Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Why Simultaneous Voting Makes for Good Decisions

How can organizations make robust decisions when time is short, and the stakes are high? It’s a conundrum not unfamiliar to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Back in 2021, the FDA found itself under tremendous pressure to decide on the approval of the experimental drug aducanumab, designed to slow the progress of Alzheimer’s disease—a debilitating and incurable condition that ranks among the top 10 causes of death in the United States. Welcomed by the market as a game-changer on its release, aducanumab quickly ran into serious problems. A lack of data on clinical efficacy along with a slew of dangerous side effects meant physicians in their droves were unwilling to prescribe it. Within months of its approval, three FDA advisors resigned in protest, one calling aducanumab, “the worst approval decision that the FDA has made that I can remember.” By the start of 2024, the drug had been pulled by its manufacturers. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight and data from the public’s use of aducanumab, it is easy for us to tell that FDA made the wrong decision then. But is there a better process that would have given FDA the foresight to make the right decision, under limited information? The FDA routinely has to evaluate novel drugs and treatments; medical and pharmaceutical products that can impact the wellbeing of millions of Americans. With stakes this high, the FDA is known to tread carefully: assembling different advisory, review, and funding committees providing diverse knowledge and expertise to assess the evidence and decide whether to approve a new drug, or not. As a federal agency, the FDA is also required to maintain scrupulous records that cover its decisions, and how those decisions are made. The Impact of Voting Mechanisms on Decision Quality Some of this data has been analyzed by Goizueta’s Tian Heong Chan, associate professor of information systems and operation management. Together with Panos Markou of the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, Chan scrutinized 17 years’ worth of information, including detailed transcripts from more than 500 FDA advisory committee meetings, to understand the mechanisms and protocols used in FDA decision-making: whether committee members vote to approve products sequentially, with everyone in the room having a say one after another; or if voting happens simultaneously via the push of a button, say, or a show of hands. Chan and Markou also looked at the impact of sequential versus simultaneous voting to see if there were differences in the quality of the decisions each mechanism produced. Their findings are singular. It turns out that when stakeholders vote simultaneously, they make better decisions. Drugs or products approved this way are far less likely to be issued post-market boxed warnings (warnings issued by FDA that call attention to potentially serious health risks associated with the product, that must be displayed on the prescription box itself), and more than two times less likely to be recalled. The FDA changed its voting protocols in 2007, when they switched from sequentially voting around the room, one person after another, to simultaneous voting procedures. And the results are stunning. Tian Heong Chan, Associate Professor of Information Systems & Operation Management “Decisions made by simultaneous voting are more than twice as effective,” says Chan. “After 2007, you see that just 3.4% of all drugs and products approved this way end up being discontinued or recalled. This compares with an 8.6% failure rate for drugs approved by the FDA using more sequential processes—the round robin where individuals had been voting one by one around the room.” Imagine you are told before hand that you are going to vote on something important by simply raising your hand or pressing a button. In this scenario, you are probably going to want to expend more time and effort in debating all the issues and informing yourself before you decide. Tian Heong Chan “On the other hand, if you know the vote will go around the room, and you will have a chance to hear how others’ speak and explain their decisions, you’re going to be less motivated to exchange and defend your point of view beforehand,” says Chan. In other words, simultaneous decision-making is two times less likely to generate a wrong decision as the sequential approach. Why is this? Chan and Markou believe that these voting mechanisms impact the quality of discussion and debate that undergird decision-making; that the quality of decisions is significantly impacted by how those decisions are made. Quality Discussion Leads to Quality Decisions Parsing the FDA transcripts for content, language, and tonality in both settings, Chan and Markou find evidence to support this. Simultaneous voting or decision-making drives discussions that are characterized by language that is more positive, more authentic, and more even in terms of expressions of authority and hierarchy, says Chan. What’s more, these deliberations and exchanges are deeper and more far-ranging in quality. We find marked differences in the tone of speech and the topics discussed when stakeholders know they will be voting simultaneously. There is less hierarchy in these exchanges, and individuals exhibit greater confidence in sharing their points of view more freely. Tian Heong Chan “We also see more questions being asked, and a broader range of topics and ideas discussed,” says Chan. In this context, decision-makers are also less likely to reach unanimous agreement. Instead, debate is more vigorous and differences of opinion remain more robust. Conversely, sequential voting around the room is typically preceded by shorter discussion in which stakeholders share fewer opinions and ask fewer questions. And this demonstrably impacts the quality of the decisions made, says Chan. Sharing a different perspective to a group requires effort and courage. With sequential voting or decision-making, there seems to be less interest in surfacing diverse perspectives or hidden aspects to complex problems. Tian Heong Chan “So it’s not that individuals are being influenced by what other people say when it comes to voting on the issue—which would be tempting to infer—rather, it’s that sequential voting mechanisms seem to take a bit more effort out of the process.” When decision-makers are told that they will have a chance to vote and to explain their vote, one after another, their incentives to make a prior effort to interrogate each other vigorously, and to work that little bit harder to surface any shortcomings in their own understanding or point of view, or in the data, are relatively weaker, say Chan and Markou. The Takeaway for Organizations Making High-Stakes Decisions Decision-making in different contexts has long been the subject of scholarly scrutiny. Chan and Markou’s research sheds new light on the important role that different mechanisms have in shaping the outcomes of decision-making—and the quality of the decisions that are jointly taken. And this should be on the radar of organizations and institutions charged with making choices that impact swathes of the community, they say. “The FDA has a solid tradition of inviting diversity into its decision-making. But the data shows that harnessing the benefits of diversity is contingent on using the right mechanisms to surface the different expertise you need to be able to see all the dimensions of the issue, and make better informed decisions about it,” says Chan. A good place to start? By a concurrent show of hands. Tian Heong Chan is an associate professor of information systems and operation management. he is available to speak about this topic - click on his con now to arrange an interview today.

