporate social responsibility. But the reality is that a lot of meaning is about the small struggles in life and managing to overcome them and feeling a sense of progress. It’s not so much about having an overarching goal that is 20 to 30 years ahead. I think in the workplace there’s lots of things that we do that are small steps of making progress. Companies often don’t create this kind of sense of connection and meaning. They destroy it — unintentionally — with rules and regulations.

I wrote a paper earlier this year for the Mayo Clinic Journal. Every year, 400 physicians commit suicide. Of course, this is an extreme example. But take people who are committed to medicine, joined because they want to cure people, and most of their time they have to fill out paperwork. This is not what they signed up for. It’s an extreme example, but an example of how we take people who are committed to their work and we destroy their motivation.

In many companies, in the name of bureaucracy and procedure and streamlining things, we’re basically eliminating people’s ability to use their own judgment. We think about people as cogs. And because of that we eliminate their motivation.

You’re critical of the role cubicles play in demotivating people. What could companies do instead?

Imagine that you wake up next to your significant other every morning, and you look lovingly into their eyes and say “should we do this for another day or stop here?” Imagine that’s the kind of contract you had. How much would you invest in each other? Very little, right?

The same thing is true for employees. There is specific and general human capital. General human capital is when you learn something that could be used everywhere, like Excel. Specific human capital is something you can learn that only works in your company. By getting people to not think about the long term, companies are not getting people to invest in long-term specific human capital.

So what does this have to do with cubicles?

They give people a sense that they’re interchangeable. The cubicle is a mechanism to signal to people that they are replaceable and temporary. If you look at the walls at Zappos, people have cubicles there, but they get to decorate them in such a way that each cubicle has the same amount of decorations as a small house. Yes, it is a cubicle but it feels like it has your whole personality connected to it.

What do you think companies get wrong about monetary incentives, such as bonuses?

There’s lots of reasons to give people bonuses — for accounting purposes, or for tax efficiency, if you give people stock options. But in terms of motivation, again, what we find is what is really important is the connection between the person and the company. Think about the idea of goodwill. In most jobs we’re relying on people’s goodwill and we’re relying on more and more overtime. What gets us goodwill is to feel that we’re a part of a family, a part of an organization that we’re proud of. It’s not thinking about yourself as an individual just trying to maximize your revenue.

You’ve done some research in the past where you actually found that large bonuses can backfire.

People expect that as the bonus increases, people will work harder or perform better. But the reality is that as the bonus increases people choke and they actually don’t work as well. Now, this finding is true for tasks that require creativity, problem solving and cognitive capacity. It doesn’t hold for tasks that require just manual labor. As long as it’s just technical, as long as it’s Charlie Chaplin kind of stuff, then there’s no problem.

With cognitive tasks, we don’t have the same control. If I say think harder, by trying to think harder, part of your brain is occupied by “am I thinking harder?” and you actually think less hard. If you go into surgery, you don’t want your surgeon to think about bonuses, or about statistics. You want your surgeon to be in a state called ‘flow.’ You want her to be completely immersed in her work. Big bonuses distract people.

What’s your take on the accounts scandal at Wells Fargo?

This is just speculation, but what worries me about Wells Fargo is it wasn’t a couple of people who were doing it. It was clearly part of the culture.

I’ll give you an example from a different company that fixes gas leaks. They had a procedure where they asked people to park illegally, as close as possible to the gas leak, and then they had a procedure for how to submit their parking tickets if workers got one. This company also asked employees to wear protective gear when they were fixing the gas leaks, and they were shocked that people were not always wearing the protective gear. But of course they wouldn’t. You just told them speed is more important than the rules with the parking — so why isn’t speed more important than the rules in other things as well? You have to think about they’re told culturally, not just by the CEO.

When it comes to the rank-and-file employees, should we bother paying bonuses?

No. I don’t even think we should pay bonuses to CEOs. There’s lots of reasons to give bonuses. Some are for accounting purposes — a company says ‘Let’s not promise people a fixed amount of money: You’ll get at least x, above that we’ll do revenue sharing.’ I understand that. It depends on how much money we make. But when you have performance-contingent bonuses — and this goes back to the book — to motivate people, what you are assuming can hold people back. Imagine I paid you on a performance-contingent approach. What is my underlying assumption? My underlying assumption is that you know what you need to do but you’re too lazy to do it.

