Experts Matter. Find Yours.

20 Days Into the Government Shutdown: What’s the Impact on Your Wallet?

"Government shutdowns create a cascading financial impact that begins with federal workers but quickly spreads throughout the economy, with effects intensifying the longer the shutdown persists. Approximately 2 million federal civilian employees face direct financial disruption during shutdowns. Essential personnel in national security and public safety continue working without immediate pay, while non-essential workers are furloughed entirely. Although Congress typically authorizes back pay after shutdowns end, families must navigate weeks or months without regular income, forcing them to drain savings, incur debt, or miss critical payments like mortgages and utilities. Federal contractors face even greater uncertainty, as they often receive no compensation for shutdown periods, creating immediate cash flow crises for businesses of all sizes that depend on government work. The financial impact extends well beyond federal employees through several key transmission mechanisms. Reduced consumer spending from affected workers hits local businesses particularly hard, especially in areas with high concentrations of federal employment like Washington D.C. and military communities. Small businesses face additional challenges through delayed government contract payments and suspended access to Small Business Administration (SBA) loan processing. Critical financial services experience significant disruptions. Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Veterans Affairs (VA) mortgage approvals slow or halt entirely, delaying home closings and affecting real estate markets. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may delay tax refunds and income verification services, further constraining household cash flow and complicating loan applications. Financial markets typically experience increased volatility during shutdown periods, as uncertainty about government stability affects investor confidence. Consumer confidence also tends to decline, particularly during prolonged shutdowns, leading to reduced spending that can amplify economic impacts. Credit rating agencies have historically warned that extended shutdowns could threaten the nation's credit rating, potentially raising borrowing costs across the economy. For most Americans whose income doesn't flow through federal channels, immediate wallet impact remains modest initially. However, the longer shutdowns persist, the more likely average citizens will experience effects through delayed services, financing complications, reduced economic confidence, and broader market softness. The cumulative impact grows exponentially with duration, making swift resolution critical for maintaining economic stability."

The History of Government Shutdowns in America

Few events capture Washington gridlock more visibly than a government shutdown. While rare in the nation’s early history, shutdowns have become a recurring feature of modern politics—bringing uncertainty for federal workers, disruptions to public services, and ripple effects across the economy. How It Started The modern shutdown era began in the 1970s after a new law, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, established a formal budget process. Before then, funding disputes didn’t usually halt operations. But a key shift came in 1980, when the Carter administration’s Justice Department concluded that, without approved appropriations, agencies had no legal authority to spend money. That ruling set the stage for shutdowns as we know them today. Since then, the U.S. has endured more than 20 funding gaps, ranging from brief lapses over a weekend to the record-long 35-day shutdown of 2018–2019. Each one has highlighted the partisan battles over federal spending, immigration, healthcare, or other policy priorities. Why They Happen Shutdowns occur when Congress fails to pass, and the president fails to sign, appropriations bills or temporary funding measures known as continuing resolutions. In practice, they reflect deeper political standoffs: one branch of government using the threat of a shutdown to force concessions on controversial issues. They can be triggered by disputes over budget size, specific programs, or broader ideological fights. In many cases, the standoff ends when mounting political and economic costs make compromise unavoidable. What Gets Impacted The effects of a shutdown are immediate and wide-ranging: Federal Workforce: Hundreds of thousands of employees are furloughed without pay, while others deemed “essential” must work without immediate compensation. Public Services: National parks close, permits stall, museums shutter, and routine government operations—from food inspections to scientific research—are delayed. Economic Ripple Effects: Contractors lose revenue, local economies near federal facilities take a hit, and financial markets often react nervously. Extended shutdowns can even slow GDP growth. Citizens’ Daily Lives: From delayed tax refunds to halted small business loans, ordinary Americans feel the squeeze when government services pause. Why This Matters Government shutdowns are more than political theater—they expose the fragility of the budget process and the real consequences of partisan impasse. They highlight the dependence of millions of Americans on public services and raise questions about the cost of dysfunction in the world’s largest economy. Understanding why they happen and what’s impacted helps citizens gauge not just the politics of Washington, but also how governance—or the lack of it—touches everyday life. Connect with our experts about the history, causes, and consequences of government shutdowns in America. Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com

