Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Play, Learn, Lead: How Aston’s Gamification-Driven MBA Is Redefining Business Learning

Professor Helen Higson OBE of Aston Business School, discusses why gamification is embedded in all of the School's postgraduate portfolio of degrees Give the students something to do, not something to learn; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking; learning naturally results. (attributed to John Dewey, US educational psychologist (1859-1952) Imagine you’re the CEO of a cutting-edge robotics firm in 2031, making high-stakes decisions on R&D, marketing and finance; one misstep and your virtual company could collapse. You win, lose, adapt, and grow. This isn’t a case study, it’s your classroom experience at Aston Business School in Birmingham. Imagine you’re participating in Europe’s biggest MBA tournament, the University Business Challenge, where your strategic flair and financial acumen will be tested against the continent’s sharpest minds. Then you’re solving real-world sustainability crises in the Accounting for Sustainability Case Competition, crafting solutions that could be showcased in Canada. What if you could do all this from your classroom seat, armed with only your MBA learnings, teamwork and the thrill of gamified learning. At Aston, we believe the best way to master business is by doing business. That’s why we’ve embedded active learning through games, simulations, and competitions across all our postgraduate programs. The results? Higher engagement, deeper learning, and students who graduate with confidence and real-world skills. Research says gamified learning boosts motivation, lowers stress, and helps students adopt new habits for lifelong success. As educational researchers Kirillov et al. (2016) found, “Gamification creates the right conditions for student motivation, reduces stress, and promotes the adoption of learning material—shaping new habits and behaviours.” This has led to what Wiggins (2016), calls the “repackaging of traditional instructional strategies”. In Aston Business Sschool we have long embraced this approach as a way of increasing student outcomes and stimulating more student engagement in their learning. Our Centre for Gamification in Education (A-GamE), launched in 2018, is dedicated to advancing innovative teaching methods. We run regular seminars with internal and external speakers showcasing gamification adoption, design and research and we use these techniques across the ABS in a wide range of disciplines. (We have included two examples of this work in our list of references.) Furthermore, in 2021 we published a book which outlines the diverse ways in which we use these methods (Elliott et al. 2021). Subsequently, during 2024 we redesigned all our postgraduate portfolio of degrees, and as part of this initiative games and simulations were embedded across all programmes. Why Gamification Works Through simulations like BISSIM, students step into executive roles, steering futuristic companies through the twists and turns of a dynamic marketplace. A flagship programme running since 1981, BISSIM was developed in collaboration between academics from ABS and Warwick Business School, and every decision on R&D, marketing, or HR has real consequences as teams battle each other for the top spot. After each year of trading the results are input into the computer model. The results are then generated for each company in the form of financial reports, KPIs and other non-financial results and messages. Each team’s results are affected by their own decisions and the competitive actions of the other teams, as well as the market that they all influence. This year one of our academics, Matt Davies, has been awarded an Innovation Fellowship further to commercialise the game. Competitions with Global Impact We also encourage students to take part in national and international competitions which have the same effect of developing their engagement with real-life business problems on a global scale. Beyond the classroom, Aston students represent the university in major competitions like the University Business Challenge (in which ABS had the highest number of UK teams this year) and the Accounting for Sustainability (A4S) Case Competition, for which we are an “anchor business school”. Here, theory gets stress-tested against real-world scenarios and top talent from around the globe. The result? Award-winning teams, global experience, and friendships built under pressure. At the heart of this approach is Aston’s Centre for Gamification (A-GamE), dedicated to making learning interactive, motivating, and fun. Regular seminars, fresh research, and close ties to industry keep the curriculum evolving and relevant, so students graduate ready to lead, adapt, and thrive in any business environment. Why does it matter? In a volatile, fast-paced economy, employers appreciate agility, teamwork and decisiveness. At Aston, every simulation and competition is geared towards sharpening these skills. Graduates emerge not only knowledgeable, but prepared for the job market. Engagement Our students have been embracing these opportunities. Six MBA/Msc teams developed their A4S videos, hoping to reach the final in Canada early in 2025, and three teams out of nine reached the national UBC finals. Additionally, the BISSEM simulation has just finished inspiring another group of MBA students (particularly as the prize for the winning team was tickets to a game at our local Aston Villa premiership football (soccer) club, currently riding high in the league!). Typical feedback from non-Finance specialists is that they suddenly surprised themselves during their participation in the simulation and were reconsidering the options of taking a career in Finance. It seems that our original purposes have been met – increased confidence, passion, deep learning and engagement have been achieved. To interivew Professor Higson, contact Nicola Jones, Press and Communications Manager, on (+44) 7825 342091 or email: n.jones6@aston.ac.uk Elliott, C., Guest, J. and Vettraino, E. (editors) (2021), Games, Simulations and Playful Learning in Business Education, Edward Elgar. Kirillov, A. V., Vinichenko, M. V., Melnichuk, A. V., Melnichuk, Y. A., and Vinogradova, M. V. (2016), ‘Improvement in the Learning Environment through Gamification of the Educational Process’, International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(7), pp. 2071-2085. Olczak, M, Guest, J. and Riegler, R. (2022), ‘The Use of Robotic Players in Online Games’, in Conference Proceedings, Chartered Association of Business Schools, LTSE Conference, Belfast, 24 May 2022, p. 79-81. Wiggins, B. E. (2016), ‘An Overview and Study on the Use of Games, Simulations, and Gamification in Higher Education’, International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 6(1), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2016010102

