Business & Entrepreneurship

The rise of the bot boss

Katy Hill — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:54:41 +0000

The rise of the bot boss Katy Hill Wed, 08/26/2026 - 08:54

Katy Marquardt Hill

Imagine learning that the system deciding whether your work meets the mark isn't a manager—it's a bot.

As artificial intelligence becomes more common in the workplace, companies are increasingly using software to monitor and evaluate work. Whether it's AI measuring customer service performance or flagging unusual employee activity, workers are encountering more technologies that judge their work rather than help them do it.

"We often talk about AI as a tool, but increasingly we're seeing systems that provide oversight, quality assurance or monitoring functions,” said Jason Thatcher, professor of information systems at the Leeds School of Business and co-author of the study, published in January 2026 in MIS Quarterly.

The study found that when bots are given authority over people, workers push back.

"For many people, the idea of a bot evaluating their work feels uncomfortable,” he said. “You're a human expert performing a task, and suddenly a software system has the authority to say yes or no. That changes how people experience work."

Jason Thatcher

To understand how people respond when software gains that kind of authority, Thatcher and his co-authors, Nadine Kathrin Ostern and Marek Kowalkiewicz of Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia; Likoebe M. Maruping of the J. Mack Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University; and Jörg Weking of the Technical University of Munich, examined the 2010 rollout of ClueBot, Wikipedia's anti-vandalism bot.

Because Wikipedia relies on volunteers throughout the world to create and edit articles, ClueBot was designed to automatically remove harmful edits, such as spam, profanity or intentionally false information. At the time, it was catching about 70% of problematic edits identified as vandalism.

But unlike a spell-checker or other automated tool, ClueBot went beyond helping contributors do their work. It evaluated their edits and sometimes overruled them.

By analyzing weeks of public debates among editors, developers and Wikipedia leaders during the bot's approval process, the researchers examined what happened when human judgment challenged a machine's decisions. Contributors pushed back, causing developers to refine its rules, limit its authority and create formal ways for people to challenge its judgments.

What emerged, Thatcher said, was a process of humans figuring out how to work with machines. "Rather than bot regulation, it was actually a bot-human-bot negotiation," he said. In other words, contributors couldn’t change the bot themselves, but they could appeal to the people who could.

"What was cool about this study, that got me so excited, was people pushed back," Thatcher said. "While they couldn't get the bot to change, they could go to that committee that made the decisions about what the bot could or could not do, who would then go back to the developers, who would tweak the bot."

Human oversight

The lesson goes beyond Wikipedia, Thatcher said. As organizations increasingly use AI to monitor and review work or enforce standards, they’ll also need to think about what happens when those systems get things wrong and who gets a say in correcting them.

"Human voice still matters," Thatcher said. "The content creator, or the Wikipedia contributor, still has a voice in how the bots operate when the bots don't operate properly."

That's what happened on Wikipedia. Over time, those efforts led to lower error rates, better ways to review the bot's work and formal ways for humans to influence its decisions.

The future workplace may include more bots evaluating human work, Thatcher said, but the most successful organizations won't be the ones that remove people from the process. They'll be the ones that leave room for employees to challenge, correct and improve the technology.

"We have to keep humans in the loop," Thatcher said. "Users and experts need to stay engaged so we're building systems that solve problems rather than create them."

New research explores what happens when AI starts evaluating workers.

Traditional

White

The biggest AI mistake students are making right now

Katy Hill — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 16:21:29 +0000

The biggest AI mistake students are making right now Katy Hill Tue, 08/18/2026 - 10:21

Katy Marquardt Hill

As artificial intelligence becomes more common in the workplace, students face a new challenge: learning how to use AI without letting it do the thinking for them. Employers increasingly expect graduates to know their way around AI, but they also want problem-solvers who can adapt as the technology evolves.

