Marketing Professor’s Research Leads to Surprising Conclusion about Political Conversations

Middle-of-the-road stances risked alienating allies and opponents alike, research found

How do you navigate political discussions?  

You might expect, as many people do, that expressing “two-sided” or ambivalent positions about controversial political issues could help you bridge divides. In particular, you might expect that expressing ambivalence would make you more likeable to allies and opponents alike.  

A new study coauthored by DePaul Assistant Professor of Marketing Geoff Durso found exactly the opposite. Expressing ambivalence was not only unhelpful when it came to winning over opponents on contentious issues. It also hurt study subjects’ standing among those on the same side of the issue at hand.  

As a marketing professor with a background in psychology, Durso often works at the intersection of consumer behavior and political sentiment.   

Read on for a discussion of why the study’s results surprised him, what might explain the findings, and how insights from marketing and politics can inform each other. 

Or: Watch a video version of the interview on our YouTube channel, part of an ongoing series highlighting Driehaus faculty and what their research can teach us about the world around us.  

On politics as identity 

Driehaus College of Business (DCOB): What were your expectations going into this study? Did it surprise you to find that expressing ambivalence didn’t help — or in some cases even hurt — people’s likeability?  

Geoff Durso (GD): People generally like others who share their position. Then, if you think of people who disagree with you, it seemed reasonable to predict that expressing conflict in your own position might communicate some degree of respect or credence to your opponents’ position at the same time. So when it comes to both groups, you might expect that expressing two-sided opinions would be beneficial to people’s popularity, a sort of middle ground that everyone respected. But we find precisely the opposite pattern.   

My so-called position allies — those who agree with me on an issue — don’t like that I’m conflicted at all. They don’t like that I’m rocking the boat. And to my opponents, expressing conflict doesn’t matter, because I’m against them on the overall position. It doesn’t even register that I feel conflicted, or that my position acknowledges both sides.   

DCOB: How did you go about making sense of those results? Why do you think that was the case?    

GD: The way people think of each other is increasingly polarized. And what’s really interesting about that is that, sometimes, an issue position can become a group identity.   

Say, during the pandemic, I’m pro-mask mandate. But, I express conflict about it. I’m weakening the pro-mask mandate connection among my allies. And when it comes to an anti-mask mandate person, they consider me part of an outgroup “opponent” due to our larger disagreement on mask mandate policies.   

In other words, the nuances in my position don’t even register to opponents. And the same nuance makes my allies feel less connected to me.   

On the connections between marketing and politics 

DCOB: Some folks might be surprised to hear that a marketing professor researches political discourse. What do these two fields have in common?   

GD: I tell my students to think of politics as the marketing of a vote. You might have a dollar and you can give that dollar to any company (or candidate!) based on what products or positions they sell. Likewise, you can also give your vote to a candidate that represents what you want versus the other candidate. Both actions represent consumer behavior. It’s just the currency that varies.   

In other words, a marketplace is not just money, and it’s not just buying things. You can think more generally in terms of choices and decisions between many options in the marketplace. That’s what every marketing campaign has in common, whether it’s toothpaste brands or presidential candidates. The stakes vary, but the underlying marketing processes are similar.     

On where to go from here 

DCOB: Any takeaways from your study results that you think marketers should be paying attention to?   

GD: There’s more and more demand from consumers for brands to make sociopolitical kinds of statements. Our findings suggest that being two-sided about these is going to repel a lot of people. Trying to please everyone with a two-sided sociopolitical statement may simply lead to pleasing no one.   

DCOB: What questions has this research left you with? What do you want to understand better about this issue?   

GD: A truism of psychology is that we judge other people by their actions, but we judge ourselves by our intentions. Expressing ambivalence in our own sociopolitical position may feel personally right (we intend to bridge political divides) but we fail to appreciate how this would be perceived in reality – we may seem inconsistent or waffling, for instance.   

How do you get people to change their expectations around expressing ambivalence? How do you get them to shift away from being focused on their own intentions? Are there ways to generate win-win consensus on divisive sociopolitical issues, and how best to do so? That’s what I’d like to learn a bit more about in my future work. 

Three-Quarters of American Workers are Vulnerable to This Widespread Form of Mistreatment. Why Isn’t it Talked about More?

Driehaus researchers shed light on weight-based mistreatment in the workplace

Research can be pathbreaking in any number of ways. It can distill received wisdom — or upend it. It can organize existing knowledge or chart a new course forward.