#Expert Perspective: When AI Follows the Rules but Misses the Point

vxfv When a team of researchers asked an artificial intelligence system to design a railway network that minimized the risk of train collisions, the AI delivered a surprising solution: Halt all trains entirely. No motion, no crashes. A perfect safety record, technically speaking, but also a total failure of purpose. The system did exactly what it was told, not what was meant. This anecdote, while amusing on the surface, encapsulates a deeper issue confronting corporations, regulators, and courts: What happens when AI faithfully executes an objective but completely misjudges the broader context? In corporate finance and governance, where intentions, responsibilities, and human judgment underpin virtually every action, AI introduces a new kind of agency problem, one not grounded in selfishness, greed, or negligence, but in misalignment. From Human Intent to Machine Misalignment Traditionally, agency problems arise when an agent (say, a CEO or investment manager) pursues goals that deviate from those of the principal (like shareholders or clients). The law provides remedies: fiduciary duties, compensation incentives, oversight mechanisms, disclosure rules. These tools presume that the agent has motives—whether noble or self-serving—that can be influenced, deterred, or punished. But AI systems, especially those that make decisions autonomously, have no inherent intent, no self-interest in the traditional sense, and no capacity to feel gratification or remorse. They are designed to optimize, and they do, often with breathtaking speed, precision, and, occasionally, unintended consequences. This new configuration, where AI acting on behalf of a principal (still human!), gives rise to a contemporary agency dilemma. Known as the alignment problem, it describes situations in which AI follows its assigned objective to the letter but fails to appreciate the principal’s actual intent or broader values. The AI doesn’t resist instructions; it obeys them too well. It doesn’t “cheat,” but sometimes it wins in ways we wish it wouldn’t. When Obedience Becomes a Liability In corporate settings, such problems are more than philosophical. Imagine a firm deploying AI to execute stock buybacks based on a mix of market data, price signals, and sentiment analysis. The AI might identify ideal moments to repurchase shares, saving the company money and boosting share value. But in the process, it may mimic patterns that look indistinguishable from insider trading. Not because anyone programmed it to cheat, but because it found that those actions maximized returns under the constraints it was given. The firm may find itself facing regulatory scrutiny, public backlash, or unintended market disruption, again not because of any individual’s intent, but because the system exploited gaps in its design. This is particularly troubling in areas of law where intent is foundational. In securities regulation, fraud, market manipulation, and other violations typically require a showing of mental state: scienter, mens rea, or at least recklessness. Take spoofing, where an agent places bids or offers with the intent to cancel them to manipulate market prices or to create an illusion of liquidity. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, this is a crime if done with intent to deceive. But AI, especially those using reinforcement learning (RL), can arrive at similar strategies independently. In simulation studies, RL agents have learned that placing and quickly canceling orders can move prices in a favorable direction. They weren’t instructed to deceive; they simply learned that it worked. The Challenge of AI Accountability What makes this even more vexing is the opacity of modern AI systems. Many of them, especially deep learning models, operate as black boxes. Their decisions are statistically derived from vast quantities of data and millions of parameters, but they lack interpretable logic. When an AI system recommends laying off staff, reallocating capital, or delaying payments to suppliers, it may be impossible to trace precisely how it arrived at that recommendation, or whether it considered all factors. Traditional accountability tools—audits, testimony, discovery—are ill-suited to black box decision-making. In corporate governance, where transparency and justification are central to legitimacy, this raises the stakes. Executives, boards, and regulators are accustomed to probing not just what decision was made, but also why. Did the compensation plan reward long-term growth or short-term accounting games? Did the investment reflect prudent risk management or reckless speculation? These inquiries depend on narrative, evidence, and ultimately the ability to assign or deny responsibility. AI short-circuits that process by operating without human-like deliberation. The challenge isn’t just about finding someone to blame. It’s about whether we can design systems that embed accountability before things go wrong. One emerging approach is to shift from intent-based to outcome-based liability. If an AI system causes harm that could arise with certain probability, even without malicious design, the firm or developer might still be held responsible. This mirrors concepts from product liability law, where strict liability can attach regardless of intent if a product is unreasonably dangerous. In the AI context, such a framework would encourage companies to stress-test their models, simulate edge cases, and incorporate safety buffers, not unlike how banks test their balance sheets under hypothetical economic shocks. There is also a growing consensus that we need mandatory interpretability standards for certain high-stakes AI systems, including those used in corporate finance. Developers should be required to document reward functions, decision constraints, and training environments. These document trails would not only assist regulators and courts in assigning responsibility after the fact, but also enable internal compliance and risk teams to anticipate potential failures. Moreover, behavioral “stress tests” that are analogous to those used in financial regulation could be used to simulate how AI systems behave under varied scenarios, including those involving regulatory ambiguity or data anomalies. Smarter Systems Need Smarter Oversight Still, technical fixes alone will not suffice. Corporate governance must evolve toward hybrid decision-making models that blend AI’s analytical power with human judgment and ethical oversight. AI can flag risks, detect anomalies, and optimize processes, but it cannot weigh tradeoffs involving reputation, fairness, or long-term strategy. In moments of crisis or ambiguity, human intervention remains indispensable. For example, an AI agent might recommend renegotiating thousands of contracts to reduce costs during a recession. But only humans can assess whether such actions would erode long-term supplier relationships, trigger litigation, or harm the company’s brand. There’s also a need for clearer regulatory definitions to reduce ambiguity in how AI-driven behaviors are assessed. For example, what precisely constitutes spoofing when the actor is an algorithm with no subjective intent? How do we distinguish aggressive but legal arbitrage from manipulative behavior? If multiple AI systems, trained on similar data, converge on strategies that resemble collusion without ever “agreeing” or “coordination,” do antitrust laws apply? Policymakers face a delicate balance: Overly rigid rules may stifle innovation, while lax standards may open the door to abuse. One promising direction is to standardize governance practices across jurisdictions and sectors, especially where AI deployment crosses borders. A global AI system could affect markets in dozens of countries simultaneously. Without coordination, firms will gravitate toward jurisdictions with the least oversight, creating a regulatory race to the bottom. Several international efforts are already underway to address this. The 2025 International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI called for harmonized rules around interpretability, accountability, and human oversight in critical applications. While much work remains, such frameworks represent an important step toward embedding legal responsibility into the design and deployment of AI systems. The future of corporate governance will depend not just on aligning incentives, but also on aligning machines with human values. That means redesigning contracts, liability frameworks, and oversight mechanisms to reflect this new reality. And above all, it means accepting that doing exactly what we say is not always the same as doing what we mean Looking to know more or connect with Wei Jiang, Goizueta Business School’s vice dean for faculty and research and Charles Howard Candler Professor of Finance. Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview or time to talk today.

