Business & Entrepreneurship

Study: Gender pay gaps are not just unfair, they cost companies

Katy Hill — Wed, 29 Jul 2026 15:16:53 +0000

Study: Gender pay gaps are not just unfair, they cost companies Katy Hill Wed, 07/29/2026 - 09:16

Katy Marquardt Hill

When employees are paid unequally, it can affect how an entire company performs, according to new research.

Companies with wider gender pay gaps tend to be less productive, according to the study, which measured productivity as net income per employee.

“It makes sense that companies with bigger gender pay gaps have lower productivity,” said Stefanie Johnson, a professor of organizational leadership and information analytics at the Leeds School of Business and co-author of the study. “If you treat me fairly, I’m going to treat you well too. We see less of that when people don’t feel supported.”

Stefanie Johnson

The financial consequences add up. The study, published in Human Resource Management in March 2026, found that companies with smaller gender pay gaps generated more net income per employee than those with wider gaps.

On average, every 10 percentage-point reduction in a company's gender pay gap was associated with about $16,300 more net income per employee. That benefit was even greater in companies with stronger work-life balance policies, where the increase climbed to about $34,100 per employee.

“When you can get these two systems working together—gender wage equality alongside work-life balance—productivity tends to thrive,” said co-author Traci Sitzmann, management professor at CU Denver.

Why pay equity matters

The researchers argue that pay equity shapes how employees work together. Modern workplaces depend on people sharing information, collaborating and building on each other's ideas. When employees see compensation as unfair, those dynamics can break down.

“We all come to work with a basic set of knowledge, skills and abilities,” Sitzmann said. “When we all come together, are we showing up with all of our knowledge, skills and abilities? Or maybe I leave some of that behind...because I don't trust you, or I don't trust that my organization will reward me for it.”

The focus on organizational performance is what sets this study apart, the researchers say. Most discussions of the gender pay gap focus on its impact on women. This study instead asks whether unequal pay changes how companies function and whether it affects their bottom line.

The researchers, who also included Shoshana Schwartz of Christopher Newport University and Priyanka Dwivedi of Texas A&M University, analyzed data from 611 publicly traded companies in the United States and more than 6,000 organizations in the United Kingdom. They compared companies' gender pay gaps with labor productivity, measured as net income per employee.

Traci Sitzmann

The relationship between larger gender pay gaps and lower productivity showed up in both countries. While the United Kingdom requires large employers to publicly disclose gender pay gaps and the United States generally does not, companies with wider pay gaps tended to be less productive on both sides of the Atlantic.

The researchers also found that companies with larger gender pay gaps were more likely to experience declines in productivity over time, while productivity remained relatively stable at organizations with smaller pay gaps.

What companies can do

Start with transparency, the researchers say.

“Crunch the numbers,” Sitzmann said. “First, tell me your gender wage gap. And then why? And then let’s talk to our employees.”

Johnson added that companies often overlook parts of compensation beyond salary that can widen gaps.

“Even when companies are good at matching salary, bonuses and stock options often aren’t added into the equation,” she said.

The findings suggest organizations should view pay equity as more than a compliance issue or a recruiting tool.

“When pay’s more equal, productivity per employee is higher,” Johnson said.

“It’s not a marketing tool,” she added. “It’s a productivity tool.”

Companies with narrower pay disparities generated more net income per employee, new research finds.

Traditional

White

Can Trump Accounts help kids build wealth? A finance expert weighs in

Katy Hill — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:47:47 +0000

Can Trump Accounts help kids build wealth? A finance expert weighs in Katy Hill Wed, 07/15/2026 - 07:47

Katy Marquardt Hill

For parents, the pitch behind the new Trump Accounts is simple: Start investing early, let compound growth do its work and give kids a financial head start.

The new tax-advantaged accounts, introduced in early July, allow families to save and invest on behalf of children under 18, with eligible children born between 2025 and 2028 receiving a one-time $1,000 contribution from the federal government.

"One of the most important things about saving and investing is to take advantage of time when it is on your side," said Michael Gropper, assistant professor of finance at the Leeds School of Business.

Michael Gropper

CU �ֲ��ý Today recently spoke to Gropper, who studies household finance and retirement savings, to answer some of the biggest questions families may have about the new accounts.

What exactly are Trump Accounts?

Trump Accounts, also known as 530A Accounts, were created as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed in 2025. They're financial savings accounts designed to help families save for their children's futures and can be opened for children under 18 with a valid Social Security number.

How do they differ from other savings and investment accounts?

In many ways, Trump Accounts resemble traditional individual retirement accounts, or IRAs, because they are designed for long-term investing. However, they differ from a traditional bank savings account or brokerage account in several important ways.

First, contributions are limited to $5,000 per year, and the money is automatically invested in the stock market through a low-cost, diversified index fund. Second, there are restrictions on when and how the money can be used. Funds generally cannot be accessed until the child turns 18, and certain rules govern what they can be spent on. If the money isn't used, the account effectively transitions into a traditional IRA.

Taxes are another important difference. The exact tax treatment of Trump Accounts is still evolving, but like many retirement-focused accounts, withdrawals and investment gains may be taxed differently than assets held in a standard brokerage account. That can make the accounts more complicated than they first appear.

What do you see as the program's biggest potential benefits?

One of the biggest potential benefits is helping more families participate in the stock market.

According to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, just under 60% of American households own stocks. But participation varies dramatically by income. Only about one-third of families in the bottom half of the income distribution invest in the stock market, compared with nearly 95% of families in the top 10%.

The fact that Trump Accounts are automatically invested in a low-cost stock market index fund may help some families begin investing when they otherwise would not.

While investing in stocks carries more risk than keeping money in a bank savings account, the rewards have historically outweighed those risks over long periods of time.

What are the biggest misunderstandings you've seen about these accounts so far?

The first thing families should understand is that not everyone qualifies for the federal government's $1,000 seed contribution. That benefit is available only for children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028.