Fast-striking and unpredictable, tornadoes pose major challenges for emergency planners

At least 20 U.S. states have been hit with tornadoes – some of them deadly – over the past week. Experts from the University of Delaware's Disaster Research Center can speak to the difficulty of drawing up plans in advance of tornadoes, which can develop quickly and unexpectedly, as well as a variety of topics related to storm preparedness, evacuations and recovery. Those experts include: Jennifer Horney: Environmental impacts of disasters and potential public health impacts for chronic and infectious diseases. Horney, who co-authored a paper on the increase in tornado outbreaks, can talk about how impacts on the morbidity and mortality that result from tornadoes. Tricia Wachtendorf: Evacuation decision-making, disaster response and coordination, disaster relief (donations) and logistics, volunteer and emergent efforts, social vulnerability. James Kendra: Disaster response, nursing homes and hospitals, volunteers, response coordination. Jennifer Trivedi: Challenges for people with disabilities during disaster, cultural issues and long-term recovery. Sarah DeYoung: Pets in emergencies, infant feeding in disasters and decision-making in evacuation. A.R. Siders: Expert on sea level rise and managed retreat – the concept of planned community movement away from flood-prone areas. To reach these experts directly, visit their profile and click on the contact button.

NASA Asks Researchers to Help Define Trustworthiness in Autonomous Systems

A Florida Tech-led group of researchers was selected to help NASA solve challenges in aviation through its prestigious University Leadership Initiative (ULI) program. Over the next three years, associate professor of computer science and software engineering Siddhartha Bhattacharyya and professor of aviation human factors Meredith Carroll will work to understand the vital role of trust in autonomy. Their project, “Trustworthy Resilient Autonomous Agents for Safe City Transportation in the Evolving New Decade” (TRANSCEND), aims to establish a common framework for engineers and human operators to determine the trustworthiness of machine-learning-enabled autonomous aviation safety systems. Autonomous systems are those that can perform independent tasks without requiring human control. The autonomy of these systems is expected to be enhanced with intelligence gained from machine learning. As a result, intelligence-based software is expected to be increasingly used in airplanes and drones. It may also be utilized in airports and to manage air traffic in the future. Learning-enabled autonomous technology can also act as contingency management when used in safety applications, proactively addressing potential disruptions and unexpected aviation events. TRANSCEND was one of three projects chosen for the latest ULI awards. The others hail from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach – researching continuously updating, self-diagnostic vehicle health management to enhance the safety and reliability of Advanced Air Mobility vehicles – and University of Colorado Boulder – investigating tools for understanding and leveraging the complex communications environment of collaborative, autonomous airspace systems. Florida Tech’s team includes nine faculty members from five universities: Penn State; North Carolina A&T State University; University of Florida; Stanford University; Santa Fe College. It also involves the companies Collins Aerospace in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and ResilienX of Syracuse, New York. Carroll and Bhattacharyya will also involve students throughout the project. Human operators are an essential component of aviation technology – they monitor independent software systems and associated data and intervene when those systems fail. They may include flight crew members, air traffic controllers, maintenance personnel or safety staff monitoring overall system safety. A challenge in implementing independent software is that engineers and operators have different interpretations of what makes a system “trustworthy,” Carroll and Bhattacharyya explained. Engineers who develop autonomous software measure trustworthiness by the system’s ability to perform as designed. Human operators, however, trust and rely on systems to perform as they expect – they want to feel comfortable relying on a system to make an aeronautical decision in flight, such as how to avoid a traffic conflict or a weather event. Sometimes, that reliance won’t align with design specifications. Equally important, operators also need to trust that the software will alert them when it needs a human to take over. This may happen if the algorithm driving the software encounters a scenario it wasn’t trained for. “We are looking at how we can integrate trust from different communities – from human factors, from formal methods, from autonomy, from AI…” Bhattacharyya said. “How do we convey assumptions for trust, from design time to operation, as the intelligent systems are being deployed, so that we can trust them and know when they’re going to fail, especially those that are learning-enabled, meaning they adapt based on machine learning algorithms?” With Bhattacharyya leading the engineering side and Carroll leading the human factors side, the research group will begin bridging the trust gap by integrating theories, principles, methods, measures, visualizations, explainability and practices from different domains – this will build the TRANSCEND framework. Then, they’ll test the framework using a diverse range of tools, flight simulators and intelligent decision-making to demonstrate trustworthiness in practice. This and other data will help them develop a safety case toolkit of guidelines for development processes, recommendations and suggested safety measures for engineers to reference when designing “trustworthy,” learning-enabled autonomous systems. Ultimately, Bhattacharyya and Carroll hope their toolkit will lay the groundwork for a future learning-enabled autonomous systems certification process. “The goal is to combine all our research capabilities and pull together a unified story that outputs unified products to the industry,” Carroll said. “We want products for the industry to utilize when implementing learning-enabled autonomy for more effective safety management systems.” The researchers also plan to use this toolkit to teach future engineers about the nuances of trust in the products they develop. Once developed, they will hold outreach events, such as lectures and camps, for STEM-minded students in the community. If you're interested in connecting with Meredith Carroll or Siddhartha Bhattacharyya - simply click on the expert's profile or contact  Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.