Or, like a paper recently published by four Driehaus researchers, research can put a name to something at once widely experienced and seldom discussed. Mistreatment in the workplace based on weight is an unfortunately familiar fact for those who experience it. But it’s rarely talked about: not among leadership; not in the media; and not even, thanks to shame and stigma, among those who are harmed by it.

“We wanted to study something that is real,” said Jaclyn Jensen, a professor and the associate dean for student success at Driehaus, and one of the study’s authors. “We wanted to shed light on something important that we think people are overlooking.”

On why weight-based mistreatment has gone unchecked

Jensen and her coauthors — fellow management and entrepreneurship faculty Grace Lemmon and Goran Kuljanin, along with Doctorate in Business Administration student Renee Chu-Jacoby —  published the results of their work in October.

Across two studies, the team found that weight-based mistreatment is as widespread as it is damaging.

In the U.S., for starters, 75% of the workforce counts as “overweight” or “obese.” (That’s according to the Body Mass Index: a widely used measure that is also widely criticized.)

As part of their study, the Driehaus team surveyed 1,008 adults who fell into this category. Among that sample, 758 people — or 75% — had been mistreated at work because of their weight within the past six months.

Together, these numbers sketch the outlines of a pervasive phenomenon, reinforced by widespread cultural stigmas. These stigmas, the researchers speculate, are part of why the problem has gone unchecked for so long.

“In our culture, we believe that if you’re larger, you’re responsible for being larger,” said Lemmon. “Larger bodies are associated with less competency, less warmth, more selfishness.”

“This is a topic that crosses the personal and professional divide,” added Jensen. “We maybe don’t have scripts that tell us whether we should be talking about it at all. Or, if we are, why we’re talking about it. Those guardrails just aren’t there.”

On why weight-based mistreatment can be hard to spot

For those who experience it, weight-based mistreatment is many-faced, many-formed. Jensen, Lemmon, Kuljanin, and Chu-Jacoby worked with a smaller study population to account for the full spectrum of how weight stigma shows up in the workplace.

They surfaced plenty of examples of overt, aggressive mistreatment: name-calling, exclusion, physical harassment. They also found examples of larger-bodied workers being perceived as less competent and less professional: of these workers being denied access to information or roles because of their size.

Just as damaging — and perhaps more surprising to those who haven’t faced it— were seemingly benign comments known as “benevolent mistreatment.”

Benevolent mistreatment might masquerade as concern for a larger-bodied coworker’s well-being. It might manifest as the suggestion to opt for a salad over a sandwich, or the snide remark about too many trips to the candy bowl — all directed at larger-bodied colleagues without being levied at smaller-bodied individuals who make similar choices.

Benevolent mistreatment, the researchers found, was just as damaging as other forms. No matter how overt or covert the behavior targeted at them, study subjects were likely to withdraw from work; to experience rumination and shame; or to neglect selfcare.

“[Benevolent mistreatment is] very much somebody entering your personal space: your personal emotional space; your personal cognitive space,” said Lemmon. “It might not be physical in nature. But it is still somebody trying to get their way into your life and control you. There’s an element of control implicit in benevolent mistreatment that’s not present in the other forms of mistreatment. And I think that’s why people react so strongly.”

On the potential costs to organizations

Weight-based mistreatment at work, the study found, is undeniably detrimental to workers’ mental health.

Equally, allowing weight-based bullying to proceed unchecked can cost organizations.

“It turns out that how people are treated inside organizations affects their behavior,” said Kuljanin. “That’s why I like this line of work. When you mistreat people, you’re clearly not getting the best out of them.”

The team hasn’t yet had the chance to quantify the impact of weight-based mistreatment on organizations. But, given the scale of the problem and existing research in workplace climates, they conjecture that these costs include lost productivity, deteriorating collaboration, and difficulty attracting and retaining talent.

“We’re social creatures,” Kuljanin said. “We talk about each other and gossip all the time. Organizations develop reputations. And so if you’re an organization that has a reputation for this kind of mistreatment, then you’re going to be missing out on a whole bunch of talent.”

On where to go from here

An issue so widespread, the researchers stressed, will necessitate solutions at any number of levels: from organizational culture right through to public policy.

As for what organizations can do? According to the team, existing research suggests that culture changes happen on many fronts. It happens when organizations change their policies. It happens when leaders draw a clear line. And it happens when all workers — but particularly those in positions of power — give one another models of how to act with compassion and empathy.

When workplace culture does shift, though, that change tends to be pervasive. It’s less about a shift in any one kind of behavior, said Jensen, than it is about a shift in the values underlying people’s choices.

