Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Ask an Expert - Are American Fan-Based Businesses at Risk for Decreased Revenue?
Modern fandom, according to Mike Lewis, is about having a passion for something—a sports team, entertainer, politician, fashion brand, a university—something. Lewis, professor of marketing and faculty director, Emory Marketing and Analytics Center (EmoryMAC) and host of the podcast, Fanalytics, considers fandom important because what people are fans of defines a modern culture. We can laugh at the sports fan with the painted face and the open shirt and the spikes on the sleeves, but the reality is, the traits that drive that level of enthusiasm and commitment are the traits that change the world outside of the arena. Mike Lewis, professor of marketing and director of EmoryMAC To better understand modern fandom and its effect on culture, Lewis, along with Yanwen Wang, Associate Professor of Marketing and Behavioral Science, and Canada Research Chair in Marketing Analytics, University of British Columbia, created EmoryMAC’s “Fandom Analytics Initiative.” The Fandom Analytics Initiative’s first report, Next Generation Fandom Survey, Generation Z: The Lost Generation of Male Sports Fans, published in September 2021, examines the results of a national survey the initiative commissioned. Nearly 1,400 people across four demographic groups—Generation Z, Millennials, Generation X and Baby Boomers—participated in the survey. Is Gen Z the Lost Generation of Male Sports Fans? The results reveal a somewhat troubling trend: Generation Z males (those born between 1990 and 2010) “seem to be increasingly indifferent and negative to traditional sports,” Lewis and Wang write in their report. “Generation Z’s relative lack of passion for sports and other categories is troubling for fandom-based businesses and a curiosity for those interested in the state of American society.” While only 23 percent of Generation Z defined themselves as “avid sports fans,” 42 percent of Millennials did, along with 33 percent of Gen Xers and 31 percent of Baby Boomers. Perhaps even more revealing is the percentage of respondents who considered themselves “anti-sports fans”—a startling 27 percent of Generation Z tagged themselves as “anti-sports” compared to 7 percent of Millennials, 5 percent of Gen X, and 6 percent of Baby Boomers. “That was unexpected,” says Lewis, who thought Generation Z would line up similar to Millennials, given that both groups are digital natives. “I’m still more and more surprised at how different Generation Z is than Millennials and, frankly, everyone else.” When Lewis and Wang took a look at the differences between male and female Generation Zers, things got even more interesting. In traditional sports categories (football, basketball, hockey, baseball, soccer), more Generation Z females defined themselves as “avid sports fans” than did their male counterparts. When it came to football, 20 percent of both Generation Z males and females described themselves as avid fans (the lowest percentage of all the demographic groups). But in every other traditional sport, Generation Z “avid sports fan” females outnumbered males by a discernable margin. Only when it came to eSports did Generation Z males outnumber Generation Z females. “I think there’s a very deep issue going on,” says Lewis. “Something fundamental has shifted.” The survey included questions about fandom-related psychological traits, specifically, community belonging and self-identity. On both, Generation Z males scored lower than Millennials. “The findings related to sports are particularly germane from a cultural perspective,” states the report. “Part of the lack of Generation Z fandom is due to younger individuals having less intense feelings of group belonging in general.” Beyond the Playing Field, How Does Loyalty Shine? While the report doesn’t take a deep dive into the psychology behind Generation Z’s fandom differences, it does note that Generation Z came of age during a time of “ubiquitous social media, dramatic demographic changes, and a hyper-partisan political environment,” they write. “These dramatic changes may fundamentally alter how members of Generation Z engage with cultural industries.” Overall, Millennials were shown to have the “highest preference across all sports,” according to the report. Millennials are not only willing to watch games, but they also enthusiastically wear team gear. Baby Boomers are up for watching games but are less interested in following teams on social media. As it turns out, note the authors, Generation Z isn’t totally disconnected. Across the entertainment categories, Generation Z is similar to other generations. “Sports fandom is the outlier,” they state. In addition to sports, Lewis and Wang looked at six other fandom segments: new and now celebrities, social justice culture, athletic excellence, old school personalities, brand fanatics, and Trump Fans. Lewis points to the fact that whatever one thinks of Donald Trump, he does generate fandom. “That passion for whatever it is—sports, politics, movies, music—that’s really what drives the world,” says Lewis. Because of its importance, fandom is, notes the study, “increasingly actively managed,” whether to garner viewers, money, or votes. Recent trends such as streaming across devices, the ubiquity of social media, an increase in demographic diversity (not to mention a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic), have affected mainstream sports and entertainment. As a result, Lewis believes it’s important to study how fans are changing across generations. Leagues, teams, networks, studios, celebrities, and others need to understand why there is less engagement to formulate strategies for acquiring the