Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Businesses must have a strategy for a messy tomorrow

John Kim is a Senior Lecturer in Organization & Management at the Goizueta Business School at Emory University. He is a management consultant with more than 20 years of experience working with executives to make difficult decisions and implement sustainable change. Recently, John published a piece that details a ‘Strategy for a messy tomorrow’ where he outlines how businesses must have a strategy development and implementation for an unpredictable business world. The piece is attached and a must read, especially in these turbulent and unpredictable economic times. In the article, he focuses on three key points: 1.Beware of False Choices “One thing we try to teach here at the business school is to be careful of false choices. Business is incredibly dynamic. Every industry is now a technology business, and the corporate playbook that evolved to protect profits is quite outdated.” Kim notes that Thomas Friedman poetically described this new normal in his 2005 book The World is Flat, and over the last 15 years, competition has only accelerated because of the explosion of two resources: cheap money and data. Kim notes that it’s a great environment to start or fund a business because interest rates have been low for the last 10+ years. There are dozens of new entrants in all industries, and all parts of the value chain, who are often well-funded, flexible, and are not weighed down by legacy business models and assets. The big winners are the customers who have increasing choice, lower prices, and great value capture. 2.The Challenging Environment From his corporate experience, Kim sees two significant challenges to strategy implementation. First, senior leaders turn over quickly. “It’s hard to have consistency of vision and leadership and implementation when there is such a movement in the C-suite with someone moving in and someone moving out every 5–6 months. So, it’s not a surprise that a lot of strategies either don’t follow through or there are too many cooks in the kitchen, and strategy gets a little bit muddled as a result.” Secondly, when the strategy does eventually make it to the ground-floor and needs to be executed, things have often moved on, and the market responses are rarely the ones you expect. Riffing on Peter Drucker’s famous quote on uncertainty, Kim explains to his students that, “Instead of trying to think of something brilliant to do tomorrow, why don’t you think of something very actionable today that prepares us for what we know will be a totally messy, crazy, unpredictable tomorrow.” 3.A Business Executive’s Response The business executive’s job is to not only set the direction, build a climate of trust, and create the energy for change—but also to be willing to test the assumptions and constraints around a given problem. Increasingly the answers will lie outside of a given industry, and thus require leaders to be broader in their horizon-scanning and more open to alternative paths forward. If you are interested in learning more about why business do indeed need a a strategy for a messy tomorrow – the let us help. John Kim is available to speak regarding this topic – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Is this the biggest election since 1860? Let our expert explain why

The upcoming U.S. presidential election is happening in unprecedented times and during what could be the most divisive era in more than a century and a half. This week, one of the University of Connecticut’s historical experts, Manisha Sinha, was featured by CNN to explain her point that America is indeed facing its biggest election in 160 years. “The 2020 presidential election is certainly as consequential as that of 1860. It is, as Biden is fond of saying, a battle for the 'soul of America.' The fate of the American republic once again hangs in the balance. Like the slaveholders of the 1850s, Trump, his followers and enablers are in a position to pose an existential threat to American democracy. Like many slaveholders, Trump refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses. "If history appears first as tragedy, then as farce, the counterparts of southern secessionists and proslavery theorists today are QAnon conspiracy theorists, neo Confederates, and the right-wing Boogaloo boys. Much of the contemporary Republican Party that refuses to repudiate Trump is like those southern Whites who may not have had a direct stake in slavery but went with their states, who ultimately chose slavery before the republic. The choice -- as the Republicans of the Lincoln Project, who have broken with their party, put it -- is between America and Trump.” Dr. Sinha’s full op-ed is available on CNN.com and is a must-read for anyone looking to put this year’s election into historical context. And, if you are a journalist looking to cover this topic, let our experts help with your coverage. Manisha Sinha is the Draper Chair in American History at the University of Connecticut and the author of "The Slave's Cause: A History of Abolition." She is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

Playing dirty in 2020 – but does negative advertising actually work in elections?

