Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Researchers to explore how AI can help urban mobility planners They are to investigate AI-driven policy tools’ potential to create greener cities Project to benefit from expertise of five European universities. A European group of researchers led by Aston University is taking the first steps to explore how AI can help urban mobility planners. As city populations grow causing strain on resources, the experts are to investigate AI-driven policy tools’ potential to create greener cities. The team have received £10,000 in funding from the British Academy which they hope will set them on the road to further research. Taking part in the project will be experts from University College London, Ruralis University in Norway, the University of Turin, Italy and Lisbon University Institute, Portugal. Dr Dalila Ribaudo from the Centre for Business Prosperity at Aston Business School and Dr Alina Patelli from the Aston Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research and Application will co-lead a UK-EU consortium consolidation project. The interdisciplinary project will benefit from expertise in applied business and specialist insight into global economics, policymaking and urban transport planning. Dr Patelli said “Policymakers and society could all benefit from our research into innovative ways of managing the strain on urban infrastructures and resources. "The AI-powered policy tools we are developing are meant to support decision managers at all levels of urban governance with reducing emissions, optimising transportation as well as predicting and preventing environmental hazards. Such changes would improve the quality of life for the millions of people living in towns and cities across the UK, Europe and, in the long term, the entire world.” Following the successful bid for the British Academy pump priming grant the team will apply for Horizon Europe funding to continue developing impactful AI-driven policy tools for greener cities.
Hiring More Nurses Generates Revenue for Hospitals
Underfunding is driving an acute shortage of trained nurses in hospitals and care facilities in the United States. It is the worst such shortage in more than four decades. One estimate from the American Hospital Association puts the deficit north of one million. Meanwhile, a recent survey by recruitment specialist AMN Healthcare suggests that 900,000 more nurses will drop out of the workforce by 2027. American nurses are quitting in droves, thanks to low pay and burnout as understaffing increases individual workload. This is bad news for patient outcomes. Nurses are estimated to have eight times more routine contact with patients than physicians. They shoulder the bulk of all responsibility in terms of diagnostic data collection, treatment plans, and clinical reporting. As a result, understaffing is linked to a slew of serious problems, among them increased wait times for patients in care, post-operative infections, readmission rates, and patient mortality—all of which are on the rise across the U.S. Tackling this crisis is challenging because of how nursing services are reimbursed. Most hospitals operate a payment system where services are paid for separately. Physician services are billed as separate line items, making them a revenue generator for the hospitals that employ them. But under Medicare, nursing services are charged as part of a fixed room and board fee, meaning that hospitals charge the same fee regardless of how many nurses are employed in the patient’s care. In this model, nurses end up on the other side of hospitals’ balance sheets: a labor expense rather than a source of income. For beleaguered administrators looking to sustain quality of care while minimizing costs (and maximizing profits), hiring and retaining nursing staff has arguably become something of a zero-sum game in the U.S. The Hidden Costs of Nurse Understaffing But might the balance sheet in fact be skewed in some way? Could there be potential financial losses attached to nurse understaffing that administrators should factor into their hiring and remuneration decisions? Research by Goizueta Professors Diwas KC and Donald Lee, as well as recent Goizueta PhD graduates Hao Ding 24PhD (Auburn University) and Sokol Tushe 23PhD (Muma College of Business), would suggest there are. Their new peer-reviewed publication* finds that increasing a single nurse’s workload by just one patient creates a 17% service slowdown for all other patients under that nurse’s care. Looking at the data another way, having one additional nurse on duty during the busiest shift (typically between 7am and 7pm) speeds up emergency department work and frees up capacity to treat more patients such that hospitals could be looking at a major increase in revenue. The researchers calculate that this productivity gain could equate to a net increase of $470,000 per 10,000 patient visits—and savings to the tune of $160,000 in lost earnings for the same number of patients as wait times are reduced. “A lot of the debate around nursing in the U.S. has focused on the loss of quality in care, which is hugely important,” says Diwas KC. But looking at the crisis through a productivity lens means we’re also able to understand the very real economic value that nurses bring too: the revenue increases that come with capacity gains. Diwas KC, Goizueta Foundation Term Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management “Our findings challenge the predominant thinking around nursing as a cost,” adds Lee. “What we see is that investing in nursing staff more than pays for itself in downstream financial benefits for hospitals. It is effectively a win-win-win for patients, nurses, and healthcare providers.” Nurse Load: the Biggest Impact on Productivity To get to these findings, the researchers analyzed a high-resolution dataset on patient flow through a large U.S. teaching hospital. They looked at the real-time workloads of physicians and nurses working in the emergency department between April 2018 and March 2019, factoring in variables such as patient demographics and severity of complaint or illness. Tracking patients from admission to triage and on to treatment, the researchers were able to tease out the impact that the number of nurses and physicians on duty had on patient throughput. Using a novel machine learning technique developed at Goizueta by Lee, they were able to identify the effect of increasing or reducing the workforce. The contrast between physicians and nursing staff is stark, says Tushe. “When you have fewer nurses on duty, capacity and patient throughput drops by an order of magnitude—far, far more than when reducing the number of doctors. Our results show that for every additional patient the nurse is responsible for, service speed falls by 17%. That compares to just 1.4% if you add one patient to the workload of an attending physician. In other words, nurses’ impact on productivity in the emergency department is more than eight times greater.” Boosting Revenue Through Reduced Wait Times Adding an additional nurse to the workforce, on the other hand, increases capacity appreciably. And as more patients are treated faster, hospitals can expect a concomitant uptick in revenue, says KC. “It’s well documented that cutting down wait time equates to more patients treated and more income. Previous research shows that reducing service time by 15 minutes per 30,000 patient visits translates to $1.4 million in extra revenue for a hospital.” In our study, we calculate that staffing one additional nurse in the 7am to 7pm emergency department shift reduces wait time by 23 minutes, so hospitals could be looking at an increase of $2.33 million per year. Diwas KC This far eclipses the costs associated with hiring one additional nurse, says Lee. “According to 