next generation of fans. Authors Mike Lewis and Yanwen Wang As sports leagues and teams see more growth opportunities with women and increasingly diverse fan bases, Lewis wonders if some sports teams may alienate their current fan bases by marketing to non-traditional groups. “If you’re a league or a team, you’ve got a real dilemma at this point,” he explains. “If the NFL wants positive press, it has to market to the non-traditional fan segments. If they do that, are the traditional fan segments going to be less interested? Perhaps.” EmoryMAC’s research on fandom in the modern age is ongoing. A study into how eSports’ fandom differs from traditional sports fandom is also in process—as is research on how younger demographic groups see colleges and universities as institutions worthy of fandom. EmoryMAC will continue to make data and insights available on its fandom analytics website. “Looking at the fandom and passion of young groups now will tell you a lot about what the world will look like in 20 years,” says Lewis. I suspect that the era of sports being a mass marketing product and also a cultural unifier is probably going to end. Mike Lewis While that strikes Lewis as sad, he and EmoryMAC are merely following the data. “It may be the reality of where this is going,” he adds. If you're a reporter looking to know more - then let us help. Professor Michael Lewis is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. In addition to exploring trends in the overall marketing landscape, Lewis is an expert in sports analytics and marketing. He is available for interview - simply click on his icon to arrange a discussion today.
The Case for Career Advocates: An Organization Is Not a Meritocracy
“This blog post is the first in a three-part series that summarizes the key messages I deliver to my students, in the hopes that it can catalyze and support the career success of a broader group of ambitious employees who aspire to make it to the C-Suite,” writes Renee Dye 94PhD, associate professor in the practice of Organization & Management. “Most of my lessons are derived from my own unlikely personal journey from literary scholar to top-tier management consultant to C-suite executive for a publicly traded company, but they are also heavily informed by leading researchers like Sylvia Anne Hewlett. In the final blog, I discuss the impact of remote work on career success.” One of the paradoxes of the Gen-Zs and Generation Alphas is their intuitive understanding of the phenomenon of social media…at the same time they maintain an almost ideological conviction that the workplace – apart from systemic biases – is otherwise a meritocracy, where talent is perfectly and objectively evaluated – and the best and most deserving rise to the top. Surely a cursory exploration of Instagram and TikTok would convince even the most skeptical of the fundamentally idiosyncratic nature of success in a networked world? The Real World is likewise characterized by outcomes in which success is imperfectly correlated with capability level. Someone whose capability level is less than yours may lap you in the race to the top of the organization. That may seem unfair, but that’s because you’re making the mistake of assuming that career success is predicated purely on capability. A survey of MBA graduates from my school a few years ago produced a startling insight: of all the skills that we provided to our students during their MBA tenures, our students felt most unprepared to navigate “organizational politics” in their careers. The reason that I found this fact so astonishing is that today’s students, who are Digital Natives and in part Social Media Natives, are the most connected and self-promoting generation the world has ever seen. Yet today I find that my students continue to exhibit little practical understanding of how career success is forged…so much so that I now devote an entire class session in my core Strategy class to demonstrating the importance of relationship management and advocacy cultivation. Capability is not unimportant; far from it. As I tell my students, though, capability is table stakes these days as the level of education and skill sets continues to advance among individuals. If you’re not smart and capable you’re not getting in the door. But once you’re in, your career path and ultimate career success will be more determined by (1) your level of aspiration and unflagging commitment to achieving your goals; (2) your performance outcomes in your individual roles; (3) your work ethic and conscientiousness; and (4) the relationships you have with other people within your organization. And the relationships that matter the most are the individuals with influence and power over your future career opportunities. Let me put it starkly: without career advocates (notice the plural), it will be much, much harder to make it to the senior management ranks. Full stop. Some facts to bear this assertion out: • People with advocates are 23% more likely to move up in the careers • Women with advocates are 22% more likely to ask for a stretch assignment to build their reputations as leaders Ultimately, having an advocate confers a career benefit of 22-30%, depending on who’s doing the asking and what they’re asking for. That’s increasing your odds of making it to the C-Suite by nearly a third! If anecdotal evidence is more your thing, here are a couple of quotations for you: • A lot of decisions are made when you are not in the room, so you need someone to advocate for you, bring up the important reasons you should advance” (Catalyst Survey, as quoted in Elizabeth McDaid, “Mentor vs. Sponsor,” September 3, 2019) • When you get to the level in your career when decisions are not just being made by an individual