People Use Crowdfunding to Show Compassion

Why Mending, Not Ending, DEI Programs Is Good for Business

Source: Shutterstock

By Nick Keppler

The 2020 police murder of George Floyd was a tipping point leading toa far-ranging acknowledgement of institutional inequities in the U.S. Many large, public-facing companies— including Walmart, Meta, and Amazon—responded by instituting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs with the stated goal of identifying and eliminating their own internal barriers for historically marginalized groups. By 2022, DEI consultation was a $9.4 billion industry, and the number of jobs implementing and running DEI programs quadrupled from 2010 to 2022.

Almost as quickly as they embraced DEI, many of the same companies curtailed or downplayed those programs following the reelection of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has called DEI initiatives “illegal.”

For some, DEI is a process for powerful institutions to redress their own place in an unequal society. For others, it’s a form of discrimination and an opening for misplaced shame.

Public debate over DEI often misses an important point, according to Academy of Management Scholar Herman Aguinis of the George Washington University School of Business: Diversity is good for business.

“Research shows that when you have more diverse opinions and you’re more inclusive with people, everyone feels they belong, you have lower turnover, improved performance, and improved satisfaction—when you do it right,” he said.

World Economic Forum research showed that companies with higher marks in diversity achieve better revenue from innovation. A McKinsey & Company study found that companies in the top 25 percent for both racial and gender diversity in their industries were more likely to have superior financial returns than the average company.

“I am in favor of including more diverse perspectives in the workforce because research shows that that’s good for decision making,” said Aguinis. “It’s good for firm performance.”

But Aguinis also understands the backlash. He said that quota systems, where people with specific characteristics are put into positions of visibility to improve the company’s image, do not advance the diversity of perspectives that would spark a financial advantage. They also create a perception that others are advancing without the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities.

“The phrase ‘DEI hire,’ I think, gives us an indication of the things that upset these people,” he said.

Aguinis was one of 23 scholars who contributed to an editorial in an international scholarly journal objecting to Trump’s targeting of DEI programs. He wrote, “Rather than eliminating DEI efforts, organizations should focus on improving them by expanding inclusive hiring practices, establishing clear accountability measures, integrating DEI into workplace strategy and culture, and implementing a comprehensive evaluation system.… In short: Mend it, don’t end it.”

Research Findings Are Not Reaching Business Leaders

Source: Shutterstock

By Nick Keppler

There are now about 400 journals for management as an academic field, producing about 12,000 published articles a year in total. However, top decision-makers rarely learn anything from them, said Academy of Management Scholar Herman Aguinis of the George Washington University School of Business.

“Many of us are concerned that the research we do is not being used to the extent that we would like, and it’s called a research-practice gap,” Aguinis said. “Also, there’s a research-policy gap,” stemming from political leaders’ lack of familiarity with research produced in the field of management.

This gap is particularly frustrating, said Aguinis, because scholars on management and organizations have produced a wealth of scientifically sound research on issues that have dominated the news in 2025, including the downsizing of the federal government, the measurement of job performance, discrimination and diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, and the implementation of AI in workplaces.

“If you want to build a bridge, you will talk to the top engineers, but management scholars are not consulted with the same regularity,” said Aguinis.

This is not entirely the fault of those who could potentially benefit from our research, Aguinis added. Academic journals are often insular and publish articles that only make small contributions to our understanding of critical organizational phenomena. Also, the compensation and reward systems motivate academics to write mainly for other academics, not managers, business leaders, and decision-makers.

“For several reasons, much of our research is not aimed at affecting practice,” Aguinis said. “If you read the typical article of, let’s say, 20 pages, you may find one or two paragraphs at the end saying ‘implications for practice.’”

The research is not lost on everyone. A small number of elite companies look to academia to improve performance. Google is well-known for hiring Ph.D. holders, not just for computer-science roles but also for management and creative jobs. Marriott is a sponsor of doctoral development programs.

These companies reap the benefit in reputation, said Aguinis, often appearing in lists such as Fortune Magazine’s “Best Companies to Work For” series.

“All of these companies, all of them, employ Ph.D.s who actually read the research, and they try to implement leadership strategies and management practices that are consistent with what research says aligns with best-practice evidence as published in scholarly journals,” he said.

