Featured Post from University of Delaware

AI gives rise to the cut and paste employee

Mar 10, 2026

4 min

Although AI tools can improve productivity, recent studies show that they too often intensify workloads instead of reducing them, in many cases even leading to cognitive overload and burnout. The University of Delaware's Saleem Mistry says this is creating employees who work harder, not smarter.

Mistry, an associate professor of management in UD's Lerner College of Business & Economics, says his research confirms findings found in this Feb. 9, 2026 article in the Harvard Business Review.

Driven by the misconception that AI is an accurate search engine rather than a predictive text tool, these "cut and paste" employees are using the applications to pump out deliverables in seconds just to keep up with increasing workloads.

Mistry notes that this prioritization of speed over accuracy is happening at every level of the organization:

• Junior staff: Blast out polished looking but unverified drafts.

• Managers: Outsource their ability to deeply learn and critically think in order to summarize data, letting their analytical skills atrophy.

• Power users: Build hidden, unapproved systems that bypass company oversight.

A management problem, not a tech problem

"When discussing this issue, I often hear leaders blame the technology. However, I believe that blaming the tech is missing the point; I see it as a failure of leadership," Mistry said. "When already overburdened employees who are constantly having to do more with less are handed vague mandates to just use AI without any training, they use it to look busy and produce volume-based work. Because many companies still reward the volume of work produced rather than the actual impact, employees naturally use these tools to generate slick but empty deliverables."

"I believe that blaming the tech is missing the point; I see it as a failure of leadership. Because many companies still reward the volume of work produced rather than the actual impact, employees naturally use these tools to generate slick but empty deliverables."

The real costs to organizations and incoming employees

Mistry outlines three risks organizations face if they don’t intervene:

1. The workslop epidemic

"These programs allow people to generate massive amounts of workslop, which is low-effort fluff that looks good but lacks substance. It takes seconds to create, but hours for someone else to decipher, fact-check, and fix," Mistry notes. "This drains money (up to $9 million annually for large companies) and destroys morale. As an educator, researcher, and a person brought into organizations to help fix problems, I for one do not want to be on the receiving end of a thoughtless, automated data dump, especially on tasks that require real skill and deep thinking."

2. Legal disaster

He also states, "When the cut and paste mentality makes its way into professional submissions, the risks to the organization are real and oftentimes catastrophic. Courts have made it perfectly clear: ignorance is no excuse. If your name is on the document, you own the liability. Recently, attorneys have faced severe sanctions, hefty fines, and case dismissals for blindly submitting fake legal citations made up by computers."

Click here for a list of cases.

3. A warning for incoming talent

For new graduates entering this environment, Mistry offers a warning: Do not rely on AI to do your deep thinking. "If you simply use AI to blast out polished but unverified drafts, you become a replaceable 'cut and paste' employee," he says. “To truly stand out, new grads must prove they have the discernment to review, tweak, and challenge what the computer writes. The hiring edge is no longer just saying, 'I can do this task,' but 'I know how to leverage and correct AI to help me perform it.'"

Four ideas to fix it

To survive and indeed thrive with these new tools and avoid the unintended consequences of untrained staff, organizations should:

1. Reinforce the importance of fact-checking and editing: Adopt frameworks that teach employees how to show their work and log how they verified computer-generated facts.

2. Change the incentives: Stop rewarding busy work, useless reports, and massive slide decks. Evaluate employees on accuracy and results.

3. Eradicate superficial work: Don’t use automation to speed up ineffective legacy processes. Instead, use it to identify and eliminate them entirely.

4. Make time for editing: Give yourself and your employees the breathing room to actually review, tweak, and challenge what the computer writes instead of accepting the first draft.

Mistry is available to discuss:

Why AI is causing an epidemic of corporate "workslop" (and how to spot it).

The leadership failure behind the "cut and paste" employee.

How to rewrite corporate incentives to measure impact instead of volume in the AI era.

Strategies for implementing safe, effective AI policies at work.

How new college graduates can avoid the "workslop" trap in their first jobs.

To reach Mistry directly and arrange an interview, visit his profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested reporters can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.

Connect with:

Saleem Mistry

Associate Professor, Management

Prof. Mistry's research seeks to unpack factors that shape fragmentation and integration within and between leaders, individuals and teams.