2022 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average nursing salary in the U.S. is $83,000. Fringe benefits account for an additional 50% of the base salary. The total cost of adding one nurse during the 7am to 7pm shift is $310,000 (for 2.5 full-time employees). When you do the math, it is clear. The net hospital gain is $2 million for the hospital in our study. Or $470,000 per 10,000 patient visits.” Incontrovertible Benefits to Hiring More Nurses These findings should provide compelling food for thought both to healthcare administrators and U.S. policymakers. For too long, the latter have fixated on the upstream costs, without exploring the downstream benefits of nursing services, say the researchers. Their study, the first to quantify the economic value of nurses in the U.S., asks “better questions,” argues Tushe; exploiting newly available data and analytics to reveal incontrovertible financial benefits that attach to hiring—and compensating—more nurses in American hospitals. We know that a lot of nurses are leaving the profession not just because of cuts and burnout, but also because of lower pay. We would say to administrators struggling to hire talented nurses to review current wage offers, because our analysis suggests that the economic surplus from hiring more nurses could be readily applied to retention pay rises also. Sokol Tushe 23PhD, Muma College of Business The Case for Mandated Ratios For state-level decision makers, Lee has additional words of advice. “In 2004, California mandated minimum nurse-to-patient ratios in hospitals. Since then, six more states have added some form of minimum ratio requirement. The evidence is that this has been beneficial to patient outcomes and nurse job satisfaction. Our research now adds an economic dimension to the list of benefits as well. Ipso facto, policymakers ought to consider wider adoption of minimum nurse-to-patient ratios.” However, decision makers go about tackling the shortage of nurses in the U.S., they should go about it fast and soon, says KC. “This is a healthcare crisis that is only set to become more acute in the near future. As our demographics shift and our population starts again out, demand for quality will increase. So too must the supply of care capacity. But what we are seeing is the nursing staffing situation in the U.S. moving in the opposite direction. All of this is manifesting in the emergency department. That’s where wait times are getting longer, mistakes are being made, and overworked nurses are quitting. It is creating a vicious cycle that needs to be broken.” Diwas Diwas KC is a professor of information systems & operations management and Donald Lee is an associate professor of information systems & operations management. Both experts are available to speak about this important topic - simply click on either icon now to arrange an interview today.
#Expert Research: The Use of AI in Financial Reporting
Artificial intelligence (AI) is developing into an amazing tool to help humans across multiple fields, including medicine and research, and much of that work is happening at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Financial reporting and auditing are both areas where AI can have a significant impact as companies and audit firms are rapidly adopting the use of such technology. But are financial managers willing to rely on the results of AI-generated information? In the context of audit adjustments, it depends on whether their company uses AI as well. Willing to Rely on AI? Cassandra Estep, assistant professor of accounting at Goizueta Business School, and her co-authors have a forthcoming study looking at financial managers’ perceptions of the use of AI, both within their companies and by their auditors. Research had already been done on how financial auditors react to using AI for evaluating complex financial reporting. That got Estep and her co-authors thinking there’s more to the story. “A big, important part of the financial reporting and auditing process is the managers within the companies being audited. We were interested in thinking about how they react to the use of AI by their auditors,” Estep says. “But then we also started thinking about what companies are investing in AI as well. That joint influence of the use of AI, both within the companies and by the auditors that are auditing the financials of those companies, is where it all started.” The Methodology Estep and her co-authors conducted a survey and experiment with senior-level financial managers with titles like CEO, CFO, or Controller – the people responsible for making financial reporting decisions within companies. The survey included questions to understand how companies are using AI. It also included open-ended questions designed to identify key themes about financial managers’ perceptions of AI use by their companies and their auditors. In the experiment, participants completed a hypothetical case in which they were asked about their willingness to record a downward adjustment to the fair value of a patent proposed by their auditors. The scenarios varied across randomly assigned conditions as to whether the auditor did or not did not use AI in coming up with the proposed valuation and adjustment, and whether their company did or did not use AI in generating their estimated value of the patent. When both the auditor and the company used AI, participants were willing to record a larger adjustment amount, i.e., decrease the value of the patent more. The authors find that these results are driven by increased perceptions of accuracy. It’s not necessarily a comfort thing, but a signal from the company that this is an acceptable way to do things, and it actually caused them to perceive the auditors’ information as more accurate and of higher quality. Cassandra Estep, assistant professor of accounting “Essentially, they viewed the auditors’ recommendation for adjusting the numbers to be more accurate and of higher quality, and so they were more willing to accept the audit adjustment,” Estep says. Making Financial Reporting More Efficient Financial reporting is a critical process in any business. Companies and investors need timely and accurate information to make important decisions. With the added element of AI, financial reporting processes can include more external data. We touched on the idea that these tools can hopefully process a lot more information and data. For example, we’ve seen auditors and managers talk about using outside information. Cassandra Estep “Auditors might be able to use customer reviews and feedback as one of the inputs to deciding how much warranty expense the company should be estimating. And is that amount reasonable? The idea is that if customers are complaining, there could be some problem with the products.” Adding data to analytical processes, when done by humans alone, adds a significant amount of time to the calculations. Research from the European Spreadsheets Risks Interest Group says that more than 90% of all financial spreadsheets contain at least one error. Some forms of AI can process hundreds of thousands of calculations overnight, typically with fewer errors. In short, it can be more efficient. Efficiency was brought up a lot in our survey, the idea that things could be done faster with AI. Cassandra Estep “We also asked the managers about their perspective on the audit side, and they did hope that audit fees would go down, because auditors would be able to do things more quickly and efficiently as well,” Estep says. “But the flip side of that is that using AI could also raise more questions and more issues that have to be investigated. There’s also the potential for more work.” The Fear of Being Replaced The fear of being replaced is a more or less universal worry for anyone whose industry is beginning to adopt the use of