Why CSR Is Still Vital for Companies

Source: Shutterstock

By Nick Keppler

Any act of corporate wrongdoing—real or perceived—can be publicized worldwide instantly via the internet and social media. This has made ideas of sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR)—which includes organizations’ initiatives geared toward achieving environmental, ethical, philanthropic, and financial objectives—increasingly important and far-ranging, said Academy of Management Scholar Herman Aguinis of the George Washington School of Business.

“Because of information flow across the internet, now we know about sweatshops, we know about companies polluting the environment, and we know about companies that are abusing and taking advantage of farmers and not providing benefits,” he said.

Not coincidentally, measurements of CSR initiatives that make a positive societal impact have grown not just to consider the company’s adherence to laws and regulations but also its impact on globalization, technological developments, fair trade, workers’ rights, pay equity, pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change.

“The expectations have changed mostly because of pressure from the outside,” Aguinis said.

To manage an increasingly complex set of considerations related to CSR and sustainability, many companies have emphasized the three Ps, Aguinis said: people, the planet, and profit.

The “people” aspect does not only encompass employees and shareholders but also a wide span of stakeholders, including “the communities you serve, your customers, the communities around your business locations,” he said.

For example, Intel, a computer components manufacturer, holds town-hall meetings before finalizing plans to open new chip plants.

Small steps like these make operating the business easier and bolster its reputation, Aguinis said.

“The argument is that you can do good and do well at the same time, that those things go hand in hand, is replacing an older cynical argument that some economists have proposed, which is that your priority and loyalty group and number-one stakeholder is your shareholders,” he said. “‘You should just be making money for them, and anything else that you do that goes outside of that is not your mandate, not your responsibility.’”

That thinking—exemplified by American economist Milton Friedman—will not help companies stand up to increasing social pressure and could hurt their reputation, Aguinis said.

“The CSR movement has changed because customers, consumers, vendors, and partners want companies to do more to impact society positively.”

Going Beyond Surface-level Diversity Key to Avoiding Bias

Source: Shutterstock

By Nick Keppler

Spurred by the racial reckoning after the 2020 police murder of George Floyd, many large, public-facing companies in the U.S. implemented diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs with the stated goal of addressing their own barriers to hiring of, and advancement for, historically disadvantaged groups.

Too often, these efforts are only aimed at what Academy of Management Scholar Herman Aguinis of George Washington University calls “surface-level diversity,” the presence of people of different races, ethnicities, genders, and other classifications without a change in corporate culture led by executives who value varying perspectives.

“Deep-level diversity is when you have people around the table who bring different experiences and opinions and perspectives to the table, and organizational leaders listen to those diverse voices,” Aguinis said, who has both researched and consulted on institutional barriers that prevent the rise of “star performers” from various backgrounds.

“Surface-level diversity is when you look at someone’s gender, skin color, or race or ethnicity, and that’s what you call diversity,” he said. “It’s much easier to go for surface-level diversity.”

This gravitation towards superficial diversity often starts at the recruitment and interview stages. People in charge of hiring tend to like people with views and appearances similar to their own, said Aguinis, and they can slip into looking for candidates who have the same race, ethnicity, gender, and background as they do.

To prevent bias from creeping into the recruitment and hiring processes, Aguinis recommends conducting structured interviews.

“In a structured interview, you ask the same questions to all the candidates, and you actually score the answers with a scoring key you have created in advance,” he said. “If you have an unstructured interview, where you just chit-chat with a candidate, you’re more likely to like them or not, based on how similar they are to you.

“Also, you should never have just one interviewer because that person’s biases are more likely to be undetected.”

Aguinis added that the perception of a superficial quota system is one cause of a backlash that has led many companies to roll back or rebrand DEI efforts.

“When companies use it—the shortcut of surface-level diversity and just trying to use quotas or things like that—that’s when the diversity seems to be the opposite of what it tries to do: being exclusive instead of inclusive,” he said.

Why Success Can Be the Enemy of Innovation in the Age of AI

Source: Shutterstock

By Jason Collins

A new Pew Research Center report reveals that public optimism remains low regarding the potential impact of AI in the workplace. However, refusing to work with new technologies can cause even the largest organizations to fail as this technology changes the game across many industries.

