 |
|
|
|||||
For years, Donald Trumps distinctive, large, and bold signature has captured the publics attention. Not only did it recently come to light that his signature appeared in a book that Jeffrey Epstein received for his 50th birthday, but it fits neatly alongside Trumps long history of brash self-adulation. I love my signature, I really do, he said in a September 30, 2025, speech to military leaders. Everyone loves my signature. His signature also happens to be of particular interest to me, given my decades-long fascination with, and occasional academic research on, the connection between signature size and personal attributes. A long-time social psychologist who has studied Americas elite, I made an unintentional empirical discovery as an undergraduate more than 50 years ago. The link that I found thenand that numerous studies have since echoedis that signature size is related to status and ones sense of self. Signature size and self-esteem Back in 1967, during my senior year of college, I was a work-study student in Wesleyan Universitys psychology library. My task, four nights a week, was to check out books and to reshelve books that had been returned. When students or faculty took books out, they were asked to sign their names on an orange, unlined card found in each book. At some point, I noticed a pattern: When faculty signed the books out, they used a lot of space to sign their names. When students checked them out, they used very little space, leaving a lot of space for future readers. So I decided to study my observation systematically. I gathered at least 10 signatures for each faculty member and comparison samples of student signatures with the same number of letters in their names. After measuring by multiplying the height versus the width of the amount of space used, I found that eight of the nine faculty members used significantly more space to sign their names. In order to test for age as well as status, I did another study in which I compared the signatures of blue-collar workers such as custodians and groundskeepers who worked at the school with a sample of professors and a sample of studentsagain matched for the number of letters, this time on blank 3-by-5-inch cards. The blue-collar workers used more space than the students but less than the faculty. I concluded that age was at play, but so was status. When I told psychologist Karl Scheibe, my favorite teacher, about my findings, he said I could measure the signatures in his books, which he had been signing for more than a decade since his freshman year in college. As can be seen in the graph, his book signatures mostly got bigger. They took a major leap in size from his junior year to his senior year, dipped a bit when he entered graduate school, and then increased in size as he completed his PhD and joined the Wesleyan faculty. I did a few more studies, and published a few articles, concluding that signature size was related to self-esteem and a measure of what I termed status awareness. I found that the pattern held in a number of different environments, including in Iranwhere people write from right to left. The narcissism connection Although my subsequent research included a book about the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, it never crossed my mind to look at the signatures of these CEOs. However, it did cross the minds of some researchers 40 years later. In May 2013, I received a call from the editor of the Harvard Business Review because of the work I had done on signature size. The publication planned to run an interview with Nick Seybert, an associate professor of accounting at the University of Maryland, about the potential link between signature size and narcissism in CEOs. While Seybert told me his research had not found direct evidence for a positive relationship between the two, the possibility of the connection he inferred nonetheless intrigued me. So I decided to test this using a sample of my students. I asked them to sign a blank 3-by-5 card as if they were writing a check, and then I gave them a widely used 16-item narcissism scale. Lo and behold, Seybert was right to deduce a link: There was a significant positive correlation between signature size and narcissism. Although my sample size was small, the link subsequently led Seybert to test two different samples of his students. And he found the same significant, positive correlation. Others soon began to use signature size to assess narcissism in CEOs. By 2020, growing interest in the topic saw the Journal of Management publish an article that included signature size as one of five ways to measure narcissism in CEOs. A growing field Now, almost six years later, researchers have used signature size to explore narcissism in CEOs and other senior corporate positions such as chief financial officers. The link has been found not only in the U.S. but in countries including the United Kingdom, Germany, Uruguay, Iran, South Africa, and China. In addition, some researchers have studied the effect of larger versus smaller signatures on the viewers. For example, in a recent article in the Journal of Philanthropy, Canadian researchers reported on three studies that systematically varied the signature size of someone soliciting funds in order to see whether it affected the size of donations. It did. In one of their studies, they found that increasing the size of the senders signature generated more than twice as much revenue. The surprising resurgence of research using signature size to assess narcissism leads me to a few conclusions. For one, signature size as a measure of certain aspects of personality has turned out to be much more robust than I imagined as an observant undergraduate working in a college library back in 1967. Indeed, signature size is not only an indicator of status and self-esteem, as I once concluded. It is also, as recent studies suggest, an indicator of narcissistic tendenciesthe kind that many argue are exhibited by Trumps big, bold signature. Where this research is taken next is anyones guess, least of all for the person who noticed something intriguing about signature size so many years ago. Richie Zweigenhaft is an emeritus professor of psychology at Guilford College. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