President Puts the Heat on U.S. CEOs

The Wall Street Journal interviewed Dr. Meena Bose about President Donald Trump upping public pressure on CEOs and telling them how to conduct their business. Recently he called for Intel’s chief executive to resign and told Detroit carmakers not to raise prices. Dr. Bose explained that this level of interference is highly unusual. “This is certainly not an approach the United States has seen in modern American politics,” she said. “It’s government bending economic interests.” Dr. Bose is a Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.

MSU team develops scalable climate solutions for agricultural carbon markets

Why this matters: Builds trust in carbon markets. This science-based baseline system dramatically improves accuracy, helping ensure carbon credits are credible and truly reflect climate benefits. Enables real climate impact by accounting for both soil carbon and nitrous oxide emissions, the approach delivers a full, net climate assessment. Scales across millions of acres. Tested on 46 million hectares in 12 Midwest states, this approach is ready for large-scale adoption, helping farmers transition to regenerative practices with confidence and clarity. New research from Michigan State University, led by agricultural systems scientist Bruno Basso, addresses a major problem in agricultural carbon markets: how to set an accurate starting point, or “baseline,” for measuring climate benefits. Most current systems use fixed baselines that don’t account for the soil carbon changes and emissions that would occur if business-as-usual practices were maintained on fields. Such inaccuracies can distort carbon credit calculations and undermine market trust. “The choice of baseline can dramatically influence carbon credit generation; if the model is inaccurate, too many or too few credits may be issued, calling market legitimacy into question,” said Basso, a John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, the Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences and the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station at MSU. “Our dynamic baseline approach provides flexible scenarios that capture the comparative climate impacts of soil organic carbon, or SOC, sequestration and nitrous oxide emissions from business-as-usual practices and the new regenerative system.” The research, published in the journal Scientific Reports, covers 46 million hectares of cropland across the U.S. Midwest, provides carbon market stakeholders with a scalable, scientifically robust crediting framework. It offers both the investment-grade credibility and operational simplicity needed to expand regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture and carbon markets Regenerative agriculture includes practices like cover cropping, reduced or no tillage, diversified rotations, adaptive grazing and agroforestry. These methods restore soil health, enhance biodiversity, increase system resilience and help mitigate climate change by building SOC and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon markets offer a promising financial mechanism to accelerate regenerative transitions. By compensating farmers for verified climate benefits, they can act as either offset markets (for external buyers) or inset markets (within agricultural supply chains). However, the integrity of these markets hinges on reliable, science-based measurement, reporting and verification systems that integrate modeling, field data and remote sensing. A breakthrough multi-model ensemble approach To overcome limitations in traditional modeling, the MSU scientists and colleagues from different institutions in the U.S. and Europe deployed a multi-model ensemble, or MME, framework, using eight validated crop and biogeochemical models across 40,000 locations in 934 counties spanning 12 Midwestern states. The MME avoids model selection bias, lowering uncertainty in soil carbon predictions from 99% (with single models) to just 36% (with the MME). “This is a game changer for carbon markets,” said Basso. “It delivers a level of accuracy and scalability — from individual fields to entire regions — that current systems lack.” The MME platform also enables the creation of precalculated, practice-based dynamic baselines, reducing the burden of data collection and easing participation for producers. Improved mitigation assessments Unlike many approaches that consider only SOC, the MSU lead team’s study evaluates both SOC sequestration and nitrous oxide emissions to determine net climate impact. “This comprehensive assessment ensures that carbon credits represent true climate mitigation,” said Tommaso Tadiello, postdoctoral fellow in MSU’s Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and co-author of the study. “A practice that increases soil carbon may improve soil health,” added Basso, “but it may not deliver actual climate benefits if it simultaneously increases nitrous oxide emissions. Our method provides a full accounting of the net climate effect.” The research team found that the combination of no-till and cover cropping delivered an average net mitigation of 1.2 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare annually, potentially abating 16.4 teragrams of carbon dioxide-equivalent across the study area. This research was supported by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, U.S. Department of Energy’s Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, National Science Foundation Long-Term Ecological Research, Builders Initiative, The Soil Inventory Project, Generation IM Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, Morgan Stanley Sustainable Solutions Collaborative and MSU AgBioResearch.