Academy of Management Scholar Wendy Smith of the University of Delaware reveals that it isn’t the small businesses that are most at risk, but rather larger organizations that choose to rely on what they know works. Smith calls this the paradox of success.

“The companies who are at the top of their market have the most to lose and therefore don’t want to take risks and thus are the most entrenched in what they already do,” Smith said. “Researchers call this the ‘paradox of success’ where successful companies are the ones that fail to adopt new technologies and innovation.”

Because smaller organizations don’t have this burden, they have nothing keeping them from trying new things and adopting new technologies such as AI and robotic process automation. History shows us that success can be an enemy of innovation. Smith draws parallels to brands such as Kodak and Polaroid, which failed to make the digital photography transition.

“BlackBerry was this amazing early force of the smartphone but could not compete when brands like Apple came into the market with updated technologies,” Smith said. “Blockbuster Video couldn’t make the transition from VHS tapes and DVDs to streaming when Netflix then took over.

“So, we see that story happen again and again and again,” she said.

If the past has taught us anything, it is that relying on past success without monitoring new technologies, tracking consumers’ preferences, and cultivating boldness in strategic planning prevents innovation.

“I think we’re going to see the same thing now,” Smith said. “And so there is wisdom in ‘Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.’

“It’s totally new technology, but leaders should be learning from history what it means to innovate within an existing company,” she said.

Everyone Will Suffer in the Wake of Trump Administration’s Research Cuts

Source: Shutterstock

By Paul Friedman

This year, the Trump administration has fired many government researchers, canceled scientific and medical research grants, and targeted leading universities, including Harvard, with debilitating funding freezes. Fear of reprisal has caused many scientists, doctors, professors, and university administrators to opt for silence instead of speaking up to defend the research that is getting the ox.

Academy of Management (AOM) Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University says much of the research produced by him and his colleagues, including many AOM members, has a day-to-day impact on industry practitioners, including organizational leaders and managers. Cuts in federal funding for research will have a negative impact on industry, as well as researchers, colleges and universities, and other research institutions.

“What we publish in our primary journals have to be both theoretically important and have practical relevance,” Bamberger said. “It’s got to be interesting from a theoretical perspective and intellectual perspective, and it’s got to have some sort of surprising element—going against conventional wisdom—but it also has to translate that surprising finding into something that managers can do something about.

“And there are thousands of organizational consultants who read the findings published in our journals and then translate that into actual practice in organizations,” he said.

Bamberger points out that a great deal of research is specifically aimed at examining current practices by managers and their efficacy. Recently, he published a study of the managerial approach called design thinking, which focuses on understanding clients’ needs and designing innovative solutions.

“Design thinking has been around for about 10 years,” Bamberger said. “It’s an approach to create more innovative ways of boosting learning and finding innovative solutions to common problems or sometimes even really wicked problems.

“It became a fad and a lot of organizations adopted it, but no one ever bothered to actually assess whether or not it has an impact and whether this impact is any greater than other types of learning-oriented interventions, like team building,” he said.

Bamberger and research colleagues designed a field experiment to test the impact of design thinking as a team learning intervention. They compared over time what happens in terms of the efficiency and productivity of teams using different interventions.

“Is design thinking more efficacious than an alternative?” Bamberger said. “And we found out that in fact it is, and we actually demonstrate the mechanism by which it operates and why it’s more effective than other mechanisms.

“So these types of practical implications are useful to managers and to the extent that we don’t have funding necessary to do this type of research, everybody suffers,” he said.

Eight Tips for More Effective Generative AI Prompts

Source: Shutterstock

By Daniel Butcher

Academy of Management Scholar Herman Aguinis of the George Washington University School of Business, one of the most influential management professors and researchers, said creating prompts is the key to using ChatGPT and other generative-AI software effectively. When users input prompts that lack specificity and crucial contextual information, generative-AI platforms generate too many, too few, or vague recommendations and results that aren’t useful.

The following guidelines were designed by Aguinis and coauthors Jose Beltran of Rutgers University and Amando Cope of the George Washington University to give leaders tools to improve their ability to write AI prompts and generate more precise, relevant responses:

Source: Shutterstock

1. Clarify the topic or issue:

Specify the particular area that you’re inquiring about (e.g., recruitment, diversity, or performance management). State the question or problem clearly. For instance, “What are best practices in recruitment for tech startups?” is more specific than “Tell me about recruitment.”

