Academic Reputation

Leeds Business Insights Podcast: From Pilot to PhD with Mallory Decker

Kelsey Cipolla — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 15:48:15 +0000

Leeds Business Insights Podcast: From Pilot to PhD with Mallory Decker Kelsey Cipolla Tue, 06/23/2026 - 09:48

Leeds doctoral candidate Mallory Decker discusses how her experience in the U.S. Navy led to her research on gender and organizational behavior.

On this episode of the Leeds Business Insights podcast, host Claire Stewart talks with Mallory Decker, a Leeds School of Business doctoral candidate in organizational behavior and former U.S. Navy helicopter pilot who served 11 years on active duty, including tours in the U.S. House of Representatives and at NATO.

Mallory explains how being one of the few women in naval aviation and often the only woman in high-level NATO meetings motivated her to study gender and teams at work. She shares research on gender pay gaps showing that not only do individual women face pay-gap challenges in male-dominated workspaces and industries, but women also face a “collaboration penalty,” driven by perceptions that women’s groups threaten the male-dominated status quo.

Listen now

Episode transcript

Claire Stewart: Today's LBIdea is that all-women teams struggle against perceptions and penalties in the workplace. Companies and organizations should be aware of these so they can work to counteract them.

Our guest today is Mallory Decker, a doctoral candidate studying organizational behavior at the Leeds School of Business. Before joining Leeds, she served 11 years in the U.S. Navy as a helicopter pilot and completed military tours in the U.S. House of Representatives and with NATO. Her experiences sparked her research interest in the overlap of leadership, teams, decision-making, and gender and diversity.

Thanks so much for joining us today, Mallory.

Mallory Decker: Thank you, Claire, for having me. I'm excited to be here.

Stewart: Yeah. We'd love to learn a bit about you and share, kind of, your background with our audience. So, could you tell us about your background and your experience in the Navy?

Decker: Yeah, definitely. So, you summed it up very succinctly. I served in the Navy for 11 years on active duty. During that time, I served primarily as a helicopter pilot. I was stationed in San Diego, and I did one carrier deployment with a helicopter squadron in San Diego. After San Diego, I moved around several times to do different jobs.

I worked as a military legislative fellow in the House of Representatives, which was a really cool experience. I did some other staff work back in San Diego and then completed my time in the Navy working at NATO. There's a headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia, which was a really cool experience and really gave me a lot better understanding of how things work at the international level, and got to travel quite a bit.

So, it was a really cool experience. And then I got out of the Navy, applied to graduate schools, and got into 91��ý, which was my top choice. So, I was really excited to move to Colorado to start the program.

Stewart: That is awesome. Well, we're so glad to have you and to have your wonderful experience. It sounds like you've done so many cool things, even before you got to here at Leeds, so we're excited to be chatting with you today about all the cool things you're doing now. So, how do you feel, like, your experiences in the military led you to want to study gender in the workforce?

Decker: Yeah, that's a good question because I don't have a very standard academic background, and even my time in the military is a little bit unstandard for the different types of things I got to do. I actually did a one-year master's degree program right after I graduated from college, studying international and European politics.

And after I completed that degree, I said, "That's it. I really am not... I don't want to go back to school. I'm not interested in doing a Ph.D. I can't imagine studying something for the rest of my life." Like, it would be so boring, is what I thought. And then I did all these really cool experiences in the Navy that I was so grateful for, and I had a very positive time overall.

But I did notice, kept coming back to these questions, in naval aviation is only about 7% women, so I was certainly a minority in the workplace and got to feel what that was like as a woman in a male-dominated workplace. Still had a very positive experience, loved the people I worked with. But by the time I got to NATO, I was sitting in all these meetings as just, kind of, an admin person in the background taking notes.

And at these very highest levels, I just... I was very often the only woman in the room where these large international decisions are being made. And it really struck me as being, man, I thought we'd come so far as women, and I just realized there were still so many structural issues in place that I didn't realize when I graduated college and was going off to enter the workforce.

So, over the course of these 11 years serving in the military, I realized, "Hey, these are issues that I am always interested in reading about. These are issues that I kind of have an opinion on based off my experience, and these are things that I really think could be improved and that I would be excited to try to help change."

And yes, I could see myself studying these things for the rest of my life. So, that inspired me to apply to organizational behavior programs and end up at 91��ý, where the professors were doing the type of research I was interested in.

Stewart: Super cool. That is awesome. So, you know, I have to imagine that the transition from military into academia might be a little different, very unique to one another. But do you feel like there was any experiences that, kind of, set you up for success from the Navy into academia when you moved into your Ph.D. program, or was it a completely different change of pace, or how did that work for you?

Decker: It definitely is a very different change of pace. You know, it's a much... I have a lot more freedom and autonomy than I ever did in the military, which I really appreciate. It really suits my personality type. There are a lot of things, though, that I'm realizing as I've gone through this Ph.D. program that I really do rely on my military experience in ways that I wouldn't have predicted, maybe coming in, but have been really useful.