Tariffs fuel global sourcing shakeup for fashion in the U.S.

Be prepared to see more Made in Vietnam or Made in Bangladesh labels on clothing in the coming years. That’s because U.S. fashion companies are rethinking their global sourcing strategies and operations in response to the Trump administration’s trade policies and tariffs, according to new research by the University of Delaware's Sheng Lu. Lu, professor and graduate director in the Department of Fashion and Apparel Studies, partners with the United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA), on an annual survey of executives at the top 25 U.S. fashion brands, retailers, importers and wholesalers doing business globally. Members include well-known names like Levi’s, Macy’s, Ralph Lauren and Under Armour, among others. The report covers business challenges and outlook, sourcing practices and views on trade policy. “We wear more than just clothes; we wear the global economy, the supply chain and the public policies that jointly make fashion and affordable clothing available to American families,” Lu said. “We want to know where these companies source their products and what factors matter to them the most. It’s a classic question and it evolves each year.” This year’s report, released on July 31, shows tariffs and protectionist policies are the top business challenge for companies, with nearly half reporting declining sales and more than 20% saying they have had to lay off employees. This was followed closely by uncertainty around inflation and the economy, increasing sourcing and production costs, and changes in trade policies from other countries. In response, more than 80% of companies said they will diversify the countries from which they source their products, focusing on vendors in Asian countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Indonesia. Despite the push for “Made in USA” garments, only 17% of respondents plan to increase sourcing from the U.S. Lu shared his findings in the following Q&A: What surprised you about the survey results? Two things surprised me. First, contrary to common perception, the results do not indicate that the tariff policy so far has effectively supported or encouraged more textile and apparel production in the U.S. This actually makes sense. U.S. mills are as uncertain about the tariff rates as our trading partners are. A U.S. company may manufacture the clothes here, but use yarns, fabrics and zippers from other countries. When tariffs drive up the cost of these raw materials, it reduces the price competitiveness of apparel “Made in the USA.” Many domestic factories are in a “wait and see” mode, holding back on making critical investments to expand production due to the lack of a clear policy signal. Second, I was struck by the wide-ranging impact of the tariffs, which has gone far beyond what I originally imagined. Tariffs have not only increased U.S. fashion companies’ sourcing costs but have also affected their product development, shipping and overall supply chain management. Nearly 70% of the survey respondents said they have delayed or canceled some sourcing orders due to tariff hikes. Should consumers be prepared for less variety in clothing or shortages? Later this year, we may see fewer clothing items from our favorite brands on store shelves — especially during the holiday shopping season — and many of those items may come with a higher price tag. That said, fashion companies are doing what they can to avoid passing on tariff costs across the board, as they recognize that consumers are price sensitive. Many surveyed U.S. fashion companies say they intend to strengthen relationships with key vendors as a strategic move, and there is a growing public call for U.S. companies to provide more support and resources to their suppliers in developing countries. Sustainability is a huge issue in the fashion industry, as millions of tons of textiles end up in landfills every year. Companies say they are spending less on sustainability efforts. What would you tell companies about their sustainability efforts? Our survey suggests that sustainability can open up new business opportunities for U.S. fashion companies. Respondents said that when sourcing clothing made from sustainable fibers — like recycled, organic, biodegradable and regenerative materials — they are more likely to rely on a U.S. sourcing base or suppliers in the Western Hemisphere. In other words, even if apparel “Made in the USA” or nearby cannot always compete on price with lower-cost Asian suppliers, there is a better chance to compete on sustainability. Based on what I’ve learned from our Gen Z students — who expect better quality and more sustainable products if they have to pay more, and are critical consumers for many brands and retailers — it is unwise to hold back on investments in sustainability. What do you see as the biggest takeaway from the survey? One key takeaway is that the $4 trillion fashion and apparel business today is truly “made anywhere in the world and sold anywhere in the world.” In such a highly global and interconnected industry, everyone is a stakeholder — meaning there are no real winners in a tariff war. The study is also a powerful reminder that fashion is far more than just creating stylish clothing. Today’s fashion industry is deeply intertwined with sustainability, international relations, trade policy and technology. I hope the findings will be timely, informative and useful to fashion companies, policymakers, suppliers and fellow researchers. I plan to incorporate the insights, as well as the valuable industry connections developed through my long term partnership with USFIA, in my classroom, giving UD students fresh, real-world perspectives on the often “unfashionable” but essential side of the industry. Reporters interested in speaking with Lu can contact him directly by visiting his profile and clicking on the contact button. UD's media relations team can be reached via email.

