Rotman Executive Summary returns Sept. 8!

As companies embrace AI to boost productivity, the way employees share knowledge at work is shifting. What could be lost in this process — and how can organizations make sure valuable expertise is preserved? Rotman assistant professor Sae-Seul Park, an expert in human capital and knowledge transfer, offers a new perspective on how companies share and develop knowledge — and why businesses need to look past productivity gains. Episode Notes00:00 – Meet Sae-Seul Park02:30 – How does knowledge move through organizations?03:40 – AI is changing workplace knowledge-sharing04:30 – What we lose when we stop asking colleagues for help06:40 – Experience shapes how we use AI08:07  - AI can act as an equalizer09:34 - Why productivity doesn't tell the whole story11:22 - AI might not always make things better in the workplace13:13 - People are the ones that hold the knowledge - not AI 15:04 - What are we losing by focusing only on productivity gains? 

Canada’s economic future isn’t just about what happens at home — it’s about how much we depend on the decisions made south of the border. Professor Walid Hejazi joins the latest episode of Rotman’s Executive Summary to explain why Canada’s reliance on the U.S. leaves businesses vulnerable, what the U.S. midterm elections could mean for our economy...and why we need to build resilience before it's too late. Show Notes:[00:00] Meet Walid Hejazi[1:52] Why Canada should be paying attention to the midterms[4:11] How the elections could change the balance of power in Washington[6:09] U.S. protectionism is bigger than one president[7:38] Why do Canadian companies struggle to diversify into other markets?[9:36] What happens when a business is too dependent on the U.S.[11:50] Canada should stop waiting for American politics to settle down[12:40] Building resilience through international diversification[13:27] Why a stronger domestic economy matters, too[15:14] The U.S. doesn’t have to be our only trading partner

Your reputation at work isn’t just about how you see yourself — it’s about the version of you that other people see. Professor Brian Connelly joins the latest episode of Rotman’s Executive Summary podcast to explain how reputations form, why they can shape career success...and whether you can actually change yours. Show Notes [00:00] Meet Brian Connelly [1:23] What is reputation - and how do we get one? [2:34] Sometimes, we overestimate or underestimate ourselves[3:30] Reputation represents the average of many opinions [5:17] Why reputation matters in your career [6:55] Reputation affects long-term success, and that can be problematic[8:20] Can we change our reputation? [10:43] Moral violations are hard to come back from [12:12] Understanding the origins of a negative reputation [12:59] How to come back from a negative reputation   

This fall, the Rotman Executive Summary returns for its fifth season, with a new set of questions about how people and organizations can navigate an increasingly complex world. From how your reputation can shape your career, to what Canada really needs in the face of trade disputes, to how AI is changing the way we share knowledge, you won’t want to miss these insights from Canada’s leading business school. Mark your calendar for Sept. 8 — and catch up on past seasons now.

Are we being manipulated by the words we hear — and the ones we use? In this episode, marketing and psychology professor Sam Maglio unpacks the hidden signals embedded in everyday language, from why abbreviations can make you seem insincere to how tense and voice subtly shape what we believe. Listen in and how small shifts in wording influence perception, persuasion and even behaviour — and how to keep your inner psycholinguist on alert. Show notes  [0:00] Ever feel like the words you hear are manipulating you? That’s because, in some cases, they are.  [0:53] Meet Sam Maglio, a professor of marketing and psychology at the University of Toronto.  [2:01] When it comes to the words we use, we’re probably not being critical enough about what we’re saying.  [3:03] More often than not, what we’re saying isn’t being interpreted by the recipient in the way we mean (this is partially because we’re bad at perspective taking).  [4:56] How does capitalization influence our perception of gender?  [5:37] Abbreviations can make us seem less sincere.  [7:43] Speaking in present tense makes us more believable… [8:50] …so does speaking in active voice.  [9:25] But speaking in passive voice can give us an air of authority.  [10:52] What does this all mean? Well, words are manipulative. This can be good; one famous study told a group of housekeepers at a hotel that they were exercising rather than working, and without making any other changes, that group lost weight.  [12:10] But it can also be used to subtly sway your ability to believe in things like climate change.  [12:36] We live in tech-bubbles that supercharge the spread of misinformation, which is bad when you think about the mere exposure effect.  [13:17] So we need a bit of self-reflection to protect ourselves from being manipulated.  [13:38] “I think part of it starts with being aware of how our psychology plays tricks on us. Our psychology makes us want to click on the clickbait, even though we might know it's not true. How many studies have you heard where people will post things or retweet things or like things, and they haven't even read the article, because if the world is on fire, then damn it, everyone needs to know that the world is on fire. Take a breath before that and like not be part of the problem, because it's very easy for a thump to turn into an echo, to turn into a chorus of all sorts of negative things.”