The second misconception is that the money is easily accessible. Trump Accounts come with meaningful restrictions. Funds generally cannot be withdrawn before the child turns 18, and even after that, the IRS has rules governing what expenses qualify.

For example, the money can be used for qualified educational expenses at age 18. But unlike a 529 plan, the amounts withdrawn from a Trump account for educational expenses are still subject to taxes. For families whose primary goal is paying for education, a 529 plan may often be the better choice, as the earnings from a 529 plan are not taxable when used for qualifying education expenses.

If a family has limited money to save, what should they prioritize?

For most households, the first priorities should be paying down high-interest debt and building an emergency savings fund, often equal to three to six months of expenses. After that, families can think about balancing shorter-term goals with long-term retirement savings.

I would encourage families to think of Trump Accounts primarily as long-term retirement savings accounts for children, with a little extra flexibility beginning at age 18.

Parents who are specifically saving for a child's education may find that a 529 plan makes more sense. Those plans are designed for education expenses and offer their own tax advantages.

Ultimately, the best choice depends on a family's broader financial situation, including retirement goals, expected future expenses and whether they have access to benefits such as employer retirement-plan matching.

Some project that a $1,000 contribution could grow to a half-million dollars by age 55. Is this realistic?

The Trump Accounts website highlights projections showing that a $1,000 contribution at birth could grow to about $6,000 by age 18, $15,000 by age 27 and nearly a quarter-million dollars by age 55, even without additional contributions.

Those estimates appear to assume annual investment returns of about 10.5%. That's somewhat optimistic, but it's not unreasonable based on long-term historical stock market performance.

The key thing to remember is that these projections assume average returns. In reality, stock market performance varies significantly from year to year. The S&P 500 posted negative returns from 2000 through 2002, for example, before gaining more than 25% in 2003.

In other words, assuming a steady 10.5% annual return can hide what may feel like a roller coaster ride for investors. That being said, it is important to emphasize that money invested in the stock market tends to grow in the long run, despite enduring ups and downs along the way.

What's the most important thing parents should understand about saving and investing for a child's future?

Saving even a small amount when children are young can make a meaningful difference because investment gains compound over time. According to projections from the Trump Accounts website, contributing a little more than $20 per month could increase the amount available at age 18 from roughly $6,000 to $19,000. Continuing those contributions through age 27 could increase the balance from about $15,000 to more than $50,000.

That kind of growth is difficult to achieve with a typical bank savings account.

I think it's critically important for people to learn how to invest responsibly, both for themselves and for their children. The fact that Trump Accounts are automatically invested in a low-cost, diversified index fund is a positive feature.

What are some common mistakes parents should avoid when thinking about long-term investment accounts for their children?

One common mistake is underestimating the complexity of these accounts. Like other tax-advantaged investment vehicles, Trump Accounts come with rules governing taxes, withdrawals and eligible uses. Those details can create headaches later if families don't understand them upfront.

The second mistake is delaying the decision to start saving because they assume they can always do it later. While that's technically true, waiting has a real cost. Every year spent on the sidelines is a year of potential investment growth lost.Despite the complexity that sometimes comes with investment accounts, it's generally worth getting started sooner rather than later.

CU �ֲ��ý Today regularly publishes Q&As on news topics through the lens of scholarly expertise and research/creative work. The responses here reflect the knowledge and interpretations of the expert and should not be considered the university position on the issue. All publication content is subject to edits for clarity, brevity and university style guidelines.

Here’s a look at how the new $1,000 accounts work, who benefits most and what families should consider before investing.

Traditional

White

How Colorado's Tamale Act could help launch the next generation of food businesses

Katy Hill — Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:41:57 +0000

How Colorado's Tamale Act could help launch the next generation of food businesses Katy Hill Tue, 07/14/2026 - 09:41

Katy Marquardt Hill

If you've ever dreamed of turning your grandmother's tamale recipe into a business, Colorado just made that easier. While residents have long been able to sell homemade breads, jams and baked goods, the state’s new Tamale Act expands the types of foods that can be sold from a home kitchen, including items that previously required commercial preparation, lowering barriers for would-be food entrepreneurs.

Erick Mueller

The measure, signed into law this summer, expands Colorado’s Cottage Foods Act to include a wider range of homemade foods that previously could not be sold legally from home kitchens. It also introduces new food safety training requirements and limits on how products are prepared and transported.

To see how the change could shape early-stage entrepreneurship, CU �ֲ��ý Today spoke with Erick Mueller, executive director of the Deming Center for Entrepreneurship at the Leeds School of Business.

What do you think about Colorado’s Tamale Act from an entrepreneurship perspective?

What stands out most is that it empowers food entrepreneurs to launch more quickly and with greater ease.

A key part of the entrepreneurial journey is being able to test ideas through small pilots. This law gives people a chance to do that—to try something, learn from it and then either grow, pivot or stop based on what they discover. It removes some of the cumbersome and time-consuming hurdles that can keep people from taking that first step.

What new opportunities does this law create for aspiring entrepreneurs or small food businesses?

The biggest opportunity is that it makes it easier to test new ideas. It lowers the cost and complexity of getting started, which means more people can act on an idea instead of letting it sit on the sidelines. As more entrepreneurs enter the market and experiment with new products, we're also likely to see more innovation in the food space.

How does this law fit into Colorado's broader entrepreneurial ecosystem?

It's a big win. It sends a strong signal that entrepreneurship matters in Colorado and that the state wants to support people who are trying to build something new. Policies like this help strengthen and elevate the overall entrepreneurial ecosystem.

How much does this actually lower the barriers to starting a business, and who stands to benefit most?

Imagine you're excited about a food business idea, but then you look at all the requirements involved in getting started: regulations, commercial kitchen costs, limited access to kitchen space and sometimes inconvenient operating hours. For many people, those barriers are enough to stop them before they even begin.

When those barriers are reduced, entrepreneurs can launch, test and learn as they go. Without that opportunity, many promising ideas never get off the ground.