Largest Cohort in LSU History: Six Distinguished Faculty Members Named Boyd Professors

Named in honor of brothers Thomas and David Boyd, early presidents and faculty members of LSU, the Boyd Professorship recognizes faculty who bring honor and prestige to LSU through their national and, as appropriate, international recognition for outstanding achievements. Before today, only 79 faculty members from all of LSU’s campuses have ever achieved this distinguished rank. The newest cohort of Boyd Professors represent a wide variety of disciplines and hail from three of LSU’s eight campuses: LSU A&M, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, and LSU Shreveport. This group includes LSU Shreveport’s first-ever Boyd Professor, a landmark achievement for the campus and a testament to its academic distinction. As the largest group of Boyd Professors ever named at one time, this cohort underscores LSU’s rising reputation for research excellence across all of its campuses. “This is a moment of real pride for LSU. Naming six new Boyd Professors is not only historic in scale, it's a clear reflection of the extraordinary strength and momentum of our academic enterprise,” said Interim LSU President Matt Lee. “These scholars are advancing knowledge in ways that reach far beyond our campuses, and their work is helping to define LSU’s place on the national and global stage. I am especially proud to see LSU Shreveport represented for the first time, a milestone that reflects the growing excellence across our campuses. This achievement is a powerful reminder of our commitment to advancing scholarship and shaping the future through research, education, and service.” The newest Boyd Professors are: Mette Gaarde, Les and Dot Broussard Alumni Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, College of Science, LSU A&M John Maxwell Hamilton, Hopkins P. Breazeale LSU Foundation Professor, Manship School of Mass Communication, LSU A&M Steven Heymsfield, Professor of Metabolism and Body Composition, Pennington Biomedical Research Center Michael Khonsari, Dow Chemical Endowed Chair and Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, LSU A&M Alexander Mikaberidze, Professor of History, Ruth Herring Noel Endowed Chair, College of Arts & Sciences, LSU Shreveport R. Kelley Pace, Professor, Department of Finance, E. J. Ourso College of Business, LSU A&M Nominations for the Boyd Professorship are initiated in the college, routed for review and support at the campus level, then considered by the LSU Boyd Professorship Review Committee, which seeks confidential evaluations from dozens of distinguished scholars in the candidate’s field of expertise. Once endorsed by the review committee, the nomination is forwarded to the LSU President and Board of Supervisors for consideration. With this distinction, a Boyd Professor’s compensation is elevated to reflect the stature of LSU’s most distinguished faculty, with a salary set at no less than the 95th percentile of full professors in comparable disciplines at peer public institutions across the southeastern United States. They also receive an annual stipend to further support their research and scholarly pursuits. Please join us in congratulating these faculty on this outstanding accomplishment.