AI in some form. While the respondents in Estep’s survey looked forward to more efficient and effective handling of complex financial reporting by AI, they also emphasized the need to keep the human element involved in any decisions made using AI. What we were slightly surprised about was the positive reactions that the managers had in our survey. While some thought the use of AI was inevitable, there’s this idea that it can make things better. Cassandra Estep “But there’s still a little bit of trepidation,” Estep says. “One of the key themes that came up was yes, we need to use these tools. We should take advantage of them to improve the quality and the efficiency with which we do things. But we also need to keep that human element. At the end of the day, humans need to be responsible. Humans need to be making the decisions.” A Positive Outlook The benefits of AI were clear to the survey participants. They recognized it as a positive trend, whether or not it was currently used in their financial reporting. If they weren’t regularly using AI, they expected to be using it soon. I think one of the most interesting things to us about this paper is this idea that AI can be embraced. Companies and auditors are still somewhat in their infancy of figuring out how to use it, but big investments are being made. Cassandra Estep “And then, again, there’s the fact that our experiment also shows a situation where managers were willing to accept the auditors’ proposed adjustments. This arguably goes against their incentives as management to keep the numbers more positive or optimistic,” Estep continues. “The auditors are serving that role of helping managers provide more reliable financial information, and that can be viewed as a positive outcome.” “There’s still some hesitation. We’re still figuring out these tools. We see examples all the time of where AI has messed up, or put together false information. But I think the positive sentiment across our survey participants, and then also the results of our experiment, reinforce the idea that AI can be a good thing and that it can be embraced. Even in a setting like financial reporting and auditing, where there can be fear of job replacement, the focus on the human-technology interaction can hopefully lead to improved situations.” Cassandra Estep, is an assistant professor of accounting at Goizueta Business School, and a co-author of the forthcoming study looking at financial managers’ perceptions of the use of AI. She's available to speak about this important topic - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
When an invitation to sit on the Georgia Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers arrived in an informal email from a colleague, Michael Toma, Ph.D., welcomed the chance to share his ongoing research on the economic health of southeastern Georgia with Gov. Brian Kemp, the Georgia House of Representatives and Senate leadership and their constituents. However, when he joined a small group of colleagues from around the state in a legislative office near the capitol in Atlanta late last year, the opportunity felt far from casual. “It does seem like it’s an honor because I looked around the table and there were only 10 or so of us from the entire state of Georgia,” said Toma, the Fuller E. Callaway professor of economics in Georgia Southern University’s Parker College of Business. “It’s nice to be invited to join this council informing the executive and legislative branches of government about economic conditions in the state of Georgia. I know the southeastern part of the state, so it’s nice to be recognized and be invited to speak about this region to a state-level audience.” The Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers is a select group of mostly higher education economists from various University System of Georgia institutions, in addition to the chief economist from Georgia Power, who meet annually. Toma, who specializes in macroeconomics and regional economics, is well known for his expertise throughout Savannah and the surrounding region. Since 2000, he has written and distributed The Economic Monitor, a quarterly publication housed within Georgia Southern’s Economics Department and Center for Business Analytics and Economic Research. The economic analysis offers a snapshot of the Savannah Metropolitan Statistical Area economy, including Bryan, Chatham and Effingham counties, and informs business owners across the Coastal Empire. He also regularly speaks to chambers of commerce and business groups in the region. In the governor’s council meeting, which was televised to state legislators, the economists took turns speaking about their respective areas of expertise to Gov. Kemp as part of an educational process and annual update for the executive and legislative branches. “The academics from the different institutions discussed economic conditions in their regions of the state,” Toma said. “I highlighted the activity here in Savannah, the growing manufacturing base and the wages associated with the Hyundai plant being injected into the regional economy, and the build-out of the supply chain for the Hyundai plant. “I discussed manufacturing development in the context of broader economic growth within the region that’s layered on top of our normal growth pattern, and that the economic development initiative is starting to pay the dividends it was anticipated to pay.” Following each individual presentation, the governor held an open forum for all in attendance to speak more fluidly with the group. “He had questions for the panel in general about small business activity,” stated Toma. “So I was able to characterize the ecosystem for small businesses in Chatham County. “He said that was a great report.” Toma holds a Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University. He joined Georgia Southern on the Armstrong Campus in Savannah in 1997. If you're interested in learning more about this topic and want to book time to talk or interview with Michael Toma then let us help - simply click on his icon now or contact Georgia Southern's Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
Video Insights: How Senior Management Teams Can Respond to Tariffs
Companies around the world are facing increasing uncertainty brought on by the unpredictable and rapid shifts in tariff policies. As a result, corporate leaders are seeking ways to adapt and respond to the sudden and unprecedented changes in the international trade landscape. In this video, Brian Gleason, John Peiserich, James E. Malackowski, and Livia Paggi – experts in turnaround, supply chain, intellectual property, and political risk – discuss key strategies for senior management teams to address evolving tariff policies, including: • Updating business forecasts and understanding company liquidity • How companies can optimize their intellectual property (IP) value and mitigate risk • How to approach the unique risks associated with planning and permitting for capital projects • How to manage geopolitical volatility from shifting tariffs in the dealmaking process To view more of our Tariffs and Trade Series expert analysis and commentary, visit: Looking to know more or connect with John Peiserich, Livia Paggi and James E. Malackowski? Simply click on either expert's icon now to arrange an interview today. If you are looking to connect with Brian Gleason - contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com
Expert Perspective: Mitigating Bias in AI: Sharing the Burden of Bias When it Counts Most