Why do markets dip after the clocks change? Why do investors become more risk averse in the fall? And what does this mean for your portfolio? We like to think we’re rational investors. We’re not. On the latest episode, professor Lisa Kramer explores how hidden behavioural biases influence our portfolios — and even shift global markets.    Show notes Show notes [0:00] Humans tend to overestimate our abilities. We tend to think of ourselves as better than average.  [0:33] Meet Lisa Kramer, a professor of finance at the University of Toronto, and an expert in the psychology of financial decision-making. [1:20] While thinking we’re better than average benefits us in certain situations — think dating and job hunting — it can be detrimental to our finances.  [2:13] This over-confidence is clearest when people try to outperform the stock market.  [2:56] But beyond internal biases, there are also external factors that influence our financial decisions.  [3:19] Lisa and her colleagues studied how the clock changes influenced the market as a whole and found that the day after the clocks changed, stock markets tumbled. But why?  [5:30] Seasonal changes — like the shift to winter — also make us more risk averse, en masse.  [7:16] Lisa’s research shows this isn’t just in the stock market; investors sought out safer products, like mutual funds and treasury bonds, in the winter.  [8:44] What does this mean for companies?  [9:28] Will AI save us (hint…not so much).  [10:29] And can the average investor do anything to mitigate these biases (hint…not so much).  [12:30] “The best we can do is educate people that these are common biases, and get people to think about decisions that they've made in their own lives and self-evaluate the extent to which maybe they've been subject to these biases.”

#MeToo forced Hollywood to reckon with its past — but did it actually change the future of filmmaking? Looking at years of behind-the-scenes and on-screen data, associate professor Hong Luo explores how the wide-spread social movement did — and did not — change movie-making; how stigma, coordination and market-wide shocks influence organizational behaviour; and why large-scale movements can create opportunities for change that just weren’t profitable or possible before.Show NotesShow notes[0:22] It’s been nearly a decade since the New York Times broke the news of Harvey Weinstein’s abuse of women in Hollywood, sparking the #MeToo movement, which called out multiple men in the film and TV industry. [1:28] Meet Hong Luo, an associate professor of strategic management at the Rotman School of Management, who studies how industry-wide innovation happens. So, in the wake of #MeToo, she turned her attention to Hollywood. [2:49] Women are underrepresented behind the camera in Hollywood – and while many factors contribute, widespread sexual abuse is among one of the reasons. [3:36] To determine whether #MeToo had the power to change the film industry, she looked at how film teams associated with Harvey Weinstein changed compared to those not associated with him. [4:37] Producers with a history of working with Weinstein were more likely to hire female talent behind the camera after the #MeToo movement than those without. [5:55] Lots of reasons probably drove the change, but Hong hypothesizes that the publicity and associated guilt helped the change along. [6:54] One key finding; projects that had at least one woman on the creative team were more likely than those without to make it to theatre. [8:06] After the behind-the-camera shift, Hong wanted to know if more female-fronted stories were told.[8:31] If the team behind the scenes was all male, then yes – they were more likely to produce a movie with a female lead. But if the team had a woman, then no – they were more likely to work on male-fronted stories. [9:11] This is likely a result of how people felt the need to respond in the face of widespread social pressure. [9:39] All-male teams tended to develop female characters that conformed to traditional gender stereotypes.[10:53] Ok, so #MeToo changed Hollywood; what does that mean for other industries? Well, to really understand how social movements can spur innovation, let’s look also at the medical device industry. [12:18] Social movements let industries capitalize on a need for change that would have otherwise been too expensive or unprofitable before. [14:16] But when the movement wanes, momentum of the change also falters. [14:38] But for advocates, the long game is probably worth it: “The literature shows that when you actually have more female talent in a particular field, especially if those talent could use that opportunity to gain experience and gain track record…then we may actually sustain more longer run change.” 

Where do great ideas come from...really? And how can you stifle brilliant thoughts before they have a chance to flourish? Associate professor George Newman joins the Executive Summary to share what the research actually tells us about how to foster —  and kill — a creative buzz, and how to spark more innovation at both work and home in the year ahead.  Show notes[0:00] What comes to mind when you think of the word creativity? That paint-splattered easel? The next great novel? What about a simple innovative pitch to a company? Or a new way of approaching a formula? Creativity comes in many shapes, but ultimately, it’s all about bringing new ideas to the fore. [0:55] Meet George Newman, an associate professor of organizational behaviour and HR management, and author of the new book How Great Ideas Happen. [2:10] There are a few big mistakes we make when thinking about creativity – and the first is all about the “genius creator myth.” [3:16] It turns out, when we think people are “born with” the creative gene, it really influences who is allowed to be creative, which is ultimately limiting to both individuals and organizations. [4:16] Where do new ideas really come from? George’s research shows it’s not from within, but the world around us. [5:20] It’s time to think of creativity as a path of discovery, rather than a lightning strike of brilliance. [6:25] The second big mistake we make is jumping into brainstorming too quickly. [6:50] We also prioritize the novelty of new ideas over value.[7:50] To brainstorm better, you need to have a concrete plan. And George wants people to approach it like an archaeologist.[8:41] First, survey the landscape.[9:03] Second, create a “grid” or organize your thoughts.[10:00] Third, dig in (aka, start throwing those ideas on a whiteboard!). And make sure you don’t quit before you get to the good stuff. [11:33] The last big mistake in the quest for new ideas is soliciting feedback at the wrong time. Don’t get feedback while still generating ideas. [12:41] Also, accept that there’s going to be some negative feedback along the way, and that you’re just going to have some bad ideas along the way too. [14:28] Also, recognize that you’re your own worst critic.[15:09] In the end, breakthrough ideas don't just manifest out of thin air. You have to sift through the layers of rubble, dust off plenty of false leads, so that every so often, you uncover something remarkable. The key is to keep going.Be sure to check out the Executive Summary back catalogue. We tackle everything from how where you work influences the types of innovation you create to how to give better feedback. 