#Expert Insight: Decoding Hierarchies in Business: When is Having a Boss a Benefit for an Organization?

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.

Life and Legacy of Lily Ledbetter

The life and legacy of Lily Ledbetter stand as a powerful testament to the ongoing fight for workplace equality and women's rights. As the face behind the landmark Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. case and the namesake of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, her story continues to resonate in today's battles for gender pay equity. This topic is especially relevant now as conversations around economic justice, corporate responsibility, and legislative change gain momentum across the globe. Ledbetter's fight highlights the enduring struggle for fair compensation and workplace equity, which remains a vital issue for the public. Key story angles that may interest a broad audience include: The impact of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Exploring how this legislation has shaped workplace policies and its continuing relevance in today's legal landscape. Gender pay equity today: Analyzing the wage gap across industries and efforts to close the divide, with data on current disparities. The personal and professional costs of discrimination: Investigating how pay inequality affects families, career progression, and long-term financial security, especially for women of color. The broader fight for workplace rights: Examining the ripple effects of the Ledbetter case on other forms of discrimination, such as race, age, and disability. Economic justice as a human rights issue: Connecting Ledbetter’s legacy to current global movements pushing for equal pay, labor rights, and anti-discrimination reforms. Corporate responsibility and transparency: Assessing how companies are addressing pay equity through transparency measures, audits, and policy shifts. Connect with an expert about the Life and Legacy of Lily Ledbetter: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com

Five ways going green can improve your bottom line: A guide for West Midlands SMEs