Whether getting directions from Google Maps, personalized job recommendations from LinkedIn, or nudges from a bank for new products based on our data-rich profiles, we have grown accustomed to having artificial intelligence (AI) systems in our lives. But are AI systems fair? The answer to this question, in short—not completely. Further complicating the matter is the fact that today’s AI systems are far from transparent. Think about it: The uncomfortable truth is that generative AI tools like ChatGPT—based on sophisticated architectures such as deep learning or large language models—are fed vast amounts of training data which then interact in unpredictable ways. And while the principles of how these methods operate are well-understood (at least by those who created them), ChatGPT’s decisions are likened to an airplane’s black box: They are not easy to penetrate. So, how can we determine if “black box AI” is fair? Some dedicated data scientists are working around the clock to tackle this big issue. One of those data scientists is Gareth James, who also serves as the Dean of Goizueta Business School as his day job. In a recent paper titled “A Burden Shared is a Burden Halved: A Fairness-Adjusted Approach to Classification” Dean James—along with coauthors Bradley Rava, Wenguang Sun, and Xin Tong—have proposed a new framework to help ensure AI decision-making is as fair as possible in high-stakes decisions where certain individuals—for example, racial minority groups and other protected groups—may be more prone to AI bias, even without our realizing it. In other words, their new approach to fairness makes adjustments that work out better when some are getting the short shrift of AI. Gareth James became the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School in July 2022. Renowned for his visionary leadership, statistical mastery, and commitment to the future of business education, James brings vast and versatile experience to the role. His collaborative nature and data-driven scholarship offer fresh energy and focus aimed at furthering Goizueta’s mission: to prepare principled leaders to have a positive influence on business and society. Unpacking Bias in High-Stakes Scenarios Dean James and his coauthors set their sights on high-stakes decisions in their work. What counts as high stakes? Examples include hospitals’ medical diagnoses, banks’ credit-worthiness assessments, and state justice systems’ bail and sentencing decisions. On the one hand, these areas are ripe for AI-interventions, with ample data available. On the other hand, biased decision-making here has the potential to negatively impact a person’s life in a significant way. In the case of justice systems, in the United States, there’s a data-driven, decision-support tool known as COMPAS (which stands for Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) in active use. The idea behind COMPAS is to crunch available data (including age, sex, and criminal history) to help determine a criminal-court defendant’s likelihood of committing a crime as they await trial. Supporters of COMPAS note that statistical predictions are helping courts make better decisions about bail than humans did on their own. At the same time, detractors have argued that COMPAS is better at predicting recidivism for some racial groups than for others. And since we can’t control which group we belong to, that bias needs to be corrected. It’s high time for guardrails. A Step Toward Fairer AI Decisions Enter Dean James and colleagues’ algorithm. Designed to make the outputs of AI decisions fairer, even without having to know the AI model’s inner workings, they call it “fairness-adjusted selective inference” (FASI). It works to flag specific decisions that would be better handled by a human being in order to avoid systemic bias. That is to say, if the AI cannot yield an acceptably clear (1/0 or binary) answer, a human review is recommended. To test the results for their “fairness-adjusted selective inference,” the researchers turn to both simulated and real data. For the real data, the COMPAS dataset enabled a look at predicted and actual recidivism rates for two minority groups, as seen in the chart below. In the figures above, the researchers set an “acceptable level of mistakes” – seen as the dotted line – at 0.25 (25%). They then compared “minority group 1” and “minority group 2” results before and after applying their FASI framework. Especially if you were born into “minority group 2,” which graph seems fairer to you? Professional ethicists will note there is a slight dip to overall accuracy, as seen in the green “all groups” category. And yet the treatment between the two groups is fairer. That is why the researchers titled their paper “a burden shared is a burdened halved.” Practical Applications for the Greater Social Good “To be honest, I was surprised by how well our framework worked without sacrificing much overall accuracy,” Dean James notes. By selecting cases where human beings should review a criminal history – or credit history or medical charts – AI discrimination that would have significant quality-of-life consequences can be reduced. Reducing protected groups’ burden of bias is also a matter of following the laws. For example, in the financial industry, the United States’ Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) makes it “illegal for a company to use a biased algorithm that results in credit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because a person receives public assistance,” as the Federal Trade Commission explains on its website. If AI-powered programs fail to correct for AI bias, the company utilizing it can run into trouble with the law. In these cases, human reviews are well worth the extra effort for all stakeholders. The paper grew from Dean James’ ongoing work as a data scientist when time allows. “Many of us data scientists are worried about bias in AI and we’re trying to improve the output,” he notes. And as new versions of ChatGPT continue to roll out, “new guardrails are being added – some better than others.” “I’m optimistic about AI,” Dean James says. “And one thing that makes me optimistic is the fact that AI will learn and learn – there’s no going back. In education, we think a lot about formal training and lifelong learning. But then that learning journey has to end,” Dean James notes. “With AI, it never ends.” Gareth James is the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School. If you're looking to connect with him - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Most companies around the world have a leader, whether that title is a President, CEO, or Founder. There’s almost always someone at the very top of a corporate food chain, and from that position down, the company is structured hierarchically, with multiple levels of leadership supervising other employees. It’s a structure with which most people in the working world are familiar, and it dates back as long as one can remember. The word itself—leader—dates back to as far as the 12th Century and is derived from the Old English word “laedere,” or one who leads. But in 2001, a group of software engineers developed the Agile Workflow Methodology, a project development process that puts a priority on egalitarian teamwork and individual independence in searching for solutions. A number of businesses are trying to embrace a flatter internal structure, like the agile workflow. But is it necessarily the best way to develop business processes? That’s the question posed by researchers, including Goizueta Business School’s Özgecan Koçak, associate professor of organization and management, and fellow researchers Daniel A. Levinthal and Phanish Puranam in their recently published paper on organizational hierarchies. “Realistically, we don’t see a lot of non-hierarchical organizations,” says Koçak. “But there is actually a big push to have less hierarchy in organizations.” Part of it is due to the demotivating effects of working in authoritarian workplaces. People don’t necessarily like to have a boss. We place value in being more egalitarian, more participatory. Özgecan Koçak, Associate