Expert Perspective: Mitigating Bias in AI: Sharing the Burden of Bias When it Counts Most

Whether getting directions from Google Maps, personalized job recommendations from LinkedIn, or nudges from a bank for new products based on our data-rich profiles, we have grown accustomed to having artificial intelligence (AI) systems in our lives. But are AI systems fair? The answer to this question, in short—not completely. Further complicating the matter is the fact that today’s AI systems are far from transparent. Think about it: The uncomfortable truth is that generative AI tools like ChatGPT—based on sophisticated architectures such as deep learning or large language models—are fed vast amounts of training data which then interact in unpredictable ways. And while the principles of how these methods operate are well-understood (at least by those who created them), ChatGPT’s decisions are likened to an airplane’s black box: They are not easy to penetrate. So, how can we determine if “black box AI” is fair? Some dedicated data scientists are working around the clock to tackle this big issue. One of those data scientists is Gareth James, who also serves as the Dean of Goizueta Business School as his day job. In a recent paper titled “A Burden Shared is a Burden Halved: A Fairness-Adjusted Approach to Classification” Dean James—along with coauthors Bradley Rava, Wenguang Sun, and Xin Tong—have proposed a new framework to help ensure AI decision-making is as fair as possible in high-stakes decisions where certain individuals—for example, racial minority groups and other protected groups—may be more prone to AI bias, even without our realizing it. In other words, their new approach to fairness makes adjustments that work out better when some are getting the short shrift of AI. Gareth James became the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School in July 2022. Renowned for his visionary leadership, statistical mastery, and commitment to the future of business education, James brings vast and versatile experience to the role. His collaborative nature and data-driven scholarship offer fresh energy and focus aimed at furthering Goizueta’s mission: to prepare principled leaders to have a positive influence on business and society. Unpacking Bias in High-Stakes Scenarios Dean James and his coauthors set their sights on high-stakes decisions in their work. What counts as high stakes? Examples include hospitals’ medical diagnoses, banks’ credit-worthiness assessments, and state justice systems’ bail and sentencing decisions. On the one hand, these areas are ripe for AI-interventions, with ample data available. On the other hand, biased decision-making here has the potential to negatively impact a person’s life in a significant way. In the case of justice systems, in the United States, there’s a data-driven, decision-support tool known as COMPAS (which stands for Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) in active use. The idea behind COMPAS is to crunch available data (including age, sex, and criminal history) to help determine a criminal-court defendant’s likelihood of committing a crime as they await trial. Supporters of COMPAS note that statistical predictions are helping courts make better decisions about bail than humans did on their own. At the same time, detractors have argued that COMPAS is better at predicting recidivism for some racial groups than for others. And since we can’t control which group we belong to, that bias needs to be corrected. It’s high time for guardrails. A Step Toward Fairer AI Decisions Enter Dean James and colleagues’ algorithm. Designed to make the outputs of AI decisions fairer, even without having to know the AI model’s inner workings, they call it “fairness-adjusted selective inference” (FASI). It works to flag specific decisions that would be better handled by a human being in order to avoid systemic bias. That is to say, if the AI cannot yield an acceptably clear (1/0 or binary) answer, a human review is recommended. To test the results for their “fairness-adjusted selective inference,” the researchers turn to both simulated and real data. For the real data, the COMPAS dataset enabled a look at predicted and actual recidivism rates for two minority groups, as seen in the chart below. In the figures above, the researchers set an “acceptable level of mistakes” – seen as the dotted line – at 0.25 (25%). They then compared “minority group 1” and “minority group 2” results before and after applying their FASI framework. Especially if you were born into “minority group 2,” which graph seems fairer to you? Professional ethicists will note there is a slight dip to overall accuracy, as seen in the green “all groups” category. And yet the treatment between the two groups is fairer. That is why the researchers titled their paper “a burden shared is a burdened halved.” Practical Applications for the Greater Social Good “To be honest, I was surprised by how well our framework worked without sacrificing much overall accuracy,” Dean James notes. By selecting cases where human beings should review a criminal history – or credit history or medical charts – AI discrimination that would have significant quality-of-life consequences can be reduced. Reducing protected groups’ burden of bias is also a matter of following the laws. For example, in the financial industry, the United States’ Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) makes it “illegal for a company to use a biased algorithm that results in credit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because a person receives public assistance,” as the Federal Trade Commission explains on its website. If AI-powered programs fail to correct for AI bias, the company utilizing it can run into trouble with the law. In these cases, human reviews are well worth the extra effort for all stakeholders. The paper grew from Dean James’ ongoing work as a data scientist when time allows. “Many of us data scientists are worried about bias in AI and we’re trying to improve the output,” he notes. And as new versions of ChatGPT continue to roll out, “new guardrails are being added – some better than others.” “I’m optimistic about AI,” Dean James says. “And one thing that makes me optimistic is the fact that AI will learn and learn – there’s no going back. In education, we think a lot about formal training and lifelong learning. But then that learning journey has to end,” Dean James notes. “With AI, it never ends.” Gareth James is the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School. If you're looking to connect with him - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Retro Appeal: Research Reveals the Reasons Behind Vintage Shopping in Turbulent Times