Source: Shutterstock

2. Provide relevant organizational context:

Include details about the industry, company size, region, or any specific policies that may apply. Mention any unique organizational culture or constraints. “Given that we are a mid-sized software company with a diverse workforce, how should we structure our diversity and inclusion initiatives?” or “How can we tailor our training programs for our Gen Z employees?”

Source: Shutterstock

3. Use precise and standard terminology:

Employ clear and specific terms to guide the model and avoid ambiguity. Use standard language that aligns with industry best practices. For example, “How can we enhance our employee value proposition (EVP) to attract top talent?”

Source: Shutterstock

4. Indicate the desired outcome or action:

Explain what you hope to achieve or the recommendation you seek. Specify if you need a strategic overview or tactical steps. “What strategies can we implement to reduce employee turnover by 10% in the next year?”

Source: Shutterstock

5. Request evidence-based recommendations if needed:

Ask for supporting evidence, research, or citations if you need substantiated information. Ask for case studies or examples to understand the practical applications of certain strategies. You can ask, “Can you provide a case study, research study or paper, expert testimonial, or a citation from an authoritative source, that describes a company that successfully revamped its performance management system?”

Source: Shutterstock

6. Adhere to established best practices:

Adhering to best practices mitigates the need for costly and time-consuming corrective measures, optimizing operational efficiency and resource allocation. Ask ChatGPT to give detailed recommendations based on established best practices in a specific field and emphasize critical strategies and principles for achieving an optimal outcome.

Source: Shutterstock

7. Maintain confidentiality:

Don’t sharesensitive or personal information about employees or the organization. Use general or anonymized terms if describing confidential scenarios.

Source: Shutterstock

8. Engage in follow-up communication:

Ask follow-up questions for clarification or more information. Provide feedback if the initial response needs refinement. Take an interactive prompting approach by asking multi-step questions (10 to 20 iterations). Approach ChatGPT as though you are talking with a coworker.

Source: “How to use generative AI as a human resource management assistant,” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 53, Issue 1, January–March 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2024.101029

Two Creators Working Together Are Better Than One

Source: Shutterstock

By Daniel Butcher

There are many examples of creative and productive partners, including John Lennon and Paul McCartney, the Coen brothers, Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, William Procter and James Gamble, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard; the list goes on and on.

Academy of Management Scholar Bess Rouse of Boston College said that people who create together engage in intimate creative interactions that lead to a shared interpersonal boundary—“I created it” becomes “We created it.” This shared interpersonal boundary influences creativity by forming a closed, safe space in which duos can explore divergent ideas and navigate creative blocks.

“We know a lot about team creativity, and we know a lot about individual creativity, and one of the things I was really interested in exploring is this idea of two people working together and the balance that happens in that space,” Rouse said. “You look at a lot of successful, creative people in the world, and they’re often working in pairs, and it’s either a very explicit pair or a well-known person who works with a shadow person.

“It might be a husband and wife, or it might be a more dominant person and a secondary person who are working together,” she said. “That creative space is really special, because you can challenge that person and they’re trusted, and it’s in this bounded space where you develop the sense of a shared interpersonal boundary, where you feel very connected to this other person, and so they’re able to challenge each other and get some of the benefits of having an outsider voice.

“Yet the trust and the support are built into the relationship as well, and that seems to be a really powerful dynamic for developing really high-quality creativity and sustaining it over time.”

An example that Rouse cited in an Academy of Management Review article is from Michael Lewis’s book, The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds, on social psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.

“They were social psychologists very well known for doing their work together, and Lewis does a really good job of fleshing out the sorts of tensions in that kind of relationship, but they’re also a very powerful example of two people collaborating and working together successfully and bringing out the best in each other over time,” Rouse said.

The “Lone Genius” Myth Overshadows One of the Partners

Source: Shutterstock

By Daniel Butcher

Professional creative partners—such as Lennon and McCartney, Rodgers and Hammerstein, the Coen brothers, and Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David provide evidence that the pair is the primary creative unit. But countless examples show when one of a pair gets more credit than the other—think Duke Ellington and Billy Strayhorn, Dave Chappelle and Neil Brennan, Simon and Garfunkel, as well as whoever was the wind beneath Bette Midler’s wings.