You’re saying they know what to do but they’re not doing it. We first need to ask ourselves whether this is the real issue. Maybe you don’t feel connected to the goal of the company, right? And then the money, yeah, it might push you a bit further, but it’s not solving the problem in a deeper way. Or maybe we would find out that you don’t know how to do things better; that if we invested in your education, we would have gotten [better] performance.

Now, let’s just mention CEOs. How many CEOs are just lazy? Who’d say, if they didn’t have the bonus, that I’m not interested in working? CEOs are deeply involved in their companies. Their egos are tied to it. The second thing they tell you after they say their name, often before they tell you how many kids they have and what hobbies they have is what company they are leading. To think that they’re just working for a bonus is just completely crazy.

So how would you suggest boards redesign pay programs for executives if they wanted to base it on an evidence-based, behavioral economics approach? Should they just pay a fixed salary and no performance-contingent amount?

You want to pay people well, but it’s unclear to me that the bonus is the right way to do it, outside of the accounting thing. I think CEOs should get a good fixed amount — I don’t want the CEO to worry about their own salary. But I don’t want them to be motivated by quarterly or yearly earnings. I think they should think about the long term rather than the short term.

The whole concept of pay-for-performance, I think, is very good for some very very specific jobs and completely irrelevant for most of the jobs that we do. What is it relevant for? Sales is a very tough job. It’s just very depressing. Paying people for every bit of success is one reasonable solution. But how many CEOs do you know who are really saying, ‘you know what? Should I stay home and play with my kids or should I go to work?’ and then the bonus shifts that equation for them. It just doesn’t happen. All the CEOs I know are extremely, extremely motivated by lots of things. The bonuses of course are good for them, but from a shareholders’ perspective, it’s a waste of money.

Chris Salamone

Posted in Business, Entrepreneurship, Leadership | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates says the author of this book ‘could not have predicted how resonant’ it would be in 2016

Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, speaks during a discussion on innovation. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, speaks during a discussion on innovation. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

The books on Bill Gates’ annual end-of-year book list this year are the usual mix of science, business, personal passions — and, as Gates calls them, “books about mundane stuff that are actually fascinating.” The Microsoft co-founder and Gates Foundation co-chair included “The Gene,” Siddhartha Mukherjee’s history of genomics, along with “String Theory,” a collection of essays by David Foster Wallace about tennis, which Gates loves to play. “The Grid,” a book about America’s aging electrical system, gets an honorable mention. And Gates calls “Shoe Dog,” Nike founder Phil Knight’s memoir, “a refreshingly honest reminder of what the path to business success really looks like: messy, precarious, and riddled with mistakes.”

Yet the fifth book in the quintet of recommendations is particularly relevant this year: “The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in the Modern Age.” The author of the 2014 book, Gates wrote in a blog post about his selections, “could not have predicted how resonant his book would become in 2016.” This year’s election prompted Gates to pick up the book, he wrote. The author, Oxford University professor Archie Brown, Gates wrote, “shows that the leaders who make the biggest contributions to history and humanity generally are not the ones we perceive to be ‘strong leaders.’ Instead, they tend to be the ones who collaborate, delegate, and negotiate — and recognize that no one person can or should have all the answers.”

In a longer review of the book, Gates explains Brown’s core argument, a leadership truism many will recognize. “Despite a worldwide fixation on strength as a positive quality, strong leaders — those who concentrate power and decision-making in their own hands — are not necessarily good leaders,” Gates writes.” Instead, Brown’s book posits that those who make the biggest difference “are the ones who collaborate, delegate, and negotiate — the ones who recognize that no one person can or should have all the answers.”

While the book covers the people you’d expect in such a book — Hitler, Stalin, Mao — it’s at its most fascinating, Gates writes, when featuring those who most people with a casual acquaintance with history wouldn’t know, such as Spain’s Adolfo Suárez. “These leaders didn’t insist on their own infallibility or claim exclusive power over policy decisions,” he said. “And yet they pulled off incredible feats of leadership simply by working with others and seeking advice when they needed it.”