Professor of Organization & Management “So there is some push to try and design organizations with flatter hierarchies. That is specifically so in the context of knowledge-based work, and especially in the context of discovery and search.” Decoding Organizational Dynamics While the idea of an egalitarian workplace is attractive to many people, Koçak and her colleagues wanted to know if, or when, hierarchies were actually beneficial to the health of organizations. They developed a computational agent-based model, or simulation, to explore the relationships between structures of influence and organizational adaptation. The groups in the simulation mimicked real business team structures and consisted of two types of teams. In the first type, one agent had influence over the beliefs of rest of the team. For the second type, no one individual had any influence over the beliefs of the team. The hierarchical team vs. the flat structured team. “When you do simulations, you want to make sure that your findings are robust to those kinds of things like the scale of the group, or the how fast the agents are learning and so forth,” says Koçak. What’s innovative about this particular simulation is that all the agents are learning from their environment. They are learning through trial and error. They are trying out different alternatives and finding out their value. Özgecan Koçak Koçak is very clear that the hierarchies in the simulation are not exactly like hierarchies in a business organization. Every agent was purposefully made to be the same without any difference in wisdom or knowledge. “It’s really nothing like the kinds of hierarchies you would see in organizations where there is somebody who has a corner office, or somebody who is has a management title, or somebody’s making more than the others. In the simulation, it’s nothing to do with those distributional aspects or control, and nobody has the ability to control what others do in (the simulation). All control comes through influence of beliefs.” Speed vs. Optimal Solutions What they found in the simulation was that while both teams solved the same problems presented to them, they achieved different results at different speeds. We find that hierarchical teams don’t necessarily find the best solution, but they find the good enough solution in the shorter term. So if you are looking at the really long term, crowds do better. The crowds where individuals are all learning separately, they find the best solution in the long run, even though they are not learning from each other. Özgecan Koçak Özgecan Koçak (pronounced as ohz-gay-john ko-chuck) is associate professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She holds a Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. For example, teams of scientists looking for cures or innovative treatments for diseases work best with a flat structure. Each individual works on their own timeline, with their own search methodologies. The team only comes together for status updates or to discuss their projects without necessarily getting influence or direction from colleagues. The long-term success of the result is more important in some cases than the speed at which they arrive to their conclusion. That won’t work for an organization that answers to a board of directors or shareholders. Such parties want to see rapid results that will quickly impact the bottom line of the company. This is why the agile methodology is not beneficial to large-scale corporations. Koçak says, “When you try to think about an entire organization, not just teams, it gets more complicated. If you have many people in an organization, you can’t have everybody just be on the same team. And then you have to worry about how to coordinate the efforts of multiple teams. That’s the big question for scaling up agile. We know that the agile methodology works pretty well at the team level. However, when firms try to scale it up applied to the entire organization, then you have more coordination problems. Özgecan Koçak “You need some way to coordinate the efforts with multiple teams.” The Catch: Compensation Makes a Difference The simulation did not take into account one of the biggest parts of a corporate hierarchical structure—incentives and reward. The teams in the simulation received no monetary compensation for their leadership or influence. That is not something that happens in real life. Koçak says, “If you built up an organization with just influence, you just say we’re not going to have any authority, and we’re not going to give anybody the right to control anybody else’s actions. If we’re not going to be rewarding anyone more than the other, there’s not going to be any marks of status, etc. We’re just going to have some people influence others more. I would guess that would automatically lead to a prestige hierarchy right away. The person with more influence, you would start respecting more.” It’s almost like we’re incapable of working in a flat society, because somebody always wants to be or naturally becomes a leader and an influencer whether they planned on it or not. Özgecan Koçak The paper concludes that both methodologies, with either hierarchical and flat organization of teams, reach their goals. They just arrive at different times with different end results. If an organization has the luxury of time and money, a flat, agile methodology organization might be the right structure for that company. However, even agile workflow needs some coordination, according to Koçak. “There are also some search tasks that require coordination. You can’t always be searching on your own independently of others. There are some situations in which search needs to be done in a coordinated fashion by more than one person in teams. That’s because many of the knowledge-based settings where we do discovery require some division of labor, some specialization by expertise.” Communication is Key The key to any successful workflow, whether it be agile or hierarchical, is coordination and communication. Looking back to the example of scientific researchers, Koçak said, “You have scientific teams working independently of one another without a common boss dictating what they do research on or how they do it. Instead, they explore and experiment on their own. They write up their results, share their results, and learn from each other, because they are in the long-term game. The goal is to find the truth, however long it takes. “But when you look closely at a scientific team where everybody’s exploring, there is still some need for coordination. A lot of that happens through communication, and a lot of times projects will have a lead. Not necessarily somebody who knows better than the others, but somebody who’s going to help with coordination.” The leaner, flatter organizational structures in businesses might be gaining popularity. This simulation done by Koçak and colleagues, however, shows that it isn’t a perfect fit for every company, Further, some form of hierarchical workflow is necessary to maintain communication and coordination. Hierarchical structures don’t always find the best solution to a problem, but it’s almost always a good solution in a timelier fashion. Looking to know more? Özgecan Koçak is associate professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She is available to speak with media about this topic - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Retro Appeal: Research Reveals the Reasons Behind Vintage Shopping in Turbulent Times
