Why do markets dip after the clocks change? Why do investors become more risk averse in the fall? And what does this mean for your portfolio? We like to think we’re rational investors. We’re not. On the latest episode, professor Lisa Kramer explores how hidden behavioural biases influence our portfolios — and even shift global markets.

Show notes

Show notes

[0:00] Humans tend to overestimate our abilities. We tend to think of ourselves as better than average.

[0:33] Meet Lisa Kramer, a professor of finance at the University of Toronto, and an expert in the psychology of financial decision-making.

[1:20] While thinking we’re better than average benefits us in certain situations — think dating and job hunting — it can be detrimental to our finances.

[2:13] This over-confidence is clearest when people try to outperform the stock market.

[2:56] But beyond internal biases, there are also external factors that influence our financial decisions.

[3:19] Lisa and her colleagues studied how the clock changes influenced the market as a whole and found that the day after the clocks changed, stock markets tumbled. But why?

[5:30] Seasonal changes — like the shift to winter — also make us more risk averse, en masse.

[7:16] Lisa’s research shows this isn’t just in the stock market; investors sought out safer products, like mutual funds and treasury bonds, in the winter.

[8:44] What does this mean for companies?

[9:28] Will AI save us (hint…not so much).

[10:29] And can the average investor do anything to mitigate these biases (hint…not so much).

[12:30] “The best we can do is educate people that these are common biases, and get people to think about decisions that they've made in their own lives and self-evaluate the extent to which maybe they've been subject to these biases.”

#MeToo forced Hollywood to reckon with its past — but did it actually change the future of filmmaking?

Looking at years of behind-the-scenes and on-screen data, associate professor Hong Luo explores how the wide-spread social movement did — and did not — change movie-making; how stigma, coordination and market-wide shocks influence organizational behaviour; and why large-scale movements can create opportunities for change that just weren’t profitable or possible before.

Show Notes

Show notes

[0:22] It’s been nearly a decade since the New York Times broke the news of Harvey Weinstein’s abuse of women in Hollywood, sparking the #MeToo movement, which called out multiple men in the film and TV industry.

[1:28] Meet Hong Luo, an associate professor of strategic management at the Rotman School of Management, who studies how industry-wide innovation happens. So, in the wake of #MeToo, she turned her attention to Hollywood.

[2:49] Women are underrepresented behind the camera in Hollywood – and while many factors contribute, widespread sexual abuse is among one of the reasons.

[3:36] To determine whether #MeToo had the power to change the film industry, she looked at how film teams associated with Harvey Weinstein changed compared to those not associated with him.

[4:37] Producers with a history of working with Weinstein were more likely to hire female talent behind the camera after the #MeToo movement than those without.

[5:55] Lots of reasons probably drove the change, but Hong hypothesizes that the publicity and associated guilt helped the change along.

[6:54] One key finding; projects that had at least one woman on the creative team were more likely than those without to make it to theatre.

[8:06] After the behind-the-camera shift, Hong wanted to know if more female-fronted stories were told.

[8:31] If the team behind the scenes was all male, then yes – they were more likely to produce a movie with a female lead. But if the team had a woman, then no – they were more likely to work on male-fronted stories.

[9:11] This is likely a result of how people felt the need to respond in the face of widespread social pressure.

[9:39] All-male teams tended to develop female characters that conformed to traditional gender stereotypes.

[10:53] Ok, so #MeToo changed Hollywood; what does that mean for other industries? Well, to really understand how social movements can spur innovation, let’s look also at the medical device industry.

[12:18] Social movements let industries capitalize on a need for change that would have otherwise been too expensive or unprofitable before.

[14:16] But when the movement wanes, momentum of the change also falters.

[14:38] But for advocates, the long game is probably worth it: “The literature shows that when you actually have more female talent in a particular field, especially if those talent could use that opportunity to gain experience and gain track record…then we may actually sustain more longer run change.”

Where do great ideas come from...really? And how can you stifle brilliant thoughts before they have a chance to flourish? Associate professor George Newman joins the Executive Summary to share what the research actually tells us about how to foster — and kill — a creative buzz, and how to spark more innovation at both work and home in the year ahead.

Show notes

[0:00] What comes to mind when you think of the word creativity? That paint-splattered easel? The next great novel? What about a simple innovative pitch to a company? Or a new way of approaching a formula? Creativity comes in many shapes, but ultimately, it’s all about bringing new ideas to the fore.

[0:55] Meet George Newman, an associate professor of organizational behaviour and HR management, and author of the new book How Great Ideas Happen.

[2:10] There are a few big mistakes we make when thinking about creativity – and the first is all about the “genius creator myth.”

[3:16] It turns out, when we think people are “born with” the creative gene, it really influences who is allowed to be creative, which is ultimately limiting to both individuals and organizations.

[4:16] Where do new ideas really come from? George’s research shows it’s not from within, but the world around us.

[5:20] It’s time to think of creativity as a path of discovery, rather than a lightning strike of brilliance.

[6:25] The second big mistake we make is jumping into brainstorming too quickly.

[6:50] We also prioritize the novelty of new ideas over value.

[7:50] To brainstorm better, you need to have a concrete plan. And George wants people to approach it like an archaeologist.

[8:41] First, survey the landscape.

[9:03] Second, create a “grid” or organize your thoughts.

[10:00] Third, dig in (aka, start throwing those ideas on a whiteboard!). And make sure you don’t quit before you get to the good stuff.

[11:33] The last big mistake in the quest for new ideas is soliciting feedback at the wrong time. Don’t get feedback while still generating ideas.

[12:41] Also, accept that there’s going to be some negative feedback along the way, and that you’re just going to have some bad ideas along the way too.

[14:28] Also, recognize that you’re your own worst critic.

[15:09] In the end, breakthrough ideas don't just manifest out of thin air. You have to sift through the layers of rubble, dust off plenty of false leads, so that every so often, you uncover something remarkable. The key is to keep going.

Be sure to check out the Executive Summary back catalogue. We tackle everything from how where you work influences the types of innovation you create to how to give better feedback.