The biggest beneficiaries are our communities. Entrepreneurs create products people want, often at lower costs and with greater convenience. They also increase their own earning potential and bring new ideas and innovations to the marketplace.

Do policies like this mainly support side hustles, or do they also drive innovation?

Both. Many of these businesses will likely start as side hustles that help people earn extra income. But innovation often grows out of those early-stage ventures.

It's really a numbers game. The more ideas people are able to launch and test, the greater the chance that some of those ideas will evolve into something innovative and impactful.

For someone starting from home, what does it realistically take to turn a food idea into a sustainable business?

There's a long answer to that, but the short version is this: First, you need the passion and excitement to act on an idea. Then you need to identify a real problem or gap in the market.

From there, customer discovery is critical. That means talking with dozens—or even hundreds—of potential customers to understand what they want and validate whether the opportunity is real.

You'll also need to think through the fundamentals of the business, including finance, operations, marketing and sales. Then comes execution: launching the business, listening to customers and continuing to improve, adapt and iterate over time.

What challenges do entrepreneurs typically run into after they get started in this type of business?

One common challenge is building something you think customers want instead of something they actually want. That's why customer discovery and listening are so important.

Another challenge is understanding the economics of the business. Small food businesses have to manage costs carefully, including ingredients, packaging, inventory and pricing. A solid grasp of those numbers is essential.

The other challenge is differentiation. If you're running a barbecue food truck parked next to three other barbecue food trucks that appear to offer the same thing, you're going to have a hard time standing out. Successful businesses solve a real need and offer something distinctive.

Looking ahead, what would success look like for this law a few years from now?

Success would mean seeing more food ventures launched and more of those businesses grow and scale through additional locations, expanded distribution channels and increased sales.

I'd also look at job creation and whether these businesses are helping entrepreneurs improve their quality of life—not just financially, but also through a greater sense of purpose and community impact.

By expanding what can legally be sold from home kitchens, the law opens new doors for aspiring food entrepreneurs.

Traditional

White

How numbers can trick your brain

Katy Hill — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 15:53:19 +0000

How numbers can trick your brain Katy Hill Tue, 06/23/2026 - 09:53

Katy Marquardt Hill

When you’re shopping for a fuel‑efficient car, a number like 32 miles per gallon can feel like a simple reference point. But describe that number a different way, like how many gallons it takes to get you to the airport 30 miles away, and your sense of how reliable that number is can shift, even though it’s describing the same thing.

Nicholas Reinholtz

That kind of change is the focus of new research on how people judge uncertainty.

“The big takeaway is that the way you present data changes how people understand it,” said Nicholas Reinholtz, an assistant professor of marketing at the Leeds School of Business and co-author of the study, published in the journal Cognition in December 2025.

Even when numbers describe the same situation, the way they’re presented can shape how uncertain or risky they feel, according to the researchers, who included David Zimmerman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Stephen Spiller of the University of California Los Angeles, and Sam J. Maglio of the University of Toronto.

Bigger numbers can feel riskier

One of the clearest examples of this effect came from a simple business question: How much money will a company make? In one experiment, about 200 U.S. adults recruited online were asked to estimate a range of possible outcomes.

Some people estimated total revenue. Others estimated profit after a fixed cost was subtracted. Even though the uncertainty was the same in both cases, people judged them differently.

Participants gave much wider ranges when thinking about the bigger number, which in this case was revenue. “People act as if revenue is more uncertain than profit, even though it’s the same underlying situation,” Reinholtz said. “It’s really just because the number is larger.”

Instead of adjusting for that, he added, people rely on a simple mental shortcut: Bigger numbers feel like they should vary more, even when they don’t.

Why our intuition gets it wrong

The findings suggest that people don’t have a fixed sense of uncertainty. Instead, they build it in the moment based on what they see.

“We’ve shown examples of how you can present the same data, and people form starkly different understandings of the situation,” Reinholtz said.

For example, he said, a store might expect to sell between 30 and 40 12‑packs of soda in a day. But expressed in individual cans, that same estimate turns into a difference of 120 cans, which can feel much less certain, even though nothing about the underlying numbers has changed.

That creates a challenge in a world increasingly shaped by data, where people are encouraged to rely on numbers as an objective guide, Reinholtz said.

These effects don’t just show up in lab experiments. They can also shape real-world decisions in ways people don’t notice. A company can look more or less risky depending on whether you’re thinking about revenue or profit, even though both reflect the same underlying performance. The same goes for everyday choices, from comparing fuel efficiency to making sense of economic trends.

“We tend to assume we can present data in a neutral way that doesn’t influence decisions,” Reinholtz said. “But in practice, it’s very hard to present numbers without shaping how people interpret them.”

From company profits to everyday purchases, the way numbers are framed can change how risky or uncertain they feel, according to new research.

Traditional

White

Equal performance, unequal pay: Why women's teams fall behind

Katy Hill — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 19:05:15 +0000

Equal performance, unequal pay: Why women's teams fall behind Katy Hill Tue, 06/16/2026 - 13:05

Katy Marquardt Hill

Women’s teams can win championships, draw huge audiences and rival men on the field. But according to new research, women’s teams are often judged differently and rewarded less than comparable all-male teams despite producing the same results.

The research suggests the gap isn’t just about popularity or revenue. In a series of studies spanning sports, healthcare and workplace settings, researchers found that all-women teams are often evaluated differently and paid less even when their performance matches men’s.

Mallory Decker

“The gender pay gap is compounded by who women work with. When women work exclusively with other women, they’re judged differently than men who work with men,” said Mallory Decker, a PhD student at the Leeds School of Business and lead author of the study, published in February 2026 in Human Resource Management.

“What’s different here is that it’s happening at the group level,” said David Hekman, associate professor of organizational leadership and information analytics at Leeds and co-author of the study. “But once you get into teams—sports, music, venture capital—that’s where the gap really shows up.”