manager, feedback from other leaders becomes crucial. Rosalind Hudnell, Chief Diversity Officer, Intel. As quoted in Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, Melinda Marshall, and Laura Sherbin. “The Relationship You Need to Get Right,” HBR 2011) • “I was great at building businesses and had tons of cheerleaders, but I had that typical Asian keep-your-head-down-and-you’ll-get-taken-care-of mindset.” My boss had to take me aside and tell me that if I didn’t actively cultivate her as my sponsor, I would never progress beyond senior associate” (quoted in Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, Melinda Marshall, and Laura Sherbin. “The Relationship You Need to Get Right,” HBR 2011) To reiterate: an organization is not purely a meritocracy where talent and hard work speak for themselves; and it’s much, much harder to advance within an organization without effective advocates. Renee Dye is an Professor in the Practice of Organization & Management at Goizueta Business School. For more insight and to continue reading this article and series, please visit Dye’s blog. To arrange an interview – simply click on Dye’s icon now to book a time today.
Emory Experts - Why Companies Invest in Local Social Media Influencers
Companies seek local influencers to pitch products. Even though most influencers amass geographically dispersed followings on social media, companies are willing to funnel billions of sponsorship dollars to multiple influencers located in different geographic areas, effectively creating sponsorships that span cities, countries, and in some cases even, the globe. The desire to work with local influencers has spawned advertising agencies that specialize in connecting companies with influencers and may soon redefine the influencer economy. This trend has merit, our research team finds. In a new Journal of Marketing study, we show a positive link between online influence and how geographically close an influencer’s followers are located. The nearer a follower is geographically to someone who posts an online recommendation, the more likely she is to follow that recommendation. To investigate whether geographical distance still matters when word of mouth is disseminated online, our research team examined thousands of actual purchases made on Twitter. We found the likelihood that people who saw a Tweet mentioning someone they follow bought a product would subsequently also buy the product increases the closer they reside to the purchaser. Not only were followers significantly associated with a higher likelihood to heed an influencer’s recommendation the closer they physically resided to the influencer, the more quickly they were to do so, too. We find that this role of geographic proximity in the effectiveness of online influence occurs across several known retailers and for different types of products, including video game consoles, electronics and sports equipment, gift cards, jewelry, and handbags. We show the results hold even when using different ways to statistically measure the effects, including state-of-the-art machine learning and deep learning techniques on millions of Twitter messages. We posit that this role of geographic proximity may be due to an invisible connection between people that is rooted in the commonality of place. This invisible link can lead people to identify more closely with someone who is located nearby, even if they do not personally know that person. The result is that people are more likely to follow someone’s online recommendation when they live closer to them. These online recommendations can take any form, from a movie review to a restaurant rating to a product pitch. What makes these findings surprising is that experts predicted the opposite effect when the internet first became widely adopted. Experts declared the death of distance. In theory, this makes sense: people don’t need to meet in person to share their opinions, reviews, and purchases when they can do so electronically. What the experts who envisioned the end of geography may have overlooked, however, is how people decide whose online opinion to trust. This is where cues that indicate a person’s identity, such as where that person lives in the real world, come into play. We may be more likely to trust the online opinion from someone who lives in the same city as us than from someone who lives farther away, simply because we have location in common. Known as the social identity theory, this process explains how individuals form perceptions of belonging to and relating to a community. Who we identify with can affect the degree to which we are influenced, even when this influence occurs online. Our findings imply that technology and electronic communications do not completely overcome the forces that govern influence in the real world. Geographical proximity still matters, even in the digital space. The findings also suggest that information and cues about an individual’s identity online, such as where he/she lives, may affect his/her influence on others through the extent to which others feel they can relate to him/her. These findings on how spatial proximity may still be a tie that binds even in an online world affirm what some companies have long suspected. Local influencers may have a leg up in the influence game and are worth their weight in location. For these reasons, companies may want to work with influencers who have more proximal connections to increase the persuasiveness of their online advertising, product recommendation, and referral programs. Government officials and not-for-profit organizations may similarly want to partner with local ambassadors to more effectively raise awareness of—and change attitudes and behaviors towards—important social issues. Goizueta faculty members Vilma Todri, assistant professor of Information Systems & Operations Management, Panagiotis (Panos) Adamopoulos, assistant professor of Information Systems & Operations Management, and Michelle Andrews, assistant professor of marketing, shared the following article with the American Marketing Association to highlight their new study published in the Journal of Marketing. To contact any of the experts for an interview regarding this topic, simply click on their icon to arrange a time to talk today.