Covering "meme stocks"? Our expert can help.

"Meme stock" fever in the financial markets is back and hotter than ever. If you're a reporter covering the trend now or in the future (because history suggests it'll boomerang), the University of Rochester invites you to reach out to Daniel Burnside, clinical professor of finance at the Simon School of Business, for insight.  Burnside has held various roles in the investment, risk management and financial planning fields, and has worked extensively with both individual and institutional clientele. He recently helped Forbes explain the trend affecting stocks like Krispy Kreme and Kohl's and other brands, and offered advice on how investors should proceed. "You’re not investing in fundamentals, you’re betting on crowd psychology and social media dynamics,” Burnside told Forbes.  Burnside encouraged potential investors to “keep it small.” “No more than, say, 5% of your portfolio,” he added. “It’s speculation, not strategy. If you can’t afford to lose it, you can’t afford to meme it.”  Contact Burnside by clicking on is profile.

First AI-powered Smart Care Home system to improve quality of residential care

Partnership between Lee Mount Healthcare and Aston University will develop and integrate a bespoke AI system into a care home setting to elevate the quality of care for residents By automating administrative tasks and monitoring health metrics in real time, the smart system will support decision making and empower care workers to focus more on people The project will position Lee Mount Healthcare as a pioneer of AI in the care sector and opening the door for more care homes to embrace technology. Aston University is partnering with dementia care provider Lee Mount Healthcare to create the first ‘Smart Care Home’ system incorporating artificial intelligence. The project will use machine learning to develop an intelligent system that can automate routine tasks and compliance reporting. It will also draw on multiple sources of resident data – including health metrics, care needs and personal preferences – to inform high-quality care decisions, create individualised care plans and provide easy access to updates for residents’ next of kin. There are nearly 17,000 care homes in the UK looking after just under half a million residents, and these numbers are expected to rise in the next two decades. Over half of social care providers still retain manual and paper-based approaches to care management, offering significant opportunity to harness the benefits of AI to enhance efficiency and care quality. The Smart Care Home system will allow for better care to be provided at lower cost, freeing up staff from administrative tasks so they can spend more time with residents. Manjinder Boo Dhiman, director of Lee Mount Healthcare, said: “As a company, we’ve always focused on innovation and breaking barriers, and this KTP builds on many years of progress towards digitisation. We hope by taking the next step into AI, we’ll also help to improve the image of the care sector and overcome stereotypes, to show that we are forward thinking and can attract the best talent.” Dr Roberto Alamino, lecturer in Applied AI & Robotics with the School of Computer Science and Digital Technologies at Aston University said: “The challenges of this KTP are both technical and human in nature. For practical applications of machine learning, it’s important to establish a common language between us as researchers and the users of the technology we are developing. We need to fully understand the problems they face so we can find feasible, practical solutions. For specialist AI expertise to develop the smart system, LMH is partnering with the Aston Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research and Application (ACAIRA) at Aston University, of which Dr Alamino is a member. ACAIRA is recognised internationally for high-quality research and teaching in computer science and artificial intelligence (AI) and is part of the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences. The Centre’s aim is to develop AI-based solutions to address critical social, health, and environmental challenges, delivering transformational change with industry partners at regional, national and international levels. The project is a Knowledge Transfer Partnership. (KTP). Funded by Innovate UK, KTPs are collaborations between a business, a university and a highly qualified research associate. The UK-wide programme helps businesses to improve their competitiveness and productivity through the better use of knowledge, technology and skills. Aston University is a sector leading KTP provider, ranked first for project quality, and joint first for the volume of active projects. For more information on the KTP visit the webpage.