The research began with a simple question: Why have pay gaps narrowed for some individual athletes and entertainers but stayed so wide for teams?

“There’s been a lot of attention on the gap between men’s and women’s pay in sports, especially team sports,” Decker said. “You see individual women doing incredibly well—Serena Williams, Naomi Osaka—but that gap hasn’t closed in team settings.”

Using data from more than 900 international sporting events across 44 sports—from soccer and tennis to surfing—spanning 2014 to 2021, along with salary data from healthcare organizations and a series of experiments, Decker and Hekman found a consistent pattern: Men tend to benefit financially from working together, while women working in all‑women groups often do not. In those events, men competing in groups earned more than twice as much as women in comparable group competitions. Meanwhile, pay for individual events was far closer, with much smaller gaps between what men and women earned.

David Hekman

Performance doesn’t explain the gap in team pay. In the study, men and women teams produced identical results, but people consistently rated all‑women teams as more likely to challenge the status quo and as deserving less pay, while all‑men teams were seen as more legitimate.

“When men work with other men, it supports norms people are used to,” Decker said. “They seem more dominant, more competent—and that’s what we tend to value.”

“That’s not true for women,” she added. “When women work together, it can feel outside the norm, and people are more likely to react to it as something disruptive.”

Those reactions are often subconscious, Hekman said.

“A group of women can be perceived as threatening because it looks like they could change existing social hierarchies,” he said. “And in our study, those perceptions were linked to lower pay.”

That same pattern shows up beyond sports, the study found. All‑women groups are largely absent from the highest‑grossing music tours, reflecting a broader trend the researchers also observed in workplaces like healthcare.

“It’s not that women can’t succeed,” Hekman said. “They absolutely do as solo performers. It’s that when women work in groups, they’re basically not even on the scale.”

Decker said that bias isn’t usually intentional.

“I don’t think people are consciously thinking, ‘Let’s pay women less for equal work,’” she said. “But everything in our experiments was the same except for gender—and people still rated women as deserving less pay.”

That study’s findings have implications for workplaces trying to close pay gaps, Decker added.

“Right now, organizations tend to look at pay equity one person at a time—same job, same tenure, same skill level,” she said. “But at the group level, that gap actually gets bigger. Who you’re working with matters.”

For Hekman, the takeaway raises a broader question. “If we like teams—and we clearly do,” he said, “why do we only seem to value them when they’re men?”

New CU �ֲ��ý research finds all‑women teams are often paid less than all-male teams even when performance is the same.

Traditional

White

What a new NDA proposal could mean for federal workers and the public

Katy Hill — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 14:47:56 +0000

What a new NDA proposal could mean for federal workers and the public Katy Hill Wed, 06/10/2026 - 08:47

Katy Marquardt Hill

In a move that could reshape how information flows inside the federal government, the Trump administration has proposed a government-wide nondisclosure agreement for federal workers. The draft policy, released at the end of May by the Office of Personnel Management, would require employees to formally agree to safeguard a broad category of “confidential government information,” including internal deliberations and other non-public material.

Tony Tong

Federal employees are already bound by rules protecting classified and sensitive information. The proposed policy would extend those protections beyond national security, applying them to a broader range of internal government discussions and deliberations—information that has historically informed important reporting on government operations, even when no classified material was involved.

“The real dispute is not about classified secrets,” said Tony Tong, professor of strategy and entrepreneurship in the Leeds School of Business. “It centers on whether federal employees should be treated more like private-sector employees or as public servants whose obligations may sometimes include exposing government wrongdoing.”

Supporters say the change could curb leaks and allow for more candid decision-making, while critics argue it risks discouraging whistleblowing and limiting transparency.

The proposal is not yet final and is open for a 30-day public comment period, but it has already sparked debate over how to balance confidentiality and accountability. CU �ֲ��ý Today spoke with Tong about what the proposal could mean for government agencies, employees and the public.

Federal employees already have rules around classified and sensitive information. What is new about the proposed NDA policy?

Federal employees are already subject to various confidentiality obligations, so the debate is not about whether government workers should protect secrets. Rather, it centers on expanding the scope and enforcement of those obligations beyond traditional categories like classified information.

The proposed rule appears to apply to all federal employees, not just those handling classified information. It could shift from protecting clearly defined categories of legally protected information toward a broader set of internal government information and deliberations.

There are pros and cons to the proposed policy, pending more clarity on the details. Supporters argue that government leaders need confidential space to deliberate. Opponents point to the difference between illegal disclosure and other types of disclosure that are not illegal, such as whistleblowing.

Legally, the government has much stronger authority to restrict speech involving classified information. It generally has weaker authority to limit speech about policy disagreements, management decisions or potential misconduct.

The real dispute is not about classified secrets. There is broad agreement that classified information should remain protected. The disagreement is over whether federal employees should be treated more like employees of a private corporation—where internal information generally belongs to the organization—or as public servants whose ultimate obligation may sometimes require exposing government wrongdoing.

Supporters say this is basic management—that organizations need confidentiality in order to function well. What is the strongest argument in favor of a broader NDA policy?

From a management perspective, the strongest argument for a broader NDA policy is that organizations need protected spaces for candid deliberation and coordinated action. Effective decision-making often requires employees to share ideas and knowledge, voice disagreements, and discuss sensitive issues without fear that internal conversations will quickly become public. If participants expect discussions to be leaked, they may become more guarded, reducing the quality of information available to decision-makers.

In addition, organizations tend to function best when disagreements are resolved through established internal processes rather than external channels. In the federal context, this argument is tied to democratic accountability: Elected leaders are responsible for policy decisions, and confidentiality can help ensure those decisions are debated internally and implemented consistently. From this perspective, broader NDAs are less about protecting secrets and more about enabling effective organizational governance.

Critics say the proposal is too broad and could chill employees from speaking up. What happens when workers are not sure what they can and cannot say?

It could have a chilling effect. The main concern is organizational silence. When employees are uncertain about what they can and cannot say, they often become overly cautious and withhold information.