Georgia Southern University Museum reopens just in time to celebrate Earth Sciences Week
After nearly three years and following extensive architectural renovations, the Georgia Southern Museum, one of the longest-standing educational centers on the University's Statesboro Campus, has reopened. "It has been a long project, but well worth the journey," said Georgia Southern Museum Director Brent Tharp, Ph.D. "The upgraded facility and newly designed galleries represent a new era for the museum. Visitors will still find old friends, like the mosasaur, but exhibited in new more exciting ways, and will make new discoveries with never before exhibited artifacts in expanded permanent exhibits preserving the area's culture. We are really excited to be back open to the public." The Georgia Southern Museum serves as the premier institution interpreting the natural and cultural history of Georgia's coastal plain. The museum displays permanent exhibits and changing exhibits curated by the University's faculty and students, and provides a place where researchers can explore its collections and students of all ages can learn. As part of its reopening celebration, the Museum will recognize Earth Sciences Week with events featuring social media videos and interactive displays by Georgia Southern students, faculty and alumni. Highlighted events for Earth Sciences Week include: Oct. 12 - Earth Observation Day Oct. 13 - National Fossil Day Oct, 14 - Geoscience for Everyone Day Oct. 15 - Geologic Map Day Oct. 16 - International Archaeology Day Admission to the museum is $4 per person; however, for a limited time the museum also will accept donations for admission. Children 3 years of age and younger, museum members, and Georgia Southern students receive free admission. If you’re a journalist looking to cover Earth Sciences Week or talk to any of the many experts at the museum – then let us help. The researchers behind this study are available, simply reach out to Georgia Southern Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
Aston University’s Dr Ozlem Arikan looked at the impact of the style of corporate information on investor decisions Companies arguably avoid being specific by using ‘boilerplate language’ to avoid negative reactions of the investors Dr Arikan’s research suggests that boilerplate information is not useful for investment decisions and investors lose trust in managers who use boilerplate language New research from Aston University has found boilerplate language used by managers is preventing their non-professional investors from making sound decisions. Dr Ozlem Arikan examined the impact of the style of corporate information on non-professional investor decisions. The term ‘boilerplate’ refers to standardised text, copy, documents, methods or procedures that may be used over again without making major changes to the original. In the context of risk disclosures as studied by Dr Arikan, boilerplate description of risks entails a generic list of risks that are common to all industry, rather than including details relating to risks specific to that entity. Regulators are concerned about generic disclosures which they label as boilerplate; they warn that disclosures which do not have enough details do not help investors to make sound decisions. An example of a boilerplate can be found in Google’s risk disclosure which cites social media companies as its main competitors without specifying Facebook, an obvious competitor to Google in terms of generating online advertising revenues. Dr Arikan found that although some investors are less likely to invest in a company when its disclosure is specific, this only happens when they had some knowledge about the issue disclosed. However, when the disclosed risk materialises, investors rate boilerplate managers as less credible than specific managers and are less likely to invest in these companies. Dr Ozlem Arikan, senior lecturer in accounting at Aston Business School, said: “My research suggests the Financial Reporting Council has been right all along about ‘boilerplate language’ preventing non-professional investors from making sound decisions, and it is not good for companies either. “When companies are evasive about their risks, they neither help themselves nor their investors. “Companies arguably avoid being specific to avoid negative reactions of the investors. For example, Google presumably avoids mentioning Facebook as it does not want to make Facebook’s threat to its business too explicit. However, my research suggests that companies do not necessarily avoid negative reactions by being boilerplate. “Regulators may wish to guide companies in how to make more specific disclosures, which are more useful to investors in their decision-making than their boilerplate counterparts. “Importantly boilerplate language does not give enough warnings to investors as those who read a boilerplate risk warning are more surprised when the risk materialises and they correct their previous decisions to a greater extent than investors who read the specific information” You can read the full paper, The effect of boilerplate language on nonprofessional investors’ judgments, HERE. You can find out more about Dr Arikan’s previous research HERE.