“Take trying to diminish sexual harassment,” she said. “The message isn’t just, ‘respect your female colleagues.’ The message is, ‘all your colleagues deserve to be valued.’ So there are ripple effects. Those types of environments see less sexual harassment. But they also see less of other kinds of harassment, too.”

Compassion and empathy, the authors agree, are two such values that might drive change around weight stigma in the workplace.

All told, Lemmon, Jensen, and Kuljanin hope that drawing attention to the scope of the problem will be a catalyst for change.

“When you study nastiness in the workplace, you quickly learn that people know it’s going on,” said Jensen. “It’s just that they don’t necessarily want to talk about it. So one of the things that would be good to normalize, for organizations, is this idea: Not talking about it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.”

“If the thrust of our outreach is awareness,” said Lemmon, “we’re happy.

AI Insights and Consumer Neuroscience: Faculty Research at the Technological Frontier

By Jamie Merchant

A neon sign reading "The Future is Yours to Create" The hype has been extraordinary.

Over the past two years, news outlets have blanketed the public with stories about the impact of large-language models (LLMs), or “artificial intelligence,” and their profound implications for human civilization. The CEO of Tesla and billionaire investor, Elon Musk, warns that the technology represents one of “humanity’s biggest threats.” Other commentators predict a more benign future in which AI liberates us from toil, taking over the mundane tasks of office work.

With conflicting reports like these, one could be forgiven for feeling confused.

Putting the hype aside, what are the facts on the ground? How is this emerging technology actually used by businesses and organizations?

At DePaul’s Driehaus College of Business, new faculty in the Department of Marketing are cutting through the headlines to investigate the promise, and the limits, of LLMs for modern businesses.

One innovative use of LLM’s is for producing “synthetic data”, AI-generated responses that simulate humans in order to inform business intelligence. “How good is AI at really representing human variety?” asked Ignacio Luri, an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Driehaus. “That’s something I’m skeptical about. But it’s happening, so I’m studying it.”

Two men with Driehaus scarves engaged in an animated discussion

Luri, at right, in the Beta Hub

Luri, whose background is in marketing and linguistics, also studies what he calls the “market conversation”: the dialogue that unfolds around companies, consumers, and the brands that connect them. His current research focuses on the uses of AI analytics for studying that conversation. “I mostly study big data,” he said, referring to the modern study of human behavior based on very large data sets. “But I also have a qualitative toolkit.

“The market conversation is very cultural at heart,” he explained. “It happens in a cultural context. It can be really tempting to take a dataset and just crunch the numbers. But we’re talking about people. When we’re talking about the consumer conversation, things happen in a context – always. Who said that? When? Why? In what context? To whom?”

In other words: how consumers see brands, and conversely, how companies understand their customers, are both products of an ongoing dialogue between them. And, like any dialogue, the market conversation unfolds in the assumptions, habits, and beliefs that characterize particular people in a particular community at a particular point in time – that is, in all the messiness of human communication.

How apt are large language models to capture the subtle nuances of human speech, or the unique meanings that attach to specific words for a given community? Amidst all the enthusiasm for AI, Luri insists on the importance of not losing sight of the human element – the inherently contextual nature of communication.

“All that matters. It’s important not to abstract away from all that reality.”

 

As with generative AI, buzzwords swirl around the emerging field of neuromarketing. According to the Harvard Business Review, this new field “studies the brain to predict and potentially even influence consumer behavior and decision making.” One can easily imagine the value of this technology for businesses.

Such is the potential, but how does it work in practice? Most importantly, what are the real advantages and limits of the technology?

“With neuromarketing, I always say it’s a supplement, not a replacement, for traditional marketing research,” said Jennifer Tatara, Assistant Professor of Marketing at Driehaus.

A computer with a web cam poised on the top and an article about eye-tracking software displayed on the screen

A computer in the Beta Hub equipped with neuromarketing research software

Tatara works at the cutting edge of the neuromarketing field, which mines insights from psychology, marketing, and economics to look at the science behind consumer decision-making. Neuromarketing introduces biometric data into the study of consumer behavior, assisting researchers with an age-old question: what motivates people to make the decisions they do?

Marketing researchers and professionals, of course, are interested in a specific subset of people: consumers.

“We can use these tools to see into the decision-making process in a different way,” said Tatara, “to get into the black box of decision-making. We need a wide range of tools to get the full picture. But without biometric tools, you’re missing a piece of that picture.”