Research shows that organizations make better decisions when employees feel safe raising concerns, reporting problems and sharing dissenting views. The risk is that leaders receive less information about emerging issues, operational challenges or potential mistakes. As a result, the organization as a whole may become less adaptive and less effective. The key management challenge is to balance confidentiality with clear, trusted channels for employees to speak up when necessary.

How is an NDA in government different from an NDA in the private sector?

The key difference is that private firms are accountable primarily to their owners and shareholders, whereas government agencies are ultimately accountable to the public. In the private sector, NDAs are generally used to protect proprietary information and sources of competitive advantage. In government, confidentiality must be balanced against transparency, public oversight and the public's right to know how decisions are made. As a result, broader NDAs in government raise concerns that are less prominent in the corporate setting, particularly regarding accountability and whistleblowing.

Could a policy like this have unintended effects on workplace culture?

Yes. Any policy that is perceived as restricting communication can affect organizational culture. If employees view the policy as overly broad or punitive, it may reduce trust, discourage candid internal debate, and lower morale. It could also make recruitment and retention more challenging for employees who value professional autonomy and public service. Ultimately, much depends on implementation: Policies that clearly define boundaries and preserve trusted channels for raising concerns are less likely to generate these unintended effects.

You’ve previously discussed restrictive workplace agreements in the context of noncompete agreements. Are there any broader lessons that apply here?

One broader lesson is that restrictive agreements, including noncompetes and NDAs, often involve a tradeoff between organizational control and information flows. In the case of noncompetes, my work, along with that of other scholars, suggests stronger restrictions can protect firms' interests in the short run but may also reduce knowledge sharing, mobility and innovation in the longer run, ultimately hurting firms’ own interests.

NDAs serve a different purpose, but a similar principle applies. While confidentiality can improve coordination and protect sensitive information, overly broad restrictions may discourage employees from sharing concerns or information that is valuable to the organization. From a management perspective, the challenge is not whether restrictions should exist, but how to design them effectively so they achieve their intended purpose without creating excessive organizational costs.

If the administration moves forward, what kind of safeguards would protect sensitive information without undermining accountability?

The most important safeguard is clarity. Employees need to know exactly what information is protected and what communication is allowed. Equally important are credible channels for reporting concerns, including strong whistleblower protections and access to inspectors general, Congress and other oversight bodies.

More broadly, effective organizations distinguish between protecting sensitive information and suppressing dissent. The goal should be to prevent harmful disclosures while preserving the upward flow of information leaders need to identify problems, learn and remain accountable.

For the average reader who does not work in government, why should this debate matter?

This debate matters because it reflects a fundamental challenge facing all organizations: how to balance confidentiality with transparency. Organizations need protected spaces for candid discussion and effective decision-making, but they also need mechanisms that allow problems, mistakes and misconduct to surface.

The broader takeaway is that information governance is not simply about controlling information. It is about designing governance mechanisms and systems that protect sensitive information while ensuring that leaders receive accurate feedback and remain accountable. The federal NDA debate is ultimately a debate about where that balance should be struck.

The proposal could change how employees share information and how the public learns about government decisions.

Traditional

White

Why World Cup tickets cost so much—and how pricing actually works

Katy Hill — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 18:13:55 +0000

Why World Cup tickets cost so much—and how pricing actually works Katy Hill Wed, 06/03/2026 - 12:13

Katy Marquardt Hill

Attending a World Cup match in North America this summer won’t be cheap, costing fans anywhere from a few hundred dollars to well over $1,000 even before factoring in flights, hotels and transportation. FIFA, the sport’s global governing body, is also using dynamic pricing for the first time, adding another layer to how tickets are sold and priced.

To break down what’s driving those costs, CU �ֲ��ý Today spoke with Övünç Yılmaz, assistant professor of operations and a pricing expert at the Leeds School of Business, who studies how markets like travel, sports and events set prices.

How does World Cup ticket pricing work?

Event tickets are initially sold in a primary market, where organizers control prices, much like airlines and hotels. The key similarity is that all three sell fixed, perishable capacity with differentiated products: seats and games for tickets, routes and fare classes for airlines, and room types and dates for hotels.

But event tickets are different because they can often be resold in a secondary market, which adds complexity.

The World Cup adds another layer because of its scale: 104 games over 39 days, across 16 cities, with around 7 million total tickets. This is very different from a typical sporting event in a single venue.

What makes World Cup ticketing more complicated than a typical sporting event?

Even without resale, FIFA’s primary market is complex. Tickets are released through multiple phases: presales before fans know matchups, later sales after the draw, additional releases as teams qualify, and last-minute availability. FIFA also sells single-game tickets, team-based packages, venue packages and conditional knockout tickets.

Some tickets are never sold on the open market—about 16% are set aside for the teams involved to distribute themselves.

Then there is the resale market. FIFA created two official resale channels with different rules: In the U.S. and Canada, tickets can be resold at any price, while in Mexico, resale is capped at face value due to regulations. Beyond FIFA’s platforms, companies like Ticketmaster and StubHub are also active.

Now, the big question: Why are World Cup tickets so expensive?

Ticket prices are high for a few key reasons.

FIFA and many event organizers have traditionally underpriced tickets in the primary market in the name of global reach and fairness. That creates excess demand and leaves value on the table, which often gets captured in the resale market.

FIFA already varies prices across games, and this World Cup marks the first time it has introduced dynamic pricing, allowing prices to adjust with demand in real time.

But the resale market is still where much of the real price discovery happens, especially for high-demand games involving teams like the U.S., England or Argentina.

In our research on NFL ticket markets, we find that when primary market prices increase, resale prices can rise even more than expected. So the very high prices we are seeing may reflect the enormous demand for this event in North America, but potentially also an unintended consequence of FIFA’s more aggressive pricing strategy.

Are these prices ‘fair’? Why do they feel frustrating to fans?