Why buy vintage? Reasons abound. It’s kinder to the environment. It’s usually cheaper. It’s back in style. But did you know it may also address a deep-seated psychological need for stability amid upheavals? Vintage consumption—that is, buying previously owned items from an earlier era—acts as a means to connect the past, present, and future. That connection across time can be reassuring, most especially in times of uncertainty. When you really want to buy a leather jacket that’s older than you are, it may be enlightening to consider the circumstances. This vintage insight reveals itself in research by Ryan Hamilton, associate professor of marketing at Goizueta Business School. In an award-winning article titled “Stitching time: Vintage consumption connects the past, present, and future,” Hamilton—along with coauthors Gulen Sarial-Abi, Kathleen Vohs, and Aulona Ulqinaku—uncovered why we may want to turn to something old when we perceive threats to our worldviews. Notably, multiple studies have shown thoughts of death to increase the appeal of items that have already stood the test of time. The Psychological Appeal of Thrifting In psychology, “meaning frameworks” are how we, as human beings, interpret and understand our lives as meaningful and valuable. Threats to our meaning frameworks—i.e., the pillars propping up our worldviews—can include thoughts of death, unsettling economic upheavals, and other existential challenges. In order to explore the effects of meaning threats on our preference for vintage, Hamilton and coauthors designed several studies. Their pilot test measured the physical health of nursing home residents. It then measured their preferences for vintage items, controlling for other variables. The results held up the researchers’ hypothesis: Vintage items—be they books, watches, bicycles, or luggage—were more strongly preferred over their modern versions by elderly participants in poorer health, presumably those most likely to have mortality on their minds. Six subsequent studies used different variables to see if the main hypothesis continued to hold up. It did, while at the same time revealing more information about the mechanisms at work. Ryan Hamilton Associate Professor of Marketing Death or Dental Pain In one study, for example, researchers prompted participants with death reminders. They had to contemplate and write about their own deaths to make sure mortality was top of mind. Researchers prompted a control group with reminders of dental pain. Both groups then answered a 12-question survey about their desire for structure (e.g., set routines and practices) at that particular moment. But there was another element in this study: contemplating wearing a watch from the 1950s. As predicted by the main hypothesis, death cues were associated with participants reporting that they desired more structure. The only exceptions was for those who imagined an old watch ticking on their wrists. Vintage consumption seemed to act as a buffer against unsettling thoughts of death for them. What is going on here? As noted above, the researchers theorize and show that vintage objects tend to connect our thoughts of the past, present, and future. These mental, intertemporal connections tend to be reassuring—“a hidden factor” in our preferences and choices, as Hamilton notes. More than Nostalgia One might think nostalgia—a sentimental longing for the past—could also be at work. Feeling nostalgic for one’s own past and social connections can buffer against meaning threats, as previous research has shown. But this paper was designed to tease out nostalgia. It focused on vintage’s connections across time regardless of one’s personal experiences. “This study allowed us to clearly show that people respond differently to something they believe to be old,” as Hamilton explains. “It’s not just something that has a retro look, which was one of my favorite aspects of this project.” Hamilton and his coauthors achieved this by having participants evaluate identical items thought to be genuinely vintage or replicas. And the results were robust. Retro replicas, which can prompt nostalgia, did not have the same psychological impact as items believed to be genuinely old. For instance, 20-year-olds who find a watch from the 1950s reassuring can’t feel nostalgic about the design personally. They can, however, feel a connection across time—and that came through in the study. Retail Therapy on the Rise? Hamilton’s research here follows his broader interest in consumer psychology, branding, and decision-making. “When we’re buying things, we may think it’s based on strict utility maximization. However, it also might be making us feel better in some way,” says Hamilton. Shopping can serve as an emotional management strategy—for better or for worse. Although it was outside the scope of this particular investigation (and all participants were over age 18), the insights gleaned here may help explain why 21st-century teenagers seem to be particularly avid “thrifters” these days. “I don’t want to overstate our findings. But it’s at least possible that the appeal of vintage for teenagers is boltstered by a sense of permanence and endurance that helps them during times of upheaval,” Hamilton says. It turns out a 30-year-old leather jacket might help its new owner feel better on many levels. So is it any wonder that vintage shopping is surging in uncertain times? Fashion magazines, such as Vogue and GQ, are following the vintage craze closely in 2024. Concern for climate change and the Earth’s finite resources may present two intertwined reasons to buy old things: those two things are environmental and psychological. If tumultuous times continue amid contentious elections, wars, and other threats, it seems safe to bet on vintage. Ryan Hamilton is associate professor of Marketing at Emory University - Goizueta Business School. If you're a journalist looking to know about this topic, simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

MEDIA RELEASE: CAA survey finds cannabis-impaired driving remains a concern in Manitoba