Some of these tools might be familiar. Electroencephalograms, for instance, gauge mental activity by tracking the small electrical impulses given off by the brain in response to stimuli. But some are more exotic: eye-tracking software yields insights into where consumers’ focus is drawn. Galvanic skin response, a measure of minuscule amounts of sweat, correlates with subjects’ emotional arousal.

Tatara emphasizes the potential of these tools to help both consumers and businesses make better, more satisfying decisions. But she is also quick to deflate the exaggerated claims sometimes made on its behalf, and to point to the ethical dimensions of this new field. As she puts it, “there’s no magical ‘buy’ button in the brain – this isn’t mind control.”

“Like with any new tool, there are ways to use it positively and ways to use it negatively. As marketers with access to these tools, it’s our job to make sure we’re not only selling, but we’re also helping. With a better understanding of how people make decisions, we can help them make better decisions.

“That’s why I’m happy that DePaul is taking an active role in teaching these tools. Here, faculty and students study and apply these tools; we’re doing it ethically, and we’re doing it to help consumers, at the end of the day.”

“Getting the job done in a human way”: William E. Hay Leadership Accelerator Convenes

Students building marshmallow structure: Student teams competed to build the tallest spaghetti-and-marshmallow structure -- and learn how different kinds of leaders emerge from within teams in the process.

Student teams competed to build the tallest spaghetti-and-marshmallow structure — and learn how different kinds of leaders emerge from within teams in the process. [Image by Kathy Hillegonds.]


By Meredith Carroll

What does leadership look like? Not just in general, or for people in positions of power, but for you, right now?

These are the kinds of questions that the inaugural cohort of the William E. Hay Leadership Accelerator will work together to answer. The cohort met for the first time on Friday, September 15, kicking off a year of collaborative workshops, networking opportunities, and other programming designed to empower students to lead with purpose.

To Meghan Anderson, a senior studying digital marketing,  the accelerator’s approach to developing leadership skills felt familiar.

“You can be a leader at every level,” said Anderson. It’s a piece of advice an internship supervisor gave her early in her time at DePaul and it’s stuck with her ever since. “Often, that looks like having really good soft skills, or being a really good listener.”

Anderson is part of a select group of forty juniors and seniors from across DePaul. Together, the Hay scholars represent 21 majors – ranging from theatre and animation to finance and marketing. Forty percent of the scholars are first-generation college students. Half of the cohort are students of color.

Over the coming months, students will learn directly from real-world experts and engage in experiential exercises and self-reflection. In this way, the accelerator offers a rare opportunity; these experiences were modeled after the top training programs in companies known for their emphasis on professional development. In recognition of this effort, each student will receive a $2,500 scholarship and a certificate of completion.

Most importantly, the accelerator will  equip students to enter the workforce as purposeful leaders. With learning opportunities spanning skill assessments, in-person and live sessions, as well as microlearning, the accelerator leverages multiple tactics to deliver engaging and impactful experiences to boost leadership competencies. Students will also participate in résumé reviews, job interview skills exercises, and networking opportunities – gaining skills that are critical to employability and career building.

In-depth and focused leadership training is rare in companies even at senior levels, according to Professor and William E. Hay Leadership Fellow Erich Dierdorff. Dierdorff leads the program along with Associate Dean of Graduate and Executive Education Robert S. Rubin and Associate Director of Operations Clarissa Short.

“To have something like this at the undergraduate level is exceptionally rare and represents such a unique opportunity for our students to get significant boosts in the competencies that we know underlie long-term professional success,” Dierdorff said.

These skills are only becoming more crucial in a workplace environment that is rapidly changing. A recent study by Business Name Generator surveyed 1,000 employees and employers across the U.S. to uncover the changing demand for soft skills in the workplace. Findings indicated that 84% of employees and managers believe new employees must demonstrate soft skills upon entering the organization. Foremost among these? Leadership, which was the skill rated most valuable for career advancement.

For many Hay scholars, like Meghan Anderson, it was precisely the chance to develop these soft skills – and to develop them in collaboration with others – that drew them to the accelerator.

“When you’re a college student, you get so focused in on your major. This is an opportunity to meet new people and broaden your horizons,” said Harper McCoy, a senior majoring in film and television who hopes to become a film director.

Andrew Gomes, a junior studying finance, cited his experience launching an investment club in high school as the beginning of his leadership journey.

“I want to contribute value to the next generation,” he said of his career goals. “Maybe one day I’ll be able to help a student like me.”