Övünç Yılmaz

“Fair” means different things depending on where you sit. A $10,000 Final ticket can be fair if someone is willing to pay it—that is how markets work. But it can still feel deeply unfair to fans who see the World Cup as a global cultural event.

FIFA does try to build fairness into the system. There were $60 entry-level tickets for group-stage games, $75 tickets for host-nation matches, and more accessible options throughout the knockout rounds. Many tickets were also distributed through random draws rather than purely first-come, first-served sales, which gives everyone a chance.

But if you are not successful in that process, you are then facing the resale market. That is not necessarily unfair in a market sense; it is what happens when demand far exceeds supply.

What is especially interesting is FIFA’s decision to cap resale prices at face value for Mexico residents while allowing market-based pricing in the U.S. and Canada. Same tournament, same tickets, but completely different resale rules. I am curious to see how that plays out in practice.

What happens to prices as games get closer?

For group-stage games (the opening round, when teams are divided into groups), resale prices have declined about 10% to 20% compared to earlier this spring, though they remain well above face value.

The most fascinating dynamic will be in the knockout rounds, where nobody yet knows who is playing. Prices could rise sharply if a high-demand matchup emerges or drop if it does not.

We will likely see this happen in real time—even before games finish—as outcomes become clearer.

Beyond tickets, what does the full cost look like for fans?

Tickets are just the beginning. This World Cup is a completely different logistical challenge compared to past tournaments, with matches spread across multiple cities and countries.

Take England as an example. A fan following England through a potential run to the final could be looking at Arlington, then New Jersey twice, then Atlanta, then Mexico City, then Miami, then back to Atlanta, then New York. That is seven cities across two countries in roughly five weeks. And that is only if England finishes first in their group. Finish second, and the entire knockout map shifts. Arranging flights and hotels with only four to five days between games, without knowing your next destination until the final whistle, is an enormous challenge.

For many fans, flights, hotels and last-minute bookings will end up costing more than the tickets themselves.

What’s your advice for fans still hoping to attend?

Before anything else, factor in the full picture: Check flights and hotels before even thinking about tickets.

For group-stage games, monitor prices and set a threshold you are comfortable with. Prices have been coming down and may continue to do so, so patience can pay off. If you simply want to attend a game in your own city, waiting may create opportunities closer to kickoff.

For knockout games, the math is more complicated. If there is a potential matchup you are excited about, buying early can be part of the gamble. Prices could spike significantly once teams are confirmed, so current prices may look reasonable in hindsight.

And even if you do not get the exact matchup you hoped for, it is still the World Cup and will likely be a memorable experience.

A CU �ֲ��ý pricing expert explains what's driving the high costs and how FIFA's new ticket system works.

Traditional

White

Study: When CEOs mention death, investors pay attention

Katy Hill — Tue, 19 May 2026 18:23:10 +0000

Study: When CEOs mention death, investors pay attention Katy Hill Tue, 05/19/2026 - 12:23

Katy Marquardt Hill

CEO speeches during company earnings calls typically include a rah-rah message reassuring investors, reinforcing confidence in strategy and recapping company wins.

Investors hear these messages quarter after quarter, and predictability makes them easy to tune out. But new research suggests attention spikes when executives break that script in an unexpected way—by referencing death.

“Investors expect CEOs to talk about how competent and accomplished they are, so they don’t pay close attention,” said Tony Kong, a professor of organizational leadership and information analytics at the Leeds School of Business and a co-author of the study, published online in April 2026 in the Journal of Management. “What surprised us was how quickly attention changed when death entered the conversation.”

Tony Kong

Russell Cropanzano

Death references could be literal, such as a pharmaceutical executive explaining that a treatment could mean the difference between “life and death” for a cancer patient, but they could also be figurative.

“Even saying things like ‘you’re dead right’ or ‘dead wrong’ made investors more alert and engaged with what the CEO said next,” Kong said.

The shock of the unexpected matters. When CEOs stick to the usual upbeat script, investors tend to stop listening closely. But a mention of death snaps their attention back and makes the rest of the message land differently, Kong said.

The study asked 600 people to review CEO statements that varied in how much they emphasized achievement and whether they included death-related language. The researchers also analyzed thousands of real earnings‑call transcripts from U.S. public companies between 2018 and 2022, using linguistic software, then examined market responses including stock returns, trading volume and investor sentiment.

Across the studies, the researchers found that CEOs talking up their wins and strengths had little effect on investor reactions. That’s partly because positive language doesn’t stand out on its own, said co-author Russell Cropanzano, a professor of organizational leadership and information analytics at Leeds.

“There’s a classic finding in psychology that bad information stands out more than good,” Cropanzano said. “Achievement talk is usually positive, so investors may tune it out. But when something threatening enters the picture, like thoughts of death, it grabs attention and makes people more focused on what comes next.”

This effect, what psychologists call “mortality salience,” can arouse fear and anxiety. Investors try to manage that discomfort, often unconsciously, by turning to familiar leadership stereotypes, Kong said.

“Investors start seeing the CEO as agentic—confident, intelligent and competent,” he said, “and then they evaluate the firm to be more attractive for investment.”

The study’s results show that when CEOs paired claims of success with references to death, investors paid closer attention—reacting more strongly than they do to typical upbeat messaging, trading more and expressing less negative sentiment. In the field study, even small increases in both types of language were linked to about a 3% rise in trading volume and a drop in negative sentiment.

The findings point to an uncomfortable reality: Subtle word choices can shape how investors think and respond.

“Investors are mostly rational, from an economic standpoint,” Cropanzano said. “But when you’re talking about this much money, even small psychological nudges can add up to real financial impact.”

At the same time, the researchers stressed that the results shouldn’t be seen as a playbook.

“I’d be cautious about treating this as a tactic to move investors,” Kong said. “The lesson isn’t to use death language on purpose, but that when it comes up, leaders shouldn’t ignore it. They should address it honestly and show they’re capable of handling what comes next.”