As 4/20 approaches, a survey conducted on behalf of CAA Manitoba reveals a trend: while most drivers in the province recognize the risks of cannabis-impaired driving, a significant number continue to drive after consuming cannabis—often in combination with other substances like alcohol or prescription medication. “Manitobans who decide to drive after consuming cannabis often underestimate the risks associated with this action,” said Ewald Friesen, manager, government relations, CAA Manitoba. “People still seem to believe that they have no alternative but to drive home or that the drive is short enough that it doesn’t matter. We are here to remind Manitobans that while cannabis use is legal and can be safely consumed, you should never do it before driving.”  Forty-seven per cent of Manitoba drivers used cannabis in 2024; 36 per cent tried cannabis this year for the first time since legalization. Despite growing awareness of the risks, 18 per cent of Manitoba drivers admit to driving after using cannabis, with the majority doing so within just three hours of consumption. Half of those surveyed are driving within three hours of consumption. The survey also revealed that 53 per cent of recent cannabis-impaired drivers reported driving shortly after consumption, with 36 per cent feeling high while behind the wheel. Alarmingly, 79 per cent expressed confidence in their driving ability while impaired, though 71 per cent expressed concern about being caught. “There is a common misconception on how cannabis affects drivers,” says Friesen, “however, it has been proven that cannabis use can impact a driver’s reaction time, judgement, coordination and decision-making.” Driving after consuming edibles has been a growing trend since last year. While smoking remains the primary mode of cannabis use, the survey highlights a growing trend of driving after consuming edibles, which can have delayed and unpredictable effects. Solid edibles (67 per cent) and joints (61 per cent) are the most used formats, and more than half of cannabis users prefer edibles over any other format. "Unlike other forms of cannabis, edibles often have delayed and unpredictable effects, which can significantly impair judgment and reaction times,” adds Friesen. “It is crucial for individuals to recognize these differences and prioritize safety, not only for themselves but for everyone sharing the road." There is a disconnect between what people believe and how they behave when it comes to cannabis and driving. Although 93 per cent of Manitoba drivers agree that cannabis-impaired driving is a serious road safety issue, many still view it as less dangerous than alcohol or prescription opioids. This disconnect between perception and behaviour underscores the need for continued education and enforcement. The penalties for impaired driving are serious and can include: • Immediate 24-hour licence suspension (up to 60 days pending further testing) • Three-day vehicle impoundment • A $400 fine • Mandatory Impaired Driver Assessment • Additional administrative penalties, ignition interlock program requirements, and possible charges under the Criminal Code of Canada CAA Manitoba encourages all motorists to make safe, informed choices: • Know the rules and understand how different cannabis products affect the body. • Don’t drive impaired—whether by cannabis, alcohol, or any combination of substances. • Plan ahead by arranging a rideshare, taxi, or designated driver, especially if planning to consume cannabis during upcoming events like 4/20. The online survey was conducted by DIG Insights from July 5 to July 18, 2024, with 504 Manitoba drivers aged 19 and older. Based on the sample size of n=504 and with a confidence level of 95%, the margin of error for this research is +/- 3%.) 

Tariffs and Trade Series - The Potential Impacts of Tariffs and Global Trade Shifts

This is the first installment in a series examining the multifaceted impacts of tariff and trade policies. By delving into the nuances of these policies, we aim to provide valuable insights and perspectives that will inform strategic business decision-making and foster resilience in an increasingly volatile global market. Future papers in this series will explore the specific implications for key sectors such as agriculture, energy, and construction, offering targeted analysis and recommendations to help businesses navigate and thrive amidst evolving trade landscapes. The global trade landscape is experiencing rapid shifts driven by escalating tariffs, geopolitical realignments, and supply chain disruptions. In North America, businesses must navigate changing US trade policies, evolving trade agreements such as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), and the broader implications of international trade tensions. These developments may have significant economic implications which impact supply chains, regulatory compliance, financial strategies, and heighten geopolitical risk. Trade policies across the world are being redefined, with tariffs increasingly used as economic and political tools. The US, China, and the European Union are at the center of these shifts, reshaping global supply chains and trade routes. Businesses must reassess their sourcing strategies, financial models, and regulatory compliance efforts in response to these evolving dynamics. In North America, the US has intensified its use of tariffs, impacting trade with Canada, Mexico, and numerous global partners. While these policies aim to boost domestic industries, they have introduced supply chain challenges and regulatory complexities. As a result, companies must proactively adapt to maintain operational efficiency and financial stability. This article examines the challenges and opportunities that may arise from these trade shifts and provides insights for businesses to mitigate risks and maintain competitiveness. At J.S. Held, we help businesses navigate these challenges by providing insights into regulatory changes, trade risks, and strategic adaptations to ensure long-term resilience. "With the sweeping April 2 tariff announcement, U.S. trade policy has entered a new phase. One where national security, economic leverage, and regulatory unpredictability intersect. Businesses are now navigating not just targeted tariffs, but a universal cost layer that may touch nearly every sector. The urgency to adapt through exemption strategies, supply chain restructuring, and trade compliance has never been greater." The full report is accessible below, and is a must read for anyone covering the impacts of the tariffs announced by President Trump on April 02, 2025. Looking to know more or connect with Andrea Korney? Simply click on the expert's icon now to arrange an interview today. For any other media inquiries - contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com

Fear Of Running Out (FORO)