Jeremiah Contreras

"If students learn how to use AI to challenge their reasoning and sharpen their judgment instead of replacing it, they'll be miles ahead,” said Jeremiah Contreras, associate teaching professor of accounting at the Leeds School of Business and AI-in-education expert. CU �鶹ӰԺ Today recently spoke with Contreras about the biggest AI mistake students are making, what employers want to see from new graduates and how students can use AI to become better thinkers, not just faster workers.

What’s changed about how students should think about AI this school year?

More businesses have started identifying ways AI can help them operate more effectively. At the same time, they're looking for students who can help find those solutions.

There's now an expectation that students bring curiosity, a basic understanding of AI tools and some level of competency using them.

The biggest change is that those expectations are stronger than they were even a year or two ago. AI has shifted from being a technology with potential to one that's increasingly proving useful in the workplace.

Are employers expecting more from entry-level hires now?

The specific AI tools employers use will keep changing. What they're really looking for is someone who can step back, understand a problem and evaluate which tools or approaches make the most sense for solving it. The solution that works today may not be the solution six months from now.

I'd rather have a student identify a business problem and develop a solution that isn't perfect than provide the perfect answer to a problem someone else, or AI, identified. The ability to recognize opportunities, define the right problem, and use technology to develop and refine solutions is often more valuable than finding the perfect answer on the first attempt. The problem-solving process is often more important than the final solution.

The key is learning how to think about why a tool solves a problem, not just how to use a specific tool.

What helps students stand out in job interviews?

Employers are looking for proof. They want to see that you've actually done something, not just that you've learned about it.

If a student can say, "I had this problem and built a solution using AI," that tends to be much more compelling than simply saying they took a class.

More employers are asking candidates to solve problems using AI during interviews. They are interested in how candidates approach a problem, use AI appropriately, and explain their thinking. The process often matters more than the final answer.

What mistakes are students making with AI right now?

Some students take the approach that if they put an assignment into AI, they'll get an answer and earn a good grade.

The biggest mistake is relying too much on AI to do the work.

AI can be great at explaining a concept in a different way or helping you better understand something. But you still need to go back, organize your thoughts and make sure you can explain the material yourself.

What's the right role for AI in the learning process?

Students should use AI to support learning, especially in areas where they already have some familiarity and want another perspective or explanation. When learning something new, textbooks, course materials and other authoritative sources are still important. AI is a great tutor, but it should not replace foundational learning. As students gain expertise, they'll also get better at recognizing when AI gets something wrong.

What does it actually mean to be prepared for an AI-driven world?

From an educational standpoint, we still have to make sure students learn the fundamentals in a world where AI can do many assignments for them. There's a blurry line between using AI to learn and letting it take on too much of the cognitive load.

That's where what I call "productive friction" comes in. AI makes things very efficient. From a business perspective, that's great. But from a learning perspective, students still need to struggle with concepts to truly understand them.

Ultimately, businesses want students who are comfortable with AI. But even more important is the ability to evaluate problems, identify solutions and adapt as technology changes.

How can students use AI in a way that actually makes them smarter, not just faster?

A common approach is to ask AI for an answer, read it and think, "That makes sense."

A better approach is to ask AI to challenge your thinking. Have it ask questions. Have it critique your reasoning. Have it push you to explain your ideas more clearly.

The goal is to use AI as part of the learning process rather than as a shortcut around it.

Can you give an example of using AI well versus using it poorly?

One approach is to upload an assignment, have AI do most of the work and submit the output with very little effort.

A better approach is for a student to think through the assignment first, develop some ideas and then use AI to challenge or refine that thinking.

What are some practical ways students can build AI skills right now?

Start by identifying a problem in your own life and trying to solve it with technology. Maybe it's comparing colleges. Maybe it's planning meals. Maybe it's managing a schedule or budget.

If students learn how to identify a problem, experiment with tools and build a solution, that translates directly into the kinds of skills employers value.

The more students explore, experiment and stay curious, the better prepared they'll be.

What's an example of a project that would impress an employer?