Especially being in a Ph.D. program that is... You do have a lot of unstructured time, a lot of time to develop your ideas and to work on things on your own. So, already having come into the program with, like, enforced and really well-taught self-management and time management skills was really important.

But then I also just came in having been in leadership positions within the military, so it made me a lot more comfortable coming in, taking the initiative, asking questions, and then moving into leadership roles within different academic research projects probably sooner than I would have if I had entered this program as a 23-year-old without that confidence or experience coming in.

Because the goal of the Ph.D. program is to develop researchers who will go off to good universities and lead research projects, and so I felt like I came in almost ready to do that. I just needed the knowledge that the program has given me so far. But I certainly felt like I had the project management, the communication, the delegation skills that you need to lead a research project to publication.

Stewart: That's great. So, moving into, kind of, what your research is about, we've seen some very cool articles on our team. We all were excited when we saw a lot of your articles that had, like you said, a lot of topics that a lot of women and a lot of people in the workforce right now are very interested in, and it affects a lot of people.

So, you published research this spring into gender pay gaps in all-men versus all-women teams. What did your research find about how all-women groups are perceived and penalized?

Decker: Yes. So, we found that when women work in exclusively all-women work groups, so teams of all women versus teams of all men, their pay is lower than... The gender pay gap gets worse. So, when men work with all men, their pay increases. When women work with all women, that pay gap gets bigger than if they just worked alone, and where their pay was taken into account just as a solo employee.

And we found, we tested through some online experiments, that this was because groups of women presented a threat to an existing status quo in male-dominated workplaces that solo women workers did not present, and that male workers either alone or in same groups did not present.

So, we found that when women work together, they present a threat of competition that they don't present when they work by themselves, and that led to lower pay.

Stewart: So, what, kind of, inspired that, and what were some of your biggest takeaways from that experience doing that research over multiple years?

Decker: Yeah, I came in, this is, kind of, a first-year Ph.D. project because I came in just with natural interest. Not even from the military. I'm a lifelong national women's soccer fan, and I followed very closely the 2019 World Cup and the fight for equal pay that the women's soccer team was going through, which was just like a year or so, year or two before, and was ongoing as I entered the Ph.D. program.

So, I was really interested in that, but what really struck me is that not only were these women succeeding at the top of their game and succeeding in a way that the men's national team was not, so not only do they have this massive pay gap, but in other sports, that pay gap has been eliminated.

And so, a lot of the arguments people were using to justify the existence of the soccer team pay gap, that has now been very much rectified to a degree, they weren't able to use in other sports because they had eliminated those pay gaps. So, it really stemmed from looking at sports and then working with my advisor, Dave Hekman.

We traced that to other industries. So, we realized, "Hey, it's not just happening in sports leagues. We see it in music, which some of our articles have pointed out. We found examples of it in healthcare. We found examples of it in venture capitalism." So, we realized that, "Hey, it's a bigger problem than just the women's soccer team and just these high-paid athletes are experiencing."

So, there might be something here that we should really look into, and Dave was really encouraging and pointed me in different directions to take the theorizing.

Stewart: That's awesome. So, you mentioned starting this research in your first year of the Ph.D. program and the changes that you saw between then and now. So, starting with the women's soccer team and then moving into, like, some more relevant figures that are very popular in, like, the current day conversations.

Do you see other industries, like, being impacted beyond the scope of this research, and has that, kind of, led you to look into any other research that have similar gaps?

Decker: Yeah. So, I think one thing... So, I came in interested in looking at why this is maybe happening in sports, and then we did see gains from the women's soccer team, where they, kind of, rectified it. But that did encourage us to look into other sports leagues, other types of sporting competitions, but then also outside of that in different industry. I was really, really surprised when I started looking into music and found that, "Hey, we have… women succeed in music, right? Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, huge. No one's arguing that they are not as well paid as they should be, perhaps."

But what was interesting then is when you look at the men, top-paid male musicians, yes, there's a lot of solo artists, but there's also a lot of group artists, and that pattern was not tracking to women.

So, all-women groups are not... Even the Spice Girls are not making these lists of top-paid musical acts in the same way that male solo artists and all-male bands were able to do. So, that was an example of music, and then we traced that. There's a lot of numbers that show, "Hey, all-women founding teams are earning only a small fraction of the investment in venture capital funding that all-male teams or mixed-gender funding teams are able to earn."

And people are aware of this and are trying to rectify it, but we ran the experiments and tried to do the research to help explain maybe one bit of the puzzle for why this gender gap persists and is compounded when women work together in all-women groups.

Stewart: Wow. That's super interesting, especially when a time when I feel like women are dominating a lot of the charts. It's such a crazy thing to hear. But yeah, it's really cool. So, I guess based on your research and, kind of, the organizational behavior side of it, what are some potential ways that you can see that companies and organizations can counteract the collaboration penalty for women?

Decker: Yeah, I think it all comes back to transparency and accountability and then just acknowledging, "Hey, these gender gaps are persisting, and so we need to do something about it." So, something our research finds, it's a little bit of a catch-22 for women, right? So, there's research that shows when women advocate for themselves or negotiate for higher salaries, there's a little bit of backlash, and people hold that against them.