And in this emphasis on people and purpose, the accelerator is part of a broader legacy left by  William E. Hay (MBA ’66, DHL ’06), a longtime trustee and benefactor of DePaul.

The inaugural cohort pictured with President Robert L. Manuel.

The inaugural cohort pictured with President Robert L. Manuel. [Image by Kathy Hillegonds.]

“Hay didn’t just the job done,” said DePaul President Robert L. Manuel in his remarks to the  cohort. “He got it done in a human way.”

A substantial gift from Hay’s estate funded  the founding of the Hay Center for Leadership Development, which houses programs in executive education along with the leadership accelerator.

“You can study management and business” at any number of schools, Manuel concluded. “But to couple that with the human, organic nature of the world — that’s a special gift.”


The William E. Hay Leadership Accelerator is a comprehensive, co-curricular leadership development experience open to juniors and seniors from across DePaul. Students can  learn more and apply here.

Accountancy Professor Kelly Richmond Pope Publishes New Book on Fraud

Spotlight on Research by DePaul Business Faculty

Professor of Management Alyssa Westring with her book, "Fool Me Once."

“My hope is that by humanizing fraud, I can make it more relatable and approachable for people to understand,” says Professor Kelly Richmond Pope of her new book, “Fool Me Once.”

“Anyone can be victimized by fraud, commit fraud or report fraud. No one is immune. I’ve seen so much over the past 20 years and wanted to offer something from the research that people can use,” says Professor Kelly Richmond Pope, whose new book, “Fool Me Once: Scams, Stories, and Secrets from the Trillion-Dollar Fraud Industry,” was published by Harvard Business Review Press in March 2023.

Pope, the Dr. Barry Jay Epstein Professor in DePaul’s School of Accountancy & MIS, is a nationally known forensic accounting expert who has spent the last two decades researching fraud and white-collar crime. Her book is part memoir, part accounting and part fraud analysis, detailing Pope’s extensive research into what makes fraudsters, their victims and whistleblowers tick.

Her book introduces a fraud archetype framework that can assist with analyzing fraud cases. The framework posits that there are different types of perpetrators, whistleblowers and “prey,” as Pope calls them.

Perpetrators can either be accidental (unknowingly committing fraud by simply doing their job or following orders), intentional (purposefully committing fraud) or righteous (committing fraud for the purpose of helping someone, in a Robin Hood sort of way).

Whistleblowers, meanwhile, can be either accidental (unintentionally discovering fraud), noble (coming across fraud but turning a blind eye) or vigilante (seeing something and saying something; these people believe in true justice no matter the circumstance).

“Understanding these types of perpetrators through the years has really impacted my emotions,” Pope says. “I can empathize with the accidental and righteous perpetrators and, yes, even though these people still go to jail, understanding their reasoning is really important. In my book, I argue that all three perpetrator categories can exist in your organization, therefore knowing these categories can assist in developing an organization’s internal controls.”

The categories also serve another purpose: helping people see themselves. “My hope is that by humanizing fraud, I can make it more relatable and approachable for people to understand,” she says. To this end, the book includes a virtual game people can play — Fool Me Once Fraud Experience — to see what type of perpetrator or whistleblower they might be if they were to become one.

Pope is not new to virtual games that aid in learning. She is an innovative educator who created a game-based e-learning platform called Red Flag Mania, which she uses to advance student learning in forensic and investigative accounting.

Pope is also a filmmaker who produced two documentaries on fraud, “Crossing the Line: Ordinary People Committing Extraordinary Crime” and “All the Queen’s Horses,” the latter of which she says was the inspiration for her book.

“Fraud can happen to any one of us,” Pope says. “The more aware you are of your own weaknesses, the more likely you can protect yourself from falling victim to it.”

DePaul Study Finds Some Banks Seek Political Influence Through Preferred Loan Terms

Stock image of accountants

A recent study co-authored by DePaul business professor Pavel Savor has found that some banks potentially use alternative ways to pursue political influence.


In 2008, Countrywide Financial, once the largest mortgage lender in the United States, was embroiled in a scandal that caused banks to rethink how they pursue political influence. For several years, Countrywide Financial offered loans with low interest rates and other benefits to members of Congress, congressional officials and directors at the U.S. government-sponsored mortgage financer Fannie Mae. After the Countrywide affair was revealed, banks implemented stricter rules around their dealings with politicians, but a recent study co-authored by a DePaul business professor has found that some banks potentially use alternative ways to pursue influence.