Why buy vintage? Reasons abound. It’s kinder to the environment. It’s usually cheaper. It’s back in style. But did you know it may also address a deep-seated psychological need for stability amid upheavals? Vintage consumption—that is, buying previously owned items from an earlier era—acts as a means to connect the past, present, and future. That connection across time can be reassuring, most especially in times of uncertainty. When you really want to buy a leather jacket that’s older than you are, it may be enlightening to consider the circumstances. This vintage insight reveals itself in research by Ryan Hamilton, associate professor of marketing at Goizueta Business School. In an award-winning article titled “Stitching time: Vintage consumption connects the past, present, and future,” Hamilton—along with coauthors Gulen Sarial-Abi, Kathleen Vohs, and Aulona Ulqinaku—uncovered why we may want to turn to something old when we perceive threats to our worldviews. Notably, multiple studies have shown thoughts of death to increase the appeal of items that have already stood the test of time. The Psychological Appeal of Thrifting In psychology, “meaning frameworks” are how we, as human beings, interpret and understand our lives as meaningful and valuable. Threats to our meaning frameworks—i.e., the pillars propping up our worldviews—can include thoughts of death, unsettling economic upheavals, and other existential challenges. In order to explore the effects of meaning threats on our preference for vintage, Hamilton and coauthors designed several studies. Their pilot test measured the physical health of nursing home residents. It then measured their preferences for vintage items, controlling for other variables. The results held up the researchers’ hypothesis: Vintage items—be they books, watches, bicycles, or luggage—were more strongly preferred over their modern versions by elderly participants in poorer health, presumably those most likely to have mortality on their minds. Six subsequent studies used different variables to see if the main hypothesis continued to hold up. It did, while at the same time revealing more information about the mechanisms at work. Ryan Hamilton Associate Professor of Marketing Death or Dental Pain In one study, for example, researchers prompted participants with death reminders. They had to contemplate and write about their own deaths to make sure mortality was top of mind. Researchers prompted a control group with reminders of dental pain. Both groups then answered a 12-question survey about their desire for structure (e.g., set routines and practices) at that particular moment. But there was another element in this study: contemplating wearing a watch from the 1950s. As predicted by the main hypothesis, death cues were associated with participants reporting that they desired more structure. The only exceptions was for those who imagined an old watch ticking on their wrists. Vintage consumption seemed to act as a buffer against unsettling thoughts of death for them. What is going on here? As noted above, the researchers theorize and show that vintage objects tend to connect our thoughts of the past, present, and future. These mental, intertemporal connections tend to be reassuring—“a hidden factor” in our preferences and choices, as Hamilton notes. More than Nostalgia One might think nostalgia—a sentimental longing for the past—could also be at work. Feeling nostalgic for one’s own past and social connections can buffer against meaning threats, as previous research has shown. But this paper was designed to tease out nostalgia. It focused on vintage’s connections across time regardless of one’s personal experiences. “This study allowed us to clearly show that people respond differently to something they believe to be old,” as Hamilton explains. “It’s not just something that has a retro look, which was one of my favorite aspects of this project.” Hamilton and his coauthors achieved this by having participants evaluate identical items thought to be genuinely vintage or replicas. And the results were robust. Retro replicas, which can prompt nostalgia, did not have the same psychological impact as items believed to be genuinely old. For instance, 20-year-olds who find a watch from the 1950s reassuring can’t feel nostalgic about the design personally. They can, however, feel a connection across time—and that came through in the study. Retail Therapy on the Rise? Hamilton’s research here follows his broader interest in consumer psychology, branding, and decision-making. “When we’re buying things, we may think it’s based on strict utility maximization. However, it also might be making us feel better in some way,” says Hamilton. Shopping can serve as an emotional management strategy—for better or for worse. Although it was outside the scope of this particular investigation (and all participants were over age 18), the insights gleaned here may help explain why 21st-century teenagers seem to be particularly avid “thrifters” these days. “I don’t want to overstate our findings. But it’s at least possible that the appeal of vintage for teenagers is boltstered by a sense of permanence and endurance that helps them during times of upheaval,” Hamilton says. It turns out a 30-year-old leather jacket might help its new owner feel better on many levels. So is it any wonder that vintage shopping is surging in uncertain times? Fashion magazines, such as Vogue and GQ, are following the vintage craze closely in 2024. Concern for climate change and the Earth’s finite resources may present two intertwined reasons to buy old things: those two things are environmental and psychological. If tumultuous times continue amid contentious elections, wars, and other threats, it seems safe to bet on vintage. Ryan Hamilton is associate professor of Marketing at Emory University - Goizueta Business School. If you're a journalist looking to know about this topic, simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Historical Significance of the Papal Name
In the wake of the historic election of Pope Leo XIV, the first American to ascend to the papacy, scholars and observers alike are reflecting on the global, historical and theological implications of his early statements and symbolic choices. His decision to take the name Leo – a name not used for over a century – immediately evokes comparisons to both Leo XIII and Leo I (Leo the Great), popes known for their firm leadership and dynamic engagement with the world. Baylor University’s Elisabeth Rain Kincaid, J.D., Ph.D., director of the Institute for Faith and Learning and an expert on early modern theology and Catholic Social Thought, said choosing the name Leo is significant, especially in today’s world. Through his choice of name, rhetorical style and theological references, the new pope is signaling a clear vision for a Church that is simultaneously grounded in tradition and open to global dialogue, Kincaid said. Kincaid is currently at work on a monograph – “Business Ethics for a Flourishing Life: Catholic Social Thought in the Modern Workplace” – in which she argues for the continued importance of Leo XIII’s thought for modern life. If you're covering the news about Pope Leo XIV and are looking to know why Cardinal Robert Prevost chose that name - we can help. Elisabeth Rain Kincaid is an author, speaker, teacher, and theologian. She has published broadly in peer-reviewed journals and popular publications. She is a frequent speaker at conferences, churches, and professional events on topics including business ethics, virtue and character, Christian engagement with law and politics, and work and vocation. She is currently the Director for the Institute for Faith and Learning at Baylor University. In her teaching, she draws upon her years of experience as a white-collar criminal defense attorney and a private equity professional, along with her ministry experience. Elisabeth is available to speak with media about this topic - simply contact Shelby Cefaratti-Bertin, M.A., Assistant Director of Media and Public Relations at Baylor University, Shelby_Cefaratti@baylor.edu or 254-327-8012 to arrange an interview today.