Curious to get Brown’s views on the most recent presidential election, The Post reached out to the emeritus professor, who has studied political leadership for more than 50 years. He was hesitant to offer an evaluation of what kind of leader Trump would be, given he has not yet taken office. Yet Brown shared his thoughts about the U.S. presidential campaign — one in which Donald Trump said “I alone can fix it” in a speech at the Republican National Convention, repeatedly criticized Hillary Clinton for her lack of strength or stamina and where his running mate often talked about “broad-shouldered” leadership and called Russian President Vladimir Putin a stronger leader than President Obama.

Below are excerpts of the discussion, which have been edited for space and clarity.

How much have you been talking about your book given that the topic of leadership “strength” was such a theme in this year’s U.S. election?

The only talk I’ve given on the subject of my book was in Doha, Qatar recently. Certainly it came up in discussions there after recent developments in the United States. When I was signing some copies of the book in the main bookshop in Oxford before the American election, an American from Dallas came up to me and looked to see what I was doing. And he said, ‘well, America needs a strong leader and Donald Trump is a strong leader.’ There’s anecdotal evidence and survey evidence that one of the attractions of Donald Trump is that people thought he was a strong leader. I argue that there are lots of other qualities, which are more useful than strength, as defined by someone who’s domineering and maximizes power, and that being a strong leader and being an effective leader are not quite the same thing.

What echoes of your book did you see in this year’s presidential campaign?

I think that certainly the Trump campaign wasn’t characterized by humility. It remains to be seen what kind of team he’ll complete. So far it seems to be a mixture of billionaires and generals — with some exceptions, but they do seem to be somewhat overrepresented. … I think it’s very important there should be diversity of experience within the team. The less the chief executive knows about politics and the outside world, the less political experience that person has, the more the quality and diversity of the experience of the team matters.

Has there ever been a U.S. election where the dichotomy between strong vs. weak leadership was as prominent as it was in this one?  

I don’t think so. I think in Reagan against Carter there was a little of that, but it was all very civilized in comparison with the most recent campaign. Reagan was wanting to make America great again and strong again and implied that Carter had been weak. Though in fact, after the invasion of Afghanistan [in late 1979], the Democratic administration in the United States was already taking quite a hard line against the Soviet Union and building up defenses.

But this campaign — the tone of the campaign — was unlike any in my lifetime. It was so aggressive. It’s one thing to say that you want to defeat your rival. But to say that the rival should be in jail — that was something more reminiscent of a third world country.

You write that “the idea that charisma is a special quality a leader is born with needs to be severely qualified. To a large extent, it is followers who bestow charisma on leaders, when that person seems to embody the qualities they are looking for.” In what ways did you see that play out in our most recent election?

Many people saw Trump as a charismatic leader and then projected their hopes and their existing disappointments. They projected what they wanted to sense onto Trump. It’s rather strange that he was seen as the champion of blue-collar workers when the people he’s appointed [to the Cabinet so far] tend to be people who are very far removed from that milieu. This is a classic example of charisma being bestowed upon somebody.

Charisma really is a value-neutral term. Hitler was charismatic. Mussolini was charismatic. But then on the positive side, Martin Luther King was charismatic. So was Mahatma Gandhi. Everything depends on the values of the person who is deemed to be charismatic. Charisma is not something someone is born with and has all their life. They can lose it. Mussolini at the end was despised by most Italians because he led them into a disastrous war. So charisma can be lost.

Is that easier for people to do — to project those ideas of charisma — onto someone when their policy views are unclear?

I think it is. I think that the more detail on policy someone goes into, the more they may be regarded as technocratic or lacking in charisma. Somebody who paints a bold picture, however remote it may be from reality, is probably more likely to be deemed to have charisma. I think charisma, again, is an overrated virtue.

What would you say is the big takeaway or idea from your book?

That the worship of strength, in the sense of domination and maximization, is the worship of a false god. There are other qualities that are more important in a leader — integrity, intelligence, collegiality, empathy, having a questioning mind — and if we’re very lucky, the person has vision as well. There are many other qualities which are put ahead of strength — and I’m defining strength in the conventional way, as someone who is a maximizer of their power and wants to dominate all and sundry.