2020 has been a historic year – on so many fronts. And as the summer of an election year approaches – soon we will be inundated with speeches, policies, promise and advertisements for what might be the most hotly contested and divisive election on record. Political advertising comes in many forms. Social media will be the new battle ground but hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent between now and November in traditional areas like television, radio and print. As we all know, no one ‘wants’ to go negative. In fact, most campaigns make (and soon break) their first promise to run a clean and positive campaign. But usually, the inevitable happens and the ads go negative. Now that the June primaries are in the books except for the June 23 runoffs, the countdown to November’s election is underway. You’ll gradually see more and more political advertising. On the state and national levels, most of the pitches to date have been building up a particular candidate. Negativity has not been at the level of elections in the past. Look for that to change. It was true then and it will be true now. Writing ahead of the 2018 midterm election, a reporter for InsideSources.com, Andrew Solender, cited a study shedding light on why negative advertising is so prevalent in elections. Michael Lewis and David A. Schweidel of Emory University and Yanwen Wang of the University of British Columbia initially planned to look at using social media as a tool for predicting election results. But as social media rapidly became commonplace in elections, they shifted their focus to the impact and efficacy of negative advertising, a staple of elections. “For forever, voters have expressed disgust with the level of negative advertising,” Lewis said, “but we see a lot of it. So, [the question was] does it actually work?” According to the data their study produced, it does. But under certain conditions. Looking at correlations between the volume of negative ads and the vote shares achieved by U.S. Senate candidates in 2010 and 2012, the researchers found that “while positive political advertising does not affect two-party vote share, negative political advertising has a significant positive effect on two-party vote shares.” However, they also found that the source of the ads makes a difference in the ads’ efficacy, noting “negative advertising sponsored by PACs is significantly less effective than that sponsored by the candidate or party in affecting two-party vote shares.”  June 18 - The Times and Democrat The road to the White House, and just about every other elected office up for grabs this November will be under heavy scrutiny and lots of coverage. If you’re a journalist covering this topic – then let our experts help. Professor Michael Lewis is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Professor Lewis is an expert in political marketing and is available to speak to media – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.

October is Disability Awareness Month - contact a UMW expert if you are covering

One in four Americans lives with a disability, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At the University of Mary Washington, it’s one in eight. “With those sorts of numbers, it’s mind-boggling [that] disability doesn’t have more automatic inclusion when people think about diversity,” said UMW Professor of English Chris Foss. As the Americans with Disabilities Act’s 30th year and October’s Disability Awareness Month shine a light on one of the country’s most underrepresented groups, so does a new UMW course. Offered for the first time this fall, Intro to Disability Studies (IDS) delves into the 21st-century experience of a diverse population, exploring cognitive, sensory, mobility and other differences as just as essential to the human condition as gender and race. The 16-week course fans out across disciplines, examining disability throughout the lifespan in historical, political, social and other contexts. Years in the making, the class is team-taught by faculty and staff – from art history, education, English, historic preservation, psychology and the Office of Disability Resources (ODR) – who’ve poured their time and passion into the topic in hopes it gains traction. “It took a lot of meetings, discussion and work on Google Docs to pull this together,” said Professor of Art History Julia DeLancey, who borrows from her first-year seminar, “The Beauty Difference Gives Us,” to deliver an IDS session on how disabilities affect artists’ work. If you are a journalist looking to cover Disability Awareness Month and the Americans with Disabilities Act’s 30th year, then let the experts from the University of Mary Washington help with your story. Dr. Julia DeLancey and Dr. Chris Foss are available to speak with media about this important topic – simply click on either icon to arrange an interview today.

When to hold the party line and when to flee a sinking ship – let our experts explain how down-the-ballot voting is playing part in this year’s election

With America less than two weeks away from one of its most unique and divisive elections in the country’s history – and as the polls tighten and the outcome seems to be coming a little more clear from the fog of a long campaign, some might be getting a little worried. The November 3rd outcome is far from determined, especially if anyone wants to think back four years when President Trump was a candidate that was expected to be routed by Hillary Clinton. But as Joe Biden’s campaign is showing strength in traditional Republican strongholds, the idea of voting down the ballot and the ripple effects of voter change has representatives from both the Senate and House of Representatives concerned. If the presidency is to be lost, holding power and keeping a strong presence in both houses is still a priority. Getting re-elected and staying employed is also an important factor for members of Congress and sitting Senators. The following few days may be a crucial time for a lot of candidates seeking election in traditional ‘red’ states to start thinking for themselves and even distancing their platforms and profiles away from the campaign for the White House. It’s not as easy as it may seem. And that’s where a political expert can assist when examining a few of the important angles: What consequences and risks are there for candidates who abandon the party line? Where is it happening now and who is most vulnerable? Is down-the-ballot voting really an issue or just more of a myth made up for media covering an already long election? If you are a journalist looking to cover this election trend or any other topic leading up to Election Day – then let our experts help. Dr. Rosalyn Cooperman, associate professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington and member of Gender Watch 2018, is an expert on women in politics. She is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.

With debating done – what left in the last week of the 2020 presidential election campaign?