Summary: The article explores the Fear of Running Out (FORO), a psychological phenomenon that stems from anxiety about resource scarcity, particularly in retirement. FORO is especially common among seniors who fear depleting their financial, physical, or emotional resources as they age. Unlike FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), FORO focuses on the depletion of existing assets, often leading to cautious decision-making, delayed spending, or self-sabotaging behaviours like excessive frugality or social withdrawal. While some instances of FORO are valid—such as retirees who underestimated their living expenses—others are more psychological, with financially secure individuals still feeling paralyzed by fear and unable to enjoy their retirement fully.  There are practical solutions, but they require more than just emotional support.  We also need to address the lack of formal retirement planning and literacy.  Most retirees have insufficient knowledge about tax-efficient asset drawdowns, and the limited guidance from financial institutions exacerbates these fears. We’ve all heard of FOMO (fear of missing out)—that nagging anxiety when everyone else seems to be at a fabulous party while you’re at home scrolling through social media, eating last night’s leftovers straight from the container. As we age, the fears we carry evolve—and for some, they get a little louder, quirkier, and much more challenging to ignore. A unique set of acronyms has emerged for older adults to describe these creeping anxieties. Allow me to introduce you to the unholy trinity of aging fears: FOGO (Fear of Getting Old): This one typically kicks in around our mid-to-late 50s when the realization hits and panic sets in: "Wait... I’m not young anymore?" Have I saved enough? Have I experienced enough? Am I running out of time? Cue the classic symptoms: splurging on bright red sports cars, embarking on bucket-list trips to exotic locales, or dating someone who knows what "Netflix and chill" really means, not cozying up with a movie. And yes, sometimes while still married. It’s all part of the "midlife crisis" package—a desperate attempt to outrun Father Time. But let’s be honest: The comb-over isn’t fooling anyone. FOBO (Fear of Being Old): This stage sneaks in during your 70s, as your "best before" date blinks ominously on life’s metaphorical packaging. Many enter into a state of "defensive denial,"  refusing to acknowledge their age or any limitations, insisting they are still as capable as ever, even when struggling with specific tasks.  In this stage, people can demonstrate "overcompensation - Desperately trying to prove they’re still youthful.  Many will refuse to use mobility aids or decline assistance from family or caregivers out of pride.  Others will shut down anyone who dares to suggest they are old. “Me? Old? Please. I just got a brand-new hip last year!” FORO (Fear of Running Out): Now we get to the show's real star. FORO enters the spotlight as you thoughtfully consider retirement and suddenly takes over the plot. It’s the fear of running out—of money, energy, time, or maybe even snacks at movie night. This one’s a relentless buzz in the background of every decision, from how you spend your savings to whether you should buy name-brand peanut butter or settle for the generic jar. If left unchecked, FORO can steal the joy out of today by worrying too much about tomorrow. We have all heard the stories of people passing away with millions of dollars in the bank, yet they lived in squalor, afraid to spend their money. Now, FORO can manifest in all kinds of ways. Some are almost funny in hindsight. Remember the pandemic toilet paper wars of 2020? Or that panic at a party when you’re convinced you don’t have enough food for your guests, only to find yourself drowning in leftovers? But for seniors in retirement, FORO often takes on a much more serious tone—like running out of money, energy, or health as the years go by. These thoughts can be terrifying for the aged.  And sometimes, this fear is warranted. Imagine a retiree who underestimated their living expenses, burned through savings too quickly, and now faces the stark reality of financial insecurity. That’s a legitimate case of FORO that demands attention, planning, and maybe a shift in lifestyle. But other times, FORO is more like a shadow in the dark—unsettling at first glance but harmless once illuminated. For example, some seniors with reasonable pensions, savings, and even supplemental income streams might still be too paralyzed by the fear of running out to take that dream vacation or help their grandchildren with school. In this situation, it is doubtful that there will ever be enough. This type of FORO can cause harm through neglect. This unfounded FORO can keep people from genuinely thriving during their golden years. There are well-documented cases of individuals who have perished from thirst in the desert while carrying full bottles of water. They were too frightened of running out of water to save their lives by drinking it. Most of us shake our heads and think we would never do that, but FORO represents a compelling fear that can lead to self-sabotaging behaviours. If FORO could result in death in the aforementioned desert scenario, how might it influence decisions regarding our significant assets, such as our homes? Unfortunately, many retirees pinch pennies and go without while living in homes with considerable equity, refusing to access it for fear of running out (FORO). So, how do we know when FORO is a valid warning signal and when it’s just a psychological hurdle? And, more importantly, how can we tackle this fear to ensure it doesn’t stand in the way of living a joyful, fulfilled retirement? Read on; we’ll dive deeper into the concept of FORO—why it exists, how it can sneak into our decision-making, and, most importantly, actionable strategies to manage it. Remember, your golden years shouldn’t be ruled by fear—they should be a time to shine. The Fear of Running Out (FORO) is a psychological concept rooted in anxiety about scarcity or insufficiency, particularly concerning essential resources like money, time, or opportunities. It's akin to FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), but instead emphasizes the anxiety of depleting one's existing resources rather than worrying about missed experiences. While FORO has not been as widely studied as FOMO in academic circles, the term has gained traction in financial and psychological contexts, particularly regarding retirement planning, economic behaviour, and decision-making. Although it’s unclear who explicitly popularized the term “Fear of Running Out,” it has become a recurring theme in financial planning discussions and among behavioural psychologists studying how individuals manage uncertainty and risk. The Psychology of FORO FORO is deeply rooted in psychological concepts of scarcity and loss aversion, both key ideas in behavioural economics. Loss aversion, central to Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s prospect theory, highlights that the pain of losing something outweighs the joy of gaining an equivalent amount. In the context of retirement, the fear of running out of money reflects this principle—financial depletion carries the weight of losing essential aspects like security, independence, and quality of life, making it feel particularly distressing. The work of researchers like Eldar Shafir and Senthil Mullainathan on the scarcity mindset further illuminates this phenomenon. They suggest that when people are preoccupied with avoiding resource depletion, they often develop tunnel vision, focusing narrowly on the immediate issue. For seniors worried about outliving their savings, this can manifest as excessive