Retirement: For Better, For Worse, and for Much More Time Together
Retirement is supposed to be your golden reward—freedom from alarm clocks, endless Zoom meetings, and performance reviews. But no one warned you about the relationship performance review that arises when you and your partner suddenly find yourselves spending over 100 hours a week together. For some, it’s bliss; for others, it feels like a full-time job without an HR department. While grey divorce (divorce after age 50) is on the rise in Canada, separation isn’t inevitable. However, marital harmony is also not guaranteed. The truth lies somewhere in between—and that’s where things become interesting. Retirement isn't merely a lifestyle change—it’s a complete identity shake-up, which can create stress even in the strongest relationships. Grey Divorce: An Increasing Trend Though Canada’s overall divorce rate reached a 50-year low in 2020, divorce among people over 50 is increasing—this trend is dubbed grey divorce. According to Statistics Canada, this demographic is increasingly re-evaluating their relationships as they retire (CBC News, 2024). The same pattern is unfolding south of the border, with the AARP reporting a steady rise in senior divorces in the U.S. Grey divorce isn’t just emotionally taxing—it can be financially devastating. Women, in particular, bear the brunt. A study by the National Center for Family & Marriage Research found that divorced women over 50 have 45% less wealth than their married peers. In Canada, the Canadian Institute of Actuaries has warned that divorce later in life can significantly erode retirement savings and delay or derail financial plans. Role Confusion One retired executive shared that after decades of being chauffeured to work, he assumed retirement meant his wife would now be his driver. “I thought she’d just take over that role, as he climbed into the back seat,” he said, genuinely confused. She had other plans that did not involve sitting behind a wheel, taking coffee orders, or navigating roundabouts. He had not yet made the emotional or physical shift from being served to becoming equal. That transition is more complicated than it sounds—and more common than you'd think. When one partner’s identity is career-driven and the other manages the home, retirement necessitates a complete recalibration. Power dynamics shift, control issues surface, and resentment simmers if left unacknowledged. Housework ≠ Heartwork If you're home full-time now, guess what? You’re not a guest anymore. The dishes, the vacuuming, the grocery runs—these are now shared responsibilities. Nothing breeds resentment faster than an unequal workload. Retirement doesn’t mean “relax”; rather, it signifies redistributing the work of life. Unspoken truths will find their voice. Let’s face it—decades of unexpressed frustrations don’t remain buried. They begin to comment on how someone folds laundry, stacks the dishwasher, or leaves the cap off the toothpaste. Retirement magnifies everything: the quirks you used to laugh off? Mansplaining! What habits did you ignore because life was busy? Now they’re front and center. And what bad habits did you have before? They don’t improve with age—they get worse. Emotional and Mental Health Insights Relationship difficulties can trigger anxiety, depression, and loneliness, especially among men who may have smaller support networks outside their marriages. A 2020 study in the Journal of Gerontology found that post-divorce social isolation is closely linked to declining physical and mental health in later life. Not all couples want to—or need to—divorce to find peace. Increasingly, older Canadians are exploring “Living Apart Together” (LAT) arrangements, where partners maintain separate residences while remaining in a committed relationship. Research by the Vanier Institute and AARP suggests that LAT relationships allow for autonomy while maintaining emotional connection—a potential middle ground for couples who struggle with full-time togetherness in retirement. For many, retirement means the loss of structure, identity, and purpose, particularly for those who have closely tied their sense of self to their professional roles. This loss can create irritability, aimlessness, and tension in a partnership. As Harvard Business Review put it, retirement can be especially tough for men because “so many men are bad at retirement” (HBR, 2021). This emotional void often spills over into the relationship, testing its resilience. Retirement often brings a sudden reshuffling of roles at home. Many men who may have spent decades focused on their careers struggle to adjust to a more balanced domestic lifestyle. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives notes that retirement can expose long-standing gendered inequalities in household labour, leading to friction, resentment, and, at times, relationship breakdown. How to Thrive—Together or Apart The goal isn’t perfection; it’s peace, fulfillment, and ample personal space to breathe. Here’s how to get there: creatively, practically, and honestly. 1. Have the Real Conversations Ask the questions you avoided when life was too busy: • “Are we happy?” • “What do you want out of the next ten years?” • “Are there things we’ve never talked about that matter now?” Unspoken expectations are relationship landmines. Bring them to light—gently and often. 2. Separate Bedrooms, United Front Don’t frown; they are more common than you might think and less scandalous than it sounds. Separate sleep equals better rest, less irritation, and sometimes a more intentional intimate life. Please don’t consider it a breakup; position it as a better mattress strategy. 