The road to the White House and the long and winding road of the 2020 presidential election campaign is finally coming to an end. With three debates schedules – one raucous, one canceled and the final one well moderated and with bad behavior reigned in by muted microphones, all that is left is getting out the vote and the final push to sway undecideds. This year, and the election race that took place during it, was like no other – and though voters and the American people can now see the light at the end of the tunnel, there’s still a lot to watch for as November 3rd approaches. And that’s where our experts can help if you are covering. The University of Mary Washington has one of the foremost political experts in the country who can help with your stories. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is a sought-after political commentator on presidential politics. He has been widely featured in national media, including The Washington Post, Reuters, The Chicago Tribune, and MSNBC. Stephen is available to speak with media any time regarding the election – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.

Cheap Energy Can Be a Bridging Fuel Needed to Get to the Endpoint of Renewable Energy Sooner

Far from banning fracking, the Biden/Harris ticket appears to be allowing it if not tacitly supporting it. This is not a contradictory stance to their aggressive renewable energy policy, according to Scott Jackson, a visiting professor of chemical and biological engineering at Villanova University's College of Engineering, who previously directed the microbial enhanced oil recovery program at DuPont Corporation. "Rather, it is recognition that cheap energy—especially natural gas produced as a result of fracking—can be a bridging fuel needed to get to the end point of renewable energy sooner," Jackson says. No one can dispute that the share of our energy coming from less efficient/more polluting coal has dropped dramatically despite the current administration’s attempts at supporting the coal industry. The reason is obvious—cleaner burning energy (less CO2 emissions) from gas fired turbine generators make more economic sense. Gas fired turbine generators are economical at a smaller scale and provides an energy source that can be rapidly turned on or off at any time. This helps to counterbalance the intermittency of renewable energy and, in some sense; this has allowed greater adoption of renewable energy. The cheapest energy source on the planet is land based wind power. The market has responded to this and now renewables make up 19 percent of our electricity. This percentage was thought to be impossible just a few years ago. Wind power energy payback time (time needed to recoup the energy invested) is measured in months and not years, and investors understand this. A much greater share of renewables (wind and solar) is very doable and makes economic sense. Jackson notes that development of cheap energy storage technology will help and must be implemented once economies of scale are achieved, however, a national power grid capable of moving energy from the wind- and sun-rich Midwest to the West Coast and East Coast will improve the reliability of renewables to the point where as much as 70% of our electricity can be sourced renewably—without new storage capacity (2018 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Improvements in battery technologies and economy of scale are starting to drive down the costs of electric transportation and storage. Eventually, natural gas sourced power generation will not be competitive to renewables," notes Jackson. "Despite the current low price of gasoline, in part as a result of fracking used in oil fields, electric cars are far more economical to operate. Companies like BP, Exxon-Mobile and Shell recognize that they are energy companies and are pivoting to more renewable sources of energy. "Ultimately, our government has a responsibility to invest in the technologies of the future that make economic sense—as renewables do—and not support the more costly and outdated fossil fuel industry," says Jackson.

Covering CRISPR, gene editing – and what it might mean for generations to come? Our experts can help

The two scientists who took the concept of gene editing to the forefront were recently rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in Chemistry. The efforts of scientists Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna and the development of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats have taken a vaguely titled idea named CRISPR into the modern conversation. Since then, this process has transcended itself into medicine, agriculture and a host of other scientific applications being used around the world today. There is a lot to know about CRISPR: How does it work, what are the risks and what are the potential rewards that have yet to be discovered? There is also a lot of concern about how gene editing could transform life and future life as we know it. If you are a journalist looking to know more about CRISPR, Augusta University has the expert you need for your questions and coverage. Dr. Paul Langridge is an acclaimed scientist specializing in morphogenesis, CRISPR, signal transduction, and cell and molecular biology. He is an expert when it comes to the topics of gene editing and has used the same technologies that the Nobel winners also used in their research. Langridge is available to speak with any reporters looking to cover this topic; simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.