There’s a place in your book where you quote Harry Truman talking about Dwight Eisenhower. He suggested that Eisenhower, a general, would be sitting at his desk saying ‘Do this! Do that! And nothing will happen. Poor Ike — it won’t be a bit like the Army.’ Trump is used to being in charge of his business empire. How hard is it for someone accustomed to that kind of hierarchy to make the adjustment?

The military is a very hierarchical organization. So would Trump’s companies be hierarchical — there’s no question about who had the last word there. … That’s one reason why I would hesitate to say what kind of president he’s going to be. When he’s faced with the fact that he can’t simply issue a set of instructions and it’ll automatically happen — because it’s a very complex political system and there are still checks and balances — how he reacts to that will be very important.

Why do you think people are so drawn to this dichotomy between strong versus weak leaders?

It’s hard to say. There’s something rather primitive about it. Going back to a time when there were clans and people looking to the chief, the person who was the ruler was also usually the strongest person or the greatest military person in the group.

CHRIS SALAMONE 

Posted in Business, Entrepreneurship, Leadership | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Donald Trump’s Meeting With Tech Leaders Will Focus On U.S. Jobs

President-elect Donald Trump (Photo: Richard Drew/ AP)

President-elect Donald Trump (Photo: Richard Drew/ AP)

President-elect Donald Trump’s meeting with tech industry leaders on Wednesday is expected to focus heavily on the creation of jobs in the United States, an issue that Trump highlighted repeatedly during the campaign. The conversation, which is set for 2:00 p.m. in New York’s Trump Tower, will last at least an hour and will be attended by top executives from the nation’s largest companies, including Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Oracle and Microsoft.

Trump, who will be joined by chief of staff Reince Preibus, son-in-law Jared Kushner and key transition team member Peter Thiel, will talk about “bringing jobs to America” as well as using technology to streamline government, according to people close to the situation. It is unclear how long the President-elect will be part of the meeting, though one person said he should stay for the majority of the time.

The meeting will also touch on the issue of using technology to improve government, according to the people close to the situation. Given the limited timeframe and Trump’s focus on jobs, it’s unclear whether tech’s leaders will be given the opportunity to discuss other important topics concerning their companies, ranging from net neutrality to data encryption. Wednesday’s agenda has not yet been set, and currently does not include specific issues such as work visas and immigration.

Silicon Valley will hold its collective breath Wednesday afternoon as its leaders ascend a Manhattan skyscraper with golden elevators to meet a man that many in tech had openly opposed during his campaign. Aside from venture capitalist and Facebook board member Thiel, no other influential technology leader voiced their support of Trump prior to the election, leaving the industry and its interests exposed following his victory. One person close to the campaign noted that the meeting was Trump’s way of “asserting dominance” over an industry that had been so cold to his candidacy.

A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.

While Trump has yet to be inaugurated, he’s made the protection of American jobs–or at least the impression that he is maintaining jobs–a key component of his post-election efforts. Last month, Trump met with leaders of Indianapolis-based Carrier Corporation, an air conditioner manufacturer, and claimed that he had prevented the loss of 1,000 jobs to Mexico by working out a deal with the company. More recently, Trump claimed in a tweet that he had reached an agreement for Japanese telecom giant Softbank to invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 jobs. Trump was widely criticized for overstating his role in both developments.

The focus on jobs may not immediately concern companies such as Facebook and Google, which rely primarily on high-skilled workers, but will apply more directly to Apple and Amazon, who use hourly contractors to assemble devices or help in the shipping and packing of goods. In November, Trump called Apple CEO Tim Cook and said he discussed the construction of a manufacturing plant in the U.S.

Donald Trump’s meeting with tech industry leaders on Wednesday is expected to focus heavily on the creation of jobs in the United States, an issue that the President-elect highlighted repeatedly during the campaign. The conversation, which is set for 2:00 p.m. in New York’s Trump Tower, will last at least an hour and will be attended by top executives from some of the nation’s largest companies, including Apple, Amazon.com, Facebook, Google, Oracle and Microsoft.