The study examined whether banks offered better loan terms to firms that are connected to members of Congress, focusing on close elections, which the authors defined as those in which the victory margin was less than 5%. Their results showed that political connections ultimately led to lower interest rates on new loans to affected firms.

Pavel Savor, a professor of finance and the Christopher L. Keeley Chair in Investment Management at the Driehaus College of Business.

Christopher L. Keeley Chair in Investment Management Pavel Savor

“We were surprised that these banks, at least in our interpretation of the results, tried to ingratiate themselves with politicians by actually giving better loan terms to firms that appear to be supported by these politicians,” says co-author Pavel Savor, a professor of finance and the Christopher L. Keeley Chair in Investment Management at the Driehaus College of Business. “It’s not something I would have guessed when starting this project.”

Savor recently presented the study at several international conferences, where he says he heard from a number of former bank employees who mentioned their employers’ strict rules about dealing with politicians.

“It’s often said that one of the worst things that can happen to a bank is that one of their ex-executives becomes a regulator because that regulator now has to be especially worried about perceived possible conflicts of interest,” he says. “The other thing a bank can do is try to ingratiate itself with politicians by using some less observable means.”  

In addition to being treated more favorably by politicians and regulators, firms’ business partners—lenders, customers or suppliers—may also treat banks more favorably as a result of those connections.

“In addition to having direct benefits, these connections may also have indirect benefits, which illustrates the potential importance of political connections and influence on businesses, especially large businesses,” Savor says.

Other findings from the study include:  

  • Loan terms depend on several factors. The authors found that the improvement in loan terms was much greater when politicians sit on important congressional committees (the effect becomes 244% stronger), when the firm is among the politician’s top campaign contributors (652% stronger impact), and when the firm and politician come from the same state (250% stronger impact). 
  • Interest rate savings add up. The cost of offering discounts in the form of lower interest rates to connected firms is more than the maximum direct contribution firms can make to a political campaign. The amount of interest rate savings was found to be 10 times higher than what firms can contribute in any given year.  
  • The 2008 financial crisis may have affected banks’ loan activities. Banks were more likely to offer lower rates and lend more frequently to connected firms if they were facing regulatory issues and during the period surrounding the passage of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a program enacted by the U.S. government to help stabilize the economy in the wake of the 2008 recession. The study showed that the impact of political connections was much stronger (625%) during this period, as it also was for banks that received government bailouts.  

By Jaclyn Lansbery 

Professor Introduces Students to Fintech Innovations

Finance Associate Professor Lamont Black shares his expertise in blockchain and cryptocurrencies with students. | Photo by Kathy Hillegonds

Finance Associate Professor Lamont Black shares his expertise in blockchain and cryptocurrencies with students. | Photo by Kathy Hillegonds

There is a growing understanding of Fintech’s potential to transform the future of finance.”
– Associate Professor of Finance Lamont Black

Four years ago, Associate Professor of Finance Lamont Black had the foresight to co-host a two-day workshop for business and computer science students on a subject few knew about at the time—blockchain coding. Since then, Black has become one of Chicago’s foremost academic experts on innovations in financial technology, known as fintech, and is frequently interviewed by the media about blockchain and cryptocurrencies.

“This is not just a fad,” says Black, a former Federal Reserve economist who serves as academic director of DePaul’s John L. Keeley Jr. Center for Financial Services. “There is a growing understanding of fintech’s potential to transform the future of finance.”

Black developed and teaches a graduate course focused exclusively on blockchain, the digital ledger technology that underpins virtual money known as cryptocurrencies. The course, taught in partnership with Deloitte and its blockchain lab, explores how blockchain can be applied to different business scenarios, from cryptocurrencies to supply chains and human resources. He is developing a similar course for undergraduate students, who view it as something that could give them an edge in the job market.

“The interest in cryptocurrency a few years ago was among high net worth individuals who were looking for diversification,” he says. “But what we’re seeing now with younger generations and my undergrad students is an interest in cryptocurrency as an emerging asset class and something that is discussed in the popular media.”

An estimated 4,000 cryptocurrencies exist to date. Only a handful, such as Dogecoin and Ethereum, have gained popularity thanks to dedicated communities of backers and investors.

However, earlier this year, the value of Bitcoin, regarded as the first cryptocurrency using blockchain, fell rapidly. One of the causes of its decline was a single tweet sent by Tesla founder Elon Musk, who wrote that Tesla would no longer accept Bitcoin as a means of payment due to its environmental impact. But the falling price can actually have long-term benefits, Black says.