I had a student build an app to help track personal expenses. Years ago, that would have required a skilled coder. Today, students can create simple solutions much more easily.

It wasn't a business-ready product, but it solved a real problem. Employers love seeing students identify a problem and solve it in an innovative way.

What should students do when schools restrict AI but workplaces expect it?

I think about AI the same way I think about a tutor. I wouldn't want a tutor to do my work for me. I'd want a tutor to explain concepts, challenge my thinking and help me learn.

If a class doesn't allow AI on an assignment, there may be a learning reason behind that policy. Students should respect it.

At the same time, when course policies allow it, they can often use AI outside of the assignment itself to better understand a concept and prepare to do the work on their own.

Do students need to learn specific AI tools?

Not necessarily. It's more important to learn how to think through problems and find the right tool for a given situation.

Curiosity is key. The tools will change. The ability to evaluate a problem, research solutions and adapt is still fundamentally human.

Looking ahead, what will separate students who thrive from those who struggle?

The students who thrive will be the ones who stay curious.

There's no single right way to use AI because people learn differently. The key is figuring out how AI can help you learn more deeply rather than simply work faster.

Students who learn how to do that will be more effective, more adaptable and better prepared for whatever comes next.

CU �鶹ӰԺ 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.

Leeds professor and AI-in-education expert Jeremiah Contreras says students who use AI to challenge their thinking, not replace it, will have an edge in school and the workplace.

Traditional

White

Remote workers report the highest well-being in study of 7,700 employees

Katy Hill — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 17:19:19 +0000

Remote workers report the highest well-being in study of 7,700 employees Katy Hill Wed, 08/12/2026 - 11:19

Katy Marquardt Hill

For years, many employers have worried that work-from-home arrangements leave employees isolated, disconnected from coworkers and more likely to leave their jobs.

But according to a new study, remote workers are doing better than many employers realize.

Researchers analyzed survey data from 7,704 employees at a large healthcare organization. One pattern stood out: Employees who worked fully remotely reported the highest levels of well-being, while those who worked entirely onsite reported the lowest. The study also found little evidence that remote workers felt less connected to colleagues or workplace culture.

"This suggests you let people work remotely if they want to work remotely," said Stefanie Johnson, professor of organizational leadership and information analytics at the Leeds School of Business and co-author of the study, published in July 2026 in the journal Frontiers in Psychology. "Taking away people's choice of how they work is probably not going to help them in terms of their well-being."

Stefanie Johnson

As companies continue to debate remote work, many leaders worry that employees need to be in the office to stay connected, work well together and remain committed to their organization. Johnson said the research doesn't always support those concerns.

"The data from our study and others suggest remote and hybrid work result in better outcomes than return-to-office mandates," she said. "Leaders are not making decisions based on data. I think they are just returning to what they are used to."

Rethinking remote work

Johnson, who co-authored the study with Alyssa Lezcano, Stephanie Zajac and Courtney Holladay of the MD Anderson Leadership Institute in Houston, said the results surprised her. She thought employees who split their time between home and the office might have the best of both worlds.

"I actually thought you would be happiest if you were part time out of the office," she said. "Then every once in a while you get to see people, get that human connection."

Instead, the data pointed in a different direction.

Among employees in the study, well-being was highest for fully remote workers, followed by hybrid employees and then onsite workers.

The findings also cast doubt on one of the main arguments for bringing employees back to the office: that people need to be together in person to feel connected.

Employees in the study were asked to describe their organization's culture in a handful of words. Remote workers were slightly more likely than their hybrid and onsite peers to use words associated with teamwork, inclusion and support.

"People who are remote actually said more things that indicated they had more positive connections, even though they were remote," Johnson said.

Still, Johnson said face-to-face interaction can play an important role in helping coworkers build relationships, especially if they are just starting out in their careers.

"Remote works better after you know people," she said. "So there is still a benefit of having some face time."

Staying power

The researchers also examined employee turnover one year after the survey was completed.