Who knew that all those posts about what’s cooking and what’s for dinner could lead to a burgeoning belly? It’s a surprising finding that researchers at Georgia Southern University have discovered – and it’s getting attention from American and international media. Researchers at Georgia Southern University in the U.S. recruited 145 students and split them into two groups. Both were given plates of cheese crackers to nibble but half were told to stop and take a picture first. Immediately after eating them, volunteers were asked to rate how much they liked them and whether they wanted more. The results, published in the journal Appetite, showed those taking snaps of the crackers scored higher in terms of enjoyment and wanting seconds. Picture-taking, researchers said, seems to change the way the brain perceives food and increases the craving for more calories. They wrote: ‘Memories of food and the act of recording consumption can affect how much we eat. "Our results indicate picture-taking leads to greater wanting of the food following consumption. "The effects were most noticeable in volunteers given smaller portions – six crackers instead of 12. Researchers warned: "Those seeking to eat smaller portions, especially of tempting foods that they want to cut back on, should avoid taking pictures of what they are eating." October 03, Daily Mail If you’re a journalist looking to cover this research or learn more for a story – then let our experts help. The researchers behind this study are available, simply reach out to Georgia Southern Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
Social media ‘likes’ found to positively influence healthy food choices – new research
Social media users who view images of healthy foods that have been heavily endorsed with ‘likes’ are more likely to make healthier food choices, a new study has found. The research, by psychologists from Aston University’s College of Health and Life Sciences, found that study participants who viewed highly liked mock Instagram posts of fruit and vegetables ate a significantly higher proportion of grapes than cookies, with consumption of grapes increasing by 14 per cent more calories, compared to those who viewed highly liked high calorie foods. The study, which is published in the scientific journal Appetite, investigated the acute effect of socially endorsed social media posts on participants’ eating behaviour. The 169 participants, who had an average age of 21 years old (but total ages across the group ranged from 18 to 48), were asked to look at mock Instagram posts of different types of food, that either had a few or a lot of ‘likes’, and later given access to grapes and cookies to consume. As well as viewing images of fruit and vegetables, participants also looked at less nutritious foods such as cakes and biscuits, and non-food images such as stylish interior designs. However, the researchers found that the participants went on to consume a larger proportion of grapes after viewing highly liked images of fruit and vegetables, compared to the other images. Aston University psychology PhD student Lily Hawkins, who led the study alongside supervisor Dr Jason Thomas, said: “The findings of the study suggest that not only exposure to healthy food images on social media, but those that are also heavily endorsed with ‘likes’, may nudge people to choose to eat more healthy foods, in place of less nutritious foods.” “What we see others approve of eating and post about eating on social media can affect our actual eating behaviour and could result in a greater consumption of healthier meals and snacks.” “One reason for this may be because thinking that others ‘like’ and eat fruit and vegetables nudges participants to alter their behaviour in order to fit in with what they perceive to be the norm.” The most recent figures from the NHS’s Health Survey for England showed that in 2018 only 28 per cent of adults were eating the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables per day. In Wales, this was 24 per cent, in Scotland 22 per cent and in Northern Ireland around 20 per cent. Children and young people across the UK had even lower levels of fruit and vegetable consumption. The study findings suggest that social media could be used in future as a way to encourage healthier eating - by encouraging users to follow more social media accounts which have highly liked nutritionally balanced posts, also containing healthier foods. The researchers said the next stage of their work will trial an intervention using real Instagram accounts, to test whether asking people to actively follow more social media accounts posting images of highly liked nutritionally rich foods, can encourage people to consume more fruit and vegetables over a sustained period of time. Professor Claire Farrow, Director of Aston University’s Applied Health Research Group, whose work has contributed