Trump, who will be joined by chief of staff Reince Priebus, son-in-law Jared Kushner and key transition team member Peter Thiel, will talk about “bringing jobs to America” as well as using technology to streamline government according to people close to the situation. It is unclear how long the President-elect will be part of the meeting, though one person said he should stay for the majority of the time.

The meeting will also touch on the issue of using technology to improve government, according to sources. Given the limited timeframe and Trump’s focus on jobs, it is unclear whether tech’s leaders will be given the opportunity to discuss other important topics concerning their companies, ranging from net neutrality to data encryption. Wednesday’s agenda has not yet been set, and currently does not include specific issues such as work visas and immigration.

Silicon Valley will hold its collective breath Wednesday afternoon as its leaders ascend a Manhattan skyscraper with golden elevators to meet a man that many in tech had openly opposed during his campaign. Aside from venture capitalist and Facebook board member Thiel, no other influential technology leader voiced their support of Trump prior to the election, leaving the industry and its interests exposed following his victory. One person close to the campaign said that the meeting was Trump’s way of “asserting dominance” over an industry that had been so cold to his candidacy.

A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.

While Trump has yet to be inaugurated, he has made the protection of American jobs–or at least the impression that he is saving them–a key component of his post-election efforts. Last month, Trump met with leaders of Indianapolis-based Carrier Corporation, an air conditioner manufacturer, and claimed that he had prevented the loss of 1,000 jobs to Mexico by working out a deal with the company. More recently, Trump claimed in a tweet that he had reached an agreement for Japanese telecom giant Softbank to invest $50 billion in the U.S. and create 50,000 jobs. Trump was widely criticized for overstating his role in both developments.

The focus on jobs may not immediately concern companies such as Facebook and Google, which rely primarily on high-skilled workers, but will apply more directly to Apple and Amazon, who use hourly contractors to assemble devices or help in the shipping and packing of goods. In November, Trump called Apple CEO Tim Cook and said he discussed the construction of a manufacturing plant in the U.S.

“I said, ‘Tim, you know one of the things that will be a real achievement for me is when I get Apple to build a big plant in the United States, or many big plants in the United States, where instead of going to China, and going to Vietnam… you’re making your product right here,’” Trump said in an interview with The New York Times. Trump later said in that interview that he would create “tax incentives” and remove regulations to make that possible.

Cook will reportedly attend Wednesday’s meeting, along with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Alphabet CEO Larry Pageand Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Others expected to appear are Oracle CEO Safra Catz, Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich and Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, according to a report from Recode.

Those familiar with the meeting also said that Trump will broach the idea of eliminating wasteful spending by employing technology to make government more efficient. This is a favorite topic of discussion for Thiel, one of the President-elect’s most trusted technology advisors, who has routinely criticized what he sees as government dysfunction.

“Our government used to get things done. The Manhattan Project coordinated the work of more than 130,000 people in over a dozen states,” he wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post. “It was difficult, unprecedented–and successful… Today our government finds it hard just to make a website.”

Chris Salamone

 

Posted in Business, Entrepreneurship, Leadership | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Randi Zuckerberg’s New Rules of Tech and How Championing Female Entrepreneurs Brings Us Together

Randi Zuckerberg shares what she learned last week. (Photo by Delbarr Moradi Photography)

Randi Zuckerberg shares what she learned last week. (Photo by Delbarr Moradi Photography)

When Randi Zuckerberg told me that she didn’t think women should hold out for that one life long mentor to fix their careers, I knew she was speaking my language. Mentorship is everywhere. It can exist in many shapes, forms and sizes, especially now, when we are learning something new every day no matter how old we are. With that shared perspective, I knew I wanted to know what Zuckerberg learned last week.

As the author of Dot Complicated, a New York Times best-seller exploring how technology is changing our lives, and Dot., a picture book that teaches children how to both plug in and unplug creatively, people often ask Zuckerberg how to manage their children’s relationships with tech. But it was her own children that made her rethink her rules of engagement. She talked to me about digital-life balance, her new book Missy President and how the election has changed the conversations both men and women are having about women in the workplace and power.

 Christina Vuleta: Is there anything in your recent past that made you rethink an assumption or change the way you approach your life?