As sustainability becomes a central focus for businesses across the globe, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the West Midlands are uniquely positioned to benefit from going green. Whether you're running a corner shop, a hairdressing salon, a manufacturing operation, or any other type of small business, sustainable practices can significantly enhance your bottom line. Here are five key ways that adopting green strategies can lead to financial gains. Reduced operational costs One of the most immediate and tangible benefits of going green is the reduction in operational costs. Energy efficiency, waste reduction, and resource conservation are all areas where small changes can lead to significant savings. For instance, simply switching to energy-efficient lighting can reduce electricity bills by up to 75 per cent—a substantial saving for any business, particularly for small retailers or service providers where margins can be tight. Additionally, the UK government offers incentives to help businesses transition to more energy-efficient operations, making it easier for SMEs to invest in these changes. Join Aston University’s workshop on 18 September and take advantage of a free energy assessment for your business. Learn practical steps to audit your energy use and uncover cost-saving opportunities tailored to your specific industry needs. Access to new markets and opportunities As the UK government and local authorities push for a greener economy, there are growing opportunities for businesses that align with these goals. SMEs that adopt sustainable practices may qualify for grants, tax reliefs, and other incentives designed to support green initiatives. For example, local councils in the West Midlands have programmes such as ‘BEAS and Decarbonisation Net Zero’ aimed at helping small businesses reduce their carbon footprint, which can be especially beneficial for almost all sectors where environmental impact is a growing concern. At the workshop, we’ll delve into the funding options and partnerships available to West Midlands SMEs committed to sustainability, helping you unlock new growth opportunities. Increased marketability Consumers are increasingly favouring businesses that demonstrate a commitment to sustainability. According to a study by Nielsen, 66 per cent of global consumers are willing to pay more for sustainable goods, and this trend is evident in the UK as well. By adopting green practices, SMEs in the West Midlands can enhance their brand reputation. This can translate to increased sales, customer loyalty, and even the ability to charge premium prices for sustainable products or services. In a competitive market, your environmental credentials can be a powerful differentiator. Attend Aston University’s workshop to learn from real-life success stories and see how businesses are already turning sustainability into a competitive advantage. Long-term resilience and competitiveness Sustainability isn’t just about immediate financial gains; it’s also about future-proofing your business. As regulations around carbon emissions and environmental impact become stricter, businesses that have already integrated green practices will find it easier to comply, avoiding potential fines and disruptions. For SMEs in sectors like manufacturing, where regulatory pressures are particularly high, adopting sustainable practices now can help ensure long-term competitiveness and resilience. A prime example of this shift is the NHS, which is actively working towards a Net Zero supply chain by 2045. The NHS is urging its suppliers to adopt sustainable practices, with a strong focus on reducing carbon emissions. Businesses that fail to align with these expectations risk losing contracts and falling behind competitors who are meeting these sustainability criteria. At the workshop, you'll learn more about sustainability strategy that can keep your business competitive and resilient in an ever-changing market. Enhanced employee engagement and productivity Increasingly, employees are seeking to work for companies that align with their personal values, including a commitment to sustainability. While this trend is more pronounced among larger companies, it’s also becoming relevant for small businesses, particularly those in industries where attracting and retaining talent is competitive. According to research, 74 per cent of employees feel more fulfilled when they work for a company that is making a positive impact on the environment. For small businesses, fostering a sustainable workplace can enhance employee morale, attract top talent, and reduce turnover rates. However, the degree to which this resonates can depend on your specific workforce. In sectors like tech, professional services, or among younger employees, sustainability is often a key consideration. On the other hand, in some more traditional industries, other factors like job security and compensation might be more important, though sustainability still adds value. Sign up for our workshop to discover how your small or medium business—regardless of sector—can implement effective sustainability practices and energy efficiency strategies to drive growth. This event is open to all SMEs across the West Midlands! Click here to register now. You'll also have the opportunity to book a free energy assessment on the spot and apply for match funding of up to £100,000 to make your business more energy efficient.

Forbes Ranks ChristianaCare Among America’s Best Employers for Women in 2024

ChristianaCare has been recognized as one of America’s Best Employers for Women by Forbes for 2024, marking the first time the company has received this prestigious recognition. In a survey of 150,000 women working for companies of at least 1,000 employees in the U.S., ChristianaCare ranked 150 on the list of 600 employers that were recognized. “This important recognition is a testament to our culture and the remarkable women who have chosen to build meaningful careers at ChristianaCare,” said Chris Cowan, MEd, FABC, ChristianaCare’s Chief Human Resources Officer. “Empowering women to succeed is integral to our culture and strengthens our organization. Together, we’ll continue to advance equity and inclusion in the workplace while transforming health and clinical care.” Forbes partnered with market research firm Statista, which surveyed employees on various aspects such as workplace environment, growth opportunities, compensation, diversity, parental leave, schedule flexibility and family assistance. ChristianaCare continues to cultivate a strong, inclusive, and diverse culture for women inside and outside the company by investing in professional development through its Women’s Employee Network (WEN) and providing a comprehensive benefits package that includes various flexible leave options for employees, including at least 12 weeks of paid parental leave. “Receiving this recognition from Forbes is an honor,” said Pamela Ridgeway, MBA, MA, SPHR, chief diversity officer and vice president of Talent and Acquisition at ChristianaCare. “In addition to offering workplace benefits such as paid maternity and paternity leave, ChristianaCare is firmly committed to empowering and advancing talented individuals within the workplace. Receiving this award for the first time signifies our unwavering dedication to ensuring that every individual has a voice and feels truly valued within our organization.” The Forbes recognition follows other national recognitions of ChristianaCare’s commitment to an inclusive workplace. Earlier this year, Forbes ranked ChristianaCare as one of the best employers for diversity in the U.S. Additionally, Forbes ranked ChristianaCare as the top health care employer for veterans in the United States. Both ChristianaCare’s Wilmington Hospital and Christiana Hospital have been named Leaders in LGBTQIA+ Healthcare Equality since 2012.