to the national Child Feeding Guide resource, added: “We know that social interactions can strongly shape what, when and how much we eat. These findings highlight the important role that social media has in shaping those influences online.” “The findings suggest that people do not simply passively view information about what other people are eating online, but that this digital information can shape our food preferences and choices, particularly when we think lots of other people like certain foods. It is promising that exposure to healthy foods, and likes of those foods, was related to greater intake of healthy foods.” “Further research is needed to explore whether and how these findings can be translated into digital interventions to help support individuals who want to make healthier food choices, and to understand how social media platforms can be used as a tool to support healthy eating behaviour.”
The Case for Career Advocates: An Organization Is Not a Meritocracy
This blog post is the first in a three-part series by Renee Dye 94PhD, associate professor in the practice of Organization & Management that summarizes the key messages she delivers to students in the hopes that it can catalyze and support the career success of a broader group of ambitious employees who aspire to make it to the C-Suite One of the paradoxes of the GenZs and Generation Alphas is their intuitive understanding of the phenomenon of social media…at the same time they maintain an almost ideological conviction that the workplace – apart from systemic biases – is otherwise a meritocracy, where talent is perfectly and objectively evaluated – and the best and most deserving rise to the top. Surely a cursory exploration of Instagram and TikTok would convince even the most skeptical of the fundamentally idiosyncratic nature of success in a networked world? The Real World is likewise characterized by outcomes in which success is imperfectly correlated with capability level. Someone whose capability level is less than yours may lap you in the race to the top of the organization. That may seem unfair, but that’s because you’re making the mistake of assuming that career success is predicated purely on capability. A survey of MBA graduates from Emory University's Goizueta Business School a few years ago produced a startling insight: of all the skills that we provided to our students during their MBA tenures, our students felt most unprepared to navigate “organizational politics” in their careers. The reason that I found this fact so astonishing is that today’s students, who are Digital Natives and in part Social Media Natives, are the most connected and self-promoting generation the world has ever seen. Yet today I find that my students continue to exhibit little practical understanding of how career success is forged…so much so that I now devote an entire class session in my core Strategy class to demonstrating the importance of relationship management and advocacy cultivation. Capability is not unimportant; far from it. As I tell my students, though, capability is table stakes these days as the level of education and skill sets continues to advance among individuals. If you’re not smart and capable you’re not getting in the door. But once you’re in, your career path and ultimate career success will be more determined by (1) your level of aspiration and unflagging commitment to achieving your goals; (2) your performance outcomes in your individual roles; (3) your work ethic and conscientiousness; and (4) the relationships you have with other people within your organization. And the relationships that matter the most are the individuals with influence and power over your future career opportunities. Let me put it starkly: without career advocates (notice the plural), it will be much, much harder to make it to the senior management ranks. Full stop. Some facts to bear this assertion out: • People with advocates are 23% more likely to move up in the careers • Women with advocates are 22% more likely to ask for a stretch assignment to build their reputations as leaders Ultimately, having an advocate confers a career benefit of 22-30%, depending on who’s doing the asking and what they’re asking for. That’s increasing your odds of making it to the C-Suite by nearly a third! If anecdotal evidence is more your thing, here are a couple of quotations for you: • A lot of decisions are made when you are not in the room, so you need someone to advocate for you, bring up the important reasons you should advance” (Catalyst Survey, as quoted in Elizabeth McDaid, “Mentor vs. Sponsor,” September 3, 2019) • When you get to the level in your career when decisions are not just being made by an individual manager, feedback from other leaders becomes crucial. Rosalind Hudnell, Chief Diversity Officer, Intel. As quoted in Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, Melinda