Randi Zuckerberg: Having children has made me rethink almost everything about my life on a daily basis. As they get older, they notice more. They ask more questions. My 5-year-old is hypersensitive about the phone being out when he is around. Older children are definitely aware when you’re multi-tasking.

It dawned on me that I am the person that my children are learning the rules of tech from. When you’re running your own business, it’s easy to let work blend into all parts of your life. We’re working 24/7. But it is only recently because of my children that I had to re-evaluate the need to unplug and the need to actually create some tech balance.

Vuleta: In the past week, has there been a situation where you started to do something on tech and said, “Wait. No, I’m not going to do this right now?” Any “I stopped in my tracks” moment?

Zuckerberg: Absolutely. I try not check my phone for the first 20 to 30 minutes of the morning. It’s difficult, because it’s on my bed. It’s my alarm clock. It’s so tempting to grab that phone and immediately go into emails and messages. But if that’s the first thing I do: a) It delays me getting out of bed and greeting my children in the morning, and b) It puts me in a funk. It immediately gets me into the weeds and nitty-gritty of things instead of starting off my day fresh, and positive.

That’s a behavior that I’m working to change. There is a study that shows that you’re happier if you don’t check your email for at least 20 minutes in the morning.

Vuleta: Given the election and potential shifts in the economic backdrop, have you noticed new conversations about women in the workplace?

Zuckerberg's new book Missy President about a woman president.

Zuckerberg’s new book Missy President about a woman president.

Zuckerberg: A lot. First of all, I’m sitting here looking at a pile of about 400 books. I recently came out with my next children’s book,Missy President. The book was supposed to launch alongside the first female president. That was the plan.

I woke up the morning after election day and looked at this giant pile of books and felt this soul-crushing feeling. “What now?”

On the business side, I think we need a book like Missy Presidentmore than ever. If we don’t have a world where little girls can see a woman in the White House in real life, then I’m going to create that world, so that girls can see themselves in that position.

On the personal side, several men in my life contacted me to say, “Sorry for the last decade of your career.” I think it finally dawned on men what so many women have been up against.

It summed up every moment where I got overlooked for promotion even though I was four times as qualified. Every time that one of my female-founded portfolio companies didn’t get funding, but a guy doing the same idea with subpar thinking raised $40 million of venture capital.

It summed up everything in one moment in a way that men could relate to. I think in some ways it validated our struggles on a more national level. I hope that it will open up a bit more empathy.

Vuleta: Is there anything coming out of those conversations that makes you think, “This would be a better way to ask for a promotion or pitch for venture capital?” Do you have any tangible advice to make sure that doesn’t happen again?

Zuckerberg: I think if there is one thing we can all learn from this election, it’s the importance of fact checking and research and data. I’m in favor of going into a discussion about a raise, a negotiation or raising capital armed with data and numbers and statistics, whether you’re a man or a woman. Don’t go into those talks in an emotional way. What you need to be doing is showing data that can’t be argued with a mindset of “I deserve this” or “I worked hard for this.”

I also think, for the first time, it’s easier and more appropriate to just say, “Hey, guys. I don’t know if you anticipate that your behaviors are causing me to feel this way, but they are.”  I truly believe were in a climate right now where people will be more receptive with that feedback.

 Vuleta: Is there anything you are optimistic about right now when it comes to helping women move forward?

Zuckerberg: Right before the election, I moderated a panel of both Hillary [Clinton] and [Donald] Trump supporters. I thought, “Is there anything we can all agree on? Anything at all?” The one thing everyone agreed on is the need to support female entrepreneurs more.

I think as a society, we can align on championing female entrepreneurs more. That’s exciting for me to hear. The more money that’s flowing to female-owned businesses and female CEOs, the more power we have politically, the more power that we have in policy discussions and politicians. It’s a really important step.

Chris Salamone

Posted in Business, Entrepreneurship, Leadership | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Community Notes: Packers reward local literacy efforts

Packers award local literacy efforts

1

The Green Bay Packers Foundation earlier this month gave a $2,500 grant to the Family Resource Center of Sheboygan County’s Literacy Council.