“I’m still very optimistic about the future,” he says. “The price decline has reduced people’s speculative behavior around cryptocurrency and will result in a more grounded and informed perspective. I think it will lead to more sustainable growth in the market.”

As blockchain becomes more mainstream and more integrated with the finance industry, Black says it’s crucial for the business college’s programs to embrace this new trend. “That includes what we teach, what we research and what we’re talking about,” he says. “It’s an opportunity to innovate and teach students about these trends so that when they graduate, they feel like they’re prepared to adapt and stay ahead of the curve. We’re not just teaching them the past, but also preparing them for the future.”

By Jaclyn Lansbery

View the video below to learn more about Lamont Black’s take on blockchain and cryptocurrency.

Research Probes Growing Problem of Weight-based Bullying at Work

Associate Professor Grace Lemmon

Associate Professor Grace Lemmon | Photo by Kathy Hillegonds

In diversity, inclusion and equity conversations, we need to include the idea that weight is a diverse attribute.”
– Associate Professor Grace Lemmon

While business organizations have made progress in reducing race, gender and religious discrimination in the workplace, bias against larger-bodied workers is a growing problem, according to Associate Professor Grace Lemmon (BUS ’06). With her DePaul research team, Associate Professor Jaclyn Jensen and Assistant Professor Goran Kuljanin (CHS ’05), she studies employees who suffer from weight-based bullying at work, as well as those who mistreat them.

“In the past decade we’ve seen great increases in stigmatization toward those with larger bodies,” says Lemmon, a management and entrepreneurship faculty member. “People in larger bodies are not offered jobs at the same rate, even though they have the same qualifications as someone in a ‘normal-sized body.’ Larger-bodied people are not offered promotions as frequently and are downgraded on performance reviews.” The cost is both economic and psychological, she adds. “Mistreated workers lose professional confidence. They stop using their voice and leaning into challenges at work.”

Lemmon and her research team surveyed 2,000 self-identified larger-bodied employees, and 89% reported mistreatment at work because of their size. “They experienced a range of aggressions—people swearing at or insulting them because of their size, withholding critical resources or expressing an insult wrapped in a comment, like saying, ‘Have you ever thought of having a salad for lunch,’ Lemmon says. Holding a leadership position offered no protection from mistreatment; the intensity of bullying increased as a person gained leadership status.

The research team also studied the motivations of perpetrators of weight-based mistreatment. Lemmon thought it would be difficult to get respondents to self-identify as perpetrators. The contrary results astounded her: “Ninety-two percent said they had a negative thought about a co-worker’s body and acted on it within the last six months.” Perpetrators, she adds, predominately justified their behavior in two ways: “‘it’s going to sting, but this person needs to hear it,’ and ‘I have a right to express my opinion.’”

After accounting for decrements to performance, engagement and mental health associated with weight-based mistreatment, Lemmon concludes that organizations cannot ignore this issue. First, organizations must acknowledge weight-based mistreatment is happening even if it isn’t a typical complaint, Lemmon says.

She notes that only a tiny fraction of mistreated larger-bodied people formally report the infraction, overwhelmingly due to shame. She further advises, “In diversity, inclusion and equity conversations, we need to include the idea that weight is a diverse attribute and deserves as much protection as other attributes. Finally, we need to call it out. When we see this type of predation at work, we need to stop normalizing it and, instead, speak up.”

By Robin Florzak

Nationally Recognized Health Expert Tony LoSasso Returns to DePaul

Professor of Economics Tony LoSasso

Professor of Economics Tony LoSasso | Photo by Kathy Hillegonds

I’ve been really fortunate to have people help me along the way. I certainly would not have found my own way.”

— Tony LoSasso (BUS ’91, MS ’93)

As a DePaul undergraduate student in business, Tony LoSasso (BUS ’91, MS ’93) never thought about getting a master’s degree. Then, the late Ashok Batavia, who served as a professor of economics at the Driehaus College of Business, encouraged LoSasso to pursue a master’s degree at DePaul.

“It all started with DePaul and having people like Ashok push me in this direction, showing me that there was this direction, because I didn’t even know it existed,” says LoSasso, who was the first in his family to attend college. “I’ve been really fortunate to have people help me along the way. I certainly would not have found my own way.”

LoSasso rejoined the DePaul community in 2019 as a professor of economics and Driehaus Fellow. “I’m really excited to be back. It’s a tremendous thrill,” he says. A nationally recognized expert in health economics, LoSasso teaches graduate and undergraduate health economics courses. His award-winning research spans several dimensions of health and labor economics, health policy and health services.