More than just money – what corporate America needs to do to motivate today’s workforce

In a modern workplace no longer characterized by rigid hierarchies and where power is more diffused, traditional methods of motivation may no longer be enough. We have come to understand the value of providing people with ‘intrinsic motivation’ – a sense of purpose, the importance of creative, interesting work, and maintaining work-life balance. We have naturally moved away from a sole dependence on monetary incentives. However, in a New York Times opinion piece, management author Alfie Kohn asserts that “science has confirmed” that monetary rewards amount to “bribes” that don’t work. Somehow this doesn’t ring true. Has science really confirmed this? Would businesses continue to incentivize performance with monetary rewards if they did not work? And aren’t we all, at least to some extent, motivated by money? To understand if Kohn is right, or if there is a more nuanced answer, Karen Sedatole, Professor of Accounting at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School says we need to look at patterns of human behavior. The classical economic theory, which gave us ‘homo economicus,’ assumes people always behave in a rational way and, as with Gordon Gekko in the ‘Wall Street’ movies, selfishness predominates. Findings from psychology and particularly behavioral economics have started to show this to be incorrect. In fact, people tend to make illogical choices contrary to self-interest. Our capacity to think – via a mix of deep reflective thinking and rapid automatic thinking – can lead us to what economists might consider to be irrational behaviors – albeit with the cognitive biases behind our thinking staying mostly predictable. Do monetary incentives work? We all value money, but our perception of its value is influenced by the importance that we also place on reciprocity and fairness, social norms, trust, and trustworthiness. When it comes to monetary rewards for performance the results will also greatly depend on the quality of the performance measures, along with the type of task being rewarded, and the type of reward. Contrary to Kohn’s assertion, Sedatole points out there are many real-world examples that show monetary incentives can deliver big performance and productivity improvements. In fact, if uncontrolled, bonus incentives can be too powerful a motivator, causing damage – as the UK’s PPI and the Wells Fargo mis-selling scandals both firmly attest. There is also strong academic evidence that monetary rewards can have a positive effect, and equally strong evidence that, when over-used, they can elicit bad behavior. Based on relevant academic research in this area, Sedatole identifies four core principles for the use of monetary incentives: Payment for performance can certainly lead to people making a greater effort than when they are rewarded by salary alone, but only if these core principles are followed: 1. Performance targets – Performance targets should be difficult to hit but not too difficult. 2. Performance metrics – The way performance is measured should be sensitive to the employees’ perceptions and sense of control. Employees should believe that their increased effort improves performance, improved performance leads to greater reward, and reward is valued. Metrics must be precise and not prejudiced by external factors. And, from the organization’s perspective, metrics should be set to meet its objectives. 3. Fairness and social norms – Monetary rewards must be seen to be fair and to comply across organizations. They should also conform to social norms. 4. Characteristics of the task – The efficacy of monetary incentives can depend on the nature of the task and to what extent the task provides intrinsic incentives. Here Alfie Kohn has a point; in some cases, monetary rewards tend to undermine intrinsic incentives. ‘Boring’ tasks have little or no intrinsic motivation, whereas creative tasks – the work of a physician, designer, scientist, etc. – are intrinsically motivating. Where there is intrinsic motivation money can be less relevant and in extreme cases can be seen to devalue the intrinsic factors. Professor Sedatole’s recent webinar: ‘Irrational but Predictable! When to Use Monetary Incentives to Motivate Employees’ explains her findings in further details: simply visit it to view and watch for here: If you are journalist covering this topic – Professor Sedatole is available to speak with reporters – simply click on her icon today to arrange an interview.

Why do extroverts seem to always get that much more when it comes to career advancement? Our experts can explain.

People with outgoing personalities get noticed. Heads turn toward those with charismatic voices, emotional speech, high energy, empathetic gestures, and engaging smiles, but on the corporate front, how do these traits come to bear on executive compensation, hiring, and firm outcomes? “The short answer is that extraversion is associated with positive career and firm outcomes,” said T. Clifton Green, professor of finance at Emory’s Goizueta Business School, whose published work Executive Extraversion: Career Firm and Outcomes (The Accounting Review, 2019), explores this phenomenon. The study, with coauthors Russell Jame 10PhD, University of Kentucky’s Gatton College of Business and Economics, and Brandon Lock 12BBA Baruch College’s Zicklin School of Business, City University of New York, highlights the role of personality traits in explaining executive promotions, job tenure, and outside board service. Green also finds evidence that having an extraverted CEO bodes well for investor recognition, sales growth, and acquisitions. The study goes on to explain the personality trait of Extraversion, which is often described as “the single most important aspect of an individual’s personality,” according to Green, with the other of the Big Five traits being Agreeableness, Openness, Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness. Extraverts tend to be outgoing and gain energy from being around others, whereas introverts tend to be more reserved and recharge through solitude. Psychology research identifies extraversion as the personality trait most closely associated with leadership emergence. The study linked above is available for reading – and if you are a journalist looking to learn more or cover this very interesting topic, then let our experts help. T. Clifton Green is a Professor of Finance at the Goizueta Business School. He is an expert in the areas of market microstructure, with an emphasis on behavioral finance and his research has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Barrons, Financial Times, and on CNBC.