When a CEO speaks during an earnings call, investors typically focus on the numbers being reported. But studies suggest they should also be listening to how those numbers are delivered. The emotional undertones, vocal pitch, and subtle inflections that executives unconsciously broadcast may reveal as much about a company's future as the financial data itself.

In this episode, Professor Bill Mayew of Duke's Fuqua School of Business reflects on his research analyzing CEO voices and how vocal cues can predict market reactions and executive success. His paper, The Power of Voice: Managerial Affective States and Future Firm Performance, published in the Journal of Finance, shows that layered voice analysis can detect emotional cues in CEO communication during earnings calls. These subtle vocal signals—particularly expressions of positive or negative emotion—predict both immediate market reactions and longer-term firm performance.

Mayew's second study, Voice Pitch and the Labor Market Success of Male CEOs, analyzed the voices of nearly 800 male corporate executives and found that deeper-voiced CEOs consistently manage larger firms, earn higher compensation, and enjoy longer tenures. This correlation raises complex questions about leadership perception: Do deeper voices signal better leadership capabilities, or do early-life biases create advantages that compound over decades?

As Mayew explains, it’s difficult to disentangle perception from reality. If those with deeper voices are perceived as more authoritative beginning in childhood, they may receive more opportunities to develop actual leadership skills, making initial perceptions self-fulfilling over time.

Today, academic findings about vocal cues are driving company decision making. Some hedge funds now deploy algorithms that analyze vocal patterns in real-time during earnings calls, executing trades based on emotional cues that human listeners might miss. Recent advances in AI voice analysis are pushing this technology even further, with platforms now capable of detecting "emotional peaks" to enhance portfolio performance. Meanwhile, the same voice analysis technology originally developed for police interrogations is being repurposed to help managers craft more confident communication.

The conversation spans finance, psychology, linguistics and leadership — and will change the way you think about the most human element of communication: your voice.

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.

A casual conversation about a coworker's side business could be the spark that launches your own entrepreneurial journey. But whether that inspiration leads to action depends on factors you might not expect—including your race, gender, and workplace environment.

In this episode, Professor Melanie Wallskog shares insights from her research into how workplace exposure to entrepreneurial coworkers affects an individual’s likelihood of launching a new venture. Her work sheds light on how “entrepreneurial spillovers” occur—when simply working with someone who has previously started a business can increase your own chance of doing so.

Yet, this inspiration isn’t evenly distributed. Wallskog finds that white and Asian men are far more likely to benefit from these spillovers than women or Black workers. Women tend to be positively influenced only when the entrepreneurial coworker is also a woman. Black employees face compounded disadvantages: they’re less likely to work in entrepreneur-rich environments and less likely to be influenced even when they do.

Her findings are especially relevant for “everyday entrepreneurship”—small businesses like local stores or services, not venture-backed tech startups. These enterprises make up a large share of the U.S. economy and are often launched with personal savings. Wallskog argues that understanding the social dynamics behind who starts these businesses can help policymakers build a more inclusive entrepreneurial economy.

Companies also have a role to play. Rather than suppress entrepreneurial drive to retain talent, Wallskog suggests supporting internal innovation through flexible time, collaboration, and space to explore ideas. For aspiring entrepreneurs, the key takeaway is: learn from your peers but remember their experiences may not be your own.

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.

Our brains are wired to seek order when we feel out of control. A framed logo, an organized grocery store, and a well-designed website all provide unconscious signals of stability to consumers navigating uncertainty.

In this episode, Professor Keisha Cutright of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business discusses her research on how consumers respond to instability. In her widely cited paper, The Beauty of Boundaries: When and Why We Seek Structure in Consumption (Journal of Consumer Research), Cutright reveals that when people feel like they cannot control the outcomes in their lives, even subtle design cues become psychologically reassuring.

Cutright traces her insights back to her days at Procter & Gamble, where she first observed consumer segments deeply focused on orderly living. Her subsequent academic research revealed that this wasn’t just a preference, it was a psychological response to feeling powerless. When people believe things happen randomly in their environment, subtle cues that reflect intentionality can be comforting. These findings have proven consistent across major disruptions, from post-9/11 shopping behaviors to the surge in structured activities like baking during COVID-19.

The conversation covers practical applications for business leaders, from packaging to retail layouts and digital interfaces. Cutright explains how structured environments can serve as substitutes for community support, particularly for vulnerable populations, and why brands that understand this dynamic appeal to customers.

More than a decade after its publication, Cutright's research remains strikingly relevant as consumers navigate an increasingly uncertain world.

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.

The next breakthrough drug or industry-disrupting innovation may come from a university lab funded by a federal grant. But a policy shift around how the government supports overhead costs could change which projects are pursued, and which institutions can afford to compete.

When the federal government funds scientific research, universities negotiate overhead rates of 50 to 70% over the direct costs of research to cover expenses like lab space and utilities. In reality, they receive far less due to complex accounting rules. For more than 60 years, this complicated system of "indirect cost recovery” has funded America’s research infrastructure.

Now that system faces a major disruption. Professor Daniel P. Gross of Duke's Fuqua School of Business analyzed data from 350 U.S. research institutions over 60 years and found that while negotiated rates keep rising, the actual overhead rates paid to research institutions have in practice have been flat for decades. Recent policy proposals to cap indirect cost recovery rates at 15% would have major impacts on research operations. Focusing on NIH funding alone, Gross's analysis shows these changes would reduce universities’ NIH research funding by 15 to 20% annually, with some institutions losing over $100 million a year. Strikingly, the hardest-hit institutions would be those whose work most frequently leads to private sector patents and FDA-approved drugs.

In the interview, Gross walks through how seemingly technical policy changes could reshape American innovation and explores potential reforms that could address concerns about the current system. Drawing on historical examples from antibiotics to AI, Gross grounds these changes in a broader context, revealing how funding mechanisms shape what kinds of research gets done–and what’s at stake for the future of scientific discovery.

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.

Before you mention that AI tool that's been helping you at work, consider how your colleagues might respond. In this podcast, Professors Richard Larrick and Jack Soll, along with PhD candidate Jessica Reif from Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, discuss their research into how artificial intelligence tools are reshaping workplace dynamics. Their findings highlight a key paradox: while generative AI can boost performance, using it often makes workers appear less competent, less diligent, and even lazier in the eyes of others.

Drawing on a series of experiments, the researchers show that people who use AI for work are judged more harshly than those who seek help from a colleague or even use other software tools. This “social evaluation penalty” can lead to lower hiring prospects, negative perceptions of job fit, and cause employees to hide their AI use altogether.

But the penalty isn’t universal. The bias disappears when evaluators are frequent AI users. And when a task clearly benefits from AI (e.g., writing or coding), users face fewer reputational risks. The research also reveals that this judgment bias persists across gender, age, and job types — suggesting its effects are widespread.

The research offers insights for both managers and MBA students: creating a culture that normalizes and openly discusses AI use may be critical to unlocking its benefits. Managers must lead by example, openly using generative AI tools to signal that their organization is a safe space for AI innovation and experimentation.

Duke Fuqua Insights features digestible conversations with our faculty about the most impactful research from their careers, including studies they teach in Fuqua classes. New episodes every other week in season.

For more from Duke Fuqua, visit us on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and the Duke Fuqua Insights newsletter.