And then our research shows they don't even have to advocate for themselves. They just have to work together, and people perceive them as being a threat to the existing status quo in these male-dominated workplaces. So, it's kind of a catch-22 for women on an individual level. You're, kind of, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So, I do think the onus is on workplaces and organizations to evaluate their pay structures, to look at how they're compensating people, not just by gender on the individual level, but looking at their teams and their work group gender composition. Because I would argue especially for something like a cross-functional team, so maybe they analyze the data by department. Everyone within legal, same experience, is making the same. Everyone within marketing, we don't find a gender pay gap. But if you compile a cross-functional team with one person from marketing, one person from finance, one person from legal, maybe those compound the gender pay gap.

You don't find that within those individual departments, but when you're looking at the work group composition, especially of a cross-functional team, I would argue that's where I think you would potentially find evidence of this phenomenon that we documented, where working with more women leads to a compounded gender pay gap and worse pay outcomes for women.

Stewart: Wow. Very interesting. So, I understand that this specific research is part of your larger dissertation work. So, could you tell us how this fits into it and what the rest of that looks like?

Decker: Yes. So, I'm doing a three-paper dissertation as opposed to the classic one long tome, three individual research papers, and this is the first research paper in the dissertation, and it, kind of, sets the tone and the theme for the other two essays.

So, my overall dissertation looks at women's issues in the workplace and how, ultimately, how our relationships with other women impacts identity and outcomes. So, unfortunately, we found for this paper that working in all-women teams led to worse pay outcomes simply because of the perceived threat that women are going to try to advocate for change.

So, in the second paper, I look at, "Well, do women actually advocate for change, and how does that affect things?" Ultimately, finding that when women work with other women, it helps their identity. It helps them fight identity threats and overcome gender challenges within very male-dominated engineering environments.

And then my final essay looks at how menopause, a physical change, impacts women in leadership positions, and it in particular impacts their leadership identity with positive and negative outcomes depending on how much social support they're able to get from their workplace.

So, overall, overarching theme of the dissertation is gender issues in the workplace, but looking at how women can help each other and what are some of the positive and negative consequences of those relationships.

Stewart: Wow, that's super cool. We can't wait to hear your dissertation on that. That's awesome.

Decker: Thanks.

Stewart: So, looking forward into academia, and you've already done so much already, but are there any topics that you're excited about looking into and researching in the future career in academia?

Decker: Well, certainly I will probably always be drawn to gender issues, and I think that we’ll... We're human, and humans have gender, so I think that will always be a rich place for research ideas. But I am certainly more interested in just leadership issues in general and probably getting more into positive organizational scholarship, as opposed to... I really love the impact that doing research on gender pay gaps can have to try to change things, but it is a little bit of a downer.

You just keep talking about, man, there's all these issues. We still got to work to overcome them. So, ultimately, I would like to get more into here's good things that we can take, that we can study in the workplace that lead to more good things, and how do we continue to do that, especially in a time when people are unhappy and scared about the future and scared about the changes that we have coming in the workplace.

I would really like to focus more on how we can use human connection and positive workplace social supports to help people of any gender overcome workplace challenges.

Stewart: Very cool. So, as you prepare to graduate next year, congratulations, it's very soon. How do you look back on your Leeds experience, and are there any specific experiences or people that really shaped your experience here and made it really impactful?

Decker: Yeah, it's crazy how, one, that I only have a year left, but then also a Ph.D. program is long. I have been here for a long time. So, it's, kind of, crazy to look back on how much I've learned, how much more about academia and theory and research methods I know than when I came in as a first-year student those years ago.

Certainly, I've loved all the individual faculty within the OB department. I've been lucky enough to, I think, work with almost all of them in different ways and different types of projects. And so, they've all been hugely helpful, and I learned something different probably from each different faculty member, each of whom has their own individual area of expertise and working style and different types of experience.

So, that has been a pretty cool thing about the Leeds Ph.D. program within OB. And then, of course, I have to thank my advisor, Dave, for, one, encouraging me and latching onto this, kind of, half-baked research idea when I was a first-year student and had no idea how to do research, who really helped develop it into the paper. I wouldn't have published without him.

So, Dave Hekman, who is a professor within the OB department, has been hugely influential and helpful, and helpful in shepherding my dissertation as it comes to a close.

Stewart: That's great.

Decker: So, all the individual faculty members, with Dave in particular.

Stewart: Awesome. So, if you were to give any advice for someone that was wanting to pursue a Ph.D. and looking to begin their Ph.D. program, what advice would you give to them before they start that journey?

Decker: One, make sure you really want to do research because that's what you do.

Stewart: Yeah.

Decker: It does require a lot of self-motivation and initiative and drive and persistence to keep wanting to come back when you're getting negative feedback and told your paper isn't good enough for this journal, and you need to go rerun the experiment another 10 times before maybe it'll work or you'll find anything interesting.

So, it does take a lot of dusting yourself off and getting back up from it, and you have to really enjoy the process and not just the outcome if you're going to get into it. And then in terms of the specific Ph.D. programs, the advice I was given, and which I think is true, and what you would need to do for any program that you're applying to, look for where are the people doing the types of research and asking the types of questions you are most interested in.