ChristianaCare Names John Lewin III Vice President, Pharmacy Services

John Lewin III, PharmD, MBA, FASHP, FCCM, FNCS, has joined ChristianaCare as vice president of Pharmacy Services. In this role, he will lead all aspects of pharmacy strategy, operations and clinical services across the hospital system, advancing ChristianaCare’s commitment to safe, high-quality, patient-centered care. Lewin brings more than 25 years of leadership experience in pharmacy and health care. He most recently served as chief medical officer at On Demand Pharmaceuticals, where he led pharmacy, quality and regulatory initiatives and supported federal partnerships to improve medication access. Lewin previously spent 16 years at The Johns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, where he held multiple leadership roles and led efforts to improve medication safety, streamline operations and strengthen collaboration across care teams. Lewin holds a Doctor of Pharmacy from Temple University and an MBA from the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. He completed a PGY1 and a PGY2 critical care residency at the Medical University of South Carolina. A recognized leader in critical care pharmacy, he has authored numerous publications and presented nationally and internationally. He reports to Kim Evans, senior vice president of Clinical Essential Services.

Poll finds bipartisan agreement on a key issue: Regulating AI

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.  Read the original article here. In the run-up to the vote in the U.S. Senate on President Donald Trump’s spending and tax bill, Republicans scrambled to revise the bill to win support of wavering GOP senators. A provision included in the original bill was a 10-year moratorium on any state law that sought to regulate artificial intelligence. The provision denied access to US$500 million in federal funding for broadband internet and AI infrastructure projects for any state that passed any such law. The inclusion of the AI regulation moratorium was widely viewed as a win for AI firms that had expressed fears that states passing regulations on AI would hamper the development of the technology. However, many federal and state officials from both parties, including state attorneys general, state legislators and 17 Republican governors, publicly opposed the measure. In the last hours before the passage of the bill, the Senate struck down the provision by a resounding 99-1 vote. In an era defined by partisan divides on issues such as immigration, health care, social welfare, gender equality, race relations and gun control, why are so many Republican and Democratic political leaders on the same page on the issue of AI regulation? Whatever motivated lawmakers to permit AI regulation, our recent poll shows that they are aligned with the majority of Americans who view AI with trepidation, skepticism and fear, and who want the emerging technology regulated. Bipartisan sentiments We are political scientists who use polls to study partisan polarization in the United States, as well as the areas of agreement that bridge the divide that has come to define U.S. politics. In April 2025, we fielded a nationally representative poll that sought to capture what Americans think about AI, including what they think AI will mean for the economy and society going forward. The public is generally pessimistic. We found that 65% of Americans said they believe AI will increase the spread of false information. Fifty-six percent of Americans worry AI will threaten the future of humanity. Fewer than 3 in 10 Americans told us AI will make them more productive (29%), make people less lonely (21%) or improve the economy (22%). While Americans tend to be deeply divided along partisan lines on most issues, the apprehension regarding AI’s impact on the future appears to be relatively consistent across Republicans and Democrats. For example, only 19% of Republicans and 22% of Democrats said they believe that artificial intelligence will make people less lonely. Respondents across the parties are in lockstep when it comes to their views on whether AI will make them personally more productive, with only 29% − both Republicans and Democrats − agreeing. And 60% of Democrats and 53% Republicans said they believe AI will threaten the future of humanity. On the question of whether artificial intelligence should be strictly regulated by the government, we found that close to 6 in 10 Americans (58%) agree with this sentiment. Given the partisan differences in support for governmental regulation of business, we expected to find evidence of a partisan divide on this question. However, our data finds that Democrats and Republicans are of one mind on AI regulation, with majorities of both Democrats (66%) and Republicans (54%) supporting strict AI regulation. When we take into account demographic and political characteristics such as race, educational attainment, gender identity, income, ideology and age, we again find that partisan identity has no significant impact on opinion regarding the regulation of AI. State of anxiety In the years ahead, the debate over AI and the government’s role in regulating it is likely to intensify, on both the state and federal levels. As each day seems to bring new advances in AI’s capability and reach, the future is shaping up to be one in which human beings coexist – and hopefully flourish – alongside AI. This new reality has made the American public, both Democrats and Republicans, justifiably nervous, and our polling captures this widespread trepidation. Lawmakers and technology leaders alike could address this anxiety by better communicating the pitfalls and potential of AI, and take seriously the concerns of the public. After all, the public is not alone in its trepidation. Many experts in the field also have substantial worries about the future of AI. One of the fundamental political questions moving forward, then, will be to what degree regulators put guardrails on this emerging and transformative technology in order to protect Americans from AI’s negative consequences. Adam Eichen is a doctoral candidate in political science at UMass Amherst. Alexander Theodoridis is associate professor of political science and co-director of the UMass Amherst Poll at UMass Amherst. Sara M. Kirshbaum is a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer of political science at UMass Amherst. Tatishe Nteta is provost professor of political science and director of the UMass Amherst Poll at UMass Amherst.