Marshall, and Laura Sherbin. “The Relationship You Need to Get Right,” HBR 2011) • “I was great at building businesses and had tons of cheerleaders, but I had that typical Asian keep-your-head-down-and-you’ll-get-taken-care-of mindset.” My boss had to take me aside and tell me that if I didn’t actively cultivate her as my sponsor, I would never progress beyond senior associate” (quoted in Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, Melinda Marshall, and Laura Sherbin. “The Relationship You Need to Get Right,” HBR 2011) To reiterate: an organization is not purely a meritocracy where talent and hard work speak for themselves; and it’s much, much harder to advance within an organization without effective advocates. "This blog post is the first in a three-part series that summarizes the key messages I deliver to my students, in the hopes that it can catalyze and support the career success of a broader group of ambitious employees who aspire to make it to the C-Suite,” writes Renee Dye 94PhD, associate professor in the practice of Organization & Management. “Most of my lessons are derived from my own unlikely personal journey from literary scholar to top-tier management consultant to C-suite executive for a publicly traded company, but they are also heavily informed by leading researchers like Sylvia Anne Hewlett. In the final blog, I discuss the impact of remote work on career success.” For more insight and to continue reading this article and series, please visit Dye’s blog. To arrange an interview – simply click on Dye’s icon now to book a time today.
The Olympics have come and gone. As the world watched top athletes from across the globe compete, one key takeaway was not a new world record or a perfect 10 on the floor – but that Black female athletes faced unfair scrutiny and an obvious double standard when it came to issues of stress and mental health, policies and protocol, uniforms and hair, and more. UMW Assistant Professor of Communication Emily Deering Crosby's previous research has focused on how the media has portrayed Black female Olympians like Lolo Jones and Gabby Douglas. Here's what she had to say: There were numerous instances this summer of world class women athletes being sexualized, penalized, mocked and dismissed for a variety of issues from uniforms to motherhood to naturally occurring testosterone levels to mental health to archaic policy. This was particularly salient for Black women athletes, which is worth highlighting, since racism and sexism often function in tandem ways that many people misunderstand as “normal” or “insignificant” since it can be pervasive. My work aims to root out, point out and amplify why these practices are wrong, why they keep women from being appropriately valued, and how sports culture can be better and thus enhance communication scholarship and everyday practices by media, fans and athletes themselves. The silver lining in the most recent Games is how digital culture, particularly social media, gives athletes themselves a voice. Further, fans and athletes alike are becoming more knowledgeable of these problematic policies and are bravely and creatively calling them out. Thus, athletes such as Simone Biles, Naomi Osaka, Sha’Carri Richardson, Allyson Felix, Norway’s women’s beach handball team, etc. are key case studies to understand these communication and structural phenomena more deeply and ultimately bring more critical awareness and justice to women’s sports.” If you’re a journalist looking to know more about this important topic – then let our experts help with your questions and coverage. Assistant Professor of Communication Emily Deering Crosby is a rhetorical critic of popular culture with research concentrations in feminist criticism – and she’s a go-to expert on this topic for national media. Dr. Crosby is available, simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
As America begins to stare down a fourth wave of COVID 19 – vaccine awareness and the debate about to get immunized or not is still a hot topic. And unfortunately, the level of misinformation being spread on social media is rampant. Recently, MSU’s Anjana Susarla the Omura Saxena Professor of Responsible AI was featured in The Conversation in a piece titled ‘Big tech has a vaccine misinformation problem – here’s what a social media expert recommends’ . It’s a very compelling read and must have information for anyone looking at the threat of fake news and how quickly it can spread. As well, the article also highlights tactics n blocking sites and mitigating the spread of misinformation. And if you are a journalist looking to know more about how big tech needs to keep up the fight against fake news – then let us help. Anjana Susarla is the Omura Saxena Professor of Responsible AI at Michigan State University. She's available to speak with media, simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