Because maybe it's a good program and you can get into it, but if they're asking research questions that you just don't have any interest in, then it's not going to be as much fun, and you're not going to have the persistence you need to keep going.

Stewart: Absolutely. That's great. So, if people want to connect with you or learn more about your research, what's the best way they can get in touch with you?

Decker: Probably LinkedIn would be the easiest way to find me. Look me up on LinkedIn. But also, I think our bios, all the Ph.D. students have bios on the Leeds websites, which has my email, and I have certainly been contacted through that, so certainly look me up that way. I'm happy, always love to connect with people that are interested in research, who are interested in coming to Leeds, and happy to answer any questions anyone has.

Stewart: Awesome. Well, thank you again so much for your time today. Good luck with your dissertation and all the great things you're going to do in academia. We look forward to it.

Decker: Yeah. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your time.

Stewart: Thank you again for listening to Leeds Business Insights. Make sure you're one of the first to hear every episode by subscribing to the show wherever you get your podcasts. The Leeds Business Insights Podcast is a production of the Leeds School of Business and produced by University FM. We'll see you next time.

Leeds doctoral candidate Mallory Decker discusses how her experience in the U.S. Navy led to her research on gender and organizational behavior.

Traditional

White

Who Gets Investigated? Unpacking SEC Enforcement

Kelsey Cipolla — Tue, 12 May 2026 17:54:50 +0000

Who Gets Investigated? Unpacking SEC Enforcement Kelsey Cipolla Tue, 05/12/2026 - 11:54

Nathan Thompson

How does the SEC decide which potential cases to investigate before any wrongdoing is proven?

Leeds Associate Professor Nathan Marshall breaks down new research using FOIA data that reveals how signals of noncompliance, private‑sector scrutiny, and public trigger events shape early-stage regulatory decisions. It shows how resource constraints influence which leads are pursued, why some investigations are far more likely than others to result in enforcement actions, and how internal career incentives within the SEC affect case selection.

Video transcript

Nathan Marshall: I'm Nathan Marshall. Along with my colleagues Eric Holzman at Indiana University and Brent Schmidt at Penn State, we set out to understand how the SEC decides which investigations to open.

Most public attention focuses on SEC enforcement actions, but those come later. The more fundamental and often less visible decision is which leads the SEC chooses to pursue in the first place.

Understanding that process matters not just for firms, but for investors who rely on regulators to allocate scarce enforcement resources effectively.

To study this question, we built a new data set of formal SEC investigations using FOIA records. This allows us to observe investigations the public never sees, including cases that end quietly without charges, instead of only observing who gets charged.

We can now see who gets investigated from more than a decade of data. Three consistent patterns emerge.

First, indicators of potential regulatory noncompliance matter a great deal. The SEC is more likely to investigate firms with greater exposure to newly enacted regulations, those that engage in complex or innovative activities, or those facing greater pressure to beat earnings expectations. Together, these signals suggest higher case merit and stronger deterrence value.

Second, firms that attract private sector scrutiny are more likely to be investigated when analysts, the media or litigators raised concern the SEC faces higher reputational costs if it fails to act, making investigations more likely even when misconduct is uncertain.

Third, the SEC responds strongly to public trigger events, restatements, late filings, litigation, executive departures, and negative credit rating actions all sharply increase the likelihood of investigation.

Restatements and litigation in particular, stand out as especially strong triggers.

The SEC operates under real capacity constraints when regional offices are busy, investigation rates fall. Under these conditions, noncompliance signals and private sector scrutiny matter even more. While public triggers remain important regardless of workload, constraints don't change what the SEC values, but they shape what it can realistically pursue.

Importantly, the reason an investigation is opened also helps predict what happens next.

Cases driven by noncompliance signals or clear public triggers are far more likely to result in enforcement actions.

By contrast, investigations prompted primarily by private sector scrutiny are less likely to result in charges. This is consistent with the SEC opening some investigations to avoid the risk of appearing negligent, even when case merit is less clear.

Finally, we examine internal incentives. Career outcomes for SEC attorneys are more strongly linked to opening investigations, rather than to how those cases ultimately conclude.

Higher investigation rates are associated with more promotions and lower turnover, while enforcement outcomes themselves have little impact. This highlights the importance of avoiding perceived in action, and helps explain why some lower probability cases are still pursued.

By looking not just at who gets charged, but who gets investigated, we gain a clearer picture of how regulatory enforcement decisions are actually made.

More Leeds research >>

Research from Nathan Marshall examines how the SEC decides which investigations to open—and what happens next.

Traditional

White

Leeds Business Insights Podcast: Balancing Humor, Gratitude and Appreciation at Work with Tony Kong

Kelsey Cipolla — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:55:43 +0000

Leeds Business Insights Podcast: Balancing Humor, Gratitude and Appreciation at Work with Tony Kong Kelsey Cipolla Tue, 04/28/2026 - 14:55

Professor of Organizational Leadership and Information Analytics Dejun “Tony” Kong offers insights into how we can be better versions of ourselves at work.