caution or hesitation in deciding to spend or draw down resources, even when such concerns may not be warranted. Faced with this dilemma, some seniors develop inertia, choose to do nothing, and ignore the situation altogether. According to a 2024 report by the Ontario Securities Commission, 13% of pre-retirees and 19% of retirees among Canadians aged 50 and older have a formal written retirement plan, which is a significant cause for concern. This reflects a widespread lack of structured financial and retirement literacy. Without a clear strategy, many individuals may not fully understand how to manage their resources effectively throughout retirement, particularly when it comes to de-accumulating (spending) assets in a tax-efficient manner. We can quickly start to see why many older Canadians have FORO. One key issue is that minimal accessible information exists on strategies for drawing down retirement savings to minimize taxes while ensuring long-term financial security. For example, the timing and order in which individuals withdraw from registered accounts like RRSPs, TFSAs, non-registered investments, or access their home equity can dramatically impact their overall tax burden and available income in retirement. Unfortunately, this type of guidance is often overlooked in financial planning resources, leaving most retirees guessing how much money is enough. The financial industry also contributes to this gap. Banks and many financial advisors are primarily compensated through commissions tied to the sale and management of investments, such as mutual funds or other financial products. This model does not incentivize them to provide comprehensive advice on strategically spending down savings. As a result, many seniors are left without the critical guidance they need to navigate the complexities of de-accumulation, leading to suboptimal emotionally driven decisions and increased financial stress. This lack of tailored advice is particularly problematic for Canadians who rely on paying off their homes as their primary financial plan. While homeownership is a valuable asset, it is not liquid, and converting it into usable retirement income can be challenging without proper planning. The fear of running out of money (FORO) becomes especially acute for these individuals, as they may not have the financial and retirement literacy or tools to make informed decisions about how to fund their retirement, especially concerning using home equity. In short, the low prevalence of formal retirement plans, insufficient education on tax-efficient de-accumulation, and the misaligned incentives of financial institutions significantly disadvantage seniors. This gap exacerbates financial insecurity and leaves many retirees vulnerable to the psychological and practical challenges of FORO, particularly those who rely on home equity, an illiquid asset, as their primary financial safety net. Addressing these issues requires a broader emphasis on financial and retirement literacy and unbiased, accessible advice tailored to retirees' unique needs. Key Components of FORO: 1. Scarcity Mindset—Seniors facing FORO might develop a scarcity mindset, which can lead to overly frugal behaviours. For example, they may reduce spending on essential support services or forego social activities to protect their savings, even when financially secure. 2. Emotional Triggers—FORO is tied to deeper emotional needs like safety, independence, and legacy. At its core is the fear that people will have nowhere to live, won’t have enough money to care for themselves, and will not have any money left to leave a legacy. 3. Decision Paralysis - FORO can cause retirees to delay allocating resources, from downsizing a home to sourcing pension-type income. This indecision can lead to missed opportunities or unnecessary sacrifices. 4. Overcompensation—In some cases, the fear of running out can lead to self-sabotage behaviours like hoarding money or withdrawing from social activities. These behaviours reduce quality of life and increase feelings of isolation. The Solution: A comprehensive approach that combines emotional support, practical planning, and mindset adjustments is essential to helping retirees overcome FORO. By addressing their fears and financial realities, they can gain the confidence to enjoy their retirement years without worrying about running out of money. 1. Acknowledgement and Understanding - Listen and empathize: Begin by genuinely listening to the retiree's concerns, recognizing that FORO is an emotional issue tied to deep-seated fears about security and independence. Normalize the fear: Reassure them that the fear of running out of money is common, especially in retirement. Explain the reasons behind this fear: Retirees often can’t return to work to supplement income. Lifespans and healthcare costs are unpredictable, creating uncertainty. The transition from accumulating wealth to spending it feels unnatural to many. 2. Develop a Retirement Spending Plan—Create a tailored plan. Outline a sustainable spending strategy aligning with the client's lifestyle, goals, and resources: Leverage expertise: Collaborate with their bank manager or financial advisor to develop a realistic budget covering essential and discretionary expenses. Focus on balance: Establish a balance between meeting current needs and maintaining future security. 3. Generate Pension-Like Income - Explore income solutions: Help them research ways to create predictable income streams, such as: Purchasing an annuity to convert part of their savings or equity into guaranteed income. Consider equity mortgage products for additional cash flow if they have sufficient home equity. Address misconceptions: Explain how these tools can reduce uncertainty and provide peace of mind. 4. Emergency Fund - Health care may be needed later in life and can be costly. Setting money aside for unexpected expenses will offer great comfort and peace of mind. 5. Mindset Shifts - Reframe perspectives: Encourage retirees to focus on the opportunities their resources provide rather than fixating on worst-case scenarios: Promote enjoyment: Remind them that retirement is a time to enjoy the fruits of their labour, not live in constant fear. Highlight the importance of self-care and experiences that bring joy and fulfillment. 6. Legacy Planning -  Address legacy concerns: Help them create an estate plan or designate resources for loved ones and causes they care about, ensuring their wishes are honoured: Provide clarity: Show how planning for a legacy can reduce anxiety about leaving something behind while meeting their current needs. The Fear of Running Out is more than just a financial concern—it’s a deeply emotional and psychological issue for seniors facing the unpredictability of retirement. By addressing this fear in practical and empathetic ways, we can give retirees the tools and confidence to enjoy their golden years without worrying about depletion or feeling like they need to stockpile financial "water bottles" for a drought that may never come. And there you have it—FORO might be a formidable guest at the retirement table, but it doesn’t have to steal the show. By addressing the emotional roots of this fear, creating practical plans, and shifting the focus to what’s possible, retirees can turn their golden years into precisely that: golden. Remember, retirement isn’t about tiptoeing around scarcity; it’s about celebrating a lifetime of hard work and savouring the moments that make life rich. So, let’s leave FORO in the shadows where it belongs and step confidently into a retirement that truly shines. And let’s be honest, no one wants their legacy to read: "Lived frugally, died rich, and missed the Boat to the Caribbean." Don't retire---Re-Wire! Sue