In the C-suite, relationships can make or break your effectiveness, and too often, weve been taught that you must choose to be either a friend or a colleague, but never both. The fear is understandable. Too much closeness, and you risk favoritism. Too much distance erodes trust, but our research and experience as leadership advisers point to a different reality: genuine, trust-based relationships are not a liability; theyre a leadership advantage. The real risk isnt choosing one or the other; its failing to integrate both. Morags Ally Mindset Profile data reveals a telling truth: 67% of respondents say their success has been undermined by their peer relationships or senior management. Thats not just interpersonal friction; its a strategic liability that can hinder collaboration, undermine leadership, and restrict career potential. Why This Matters Now The return to in-person work has reshuffled team dynamics. Some leaders are navigating hybrid work with colleagues they barely know outside a video frame. Others are relearning how to have hallway conversations and reading the social cues that once felt second nature. Layer onto this the loneliness crisis highlighted by the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Social Connection and initiatives like the United States Chamber of Connection, and it is clear leaders arent just managing business outcomes; theyre managing connection deficits. And the upside of getting this right is significant. Gallup research has found that employees who have a best friend at work are more engaged, more productive, and more likely to stay with the organization. In the C-suite, where stakes are high and turnover costs are enormous, those benefits multiply. Conventional wisdom says closeness creates bias, while distance fosters objectivity. The truth? Both extremes have costs: too close, and candor suffers; too distant, and trust evaporates. We need a third way: relationships that blend trust and empathy with clarity and accountability. This is the foundation of co-creation over competition. Its about shifting from a scarcity mindset (if you win, I lose) to an abundance mindset (were better when we win together). The Cost of Competitive Isolation When leaders treat relationships purely as transactional, collaboration suffers. In Morags work, shes seen executives default to turf protection rather than shared problem-solvingespecially under pressure. This competitive isolation creates silos, hinders decision-making, and erodes trust. And heres the complication: as we move up through our careers, especially when we stay in the same organization, yesterdays peer and friend can become tomorrows boss or colleague. We cant avoid both roles, which means we have to recalibrate the relationship by making the implicit explicit. How can we maintain friendships while achieving results? Thats the relationship work of being better together. I have seen it, too. In my work advising a biotech executive team, the CFO and COO were caught in a cycle of one-upmanship during board prep. By intentionally shifting toward a both/and approachsharing early drafts, co-owning presentations, and agreeing on mutual success metricsthey moved from guarded competition to open collaboration. The result? Faster decision-making, a united front with the board, and a ripple effect of trust across the leadership team. Here are some of the practical benefits of Both/And relationships in the C-suite: Better decisions, faster. When trust is high, peers are more likely to challenge assumptions without fear of backlash, leading to richer discussions and better outcomes. Resilience that endures. Friendships provide emotional ballast during crises, reducing burnout and supporting sustained performance, especially under pressure. Collaboration without the drag. Mutual understanding shortens the runway for complex, cross-functional projects. Fairness with Boundaries. Friendship doesnt mean favoritism. It means respecting each others roles, decisions, and accountability. Five practices for both/and leadership relationships So how do leaders intentionally build relationships that are both personally enriching and professionally effective? Here are five practices that can turn potential rivalries into powerful alliances: 1. Show you care about the human Show curiosity for the human being behind the role. When leaders demonstrate care beyond the scorecard, they build the trust that makes it easier for peers to speak up, share concerns early, and collaborate without second-guessing motives. 2. Share early, share often Fast, unfiltered sharing of both good and bad news invites peers into the problem-solving process sooner. This means that opportunities are amplified, risks are identified and contained earlier, and no one is blindsided in the boardroom. 3. Hold each other to high(er) standards Strong professional friendships can withstand tough feedback. This means candor is a safeguard, not a threatleaders are more likely to challenge assumptions, sharpen thinking, and avoid costly missteps. 4. Create space for micro-moments In hybrid and high-pressure environments, trust grows in small, everyday exchangesa check-in before the agenda, a walk between meetings, a quick call to connect. These moments are the give-and-take that makes leadership work and build the trust that makes macro-decisions possible. 5. Model openness at the top Admitting mistakes and asking for help gives others permission to do the same. This means resilience spreads, teams stick together under pressure, and the organization avoids the corrosive isolation that can occur when leadership is absent. Its hard to make friends as adults, and even harder in the high-pressure world of executive leadership. But thats precisely why it matters. The loneliness crisis isnt just a personal well-being issue; its a business performance issue. As leaders, we can either cling to outdated binaries or we can lead in a way that blends humanity with high performance. Choosing both doesnt weaken your leadership; it strengthens it.