In theory, auditing should be unbiased and independent. In reality, biases abound. Auditors are human, and companies — even auditing firms— have agendas that shape how they approach audits. These blind spots can have real consequences for investors and the economy. Associate professor Minlei Ye joins Executive Summary to reveal where these hidden biases come from, how they influence decision-making, and why stronger safeguards and a shift in business thinking are essential for fairer results.Show notes[0:00] What happened with Enron and Arthur Andersen [0:53] Meet Minlei Ye, an associate professor of accounting at the University of Toronto, and she says when audits fail to catch red flags, it can have devastating consequences on individuals and the economy.[2:22] What is the role of an auditor, exactly? [2:59] What role did auditors play in the Enron and Lehman Brothers scandals?[4:49] How can an organizational focus on compliance lead to misrepresentation? And is fair representation a better option?[6:03] Other systemic biases that shape an audit firms’ accuracy include the need to keep the client happy.[6:42] Auditors’ personal biases – like familiarity bias, confirmation bias and groupthink also shape how accurate an audit will be. [7:38] Minlei’s research into otherwise positive programs – like rewards for whistleblowing – can have unintentional consequences on how auditors approach a client. [9:01] And then there are egos – like when bosses pull superstar employees off key client accounts out of fear the superstar will be poached by another firm. [9:45] Team makeup – whether homogenous or diverse – matters too. [10:40] Auditing is built on the fundamental principle of independence. [11:29] To help mitigate some of the aforementioned biases, regulation is needed to protect that independence. But, in the U.S. in particular, those protections are under attack. [13:00] In the meantime auditing firms need to step up to protect their independence…and so do the companies being audited. [14:21] “Instead of looking at auditing as something that they have to do, like a compliance thing that you have to hire the auditor, they can think of the auditor as a strategic safeguard for the capital needs, for their reputation and stakeholder trust.”Be sure to check out the Executive Summary back catalogue. We tackle everything from how to build a better board room to what employees can tell leaders about an organization's financial health.  

Canada faces an acute shortage of doctors and medical equipment. But simply hiring more people or buying more machines won’t fix our healthcare backlog. In this episode of The Executive Summary, professor Opher Baron explains how — from an operations management perspective — we got into this mess, and why smarter planning and better use of data are just as essential as addressing our shortages if we really want to dig out of Canada’s healthcare deficit.Show notes: [0:00] Canadians are in a healthcare crisis. [0:12] Meet Opher Baron, a professor of operations management at the Rotman School, and an expert in hospital queues. He doesn’t believe more doctors and medical equipment will get us out of our healthcare crisis. [1:34] A recognition that our healthcare system – and its problems – is nuanced and complex, and this episode is just 15 minutes. [2:07] Canada has a supply shortage: too few doctors and too little equipment to meet the population demand. [2:42] This shortage is felt across all sectors of healthcare, but acutely in family care and emergency care. [3:12] The provincial governments are taking steps to remediate the problems, but it won’t happen quickly.[4:20] So how did we get here? In short: Poor planning. [5:31] Hospitals are chaotic, and that makes it difficult to plan. [7:21] Let’s look at how one issue – continuity of care, coupled with physician incentives – can affect how quickly patients move through an emergency room. Simply, doctors are more likely to take patients at the beginning of their shift than at the end of it. [9:57] How do you address these types of issues? First, you need to be measuring the right key performance indicators…which we’re not. And you can’t fix a problem, if you can’t identify the problem. [11:49] Let’s start by recognizing that healthcare professionals aren’t operations management experts. [12:33] Opher has worked with several hospitals to test new operational efficiencies, including Erie Shores. [13:58] With the advent of AI, there’s also a lot of opportunity in what Opher calls “digital twin” environments, which will allow hospital administrators to test changes virtually before implementing them in real life. [15:13] We can’t just throw money at the problem and expect we’ll fix our healthcare system. “I hope that once people understand better what is the important data for them and what they can do with the right data…we can improve the efficiency of our systems, and given the current resources, investing a little bit more kind of in the right places.”Be sure to check out the Executive Summary back catalogue. We tackle everything from whether we can fix our broken online review system to how extreme heat negatively impacts companies' bottom lines.