Academy of Management Scholar Bess Rouse of Boston College said that many organizational stories feature duos who create together:

• Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak propelled the personal computer revolution.
• Sergey Brin and Larry Page provided new ways to find information through Google.
• Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield shifted our expectations about ice cream with flavors such as Cherry Garcia and Phish Food.

Such creative pairs often start their own companies, but when they work within organizations, they change them.

“We have this very this myth of the lone genius—this is woven through the creativity literature where we really want to assign credit to one person,” Rouse said. “This idea can be very rupturing to a creative dyad, if somebody’s trying to assign more credit to one than the other or saying, ‘This is really that one person’s idea—that other person didn’t do very much.’

“Our societal and organizational incentives—both financial rewards and recognition—are generally not aligned well with this idea that we actually do creativity as a very social process,” she said. “It isn’t just in entertainment and business; also in medical fields, an important question is, ‘Who came up with what discovery?’ and we’ve gotten a little looser on attribution of credit, being able to say, ‘This team of people came up with this discovery,’ but often you will hear people still continue to pick apart who did what and say, ‘That was really this one person’s idea, and this other person was just helpful.’

“I don’t think we’ve figured out a very good way of rewarding or acknowledging the power that happens in a group or particularly in a dyad around creativity—we still really want to assign ownership or credit to one person.”

In some cases, different personality types determine which half of a duo is more celebrated by the media.

“You definitely see these examples where there’s one person in a duo who becomes a media darling, and sometimes this is by choice, when one person likes being in the spotlight more than another person, and they’re willing to fly under the radar, like Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak,” Rouse said.

“You can think about social dynamics there, and in some situations, one person loves being in front of the camera and getting those kinds of accolades, and another person would prefer to be in the background,” she said.

“But sometimes it isn’t an individual choice—that is, there are other factors that come into play that shape who we pay attention to.”

Taming Toxic Workplaces

Source: Shutterstock

By Daniel Butcher

If you work for a bad boss at a dysfunctional or toxic organization, you can either find a new job or learn to cope with stressful conditions. But if you can get middle managers on your side, then you might even be able to start changing the toxic culture.

Academy of Management Scholar Bess Rouse of Boston College, who coauthored an Academy of Management Journal article with William Kahn of Boston University on this topic, said that toxicity appears in organizations as intolerance, bullying, narcissism, and other forms of destructiveness that demoralize employees and undermine organizational success. Senior leaders often perpetrate toxicity or fail to stem destructive behaviors.

“How do the people working underneath these intolerant, narcissistic, or destructive leaders respond in these toxic situations?” Rouse said. “It isn’t uncommon for me to talk to somebody who feels like they have one of these toxic leaders that they’re working under, but they don’t always have an idea of how to handle it.

“One option is to just leave, but we don’t always have that option to just leave, so then we think about, ‘How do we want to be? What kind of middle manager, if we’re in that position, do we want to be?” she said. “Do we want to be somebody who protects ourselves and has that toxicity cascade down the organization, or do we want to be somebody who buffers our employees and makes them feel protected?

“There are different ways of thinking about coping with a toxic workplace; we talk about this as workarounds for how you think about responding to those toxic leaders.”

Toxic organizations drain workers’ personal agency, undermining their capacity to act independently and make choices.

“Leaders’ toxic behaviors such as intolerance, bullying, narcissism, and destructiveness are all red flags, and we can be good leaders without having those behaviors,” Rouse said. “What we saw in that study was that these weren’t bad people—they were driven by anxiety about a lot of external challenges that were happening in the organization, and they just managed that anxiety by belittling other people and diminishing them.

“Obviously it wasn’t the most effective way, but that was their way of dealing with that pressure, and then we also found that that stayed in place because the senior team colluded around that, essentially, and no one stepped up and said, ‘We can’t keep behaving this way,’” she said. “It was actually the middle managers, those people who were better at shifting from absorption to differentiating among team members, which ended up challenging that structure in that type of toxic organization.

“Especially when that that top leadership team has become very insular and supporting of one another in a way that there are no new voices coming into that senior team, then the middle managers are left to have to do that that work of changing the toxic organizational culture.”