3. The Basement Suite or In-Law Apartment Plan This represents the sweet spot between staying together and going entirely separate. Living in the same house with clearly defined zones provides each partner with breathing room and independence, especially when you’ve grown apart but don’t want to disrupt finances or family. Ground rules are essential: • Who is responsible for what costs? • Shared meals or separate? • New partners—yay or nay? It’s not perfect, but it can be practical. 4. A Second Space: Cottage, Trailer, or Tiny Cabin A humble trailer or rustic cabin might save your marriage. It’s not about luxury—it’s about space, autonomy, and silence when needed. Whether alternating weekends or solo sabbaticals, having a backup place to go can restore harmony at home. 5. Travel Separately (Sometimes) One of you wants to hike Machu Picchu, while the other prefers to nap in Muskoka. You don’t have to compromise; you can take turns. Alternate between solo trips, friend getaways, or short solo retreats. You’ll both return refreshed—and more engaged. 6. Discover New Purpose (or Income) A restless, lost, or bored partner can quietly sabotage the household. Encourage: • Volunteering • Consulting or part-time work • Mentoring • Taking courses or teaching others • Rediscovering old passions If Divorce Is the Best Option At times, the most honest act is to end a marriage with kindness. If this is the only option, there are important factors to consider: Financial Reality Check • Assets will be divided, including the house, pensions, RRSPs, etc. • Expenses double: two homes, two insurance policies, and two fridges to stock. • Retirement income may not be sufficient for both lives. • Legal costs and timing matter more than ever now—because the time to recover financially is limited. There are no pensions in tears. Therefore, if you choose this route, plan ahead. Family Impact • Adult children might feel shocked—or even angry. • Grandchildren can pose challenging questions. • Long-term friendships may weaken. • Shared traditions may require reinvention. This process can be amicable. A new term has emerged among women caring for their ill or aging ex-husbands: “Wasbands.” These women step up with empathy rather than obligation. Vows no longer bind them; instead, they are guided by compassion. Honestly, humanity wins in these situations. There is still love, respect, and history—even if it’s no longer romantic. That is not failure; it is growth. Rewrite the Rules Retirement is not a dead end; it’s a creative reawakening—if you approach it that way. Retirement is a significant life transition—not just financially, but relationally. Like any other chapter in life, it requires renegotiation, mutual respect, and a willingness to evolve. Some couples find deeper intimacy, while others redefine their relationships entirely. The good news? Whether it's under one roof or two, retirement can still be a time of connection, discovery, and, yes, romance. But it also requires some good, old-fashioned adulting. Yes, *adulting*—that modern word we usually reserve for paying bills, booking dental appointments, and reading the fine print. It turns out it’s equally essential in retirement. Emotional maturity, communication, boundary-setting, and a shared approach to evolving roles are all keys. Think of it like the Sonnet Insurance commercials that cheekily remind us adulting is hard but worth it. Retirement is also a factor, especially when approached with intention and a sense of humour. This is your last chapter. Make it a good one. Whether you stay together, sleep apart, live separately under one roof, or consciously uncouple, do it with clarity, kindness, and courage. The goal isn’t a perfect love story; it’s a fulfilling life for both of you. When in doubt, take a walk (alone if necessary). Share a joke. Communicate like adults. And for the love of long-term care insurance, remember: resentment compounds faster than interest. If you enjoyed this article or thought, “Oh wow, this is exactly what my friend/parent/relative needs to read,” please share it. You can also subscribe to the Retirement Literacy newsletter for more smart, candid, and occasionally cheeky insights on navigating life after full-time work. Let’s make retirement not just the end of work, but the start of something meaningful, fulfilling, and a little fabulous. Don’t Retire…Rewire! p.s. Know someone who’s about to retire?— Why not share this worksheet? It’s the best pre-retirement checklist they never knew they needed. 6 Questions to Ask Before Retiring Together Retirement reshapes your schedule, your identity—and your relationship. Before you hand in your keycard, ask these candid questions with your partner. Because the toughest part of retirement isn’t money—it’s time. And you’ll be spending a lot more of it together. 1. What Do You Want This Chapter of Life to Look Like? Dreams misaligned can lead to daily friction. Do you crave adventure while your partner seeks peace and quiet? Map it out—together. 2. How Much Time Do We Really Want to Spend Together? “Always together” sounds sweet—until it feels stifling. Define your ideal balance between shared time and personal space. 3. What Roles Are We Playing Now—And Do They Need to Change? Retirement often means rebalancing housework, caregiving, and emotional labor. What’s fair now that you’re both at home? 4. Are There Any Long-Standing Frustrations We’ve Avoided Talking About? Retirement shines a spotlight on old resentments. It's better to talk than to silently stew over how the dishwasher is loaded. 5. How Will We Handle Money Decisions as a Team? With changing income and more shared expenses, financial transparency and joint planning are more crucial than ever. 6. What Will Give Each of Us a Sense of Purpose—Individually? A restless or bored partner can bring tension into the home. Talk about passions, volunteer work, or part-time pursuits that bring meaning. Want more smart, candid insights? Visit www.retirementliteracy.com to start rewriting your next chapter with clarity and confidence.