Currently, LoSasso is working with the Kellstadt Graduate School of Business to launch a DePaul MBA concentration in health care markets and analytics, which is scheduled to debut in January 2021.

LoSasso’s interest in health economics was spurred by the federal health reform efforts of the 1990s, which occurred while he was earning a PhD from Indiana University Bloomington.

“I’m somebody who has always been interested in the policy side of things, and, of course, health economics is ripe with policy interest and relevance,” he says. “It was an untapped market for research, and then new and more data, and more powerful computers that could crunch data, became available.”

An area of particular interest for LoSasso is health insurance benefit design and the impact it has on health care utilization and health outcomes. One of his most recent research pieces, which he has yet to publish, utilized data to examine premiums within the health insurance market for small businesses.

In the classroom, LoSasso uses research to help students better understand the course material.

“I don’t think students often think that most of their faculty at DePaul are active researchers and scholars trying to push the boundaries of science,” he says. “So in addition to being informative about the subject matter, bringing my own research into the classroom can be of interest for students to get a sense of where research ideas come from, how they germinate and how they ultimately become published articles.”

By Jaclyn Lansbery

Marketing Case Workshop Celebrates 25 Years

Steve Kelly, associate professor of marketing and director, Kellstadt Marketing Center

Steve Kelly, associate professor of marketing and director, Kellstadt Marketing Center

Mary Beth McCabe (MBA ’82) remembers learning a lot from the business case studies written about real brands—including EKCO kitchenware—that she tackled as a student at DePaul.

“We had to create our own product promotional characters, and our group created the character Ernie Ekco for some cooking products,” she recalls. The exercise helped her connect theory to practice and provided a useful framework for her to develop marketing strategies at work.

Today, McCabe, an associate professor of marketing at National University in La Jolla, Calif., and the owner of Sun Marketing in San Diego, develops business school case studies about marketing issues facing real companies. She was inspired to become a case writer by one of her DePaul teachers, Associate Professor of Marketing Steve Kelly, and the annual case competition he created, the Jacobs & Clevenger Case Writers’ Workshop.

This fall marks the 25th anniversary of the workshop co-sponsored by the Kellstadt Marketing Center, which Kelly directs. It started when the workshop’s original co-sponsor, the Direct Marketing Association, approached Kelly seeking strategies “to get more people interested in the field, which wasn’t being taught,” Kelly says. The workshop is now co-sponsored by Jacobs & Clevenger, a marketing agency co-founded by Ron Jacobs, past president of the Chicago Association of Direct Marketing.

Students often come to school with no idea of what they want to do. It’s usually their experience with companies—reading cases about them and then interning in that field—that helps them find their career interest.”
— Steve Kelly, associate professor of marketing and director, Kellstadt Marketing Center

The workshop is scheduled to convene at the annual Marketing Management Association (MMA) Educators’ Conference in Providence, R.I., in September. As he has done for every workshop, Kelly has lined up representatives from companies located in the host city to share information about their marketing issues with professors at the workshop. It isn’t difficult to find companies willing to participate, Kelly says, even though they get nothing in return. “These companies love to give back to the classroom.”

After the conference, the participating professors will turn the company’s presentations into case studies that challenge business students to develop solutions to the real-world situations described by the companies. Then, Kelly and DePaul marketing staff member Jessica Sanborn (BUS MA ’19) will arrange for the cases to be peer-reviewed by 20 or so professors, including DePaul faculty members. The three top-rated cases will be presented at next year’s MMA conference, where new cases will be developed. Kelly and co-editor Susan K. Jones, a marketing professor at Ferris State University in Grand Rapids, Mich., publish the cases in the biennial “IMC Sourcebook: Readings and Cases in Integrated Marketing Communications,” which professors across the country use in their classrooms.

Cases developed in the workshop bring contemporary business issues to life for students. One award-winning case co-written by McCabe, for example, puts students in the shoes of marketing executives at the electric carmaker Tesla by asking them to develop strategies for managing demand that outpaces production.

Kelly, who will celebrate his 45th year on DePaul’s faculty in June, says he enjoys managing the competition because case studies have a positive impact on students. “Students often come to school with no idea of what they want to do,” he says. “It’s usually their experience with companies—reading cases about them and then interning in that field—that helps them find their career interest.”

By Robin Florzak | Photo by Kathy Hillegonds