The Leeds Business Insights podcast is back for another season! Join new host Claire Stewart, executive director of engagement, marketing and communications at the Leeds School of Business, for monthly conversations with faculty, alumni and global leaders designed to help listeners navigate the evolving world of business.

Professor Dejun “Tony” Kong joins the season 5 premiere to discuss his research examining how we can enable people to take actions intended to benefit others. From the role of humor at the office to how to say "thank you" in a meaningful way, Kong shares findings and personal experiences that can help every professional—plus, his go-to karaoke artists!

Listen now

Episode transcript

Claire Stewart: Welcome back to a brand-new season of Leeds Business Insights. I’m Claire Stewart, and I’m thrilled to be stepping into the host chair. As the executive director of engagement, marketing, and communications here at Leeds, I spend my days at the intersection of big ideas and real-world impact.

This season, I’m bringing you behind-the-scenes with the researchers, alumni, and disruptors who are redefining the future of business. We’ll be dropping new episodes on the last Wednesday of every month, starting right now with a conversation you won’t want to miss.

Today's LBIdea is there are simple ways that we can build better relationships at work if we give our interactions a little more thought.

Our guest today is Dejun “Tony” Kong, professor of organizational leadership and information analytics at the Leeds School of Business. His research addresses how we can enable people to take actions intended to benefit others.

Thanks so much for joining us today, Tony!

Tony Kong: Thank you so much for having me, Claire.

Stewart: First, I wanted to get started by asking you about how you got your interest in studying workplace dynamics and where did that come about?

Kong: Sure! So, in college I studied management science, which is more about operations and supply chain. However, during my internship at Fortune Magazine in New York City, I became more and more interested in human behaviors. I was working on a project on cross-cultural negotiation and had a pleasure to interview multiple professors in top business schools.

They really inspired me to think about human psychology. And I initially thought, like, you know, everybody knows how to negotiate in Asia, but apparently, negotiation is a very interesting research area. So, that really triggered my curiosity and also interest in studying organizational behavior.

My research really focused on how to enable people to be more pro-social. Specifically, how can we foster individual's positive experience? How can we foster good organizational system such as leadership, HR practice, and culture? And how can we foster high trust society such as trust in strangers or trust through social technologies?

So, I found a lot of meaning in addressing these research questions. And also, as someone originally from Shanghai, China, I was fascinated by the work dynamics in the U.S. culture versus Chinese culture. For example, American employees are used to the idea of self-promotion, but self-promotion can be frowned upon or even backfire in the workplaces in China.

Stewart: Yeah. So, you study some really relatable workplace issues like how humor lands in the workplace. So, what has your research shown about being funny in the office?

Kong: Yeah. So, I started researching humor because I want to know more about humor, initially. I just tried to make myself a little funnier. So, I study, like, what is humor? What is the structure of humor and how to make jokes in the U.S. culture? So, I got fascinated by this topic and then started reading the literature and doing some empirical research.

One of the meta-analyses I did with two researchers was fascinating and we found that humor actually is really important in the workplace. It plays a huge role in various type of social interactions, such as negotiation, leadership, teamwork, and even cross-cultural interactions. It is important to people's health and wellbeing as well.

So, humor can build trust between two individuals or build high-quality relationship among people. Humor can also trigger positive emotions. So, people actually feel amused and happy. All of that can lead to a range of benefits in the workplace, such as job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, creativity, commitment, et cetera.

Also, based on my own research—I wrote a theory paper about that—humor can also convey information about the expressor, the recipient, and also the environment. So, humor can be very informative to the person who receives humor. So, for example, humor can convey information about expressor’s confidence and inconfidence. So, in that sense, humor can elevate expressor’s status in the eye of the recipient.

Stewart: Yeah. So, you would suggest to use it in the workplace, but maybe keep in mind how to use it as a tool? What advice would you give when they're using humor in the workplace?

Kong: Yeah. So, I had an interesting debate with another colleague, another faculty member in marketing in the building. So, we had a slightly different view on this, but in the end, we actually reached consensus. So, oftentimes, I think humor is also about moderation, like, you cannot just constantly make jokes, and it can annoy people or become distracting. Humor can really build inclusion, ease tension or break down hierarchies. But also, if you use humor in aggressive way or in an inappropriate way, then it can backfire, it can, kind of, trigger exclusion and actually amplify tension among people, and potentially can create a social hierarchy. So, then initially you can be egalitarian by telling jokes with each other, but in the end, you reach very unintended consequences.

So, my argument is, you know, when we make jokes, we need to think about, what is our intent in the eyes of the recipient? Like, we should take the perspective of the audience and think ahead whether and how a joke can convey a constructed motive. And we also need to appreciate the situation and read the room, just be emotionally intelligent when we are making jokes.

Stewart: That’s great. So, you've also researched how to express gratitude at work. Can you explain why a simple thank you at work might not be enough?

Kong: Yeah, so many of us actually assume expressing gratitude is just as simple as saying thank you. And then, unfortunately, like some of the research shows, like, in the workplace, we don't say thanks enough. So, I mean, the starting point is we need to thank other people more for their contributions, their helping. So, I think it's not only for politeness, but also, kind of, a genuine appreciation for what other people have done for us.