They found that employees with higher well-being were less likely to leave the organization. Work location itself was not a strong direct predictor of turnover. Instead, remote work was associated with higher well-being, which in turn was associated with lower turnover.

"It makes sense. If you have higher well-being, you're less likely to leave your job," Johnson said.

Participants completed the workplace survey in 2023, and researchers compared those responses with actual turnover records one year later. Of the employees surveyed, roughly half worked onsite, with the remainder split between hybrid and fully remote arrangements.

Flexibility matters

The study did not explore why remote workers reported higher well-being, but Johnson points to a growing body of research on autonomy and flexibility.

One explanation is that remote workers have greater control over their work setup and daily schedule, she said.

"If you have control over your environment, you tend to have more positive outcomes," she said.

Working from home can also eliminate many everyday stressors.

"Spending a lot of time in traffic is negatively related to well-being," Johnson said. "There are so many little stressors associated with being in the office."

Those stressors can include arranging child care, hiring help for pets or managing the logistics of getting to and from work, she said.

Johnson said the study points to a broader lesson for employers navigating return-to-office debates. Rather than focusing only on where employees work, organizations may get better results by investing in employee well-being.

"I think flexibility is here to stay," she said.

Many employers worry remote workers feel disconnected. A new study found they reported higher well-being and were no more likely to feel isolated than their onsite peers.

Traditional

White

The silver tsunami: What's next for America's small businesses?

Megan M Rogers — Thu, 06 Aug 2026 16:00:26 +0000

The silver tsunami: What's next for America's small businesses? Megan M Rogers Thu, 08/06/2026 - 10:00

As a wave of small business owners nears retirement, CU �鶹ӰԺ experts explain how entrepreneurship through acquisition is helping a new generation of entrepreneurs preserve local businesses and the communities they serve.

Traditional

White

The world's largest study of human behavior is happening online

Katy Hill — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 14:40:45 +0000

The world's largest study of human behavior is happening online Katy Hill Wed, 08/05/2026 - 08:40

Katy Marquardt Hill

Every day, billions of people document their lives online. They post on social media, write product reviews, leave comments about their workplaces, share health concerns in patient portals and discuss everything from politics to parenting in online forums. Collectively, the conversations offer a glimpse into how people navigate everyday life.

Leeds School of Business Professor of Information Systems Kai Larsen believes researchers are only beginning to understand how useful those insights could be.

Kai Larsen

For generations, surveys have been one of the primary tools researchers use to study human behavior. But people today generate far more social media posts, reviews, comments and other forms of text than survey responses.

"We're estimating that it's about a million times more of these texts available for analysis than there are surveys we can ever do," Larsen said. "So we're drastically opening up the space for doing psychological research."

To help researchers make sense of that vast body of language, Larsen developed PsyProxy, a new class of AI models designed to translate written language into measurable psychological concepts. Rather than simply identifying whether a piece of text is positive or negative, the tool measures psychological concepts embedded in language.

Donald Edmondson, a behavioral medicine researcher at Columbia University who collaborates with Larsen, said PsyProxy's potential lies in its ability to turn people's own words into measurable psychological variables.

"People are constantly expressing psychologically meaningful information in their own words," Edmondson said. "Those data are rich in detail, and they often contain information researchers would never have thought to ask about directly."

Traditionally, understanding concepts such as trust, stress, loneliness, burnout or life satisfaction required designing surveys, recruiting participants and convincing people to participate.

Larsen believes PsyProxy can help researchers learn from language that would otherwise be difficult to analyze at scale. The system can be applied to a wide range of text, including customer reviews, employee feedback, patient messages, online discussions and other forms of written communication. Researchers could potentially use it to study topics ranging from consumer behavior and employee retention to public responses during major events such as economic downturns or public health crises.

For example, researchers could examine specific patterns. Are people expressing anxiety? Anger? Stress? Social isolation? Are certain concerns becoming more common over time? What real outcomes do they predict?

