Latest news with #behavioralscience
Forbes
a day ago
- Business
- Forbes
Making Money Matter More: The Power Of A 'Massively Transformative Purpose'
Net worth is easy to measure. But what makes it worthwhile? What justifies the effort, investment, or sacrifice required to pursue financial success? And how is that—financial success—even defined in the first place? And then, once you've reached whatever definition of financial success you've determined, what gives your wealth meaning? (A question worth considering) Redefining Financial Success We've long been taught to measure financial success with numbers: net worth, portfolio returns, retirement dates, income generated, gifts granted, taxes paid and avoided, inheritance left behind. Yet one could check every box—and still feel unfulfilled. In fact, many people go to great lengths to achieve supposed financial success—but at the expense of their time, influence, health, and relationships. This all-too-common phenomenon begs the question: What's it really worth? This nagging question is one that has plagued my firm since its inception, nearly 30 years ago. And it's why we coined our own term—Net Worthwhile®—designed to remind us and our clients that our pursuit is not solely numerical…that a mountain of wealth can be worthless without purpose while bringing meaning to money can empower families, both personally and financially. Behavioral Science Meets Financial Planning Here, we're taking concepts rooted in behavioral science, like Self-Determination Theory (SDT)—which suggests that identifying with a purpose enhances intrinsic motivation, boosting persistence, engagement, and performance when tasks align with personal values—and extrapolating it to wealth management. Others have done the same in other fields. For example, building on Jim Collins' BHAG concept (Big Hairy Audacious Goal), Peter Diamandis and Salim Ismail introduced us to the concept of the Massively Transformative Purpose (MTP) in their ode to entrepreneurs in their book, Exponential Organizations. What's A Massively Transformative Purpose? Hyperbolic by design, a Massively Transformative Purpose for a business is a clear, aspirational statement that articulates an organization's deeply held purpose to create meaningful, large-scale impact. 'It establishes a long-term goal for the company so sweeping and profound that it is always within reach yet always unreachable,' Ismail suggests. 'It inspires employees and customers. And it galvanizes employee morale and retention.' For example, at my company, we review our version of an MTP with the entire firm every quarter: 'We are going to impact the lives of 10,000 families by 2030 because financially healthy families and individuals change the world.' This infuses our collective efforts with a purpose well beyond profit, while providing a standard against which all of our individual initiatives and decisions can be gauged. What's Your Net Worthwhile®? The concept of Net Worthwhile®, therefore, can be used to help those families we impact with a similar plumbline for their financial planning. Net Worthwhile® helps bring money to life (and life to money) in three key ways: At its simplest, your Net Worthwhile® is the completion of this sentence: For the relationally oriented, Net Worthwhile® serves as a family financial mission statement. For the practically minded, it becomes a clear set of marching orders from client to advisor. For the analytical, it provides the standard by which goals and next actions in the plan are evaluated. And for the experimental, it may serve as a catalyst to expand what's typically considered possible in financial planning. For some, Net Worthwhile® serves as a phrase or sentence. For others, a paragraph or bullet points or even pictures. Its effectiveness is judged not by its articulation but by its power to activate and motivate. So, what's yours? What's the Massively Transformative Purpose that gets you up in the morning, that inspires you to push through when you face resistance, that gives you clarity in the midst of confusion, that brings meaning to money? What's your Net Worthwhile®?