But my own research found, like, it's not only about the frequency of gratitude expression, but also about the way we deliver these things in the workplace. So, sometimes we can write a thank-you note. Sometimes, we can actually spend time with our colleagues to show our appreciation, or even given a high five, in nonverbal communication.

As a leader, there are also other ways to show appreciation and gratitude to their people so they can actually provide more mentorship or career development opportunities or maybe some flexibility in work, like a scheduling flexibility or location flexibility.

So, all of that can show to employees that they are competent. “So, that's why, like, you know, I'm giving you a lot of flexibility. I trust you that you will do a good job with those flexibility.” And also, show some warmth, like, “I appreciate you as a teammate,” or, “I appreciate you as a member of this unit.”

So, all of that is really about intentional, like, you know, appreciation is also a social signal, like, you know, it sends the signal about, “I think you are wonderful member,” or, “You are a very competent employee.”

Stewart: So, what are some examples of ways that managers can share some appreciation in the workplace?

Kong: Yeah. So, organizations typically focus on, kind of, broad one-size-fits-all programs, so maybe give people thank you cards. But over time you can tell, like, maybe people get tired of thank-you cards and they want something, kind of, more personalized or customized. So, I think that sometimes a thank you is also a task of creativity. Like, people need to understand, like, what is the personal taste of the person that you are thanking? And also, what do they like? So, that's also about personal understanding of the person that you're thanking.

So, in our research, we argue that, when gratitude fits the person, employees feel more appreciated, safer, and are actually more willing to contribute their voice. So, we come up with 11 ways of saying thanks at work. So, some of the ways are about contribution or work. We call it agentic form of gratitude expression. So, for example, boss can appraise subordinates’ work, can make their work easier, can reward the effort, can support their subordinates’ career, also can give formal recognition to their subordinates. Another form of gratitude expression we call communal form. So, basically, it's more people-focused. These can be about appreciation through warmth, personal connections, or nonverbal gestures. So, for example, we can use warm body language, such as smile, high five, or pat on the back, or offer kind words, like a very genuine compliment or verbal thank you. You can share treats, like, you know, coffee or homemade cookies, although I don't know how to make homemade cookie. But I think that that's a great idea if someone can do that. Or give a small gift, like a book or an event ticket. If someone loves hockey, then a hockey game sounds great. Or write it down, like a thank-you note or a thoughtful email. So, it should be personalized rather than just very generic thank-you statements.

And finally, kind of, build some connections. People appreciate other people to, kind of, spending time with them. So, maybe after work, they can spend some time during the happy hours to have some drinks or just chit-chat about life.

So, all of that is basically showing the goodwill as a leader and also to show, like, people are worth their time and also worth their attention.

Stewart: Yeah, those are some great ideas. So, gratitude obviously builds strong relationships in the workplace. And you've also done some research on that. So, what does your research show is important for managers to think about when they're establishing trust in the workplace?

Kong: I think that one of the thing managers always assume, like, you know, more trust is better. So, my research actually shows, before building trust, people actually need to think about their self-esteem at work. So, if a manager gives a lot of trust toward an employee, the employee does not have really high self-esteem at work, then that trust become heavy. It can become a psychological burden. It actually disengages the person who received the trust. So, in the end, like, they will feel stressed, they will feel exhausted, and they may have, like, a work-family conflict.

So, trust is not necessarily a blessing for everyone. It can be a burden to some folks. So, I think that there are two solutions. One is building high self-esteem. at work for employees. And then once you feel like, you know, employees have high self-esteem, then give trust to that person. Rely on that person. Rely on their judgment. Delegate important tasks to them.

So, I think there are different ways to boost people's self-esteem, you know. You can give them more recognition. So, appreciation can be one way to boost people's self-esteem. You can also just give nonverbal signals, like, you know, give them subtle cues that they're wonderful and they're really valued in the workplace. And then you give them trust, which means you are willing to be vulnerable to those employees.

Stewart: Yeah. What role can empathy play in how you establish that trust?

Kong: Yeah, so I mean, one important question is how do leaders know the self-esteem level of employees? So, I mean, one way can ask the person, but it can be awkward, you know. If I ask you, like, what do you think about your self-esteem, that's just, kind of, a weird question.

So, I think empathy becomes really important for leaders. Like, you know, you empathize with a person, you notice their behaviors, you, kind of, assess how they feel about the situation or how they feel about themselves. And that requires a lot of perspective taking, emotional empathy. I don't think we emphasize that a lot in trust building process, even though we teach leaders emotional intelligence. But how to use that emotional intelligence or empathy to build stronger trust with other people? I think that that's a science, but also, for emotional intelligent leaders, they probably understand, like, it depends on the person, like, “I need to understand a person first.”

Stewart: Earlier, you were mentioning how you can, kind of, show up pro-socially. So, what do you see as some of the barriers today in workplaces when it comes to showing up pro-socially in the workplace?