Expert Insights: Navigating Tariffs in a Time of Global Disruption

As global headlines swirl with shifting tariff regulations, U.S. businesses are navigating uncertain waters. With new trade actions impacting industries from automotive to renewable energy, the ripple effects are being felt across supply chains, labor markets, and even insurance models. In this conversation, J.S. Held experts Peter Davis, Timothy Gillihan, Andrea Korney, and Robert Strahle unpack how tariffs are shaping decision-making across industries and where organizations can spot opportunities amid the volatility. Highlights: • Industries most likely to experience tariff impacts • Potential disruptions in manufacturing processes • Supply chain and quality concerns • Expected changes coming in the insurance, reinsurance, and construction markets • The importance of strategic tariff engineering • Guidance for dealing with uncertainty and a rapidly changing business environment Looking to connect with Peter Davis and Andrea Korney? Click on their profile cards to arrange an interview or get deeper insights. For any other media inquiries - contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com

Taming “The Bear”: Villanova Professor Examines Workplace Toxicity in FX’s Acclaimed Series

In the latest season of FX’s award-winning series “The Bear,” lead character and chef Carmen “Carmy” Berzatto finds himself at a crossroads. A culinary genius, Carmy has successfully overseen the reinvention of his family’s Italian beef shop as a high-end restaurant—shepherding a dedicated, if unpolished, crew of sandwich makers into a world of haute cuisine, fine wine and elevated service. However, over the course of this transition, his exacting standards have contributed to a culture of anxiety, dysfunction and resentment in the workplace. Despite staff members’ professional and personal growth, tempers still flare like burners on a range, with Carmy’s obsessive attention to detail and single-minded pursuit of perfection spurring conflict. By season’s end, grappling with the fallout from a mixed review seemingly influenced by the back-of-house “chaos,” the chef is forced to confront a complicated and thorny question: Am I getting in the way of my own restaurant’s success? Carmy’s dilemma, while fictional, reflects the very real challenges many modern businesses face when excellence is prioritized at the expense of psychological safety and workplace harmony. Per Manuela Priesemuth, PhD, who researches toxic work climates, aggression on the job and organizational fairness, the warning signs are all too frequently overlooked in high-pressure environments like restaurants. “Some high-stakes industries have a characteristic of having toxic behavior more accepted,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “When it’s more accepted or normed, it’s a real problem.” As she explains, workers in the food service industry, much like medical professionals in an operating room or military personnel in a combat zone, have a tendency to view measured communication and thoughtful interaction as a luxury or even, in some cases, a hindrance. Essentially, there’s a common misconception that working with an edge—yelling orders, avoiding dialogue and berating “underperformers”—gets the job done. “In all of these high-stakes environments where it’s thought there’s leeway to talk negatively or disparagingly, people are mistaken in the productivity result,” Dr. Priesemuth says. “It actually changes for the better in positive climates, because people who are treated with dignity and respect are better performers than those who are mistreated.” To Dr. Priesemuth’s point, research increasingly shows that workplace culture, not just talent or technical ability, is an essential driver of organizational success. In an environment like Carmy’s kitchen, where pride and passion often give way to personal attacks and shouting matches, the on-the-job dynamic can effectively undermine productivity. What may begin as an intended push for excellence can instead result in burnout, high turnover and weakened trust—outcomes that are especially problematic in collaborative, fast-paced industries like hospitality. “There’s even evidence that abusive behavior in restaurant settings can lead to food loss,” shares Dr. Priesemuth. “So, there is a sort of retaliation from the employees who are going through this experience, whether it’s