Fast Company
16-06-2025
- Health
- Fast Company
5 signals that make you instantly more trustworthy at work
Believe it or not, first impressions are biological. When meeting someone for the first time, well before your résumé or title is considered, your brain and body are sending and receiving subtle signals that influence trust. In today's workplaces, where hybrid teams and digital interactions dominate, those signals matter more than ever. The good news is that you can learn to send them more intentionally. In my work developing Leadership Biodynamics, a biology of behavior approach to executive presence, I help leaders become more aware of how trust and connection are built at the behavioral level. The signals that trigger trust are not abstract: they're cues the human brain is wired to read quickly and deeply, because in evolutionary terms, deciding whether someone was safe to approach was once a matter of survival. That's still true in the modern workplace. Whether you're onboarding to a new team, pitching an idea to executives, or building rapport with clients, the signals you send, especially those of warmth, create the foundation for influence. Here are five warmth signals, rooted in behavioral science, that can make you instantly more trustworthy at work. 1. Listen With Full Attention In any conversation, your body gives away whether you are truly listening. Direct eye contact, open posture, leaning slightly forward, and subtle nods all signal active attention. These cues calm the other person's limbic system, reducing social threat and increasing openness. Research on neuroception, the brain's unconscious scanning for cues of safety, shows that listening behaviors have an outsized impact on trust. When someone perceives you as fully present, they are more likely to see you as trustworthy. 2. Acknowledge and Validate Others Warmth is not just about being friendly. It's about making others feel seen and valued. Small behaviors, such as verbally acknowledging good work, validating concerns, or thanking colleagues meaningfully, send powerful signals. In Leadership Biodynamics, I teach that validation is a key biological mechanism of social bonding. When you acknowledge another's contribution, you activate neural circuits linked to oxytocin release. This reinforces affiliation and trust. 3. Focus On Others In Conversation It's easy to let a conversation drift back to your own experiences or ideas. However, warmth signals are amplified when you keep the focus on the other person. Ask questions. Draw them out. Let them shine. Behavioral science research supports this. Studies show that people rate conversations more positively when the other person shows genuine interest and curiosity about them. This behavior is linked to increased perceptions of trustworthiness and likability. 4. Be Approachable and Easy To Relate To Approachability is a behavioral signal with deep biological roots. From a neuroscience perspective, a smiling face, relaxed tone of voice, and nonthreatening posture lower others' cortisol responses and increase approach behaviors. Even small shifts in physical demeanor can change how others regulate their own behavior in response to you. Warmth cues such as smiling when greeting colleagues or using humor appropriately make you easier to approach. As a result, you are more trusted. 5. Show Thoughtfulness In Small Actions Trust is cumulative. Seemingly minor actions, like following up after a conversation, remembering a colleague's birthday, or offering help without being asked, signal consistency and care over time. Behavioral scientists have shown that such acts trigger reciprocal altruism mechanisms in the brain. This strengthens relational bonds. In leadership terms, they contribute to what I call a positive relational 'microclimate,' a state in which trust, loyalty, and collaboration flourish. Why These Signals Matter Now In hybrid workplaces, where informal trust-building moments are fewer, warmth signals become even more important. They help compensate for the missing relational glue that office proximity once provided. The latest research on team trust and psychological safety confirms this. Teams that build trust quickly perform better, especially under uncertainty. Warmth signals are often the fastest path to that trust. It is not status or credentials, but behavioral cues that others can feel in the moment. Trust is not built by charisma. It is built by signals your biology already knows how to send. The opportunity is to send them more intentionally. The bottom line is this: if you want to become more trustworthy at work, start small. Tune your warmth signals. Listen fully, validate openly, focus on others, be approachable, and act thoughtfully. In the biology of behavior, these are the cues that connect. And connection is what drives trust and influence.
Globe and Mail
15-06-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
When stock markets turn ugly, these four tricks will help prevent knee-jerk reactions