AI Art: What Should Fair Compensation Look Like?

New research from Goizueta’s David Schweidel looks at questions of compensation to human artists when images based on their work are generated via artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is making art. That is to say, compelling artistic creations based on thousands of years of art production may now be just a few text prompts away. And it’s all thanks to generative AI trained on internet images. You don’t need Picasso’s skillset to create something in his style. You just need an AI-powered image generator like DALL-E 3 (created by OpenAI), Midjourney, or Stable Diffusion. If you haven’t tried one of these programs yet, you really should (free or beta versions make this a low-risk proposal). For example, you might use your phone to snap a photo of your child’s latest masterpiece from school. Then, you might ask DALL-E to render it in the swirling style of Vincent Van Gogh. A color printout of that might jazz up your refrigerator door for the better. Intellectual Property in the Age of AI Now, what if you wanted to sell your AI-generated art on a t-shirt or poster? Or what if you wanted to create a surefire logo for your business? What are the intellectual property (IP) implications at work? Take the case of a 35-year-old Polish artist named Greg Rutkowski. Rutkowski has reportedly been included in more AI-image prompts than Pablo Picasso, Leonardo da Vinci, or Van Gogh. As a professional digital artist, Rutkowski makes his living creating striking images of dragons and battles in his signature fantasy style. That is, unless they are generated by AI, in which case he doesn’t. “They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But what about the case of a working artist? What if someone is potentially not receiving payment because people can easily copy his style with generative AI?” That’s the question David Schweidel, Rebecca Cheney McGreevy Endowed Chair and professor of marketing at Goizueta Business School is asking. Flattery won’t pay the bills. “We realized early on that IP is a huge issue when it comes to all forms of generative AI,” Schweidel says. “We have to resolve such issues to unlock AI’s potential.” Schweidel’s latest working paper is titled “Generative AI and Artists: Consumer Preferences for Style and Fair Compensation.” It is coauthored with professors Jason Bell, Jeff Dotson, and Wen Wang (of University of Oxford, Brigham Young University, and University of Maryland, respectively). In this paper, the four researchers analyze a series of experiments with consumers’ prompts and preferences using Midjourney and Stable Diffusion. The results lead to some practical advice and insights that could benefit artists and AI’s business users alike. Real Compensation for AI Work? In their research, to see if compensating artists for AI creations was a viable option, the coauthors wanted to see if three basic conditions were met: – Are artists’ names frequently used in generative AI prompts? – Do consumers prefer the results of prompts that cite artists’ names? – Are consumers willing to pay more for an AI-generated product that was created citing some artists’ names? Crunching the data, they found the same answer to all three questions: yes. More specifically, the coauthors turned to a dataset that contains millions of “text-to-image” prompts from Stable Diffusion. In this large dataset, the researchers found that living and deceased artists were frequently mentioned by name. (For the curious, the top three mentioned in this database were: Rutkowski, artgerm [another contemporary artist, born in Hong Kong, residing in Singapore] and Alphonse Mucha [a popular Czech Art Nouveau artist who died in 1939].) Given that AI users are likely to use artists’ names in their text prompts, the team also conducted experiments to gauge how the results were perceived. Using deep learning models, they found that including an artist’s name in a prompt systematically improves the output’s aesthetic quality and likeability. The Impact of Artist Compensation on Perceived Worth Next, the researchers studied consumers’ willingness to pay in various circumstances. The researchers used Midjourney with the following dynamic prompt: “Create a picture of ⟨subject⟩ in the style of ⟨artist⟩”. The subjects chosen were the advertising creation known as the Most Interesting Man in the World, the fictional candy tycoon Willy Wonka, and the deceased TV painting instructor Bob Ross (Why not?). The artists cited were Ansel Adams, Frida Kahlo, Alphonse Mucha and Sinichiro Wantabe. The team repeated the experiment with and without artists in various configurations of subjects and styles to find statistically significant patterns. In some, consumers were asked to consider buying t-shirts or wall art. In short, the series of experiments revealed that consumers saw more value in an image when they understood that the artist associated with it would be compensated. Here’s a sample of imagery AI generated using three subjects names “in the style of Alphonse Mucha.” Source: Midjourney cited in http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4428509 “I was honestly a bit surprised that people were willing to pay more for a product if they knew the artist would get compensated,” Schweidel explains. “In short, the pay-per-use model really resonates with consumers.” In fact, consumers preferred pay-per-use over a model in which artists received a flat fee in return for being included in AI training data. That is to say, royalties seem like a fairer way to reward the most popular artists in AI. Of course, there’s still much more work to be done to figure out the right amount to pay in each possible case. What Can We Draw From This? We’re still in the early days of generative AI, and IP issues abound. Notably, the New York Times announced in December that it is suing OpenAI (the creator of ChatGPT) and Microsoft for copyright infringement. Millions of New York Times articles have been used to train generative AI to inform and improve it. “The lawsuit by the New York Times could feasibly result in a ruling that these models were built on tainted data. Where would that leave us?” asks Schweidel. "One thing is clear: we must work to resolve compensation and IP issues. Our research shows that consumers respond positively to fair compensation models. That’s a path for companies to legally leverage these technologies while benefiting creators." David Schweidel To adopt generative AI responsibly in the future, businesses should consider three things. First, they should communicate to consumers when artists’ styles are used. Second, they should compensate contributing artists. And third, they should convey these practices to consumers. “And our research indicates that consumers will feel better about that: it’s ethical.” AI is quickly becoming a topic of regulators, lawmakers and journalists and if you're looking to know more - let us help. David A. Schweidel, Professor of Marketing, Goizueta Business School at Emory University To connect with David to arrange an interview - simply click his icon now.