Kong: Yeah. So, on my research, one of the streams is focused on how to foster individual's positive experience. Because when people feel positive, they are more energetic, they feel having more personal resources for helping other people. So, in that sense, we really need a positive experience as the starting point for individual’s pro-sociality.

So, that's my personal philosophy. So, one of the barriers I think for the modern workplaces is stress and the health concerns, because, you know, the work pace is so fast and then people feel a lot of stress. When performance pressure is really high, people feel stressed. And also, nowadays, we care more about, like, a mental health concerns, physical health concerns. So, even our school is doing a lot more for, like, how to schedule meetings and how to give people breaks for their work so they can actually recover from their work and also enjoy their work more.

So, I think one of the important barriers for us to think about in work design or workplace design is how to mitigate stress for people. Stress is not necessarily bad, but, like, oftentimes too much stress is detrimental. It can be debilitating. And also, how to help employees maintain their mental health, physical health. I'll also argue relational health; how to maintain really positive relationship that support each other and also help each other flourish in the workplace.

Stewart: So, obviously, you've done a lot of research on the workplace, but if you had to have one takeaway of one habit that you would give every professional to be more effective and inclusive in the workplace, what would that habit be?

Kong: Yeah. So, this is also tied to my own leadership journeys. I'm from a collectivist society, originally. So, one thing that we really value is, kind of, humility. Like, you know, we want to be humble to other folks. And then we want to view ourself accurately rather than in an inflated way. And also, we want to appreciate other people's strength and their contributions and open to, kind of, feedback and new ideas.

So, that's a definition of humility. And I think, you know, initially, when I came to United States, it seems like self-promotion is a thing and then people are so comfortable doing it. And then for Chinese person, it’s like, “Oh, I don't know how to promote myself.” So, over time, I have to learn, like, what does a self-promotion mean? Like, how to do it effectively? Because it is a necessary professional skill in the U.S. But now, I see, like, U.S. culture actually emphasize humility because we want to learn from each other, appreciate each other, and also view ourself more accurately. So, that self-awareness, self-insights are important for our own development.

So, I think one habit I would recommend every professional to have is being humble and humility expression. Like, you know, express your humility. Listen to other people. Appreciate other people's strength and contribution. Of course, everybody has weakness, but let's take a look at other people's bright side, like, you know, what they can do for the organization and then for other folks.

So, that will be my suggestion. I'm trying to practice that myself in my leadership position.

Stewart: Yeah, that's great. So, you've done a lot of research and we're definitely not saying you need to hop on any research right now, but are there any topics that you are really interested in right now, that you are interested in pursuing next for your research?

Kong: Yeah, so there's one thing that I'm super passionate. And also, thanks to my doctoral students because they're passionate about this topic as well. So, I want to do more about human sustainability. So, this is… I mean, the 91��ý, the entire campus will care about sustainability, not only in terms of environment sustainability, but also societal sustainability system, and also human.

To me, I really want to think about how human sustainability affects organizational sustainability or system sustainability or how environmental sustainability influence human sustainability. So, I think all of that actually are related to each other. When I say human sustainability, I'm more thinking about mental health, resilience, adaptability, because our environment is changing constantly and that we really need to learn how to adapt it to the environment.

And this is really personal to me because I moved from a different culture to U.S. I mean, culturally, they're so different, almost complete opposite. So, I really have to adapt myself to a new culture. And I understand American people and also trying to integrate my Chinese values and also American values.

And that itself is a creativity. So, you have to be adaptive and creative and figure out, like, what is the best solution for yourself, so you can function optimally in the U.S. society. Also, it's about mental health, like, you know, how to balance my work life and a personal life. I love my work. I see it as calling, but sometimes I feel like, am I working too hard? Because when I go to beach, like, I probably, like, read a book instead of, like, you know, just relax over there. So, I think that that's also important for myself, for my own human sustainability, because work life is a long journey. So, like, I need to, kind of, be careful not to burn myself early in my career.

Stewart: Absolutely. That's great. So, before you go, we do have to ask you a little aspect of your background that we haven't discussed yet. You are a trained opera singer. But then also, you know, you talk a little bit about work life balance and stress, and we know you're also a karaoke aficionado. So, we want to know what your favorite opera is and what your favorite go-to karaoke song is.

Kong: So, I would not say, like, I'm super good opera singer, but, like, when I was a kid, I was classically trained. Basically, I love music, like, when I hear some music, like, a few times later, I can already sing it or, like, get the rough version of it already.

So, my parents recognized, like, whoa, there's a talent there. So, that's why, like, I started get training because I did not notice myself. But, like, I can mimic sounds quickly, I can realize the tone or the rhythm quickly. So, that, to me, opened a new world, because after a few years training, I start performing overseas, not only in Shanghai, pretty much every theater in Shanghai I already, kind of, performed. Also went to studios in Shanghai, but also performed in Japan and South Korea.