On April 4, the S&P/TSX Composite Index fell almost 5 per cent. While some investors hammered the sell button, others went on with their day and made no changes to their portfolios. Same red numbers, two opposite reactions. Why? Behavioural science says big losses should, in theory, jolt us out of knee-jerk habits and push us into careful 'System 2 thinking' – a term psychologist Daniel Kahneman used to describe our deliberate reasoning, analytical mode. 'System 1' is its opposite: fast, automatic, fuelled by emotion and mental shortcuts. System 2 is reflective, methodical, the part that double-checks math homework and rereads contracts. The trick is getting the brain to shift gears from the first to the second when markets turn ugly. New research published in the Judgment and Decision Making journal offers a clue. Experiments found that financial losses prompt people to spend more time thinking and to make better, more deliberative decisions – but only when there is enough time and cognitive space to think. Add a tight deadline, or the perception of a time pressure, and the benefit disappears: participants flip back to snap (System 1) judgments. The authors paid volunteers to solve brain-teaser questions. Get one right, earn 25 cents in one series of questions. Get it wrong, lose 25 cents in another series. When a potential loss was on the line, subjects spent more time thinking and arrived at more correct answers. That's evidence that the sting of loss can summon System 2. Opinion: If you lose money in the stock market, do you double down? That's called a martingale strategy, and it's dangerous Then the experimenters imposed a 20-second countdown clock. Under the gun, performance tanked and participants defaulted to the fast, intuitive – and often wrong – answer. Losses can prompt deep thinking or blind panic. What decides the outcome is whether the brain is given breathing room. Now bring that insight to Bay Street. Markets embed their own stopwatch: price quotes refresh almost instantly and social feeds stir up emotions around the clock. Investors do not merely sense urgency: both mainstream and social media revolve around it. Worse, the clock never stops. Extended-hours trading sessions for Canadian investors are already available from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET for many stocks, and overnight trading (8 p.m. to 4 a.m. ET the next morning) effectively makes stock trading available around the clock. Given that cryptoasset trading has no market close, maybe the move to around-the-clock security trading is inevitable. But while retail platforms tout overnight access as empowerment, the side effect is obvious: we have lost the natural curfew the closing bell once provided. Instead of cooling off overnight, a jittery investor can unload shares at 3 a.m., when liquidity might be thin and fear might be thick. Opinion: The Big Six banks are to blame for the lifeless Toronto Stock Exchange In contrast, regulators and exchanges recognize the need for oxygen. Market 'circuit breakers' halt stock market trading after big losses occur in a single trading session. These engineered breathing spaces give market participants time to digest what is happening. The implication for investors is obvious: while market losses can jolt us into deeper, more careful reasoning, this benefit is only realized if we have the time and mental space to reflect. In fast-moving markets, or when pressured to make quick decisions, the advantage of loss-induced deliberation may be lost so we need to figure out how to buy time or avoid reflexive decision-making. Here are four practical defence strategies that could help: 1. Write an investment policy statement before you need it. Even a one-page policy, drafted when you are calm, acts as a lighthouse when seas get rough. 2. Automate what you can. Prescheduled contributions and auto-rebalancing reduce decision points. 3. Use a checklist buddy. Talk decisions through with an adviser or trusted friend. Saying it out loud acts as a speed bump against emotion. 4. Respect the bell (even if markets ignore it). For investors that day-trade, decide in advance that you will not place trades outside regular hours unless a preset rule demands it. Sleep, like diversification, can be free risk management. I'm probably guilty of banging the drum on this but investors should remember that platforms hungry for order flow wave the 'democratization is good for all investors' flag proudly. But more access is not synonymous with better outcomes. Investors need to keep their eyes open. When markets nosedive, the colour red is not the true enemy – the alarmism and perceived time crunch is. Give your brain a little oxygen or adopt systems to avoid reflexive responses and the same loss that might have provoked a panicked sale might be avoided. Sometimes the smartest trade is no trade at all and the best circuit breakers may be the ones you install for yourself. Preet Banerjee is a consultant to the wealth management industry with a focus on commercial applications of behavioural finance research.
Forbes
03-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Harvard Fires Honesty Researcher For Research Fraud - Why That's OK
Harvard Business School dismissed prominent researcher and tenured professor Francesca Gino. Harvard Business School has dismissed Francesca Gino, a tenured professor whose research on honesty and ethical behavior ironically became the foundation for one of academia's most damaging fraud scandals. The firing is the first time Harvard has terminated a tenured faculty member in approximately 80 years. For her part, Gino maintains she is innocent. As I'll explain, this is actually good news for marketers and others who use behavioral science to drive better business outcomes. Gino built her career studying why people lie, cheat, and behave unethically. Her most influential work, published in 2012, found that people were more honest when signing truthfulness declarations at the top of forms rather than at the bottom. This research became a go-to example in behavioral economics circles. The study seemed to offer a simple, cost-free way to reduce fraud in everything from insurance claims to tax filings. Companies and government agencies actually implemented "sign at the top" policies based on Gino's findings. Part of the appeal of this intervention was that it seemed intuitive, not unlike Nobel winner Richard Thaler's work showing that changing retirement plans from opt-in to opt-out resulted in higher