measured [in profit margins] or impact on the customer.” In order to prevent these less-than-ideal outcomes, businesses should take steps proactively, says Dr. Priesemuth. More specifically, they should clearly articulate their values and expectations, considerately engage with their staff’s opinions and concerns and consistently invest in their employees’ growth and development. In the world of “The Bear,” a few of Carmy’s managerial decisions in the second season could be seen as moves in the right direction. At that juncture, he was leveraging his industry connections to provide his restaurant’s staff with the tools and training necessary to thrive in Chicago’s fine dining scene, building skills, confidence and goodwill. “If you give people voice—such as input on the menu, for example, or more autonomy in completing a certain task—it boosts morale,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “It helps people feel that they have input and that they are valued members of the team; it’s this sort of collaborative, positive relationship that increases commitment and performance.” Establishing this type of work culture, grounded in open communication, mutual respect and a shared sense of mission, takes concerted effort and constant maintenance. In situations in which toxicity has already become an issue, as it has in Carmy’s kitchen, the task becomes decidedly more difficult. Typically, it demands a long-term commitment to organizational change at the business’ highest levels. “Adjusting the tone at the top really matters,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “So, if the owner were to treat their chefs and waiters with the dignity and respect that they deserve as workers, that also trickles down to, for example, the customer.” A leader’s influence on workplace morale, she contends, is nuanced and far-reaching. When those in charge model a lack of empathy or emotional distance, for instance, a sort of toxicity can take root. Likewise, when they repeatedly show anger, animosity or frustration, those same feelings and attitudes can have an ingrained effect—regardless of a staff’s talent or ability. Given the outsized role owners, supervisors and managers play in shaping organizational culture, Dr. Priesemuth further notes, “Leaders must also feel that they’re being supported. You can’t have someone who’s exhausted, works 80 hours a week and has relationship and money issues and expect them to say, ‘What are your problems? What do you need?’” In many ways, her insights speak directly to the struggles Carmy faces and prompts throughout “The Bear’s” run. At every turn, he’s dogged by family and relationship troubles, mounting financial pressures and unresolved trauma from a past role. Ultimately, as would happen in real life, his difficulty in healthily processing and addressing these issues doesn’t just harm him; it affects his staff, manifesting itself as a need for control and a crusade for perfection. “There are spillover effects from your own personal life into your job role. In the management field, that has become increasingly clear,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “Whatever you’re going through, whether it’s from an old job or something personal, it will automatically spill over into your current work life and your interactions. And, vice versa, what’s happening to you at work will [impact you off the clock].” In dramatic fashion, the fourth season of “The Bear” concludes with Carmy acknowledging as much. Determining that there are other aspects of his life desperately in need of attention, he surrenders the reins of his business to chef de cuisine Sydney “Syd” Adamu and maître d’hôtel Richard “Richie” Jerimovich, appointing them part-owners. While the soundness of this decision remains a subject for the show’s next season, Carmy justifies the move with a blunt admission: “It’s the best thing for the restaurant. We have to put the restaurant first… I don’t have anything to pull from.” In the end, in both “The Bear” and management studies, there’s an understanding that building healthy and productive work environments requires active engagement and positive reinforcement on the part of leadership. In a sense, creating a strong work culture is shown to be a lot like preparing a phenomenal meal; it’s a matter of attentiveness, patience and care. Without those ingredients, the result could very well be a recipe for disaster.