So, that experience really, kind of, opened my mind about other parts of the world. I just realized, you know, Chinese culture is very different from Korean culture and Japanese culture. That make me appreciate, you know, human differences and also understand the cultural differences. So, even though it's a music training, but in the end become, like, a cultural training because, you know, you travel to different parts of the world. But for me, singing is also a stress relief strategy for me. So, that's why I have a karaoke machine at home. When I feel stressed about my work, then I will, okay, stop working and then just go to karaoke and then sing my… I love Calum Scott songs. I even love a Rihanna song. I also love, like, a Lady Gaga song. So, all of that I sing.

Stewart: Oh, yeah.

Kong: I also sing Broadway show songs. Like, I love Broadway shows, so I go to Denver Performing Arts Center regularly, and I watch Broadway shows. So, recently, I just watched the “Phantom of the Opera.” I love that musical and the Broadway show, “Lion King.” So, that part, I feel it's very liberating to me because you get so much inspiration from the Broadway show musical pieces. And also, it makes you creative. So, that's why I encourage all the kids to learn music because it gives you self-discipline. It opens your worldview. And also, it gives you different kinds of experience.

Stewart: That's awesome. Well, thank you so much for joining us today, Tony. I think there's tons of people that can have a lot of great takeaways from this conversation. And we appreciate you sharing your expertise.

Kong: All right. Thank you so much for having me again.

Stewart: Thank you again for listening to Leeds Business Insights. Make sure you're one of the first to hear every episode by subscribing to the show wherever you get your podcasts. The Leeds Business Insights Podcast is a production of the Leeds School of Business and produced by University FM. We'll see you next time.

Professor of Organizational Leadership and Information Analytics Dejun “Tony” Kong offers insights into how we can be better versions of ourselves at work.

Traditional

White

AI Fact‑Checking Works, But Mostly for Progressives

Kelsey Cipolla — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 22:23:47 +0000

AI Fact‑Checking Works, But Mostly for Progressives Kelsey Cipolla Fri, 04/17/2026 - 16:23

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

Traditional

White

Why Climate Action Is One of Today’s Biggest Business Opportunities

Kelsey Cipolla — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 16:09:14 +0000

Why Climate Action Is One of Today’s Biggest Business Opportunities Kelsey Cipolla Wed, 04/08/2026 - 10:09

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

Traditional

White

SpaceX's IPO Could Be the Biggest Ever. Here's What It Would Mean for Everyday Investors

Kelsey Cipolla — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 15:22:02 +0000

SpaceX's IPO Could Be the Biggest Ever. Here's What It Would Mean for Everyday Investors Kelsey Cipolla Tue, 04/07/2026 - 09:22

Leeds finance professor Shaun Davies breaks down why this listing could matter to ordinary investors—even for people who never plan to buy the stock.

Traditional

White

Funny Business: Humor Scholars on Whether Jokes Help or Hurt at Work

Kelsey Cipolla — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 18:24:13 +0000

Funny Business: Humor Scholars on Whether Jokes Help or Hurt at Work Kelsey Cipolla Mon, 03/23/2026 - 12:24

Leeds researchers Tony Kong and Peter McGraw agree humor has real workplace benefits, but pulling it off can be tricky.

Traditional

White

Gas Prices Are Rising. Here’s Why, and What Drivers Can Expect Next

Kelsey Cipolla — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 16:30:18 +0000

Gas Prices Are Rising. Here’s Why, and What Drivers Can Expect Next Kelsey Cipolla Thu, 03/19/2026 - 10:30

Finance professor Edward Van Wesep explains why producing more oil doesn’t shield U.S. drivers from higher prices.

Traditional

White

When Climate Risks Hit Home: What It Means for Housing, Insurance and Your Wallet

Kelsey Cipolla — Wed, 18 Mar 2026 18:09:30 +0000

When Climate Risks Hit Home: What It Means for Housing, Insurance and Your Wallet Kelsey Cipolla Wed, 03/18/2026 - 12:09

From insurance costs to home values, a Leeds finance professor explains how weather extremes are reshaping everyday financial decisions.

Traditional

White

Why Walkable Neighborhoods Aren’t Just About Distance

Kelsey Cipolla — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 19:08:43 +0000

Why Walkable Neighborhoods Aren’t Just About Distance Kelsey Cipolla Wed, 03/11/2026 - 13:08

New research finds that the experience of a walk plays a major role in whether people leave their cars behind.

Traditional

White

Academic Reputation

Leeds Business Insights Podcast: From Pilot to PhD with Mallory Decker

Related Articles

Who Gets Investigated? Unpacking SEC Enforcement

Related Articles

Leeds Business Insights Podcast: Balancing Humor, Gratitude and Appreciation at Work with Tony Kong

Related Articles

AI Fact‑Checking Works, But Mostly for Progressives

Related Articles

Why Climate Action Is One of Today’s Biggest Business Opportunities

Related Articles

SpaceX's IPO Could Be the Biggest Ever. Here's What It Would Mean for Everyday Investors

Related Articles

Funny Business: Humor Scholars on Whether Jokes Help or Hurt at Work

Related Articles

Gas Prices Are Rising. Here’s Why, and What Drivers Can Expect Next

Related Articles

When Climate Risks Hit Home: What It Means for Housing, Insurance and Your Wallet

Related Articles

Why Walkable Neighborhoods Aren’t Just About Distance

Related Articles