Kong emphasized that the study isn’t an argument for darker messaging. “Used sporadically, this creates a psychological environment where communication becomes more effective,” Kong said.

At its core, he added, the study is about attention and how people make sense of information. “People are motivated to make sense of things that are surprising or disruptive,” Kong said.

New research finds that even brief references to death can make investors more open to executives' claims about their skills and success.

Traditional

White

AI fact‑checking works, but mostly for progressives

Katy Hill — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 16:26:05 +0000

AI fact‑checking works, but mostly for progressives Katy Hill Fri, 04/17/2026 - 10:26

Katy Marquardt Hill

As social media platforms increasingly lean on artificial intelligence to spot misinformation, new research suggests those tools don’t work equally well for everyone.

Jason Thatcher

In two large online experiments conducted in the U.S. and U.K. during the 2020 and 2022 news cycles, researchers found that AI fact‑checkers generally made people less likely to believe false news more than human fact‑checkers, but mainly among progressive users. Conservatives reacted about the same to AI and human fact-checking, often putting more weight on the reputation of the news source itself.

The study shows that people’s politics strongly shape whether fact-checks—human or AI—actually change minds, said Jason Thatcher, professor of information systems at the Leeds School of Business and co-author of the paper, forthcoming in MIS Quarterly.

“People that are conservative trust humans because they're predictable, they're reliable, they're familiar, whereas perhaps progressives trust the technology,” Thatcher said.

That divide, he added, may help explain why AI fact-checkers persuade some users but not others.

Human vs. AI fact-checkers

The researchers, who included Guohou Shan of Northeastern University’s D’Amore‑McKim School of Business and Sunil Wattal of Temple University’s Fox School of Business, set out to understand not just whether AI or human fact‑checkers worked better but how people judged the source of a fact check in the first place.

“We weren't interested in which was more effective,” Thatcher said. “We were interested in how people evaluated who did the rating.”

To do that, the researchers conducted two online experiments involving 370 active social media users in the United States and the United Kingdom, designed to reflect how people actually come across news on social media. Participants were shown news posts designed to look like real social media content, similar to what someone might see on Facebook or Reddit.

The posts covered polarizing, widely discussed issues where misinformation often spreads, including climate change, vaccines, immigration and taxes. Some of the news stories were false, and some were accurate, reflecting the mixed information people see online.

The researchers then varied a few key details: whether a post was fact‑checked by an AI system, a human fact‑checker or not at all, and whether the post appeared to come from a high‑ or low‑reputation source. Participants also reported whether they identified as progressive or conservative, allowing the researchers to compare how different groups responded to the same information.

After viewing each post, participants were asked how believable it seemed and whether they would talk about it, comment on it or share it. The researchers ran the same basic experiment in both countries, drawing on news content from the 2020 and 2022 news cycles, to test whether the results held up beyond a single country or political moment.

Fact‑checking isn’t just about facts

Overall, the study found that AI fact‑checkers were more effective than human ones at making people less likely to believe false news, but again, primarily among progressive users. Conservatives, on the other hand, reacted about the same to AI and human fact checks and tended to rely more heavily on the reputation of the news source itself.

The research also found that fact‑checking can be more complicated when false claims come from well‑known or trusted sources, particularly when human fact‑checkers are involved.

Taken together, Thatcher said, the findings point to a basic challenge in fighting misinformation: It’s not just about getting the facts right but about trust.

“One fact‑checking system is probably not going to work for everyone,” he said. “The solution is having more than one way of providing evidence, considering the source of information and helping people reach their own conclusions.”

Two experiments in the U.S. and U.K. found that AI fact‑checkers were more effective than humans at reducing belief in false news, but mainly among progressive users.

Traditional

White

Why climate action is one of today's biggest business opportunities

Katy Hill — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 12:58:38 +0000

Why climate action is one of today's biggest business opportunities Katy Hill Wed, 04/08/2026 - 06:58

Katy Marquardt Hill

Can startups help solve climate change and make money doing it? As federal policy grows less predictable, entrepreneurs are stepping in to fill the gap with new ideas, technologies and business models.

Jeff York

CU �ֲ��ý Today sat down with Jeff York, a professor of entrepreneurship at the Leeds School of Business, to talk about where startups can have the most impact, how politics are reshaping the landscape, and why he sees climate action as one of the biggest business opportunities of the next decade.

Big picture first: Can startups solve climate change?

Not by themselves. Entrepreneurs are a product of the nexus of the individual and opportunities and the environment around them: the cultural, political, and business environment.

For startups to meaningfully address climate change, the right conditions need to exist. They need to have the right alliances, the right partnerships, a supportive sociocultural setting, and they really need partnership with the government.

People often say business will save the world; I seriously doubt that. Business makes a wonderful tool and a really lousy religion. But with the right frameworks and the right policies in place, climate change can be addressed through new business models—and by bringing new products, markets and services to market.

Is today’s political environment helping or hurting climate startups?

The rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act—which had a lot of meaningful policies designed to move us toward a carbon‑neutral economy—is actually quite damaging. That act helped create markets and reduce risk for startups. Pulling that support back makes it harder to plan, harder to raise capital and harder to scale.

That said, the federal level is not everything. There’s still tons being done at the state level and even the community level. Founders need to be thoughtful about where they locate, where they target their markets, and how they align with the norms and beliefs of that community.

Does it hurt startups? Absolutely. Does it destroy our chance to address climate change? No, not at all.

Do you still see opportunity?

From all the business indicators, renewable energy is cheaper than it has ever been. Ninety percent of the new energy added to the U.S grid in the past five years was renewable energy. There are a lot of opportunities just on a purely economic basis.

This is a great economic opportunity—and we’re just leaving money on the table. What I mean by that is we already know these technologies are cost‑competitive, and the markets are moving in that direction anyway. By slowing down or stepping back, we’re giving up leadership and investment that’s going to happen somewhere else.

And we don’t really have a choice. The economic impacts on our lives are going to be so severe that eventually we’re going to have to make this change anyway.