Literacy Council volunteer tutors teach adults basic literacy, math and computer skills, and help teach English language skills to people looking to pick up the language. They also help basic literacy learners with GED preparation and job readiness needs.

Snowmobile association: Most trails still closed

The Association of Wisconsin Snowmobile Clubs is reminding riders most of the state’s snowmobile trails aren’t open yet, even though a recent snowfall has covered portions of the state.

Before trails can open, the group says, ground underneath the snow needs to be frozen — something a warm fall season has kept from happening so far.

The group is also telling riders to stay off lakes until they’re covered by a thick-enough layer of ice to carry a snowmobile. “Snowmobilers should never ride on any lakes or rivers without checking with the locals about whether the ice is safe,” the group says.

Most snowmobile trails in the state are on private property, and riding on them when they’re not open, or riding off the marked trail, is trespassing.

To find out which trails are open contact a local club or visit the state association’s website at http://www.awsc.org and click on “WI Trails.”

Katsma wins ‘Working’ award

A state business trade association has given a local state Assemblyman its “Working for Wisconsin” award.

State Rep. Terry Katsma, R-Oostburg, earned the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce award for business-friendly legislation he helped push in the 2015-16 legislative session.

Area sites join historic places register

A Sheboygan school and a Plymouth cheese company are on the state Register of Historic Places.

Washington School

The Wisconsin Historical Society put Washington Elementary School in Sheboygan on the list of historically significant places Dec. 2.

The school was built in 1912 and “is an excellent example of the Classical Revival style,” the historical society says. The building remained a school until it was closed in 2013.

S & R Cheese Company

The state historical group also put the S & R Cheese Company on the state register on Dec. 2, citing the company’s important influence on the state’s cheese-making industry.

The company, under the leadership of the local Sartori family leadership, was responsible in the 1940s to 1960s “for significant contributions to the manufacture of Italian style cheeses, exporting cheese products, founding cheese industry organizations, and making technical cheese advancements,” the historical society says.

The company is still headed by the Sartori family enterprise, now run by Jim Sartori and under the name Sartori Foods.

To learn more about the State and National Register programs in Wisconsin, visit wisconsinhistory.org.

UAW donates to ‘Shop with a Cop’ program

Local union officials gave a $2,000 check recently to help support local law enforcement’s “Shop with a Cop” initiative.

Officials from UAW Local 833 gave the check to Cory Roeseler, patrol captain for the Sheboygan County Sheriff’s Office. The “Shop with a Cop” program pairs kids with law enforcement volunteers, who then shop together.

For details about the program contact Roeseler at (920) 459-3112.

Y-Koda plans holiday events

A Sheboygan Falls-area YMCA camp is planning a few wintry events this month.

Camp Y-Koda plans to host a Santa Claus-attended pancake brunch from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Dec. 18. It’s geared for kids ages 4 to 10 and will also include holiday craft-making, sledding and other winter activities.

The camp will hold winter sledding, snowshoeing, fort-building and other winter games during its “Winter Break Camp” Dec. 26-30. The camp is for kids ages 4 to 12, who can sign up for one or more days of activity from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m..

And Camp Y-Koda staff plan to work half-day programs Dec. 27-29 at Sheboygan’s Maywood nature center. The programs run 8 a.m. to noon those days and include hikes, nature programs and games, arts and crafts and more. It’s open to kids ages 5 to 10, who can sign up for one day, two or all three days.

Pre-registration is required for the events. For details visit ww.campykoda.org or call (920) 467-6882, or stop at the Sheboygan or Sheboygan Falls YMCA to complete a registration form.

Hospital plans ‘Love Lights’ fundraiser

A St. Nicholas Hospital fundraising group says it’s looking for people to participate in its annual Christmas “Love Lights” program.

The fundraiser lets people buy a light for a Christmas tree inside the hospital’s lobby to honor deceased loved ones. The fundraiser is coordinated by Partners of HSHS St. Nicholas Hospital, a volunteer group that raises money for the Sheboygan hospital.

Money raised in this year’s Love Lights program will support St. Nicholas’ emergency department services.

CHRISSALAMONE

 

Posted in Business, Entrepreneurship, Leadership | Tagged , , | Leave a comment