CEO Compensation: What's the Limit of 'A Lot'?

Should corporate executives be paid a lot? Yes, says management expert David Souder, a professor in the UConn School of Business Boucher Management & Entrepreneurship Department. But, he says, "What's the limit of 'a lot'?" “It’s proven very hard to determine where it stops being the appropriate amount of ‘a lot,'" says Souder in an interview with Hearst Connecticut Media. The highest-paid CEO in this year’s Equilar 100 was Peloton Interactive’s Barry McCarthy, whose awarded compensation totaled about $168 million. At No. 2 was Apple’s Tim Cook, whose awarded remuneration amounted to about $99 million. Equilar’s survey also highlighted the huge gap between CEO compensation and the income of rank-and-file workers. Last year, there was a median ratio of 288 between CEO compensation and median worker pay; the ratio was 254 in 2021. The compensation awarded last year to Cigna’s Cordani equated to about 277 times his company’s median worker pay of $75,627, according to Equilar. Including several thousand employees based in Connecticut, Cigna operates globally with more than 70,000 employees. At many companies, shareholders weigh in on executive compensation through “say on pay” proposals that let them cast advisory votes. Shareholders typically endorse remuneration, as seen in the results of Cigna’s 2023 shareholders meeting that was held on April 26. About 221 million votes were cast in support of the company's executive compensation, compared with nearly 30 million votes against, about 18 million “broker non votes” and nearly 612,000 abstentions. Some progressive elected officials such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, are unhappy with CEO compensation levels at large companies because they believe their pay constitutes corporate greed that hurts rank-and-file workers. Among their proposals, they have sought to pass legislation that would increase taxes on companies that pay their CEOs more than 50 times the median level. “The pay disparities raise questions that are very hard to answer,” Souder said. “If you want an experienced chief executive, and they’ve been paid at these (exceptionally high) levels, then you have to also pay at these levels. And nobody wants a below-average CEO. So you end up with these subtle underlying pressures that cause CEO pay to rise.” David Souder specializes in strategic management and is available to speak with the media. Click his icon to arrange an interview today.