Is climate entrepreneurship still a good bet for founders and investors?

If you’re looking for where the big hype is—where you can get in, make a quick exit and get a quick return—that’s obviously AI right now. Climate entrepreneurship isn’t that.

But there is still plenty of money flowing into addressing climate change because long‑term investors understand this is something we have to address. And the economic opportunity of doing so makes complete sense.

Where is climate investment flowing right now?

There’s huge interest in data centers. There’s a lot more capital going into small nuclear and fusion. There’s a lot going into autonomous electric vehicles.

Basically anything related to large‑scale data centers, quantum computing and supplying the energy for those markets is growing very quickly.

But what we’re seeing at the federal level isn’t just a rollback of support for new industries—it’s the federal government actively propping up dying industries, not on any economic basis whatsoever.

How does AI change the climate startup landscape?

AI offers a lot of opportunities—large‑scale modeling, faster research and the ability to engage in a technology‑founded startup at a much lower cost. The barrier to entry is way lower than it has been.

That sounds like a good thing, and maybe it is, because we don’t know exactly which business models or which solutions are going to be successful in addressing climate change.

But at the same time, it gets a lot of folks to rush into a market and try to create a business when they really don’t have the preparation, knowledge or ability to do so. At a societal level, that experimentation can be good. At an individual level, that can be bad.

So AI definitely accelerates some solutions, but it also creates challenges. It’s a complicated issue—there isn’t a simple answer.

Where do everyday people encounter climate entrepreneurship?

I think everybody can be a climate entrepreneur. Anyone who has the motivation and concern to do something about climate change can do much more than recycle and buy an EV.

If you’re a businessperson, that might mean understanding climate science and working with environmental movements to identify real opportunities to address this problem. If you’re a scientist, artist or someone without a business background, learning how markets work—how ideas, products, and services actually scale—is essential.

The most meaningful action individuals can take is engaging politically: lobbying representatives, working at the local level and supporting leaders who will create the conditions needed to address climate change in a meaningful way.

Looking ahead, where could climate entrepreneurship have the biggest impact?

The biggest opportunity is moving toward utility‑scale renewables, particularly solar, and continuing the industrial evolution away from coal—that’s really the big enchilada.

There’s also a huge opportunity in distributed power systems—solar with battery—especially in states dealing with wildfire‑related grid shutdowns.

Most people don’t care where the energy comes from. They just want the light to work. That means solutions have to operate at scale.

As federal policy shifts, the economics of clean energy are becoming harder to ignore. Jeff York, an expert on environmental entrepreneurship, explains where climate-focused startups are gaining ground and what it will take to bring them to scale.

Traditional

White

Business & Entrepreneurship

Study: Gender pay gaps are not just unfair, they cost companies

Why pay equity matters

What companies can do

Related Articles

Can Trump Accounts help kids build wealth? A finance expert weighs in

What exactly are Trump Accounts?

How do they differ from other savings and investment accounts?

What do you see as the program's biggest potential benefits?

What are the biggest misunderstandings you've seen about these accounts so far?

If a family has limited money to save, what should they prioritize?

Some project that a $1,000 contribution could grow to a half-million dollars by age 55. Is this realistic?

What's the most important thing parents should understand about saving and investing for a child's future?

What are some common mistakes parents should avoid when thinking about long-term investment accounts for their children?

Related Articles

How Colorado's Tamale Act could help launch the next generation of food businesses

What do you think about Colorado’s Tamale Act from an entrepreneurship perspective?

What new opportunities does this law create for aspiring entrepreneurs or small food businesses?

How does this law fit into Colorado's broader entrepreneurial ecosystem?

How much does this actually lower the barriers to starting a business, and who stands to benefit most?

Do policies like this mainly support side hustles, or do they also drive innovation?

For someone starting from home, what does it realistically take to turn a food idea into a sustainable business?

What challenges do entrepreneurs typically run into after they get started in this type of business?

Looking ahead, what would success look like for this law a few years from now?

Related Articles

How numbers can trick your brain

Bigger numbers can feel riskier

Why our intuition gets it wrong

Related Articles

Equal performance, unequal pay: Why women's teams fall behind

Related Articles

What a new NDA proposal could mean for federal workers and the public

Federal employees already have rules around classified and sensitive information. What is new about the proposed NDA policy?

Supporters say this is basic management—that organizations need confidentiality in order to function well. What is the strongest argument in favor of a broader NDA policy?

Critics say the proposal is too broad and could chill employees from speaking up. What happens when workers are not sure what they can and cannot say?

How is an NDA in government different from an NDA in the private sector?

Could a policy like this have unintended effects on workplace culture?

You’ve previously discussed restrictive workplace agreements in the context of noncompete agreements. Are there any broader lessons that apply here?

If the administration moves forward, what kind of safeguards would protect sensitive information without undermining accountability?

For the average reader who does not work in government, why should this debate matter?

Related Articles

Why World Cup tickets cost so much—and how pricing actually works

How does World Cup ticket pricing work?

What makes World Cup ticketing more complicated than a typical sporting event?

Now, the big question: Why are World Cup tickets so expensive?

Are these prices ‘fair’? Why do they feel frustrating to fans?

What happens to prices as games get closer?

Beyond tickets, what does the full cost look like for fans?

What’s your advice for fans still hoping to attend?

Related Articles

Study: When CEOs mention death, investors pay attention

Related Articles

AI fact‑checking works, but mostly for progressives

Human vs. AI fact-checkers

Fact‑checking isn’t just about facts

Related Articles

Why climate action is one of today's biggest business opportunities

Big picture first: Can startups solve climate change?

Is today’s political environment helping or hurting climate startups?

Do you still see opportunity?

Is climate entrepreneurship still a good bet for founders and investors?

Where is climate investment flowing right now?

How does AI change the climate startup landscape?

Where do everyday people encounter climate entrepreneurship?

Looking ahead, where could climate entrepreneurship have the biggest impact?

Related Articles