Organizational BehaviorTeam ChartersLeadershipMuliteamingTeam Resilience

Find Experts

May 14, 2026

4 min

New clues about how earthquakes work

University of Delaware researcher Jessica Warren helped uncover evidence that sections of fast-moving underwater faults may act like “brakes,” controlling the occurrence of big earthquake events on transform faults. Warren can discuss what the findings, released today in the journal Science, mean for earthquake science and future modeling. Situated along a stretch of the equator in the Pacific Ocean, between Indonesia and Central America, the Gofar transform fault is one of the fastest moving faults on Earth — cruising along the seafloor at about 140 millimeters per year. This is over four times faster than the San Andreas fault is moving in California. “Geologically speaking, it's like looking at a moving Acela train next to a SEPTA train on the tracks,” said Warren, a professor of earth sciences at UD. Researchers know that the Gofar transform fault line has experienced a magnitude 6 earthquake about every five to six years over the last three decades. It’s been studied extensively, as these earthquakes occur at the same places along the fault and at the same intensity, time after time. What’s been unknown, until now, is why parts of this fault experience many small microshocks leading up to a main earthquake rupture, then shut down, while other parts of the fault are quiet before the big event and then experience many aftershocks. Now, a multi-institutional team of researchers, including UD’s Warren, reports that sections of the fault without large magnitude earthquakes actually act like brakes in a fast-moving car, controlling the occurrence of big earthquake events on transform faults. This finding is in contrast with currently accepted models of earthquake behavior. The team includes researchers from UD, Indiana University, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, the U.S. Geological Survey, Boston College, Western Washington University, the University of New Hampshire and McGill University. In the study, the researchers analyzed two zones along the Gofar transform fault they say have stopped about 15 magnitude 6 earthquakes over the past 30 years. The study findings will inform globally what’s known about how faults and earthquakes behave, at sea and on land. Warren's contributions include leading the initial field research at sea in 2019 on the R/V Atlantis and interpreting results throughout the project, with a focus on connecting the earthquake observations to how rocks in the fault fracture and distort during an earthquake. Why were you studying the Gofar transform fault, in particular? Warren: Geoscientists want to understand faults and earthquakes because they are obviously a big hazard on land. The rocks that make up the seafloor are simpler than those found on land, providing a more controlled space to study earthquakes, despite the challenges of doing research underwater. If you want to understand how faults build up stress and then release it (and where), the Gofar transform fault is amazing, because it experiences earthquakes at reliable intervals of five to six years. This is a lot more regular than any other fault. In 2019, I led a research cruise on the R/V Atlantis that deployed 51 seismometers two miles down on the seafloor to detect these small events. We were able to compare the results of our measurements from 2019 to 2020 to an experiment conducted by my colleague Jeff McGuire on the same fault in 2008. The similarities in the two datasets brought us to the realization that fault sections without large magnitude earthquakes control the overall occurrence of big events on transform faults. When we had that observation in 2008, that might have been a one-off, but getting back this new data and seeing such similar behavior was a new insight into what's happening in the fault. How does that tell you about how earthquakes occur on land? Warren: On land, people spend a lot of time looking at how rainwater and groundwater move in a fault system, and how that influences the behavior of the fault. In the oceans, we have an unlimited amount of water. Once the rock cracks, the water is going to get in there. Being able to look at how a fault changes through the earthquake cycle — which we've now measured most of on this one fault — can help us understand what is universal about how faults work, and how rock friction works. And one of the big players is water. That's why the rock samples that my lab works on matter. Fault structure is another thing that we've been trying to understand. We know from on land that some parts of a fault are linear, while other parts have lots of strands and maybe contain more fractures and that, if you start putting water in the picture, this can limit or change how water moves into the system. Now, we have these very high-resolution maps of the seafloor, where we can see, for the first time, where the fault itself is. One of the next things we want to understand is how fluid gets into the fault, and then how friction in a fault changes when water is there. Why is this important? Warren: The next step is to translate the understanding that we've gained from this specific fault to understanding how faults behave in general. This is the longer path to really understanding earthquake hazards. It's not going to change our hazard models tomorrow, but hopefully it will in the decades to come. To reach Warren directly and arrange an interview, visit her profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested reporters can also email MediaRelations@udel.edu.