enrollment numbers. There was one big difference, though. Thaler's interventions worked, resulting in millions more people saving for retirement. But, when organizations tested 'sign at the top' forms, they were surprised that it made no significant difference in honest form completions. Sometimes, even sound research doesn't scale well in real-world settings. But, Harvard's investigation concluded that Gino fabricated some of the data supporting her honesty research. (All parties agree that the various studies include fabricated data, but disagree on its origin.) The study that promised to reduce dishonesty was itself dishonest. For CMOs and executives who regularly apply behavioral science insights to enhance their strategies, Gino's downfall offers three crucial lessons: Gino wasn't a fringe academic—she was a full professor at Harvard Business School, published prolifically, and spoke at major conferences. Her work appeared in prestigious journals and was covered by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. At one point, she was one of Harvard's highest paid employees, earning $1 million per year. If someone with these credentials could publish fabricated data for years, no researcher should be above scrutiny. Cornell's Brian Wansink, known for his food psychology research, produced work with results that were often surprising, simple, and highly actionable. He, too, faced serious misconduct allegations that led to his resignation. The "sign at the top" intervention moved from an academic theory to a tool that organizations implemented widely. How many companies are still using policies derived from fabricated data? The business impact of academic fraud or poorly designed experiments can extend beyond university walls. At least in this case, a signature at the top has no effect on honesty, good or bad. Behavioral science has struggled with a "replication crisis" where many published findings can't be reproduced by other researchers. Most of these are due to legitimate methodological differences, small sample sizes, unrepresentative subjects, etc. Occasionally, though, they stem from statistical manipulation and even fraud. Major scientific research results that are erroneous or fraudulent often get exposed as other researchers try to build on them. Most research doesn't automatically get replicated, though. The rewards for replication experiments are limited. At best, one confirms the original research. At worst, one ends up in a messy dispute with a fellow scientist. But, some researchers do devote time to research integrity. The Data Colada blog, run by three behavioral scientists, has exposed multiple instances of apparent data manipulation across the field. There's also a site, Retraction Watch, that keeps tabs on retracted papers. Ultimately, most bad research with major findings will be rooted out. Either fellow academics will discover the problem, or data-driven businesses will show real world results don't match the findings. Gino's firing shows that publishing questionable findings can have consequences, even for a star professor and researcher. It's a reminder to other researchers to be sure their data is sound. Published research papers almost always have more than one author. I expect we'll see more of these co-authors double-checking the data and methods to be sure they don't get embroiled in a replication/retraction mess later. Smart marketing leaders should exert healthy skepticism about behavioral science claims: Demand multiple sources. Don't base major strategy decisions on a single study, no matter how compelling or well-publicized. Look for independent replications by different research teams. Focus on established science. Robert Cialdini's principles of influence, for example, have endured for decades because they've been tested countless times in real business environments. Newer, flashier findings should be viewed with more caution. Watch for claims that seem too good to be true. A simple change in form design that dramatically reduces dishonesty sounds almost magical. In retrospect, the "sign at the top" finding's elegance should have raised more skepticism. Test everything. The most important behavioral science principle for marketers isn't any specific psychological finding, it's the commitment to testing. What works in a psychology lab or even for another brand may not work for your customers, your product, or your market. The bad data in the original honesty study wasn't spotted for years. Then, Harvard's investigation took years after that, with Gino remaining on the faculty during much of that time. Academic institutions move slowly, business decisions happen quickly. This creates a problematic gap where bad research can influence corporate tactics long before misconduct is discovered and corrected. The Gino scandal shouldn't make business leaders overly wary of behavioral science. Legitimate research in this field has produced valuable insights about consumer psychology, decision-making, and persuasion. Visit any successful travel website, for example, and you'll see behavior-based tactics everywhere. For marketers, the lesson is clear: approach novel behavioral science findings with the same critical thinking you'd apply to any other business intelligence. Evaluate the claims, verify the sources, and test everything. Remember that in both research and business, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Daily Mail
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Harvard professor fired for allegedly fabricating research earned $1M