How Philadelphia Eagles' head coach achieves Super success with 'Ted Lasso' management style

Not long after Nick Sirianni was hired by the Philadelphia Eagles in 2021, fans started noticing similarities between the head coach and TV’s Ted Lasso. The University of Delaware's Kyle Emich can discuss how Sirianni's team approach compares to the more top-down structure favored by Kansas City Chiefs coach Andy Reid. Like Lasso – a high school football coach on the Apple TV show of the same name who takes over an English soccer club with no prior experience – Sirianni is responsible for the culture, first and foremost. He relies on his coordinators, who call the plays. In essence, he is a more collaborative leader. By contrast, Reid is a top-down coach who currently calls the plays and always has, dating back to his time as coach of the Eagles. Philadelphia fans became more than a little weary of him saying "that's on me" at post-game press conferences following disappointing losses. With back-to-back Super Bowl titles under his belt with the Chiefs, it's difficult to argue with the success of Reid's style now. This could be fodder for sports talk radio, but it's also something Emich, a professor of management, can discuss from an academic perspective. The professor says there's advantages and disadvantages to both: • "The main advantages for the top-down approach are speed of decision-making and extreme novelty (you can do whatever pops into your head). The advantages of the coordinator approach are a larger information base to draw from and specialized knowledge." • "The more team-based approach has a lot of potential, but is difficult to execute well because it requires coordination." Emich, who has discussed management and sports teams several times in the past (including Super Bowl LII, when the Eagles defeated the New England Patriots), is available for interviews.

J.S. Held Releases 2025 Global Risk Report Addressing Critical Risks Amid Uncertainty

On the first day of the new presidential administration in the United States, global consulting firm J.S. Held unveils its annual report focused on critical areas impacting industries and economies worldwide. Explore the 2025 J.S. Held Global Risk Report here: In an increasingly uncertain and volatile global landscape, businesses, governments, and investors face a growing array of challenges that demand immediate attention and innovative solutions. The 2025 J.S. Held Global Risk Report explores five interconnected topics that organizations must consider in managing risk and opportunity in the year ahead. These include: 1. Sustainability Investments & Headwinds: With various ESG regulations across jurisdictions and increasing scrutiny over corporate environmental and social practices, experts explore how organizations can align with evolving frameworks while driving innovation. 2. Global Supply Chain Challenges: From geopolitical conflicts to climate disruptions, the report analyzes how companies can build more resilient and sustainable supply chains. 3. Crypto & Digital Asset Intensification: As the crypto landscape transitions through regulatory shifts and technological advancements, the report highlights both the risks and opportunities for businesses and investors. 4. Artificial Intelligence, Data & Digital Regulatory Response: With Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems reshaping industries, experts examine the regulatory, ethical, and operational challenges, as well as the competitive advantages for organizations that harness this transformative technology responsibly. 5. Cybersecurity Complexities: From AI-powered cyberattacks to evolving data protection laws, the report provides insights into how organizations can safeguard operations and maintain customer trust in a rapidly shifting digital environment. The 2025 J.S. Held Global Risk Report includes an analysis of these categories of risk and actionable opportunities for companies to gain a competitive edge while addressing critical vulnerabilities. “The 25 technical, scientific, financial, and strategic advisory experts who contributed to the J.S. Held Global Risk Report have collaboratively parsed not only each risk independently but also at their unique points of intersection to create a framework to support business decision-making,” noted Greg Esslinger, Executive Vice President and Global Investigations Practice Leader. “Our experts’ deep understanding of the external factors related to the topics that keep CEOs, CFOs, COOs, CLOs, and Boards of Directors up at night drives the curated insights shared in the report and helps clients navigate risks and capitalize on emerging opportunities in the year ahead,” adds John Peiserich, Esq., Executive Vice President and Environmental, Health, & Safety Practice Leader. The depth and breadth of J.S. Held’s work in the insurance market provides a strong foundation in risk assessment, data analysis, global awareness, regulatory compliance, technological adaptability, and risk mitigation. Collectively, these skills better equip the firm’s experts to assess business risk across diverse geographies, geopolitical landscapes, compliance frameworks, and digital advancements. "In a world where uncertainty is the only constant, there is a need for something solid you can hold onto," observes J.S. Held Chief Executive Officer Jonathon Held. "Our name is our promise," he adds. "Our role as strategic advisor is emblematic of this promise, even in the face of the most daunting risks, clients have the expertise and guidance to act with confidence" "Agile, collaborative, and creative client-centric teams provide solution-forward advisory to our clients across the globe, no matter the scope or complexity of a project; the J.S. Held Global Risk Report is reflective of the trusted advisor role we have earned over the last 50 years," noted J.S. Held President and Chief Operating Officer Lee Spirer. J.S. Held's expertise in strategic advisory is built upon five decades of experience in the most rigorous venues – state, federal, and international courts – and spans more than 150 different industry segments. If you have any questions or would like to further discuss the risks and opportunities outlined in the report, please email GlobalRiskReport@jsheld.com. To connect with Greg Esslinger or John Peiserich simply click on either expert's icon now. For any other media inquiries - simply contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com