"Whether you have a dependent variable or not, you can see what people care about, what they talk about," Larsen said.

Not a replacement for surveys

Despite the promise of language-based research, Larsen does not see PsyProxy as a replacement for traditional surveys.

"Surveys have a unique place in the world for getting answers to highly specific questions," he said.

Instead, he sees PsyProxy as another tool researchers can use. Surveys can help answer specific questions, while PsyProxy can help researchers find patterns in open-ended responses and other large collections of text. Researchers might even use it to analyze the "anything else you'd like to add?" responses that often get overlooked.

But Larsen said researchers still need to be careful about what language can and cannot reveal.

A customer who posts an angry review may never stop buying from a company, for example. Someone who expresses frustration online may never act on those feelings.

PsyProxy measures patterns associated with concepts such as frustration, trust and social connection, Larsen said, not what people ultimately do.

Language-based approaches also come with their own biases. Just as survey respondents may tailor their answers to what they think researchers want to hear, online conversations show only part of people's lives. Social media posts, reviews and comments can reveal valuable information, but they don't always reflect the full picture of someone's life.

“Anyone who has noticed that social media makes it look like everyone else is more successful than them is already dialed into some of these biases,” Larsen said.

For Larsen, the project is the culmination of an idea that first took shape nearly three decades ago.

In 1997, he began exploring ways to turn interviews, conversations and other forms of qualitative data into something researchers could measure systematically. The vision remained largely out of reach until advances in artificial intelligence finally made it possible.

"I waited 20-plus years for language models to get good enough to use for the problem I wanted to solve," he said.

Giving researchers the 'why'

Larsen also sees the approach as an alternative to relying entirely on large language models such as ChatGPT.

While those systems can summarize text and generate responses, he argues that researchers often need a way to measure concepts across large collections of text and compare findings across studies.

As AI systems have become increasingly powerful, they have often become harder to interpret, Larsen said. Researchers may know a model is making accurate predictions without understanding why.

Larsen said PsyProxy is designed to help open that black box by identifying the psychological concepts most strongly associated with a particular outcome.

"PsyProxy is giving the power of why back to researchers," he said.

Edmondson compares the system to a translator.

"People describe their lives in ordinary words," Edmondson said. "PsyProxy helps translate those words into psychological concepts researchers can measure, test and compare."

While Larsen sees potential applications across many fields, he is particularly interested in the impact the technology could have on health and well-being.

"PsyProxy is designed to help in all social and behavioral disciplines, from sociology and psychology to marketing, but behavioral medicine is near to my heart because of the difference it can make in our lives,” he said.

The research and tool are scheduled to be presented at the American Psychological Association annual convention in August.

After nearly three decades of work, a Leeds School of Business researcher has developed a new AI tool that turns online conversations into data that can be used to study human behavior.

Traditional

White

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 CU �鶹ӰԺ 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 �鶹ӰԺ 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.

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

Traditional

White

Business & Entrepreneurship

The rise of the bot boss

Human oversight

Related Articles

The biggest AI mistake students are making right now

What’s changed about how students should think about AI this school year?

Are employers expecting more from entry-level hires now?

What helps students stand out in job interviews?

What mistakes are students making with AI right now?

What's the right role for AI in the learning process?

What does it actually mean to be prepared for an AI-driven world?

How can students use AI in a way that actually makes them smarter, not just faster?

Can you give an example of using AI well versus using it poorly?

What are some practical ways students can build AI skills right now?

What's an example of a project that would impress an employer?

What should students do when schools restrict AI but workplaces expect it?

Do students need to learn specific AI tools?

Looking ahead, what will separate students who thrive from those who struggle?

Related Articles

Remote workers report the highest well-being in study of 7,700 employees

Rethinking remote work

Staying power

Flexibility matters

Related Articles

The silver tsunami: What's next for America's small businesses?

Related Articles

The world's largest study of human behavior is happening online

Not a replacement for surveys

Giving researchers the 'why'

Related Articles

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