Disgraced Harvard professor Francesca Gino was paid more than $1 million a year at the height of her career, it was revealed, even as she allegedly manipulated data in research papers about honesty. Gino, a former Harvard Business School professor, once hailed as a rising star in behavioral science, was the fifth-highest paid employee at Harvard in both 2018 and 2019, according to records obtained by The Harvard Crimson. Her once-celebrated career imploded after she was accused of falsifying data in a series of behavioral science studies - including papers on honesty itself. The university revoked Gino's tenure and terminated her employment, marking the first time in decades that such a step has been taken against a tenured faculty member. Her ouster came after a lengthy internal investigation found evidence of academic misconduct in research spanning more than a decade. The revelation fueled fresh outrage as the Ivy League institution reels from a rapidly escalating political showdown with the Trump administration, which has moved to cancel $100 million in federal contracts and slash billions more in grants. In a separate conflict, the Trump administration has moved to cancel roughly $100 million in federal contracts with Harvard and is threatening to divert another $3 billion in grants. Trump has accused the school of promoting antisemitism, resisting oversight, and harboring 'radicalized lunatics' among its foreign student population. Taken together, the Gino scandal and the funding fight have thrown the university into turmoil - exposing deep tensions over accountability, integrity, and power at one of America's most elite institutions. Gino's fall from grace began quietly in 2021, when anonymous researchers and the whistleblower blog Data Colada published explosive allegations that Gino had falsified data in several published studies - including one ironically focused on dishonesty. The blog's meticulous analysis and documentation sparked alarm throughout the academic world. 'In 2021, we and a team of anonymous researchers examined a number of studies co-authored by Gino, because we had concerns that they contained fraudulent data,' Data Colada wrote. 'We discovered evidence of fraud in papers spanning over a decade, including papers published quite recently (in 2020).' Harvard Business School responded with an 18-month internal investigation, eventually concluding that Gino had engaged in academic misconduct. By mid-2023, she was placed on unpaid administrative leave, stripped of her named professorship, and barred from campus. But what stunned even longtime faculty members was what came next with the formal revocation of her tenure, a punishment so rare that it had not occurred at Harvard since at least the 1940s. Gino has strenuously denied the allegations. In September 2023, she launched a $25 million lawsuit against Harvard, its business school dean Srikant Datar, and the Data Colada bloggers, Leif D. Nelson, Uri Simonsohn, and Joseph P. Simmons, accusing them of conspiracy, defamation, and violating her contractual rights. In a defiant post on her personal website Gino wrote: 'I did not commit academic fraud. I did not manipulate data to produce a particular result. I did not falsify data to bolster any result. I did not commit the offense I am accused of. Period.' Though a federal judge dismissed parts of her suit in September 2024, he allowed claims of contract violations and discrimination to move forward. Gino has since added Title VII claims to her case, accusing the university of targeting her unfairly with policies that were, she alleges, crafted specifically to punish her. 'It has been shattering to watch my career being decimated and my reputation completely destroyed,' she wrote in October. 'I am fighting not only for my name but for fairness in academia.' As Gino's saga unfolded, it collided with a much larger storm - a full-blown assault on Harvard by President Donald Trump, who returned to the White House in January 2025 and immediately began targeting the Ivy League school as 'a nest of left-wing extremism, antisemitism, and corruption.' Earlier this week, the Trump administration took aim at $100 million in federal contracts awarded to Harvard, instructing agencies to cancel all agreements and seek 'alternate vendors.' The move follows the administration's earlier decision to cancel more than $2.6 billion in federal research grants to the university. 'We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country,' Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday morning. 'Harvard is very slow in the presentation of these documents, and probably for good reason! The best thing Harvard has going for it is that they have shopped around and found the absolute best Judge (for them!) - But have no fear, the Government will, in the end, WIN!', he added. Although Harvard has complied with some requests from the Department of Homeland Security, the administration said the school's response was insufficient and attempted to revoke its ability to enroll foreign students - a move that was temporarily blocked in federal court after Harvard filed suit. International students are now caught in a kind of legal purgatory, unsure whether they'll be allowed to return in the fall. 'What the international students are caught in right now is just a limbo,' said Leo Gerdén, a graduating senior from Sweden. 'It's terrifying.' The Gino scandal has only fueled the administration's argument that Harvard is mismanaged, elitist, and ethically compromised. Harvard has long positioned itself as the gold standard in American higher education, a beacon of integrity and academic rigor. The simultaneous collapse of one of its star professors and the unraveling of its federal funding agreements has left the institution reeling. At a rally outside Harvard Yard this week, math and economics student Jacob Miller - former president of Harvard Hillel - condemned the administration's pressure campaign.