May 8, 2026

4 min

Survey says: Senior leaders are using AI, but they could use more direction

Over the years, study upon study has shown that senior leaders are slower to adapt to new technology – email, the Internet and social media – than younger employees. That’s not necessarily so with AI, according to the University of Delaware’s Saleem Mistry. Mistry, associate professor of management at UD's Alfred Lerner College of Business & Economics, recently conducted a survey of more than 200 university alumni, 75% of which had more than 16 years of professional experience. He found that senior leaders are actively adopting AI to solve their biggest challenges. However, they are doing so largely without structured support or guidance. Here are four findings from Mistry's survey that shows how AI is actually being used at the top. Senior Leaders Are Overwhelmingly Self-Taught Mistry said his most glaring finding is the gap between high AI adoption among senior leaders and the near-total absence of formal corporate support. Although a majority use these tools, they are almost entirely self-taught, which highlights visible opportunity that organizations aren’t really steering the AI conversation for leaders: • High usage. 62% of all senior leaders surveyed use AI tools "regularly" or "occasionally" in their work. • Training gap. Of those users, an overwhelming 80% report their organization provides "Never" or only "Sometimes" (mostly never) adequate training. Mistry said this shows that leaders from VP level down are using tools like ChatGPT and Copilot informally to keep up with heavy workloads, without any real organizational guidance. The stakes are high. In the survey, a vice president of legal was using AI for compliance tasks and a manager of three was using it for performance reviews, both with no formal training. “These are senior leaders handling sensitive work while essentially figuring it out on their own,” Mistry said. There is a clear ladder of AI use Leaders are not using AI randomly. There is a clear progression in how they use it, moving through three levels. • Tier 1 (The Drafters) This is the most common starting point. Leaders use AI to improve writing and communication. They draft emails, shape documents, and refine tone. As one Director of Product put it, it helps him "polish phrasing" and adjust tone and voice. • Tier 2 (The Synthesizers) At this stage, leaders use AI to manage information overload. They summarize meetings, condense documents, and pull together research so they can keep up with large volumes of input. As one leader managing a team of 200 said, "Being a leader requires attention in a variety of areas. AI helps me manage the vast amounts of information I need to consume." • Tier 3 (The Architects) Here, leaders move beyond writing and summarizing. They use AI to automate parts of their work. This includes building agents, creating custom GPTs, or designing tools that track work and performance. One leader managing 300 people said, "It will eliminate half or more of my overhead." Managers and individual contributors use AI for different reasons People managers and individual contributors (IC) are using AI for very different reasons based on their roles. • For people managers, their main challenge is scale. They are overloaded with communication and administration, so they use AI to reduce noise and keep up. They lean heavily on summarization and tone adjustment tools. • For project leads and ICs, their focus is output. They use AI to produce work faster, including drafting content, building decks, writing code, or generating ideas. This difference reflects their jobs. One group is trying to keep up, the other is trying to produce more. It also shows that AI is not a single-use tool. Its value depends on the problem it is being used to solve. This difference reflects their jobs. One group is trying to keep up, the other is trying to produce more. It also shows that AI is not a single-use tool. Its value depends on the problem it is being used to solve. Resistance to AI is mostly intentional Among the 38 percent of leaders who do not use AI, resistance is usually not based on lack of awareness. It falls into three groups: • The Ethical Objectors. Some avoid AI due to concerns about its broader impact. • The Quality Skeptics. Some do not trust the output and feel it is not reliable enough for important work. • The Blocked. Some are not allowed to use AI due to company policy. Mistry concludes that there is a clear overall pattern: Leaders are using AI in practical ways, but mostly without structured support or guidance. “If it feels like you are figuring this out as you go without much help from your organization, that is consistent with what most leaders are experiencing,” Mistry said. To connect directly with Mistry and arrange an interview, visit his profile page and click on the "connect" button. Interested reporters can also email MediaRelations@udel.edu.

May 13, 2026

2 min

UD experts break down the 2026 World Cup

As the world gears up for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, experts from the University of Delaware are available to provide timely insight on the science, business, and human impact behind the global tournament. Player Safety, Concussions and the Future of the Game Tom Kaminski, professor of kinesiology and applied physiology, is a leading authority on player safety and head injuries. As the sole U.S. representative on FIFA’s Heading Expert Group, Kaminski is helping shape international guidelines around heading in soccer—particularly for youth athletes. He can speak to concussion risks, prevention strategies, and how evolving safety standards are influencing the modern game. Joining him is Tom Buckley, who also specializes in concussion research and athlete health, offering additional perspective on injury trends and recovery in elite competition. The Business of the World Cup: Tourism and Global Impact Matt Robinson from UD’s Lerner College of Business and Economics explores how mega-events like the World Cup drive tourism, economic growth, and global connection. Robinson can discuss how host cities benefit, the long-term economic ripple effects, and how sports act as a powerful unifier across cultures. Youth, Development and the Next Generation of Fans Sara Goldstein brings expertise in adolescent development, offering insight into how traditions with family shape youth identity, social development, and engagement with physical activity. Her perspective is especially relevant for younger audiences experiencing the World Cup through schools and community programs, including UD’s Lab School initiatives. Inside the Game: Sports Analytics in Action With the rise of data-driven performance, UD’s new Sports Performance Analytics major is preparing students to analyze gameplay at the highest level. Martin Heintzelman, department chair, can connect media with program leaders and practitioners including Jack Davis and Christina Rasnake, who are helping students apply real-time analytics to global competitions like the World Cup. The Science Beneath the Game: Playing Surfaces World Cup matches are required to be played on natural grass—a costly and complex requirement, especially for indoor stadiums. Erik Ervin can discuss how turfgrass systems have evolved, the science behind maintaining elite playing surfaces, and the massive investment required to meet international standards. Why Watching Together Matters Amit Kumar studies the psychology of happiness and shared experiences. He can speak to why gathering to watch World Cup matches—whether in stadiums, bars, or living rooms—boosts well-being and strengthens social bonds, making the tournament as meaningful off the field as it is on it. Connect with UD experts to explore every angle of the 2026 World Cup – from the pitch to the people. Email mediarelations@udel.edu to connect with these experts.