Category:
E-Commerce
This weekend, tennis star Novak Djokovic is serving snackers something a little different: a new sorghum-based, corn-free popcorn brand called Cob, which will compete in the same aisle as SkinnyPop and Orville Redenbachers. The popcorns launch coincides with the announcement of a $5 million seed round for the startup thats led by Djokovic. Popcorn has become a particularly alluring category for celebrities over the past few years. New entrants have included Khloud Protein Popcorn backed by reality TV star Khloé Kardashian; singer Luke Bryans Boldly Grown Popcorn; and Robs BackStage Popcorn, cofounded by the pop rock band the Jonas Brothers. Why popcorn? What they are nibbling on is a growing market thats welcoming to new brands that promote bolder flavors, avoid canola oil and artificial butter flavors and colors, and include claims of higher protein or low-carb formulations. The U.S. popcorn market grew by 31% to $3.5 billion over a five-year period through 2024, according to market researcher Mintel, and is forecasted to be valued at $3.84 billion by 2029. I wanted to join the brand as cofounder, as well as lead the seed round, to give other investors confidence in our vision, says Djokovic in an emailed statement. [Photo: Cob] Cob is a gluten-free snack thats made from the grain sorghum, which is naturally rich in fiber, iron, and plant-based protein. The brand was originally conceptualized and created by entrepreneur Jessica Davidoff, who was inspired to explore snacking alternatives that could be served to her son, who suffers from an allergy to corn. My eyes were open to just how vast corn was in the American food system, Davidoff tells Fast Company. That led her to visit a local grocery store in New York that promoted international ingredients and start testing snacks that could be made in the kitchen that were similar to popcorn, but without the key base ingredient. Davidoff felt that sorghum delivered the best taste from all the alternatives she tested. It offers this new option for people who really like popcorn but want to take the nutrition component up a notch, she says. Cob will be sold direct-to-consumer through online channels including the brands website, at a price of $59.99 for a 24-pack of 1-ounce single-serve snack packs. The initial launch features four flavors, including Mediterranean herb, and olive oil and pink salt. Davidoff says the brand intends to launch more sorghum-based products in the future. Djokovic will serve as an adviser on ingredients, formulations, and product line extensions, as well as support marketing and future brand collaborations. A growing trend Healthier popcorn brands began to emerge as a force in the category after SkinnyPop launched in 2010. The brands pitch was that it featured only three ingredients: popcorn, sunflower oil, and salt. This streamlined ingredient list resonated with snackers, and sales quickly soared. The brands parent company, Amplify, was later acquired by candymaker Hershey for $1.6 billion in 2017. Since then, newer popcorn brands have promoted their use of coconut, olive, and avocado oils and have avoided artificially added butters, which are most associated with the microwavable brands. For people who really like to snack, popcorn is only 30 calories per cup, says New York-based dietitian Samantha Cassetty, noting that the calorie count is less than whats found in most other crunchy snacks. Brands like Cob have also promoted their alignment with GLP-1, one of the buzziest new trends in food as consumers increasingly embrace GLP-1 weight-loss medications like Ozempic and Wegovy. Cob says that sorghum is a resistant starch, meaning it can naturally boost a bodys GLP-1 to make a snacker feel fuller for longer. All of the CPG [consumer packaged goods] companies are looking for ways to target that consumer who is snacking less, Cassetty says. Kardashians Khloud voraciously promotes the nutritional claim of 7 grams of protein per serving thats from a blend of milk protein isolate. The popcorn brand was created to tap into three big trends: Protein snacks are growing three times faster than the market, protein is the most trending ingredient among millennial and Gen Z consumers, and popcorn is the fastest-growing salty snack category, according to Khloud CEO Jeff Rubenstein. [Photo: Khloud] For years, protein-packed foods tended to come in the form of bars and shakes, frequently promoted to gym-obsessed men, Rubenstein says. We can do this more femininely, he says, noting the brand features more vibrant packaging that includes soft pink and blue. We can attract a different audience to protein. The brand debuted in April with a 60-day retail exclusive at Target, and by January will be sold in more than 25,000 retail stores including Kroger and Walmart. Rubenstein says Khloud has an authentic founder story with Kardashian: She had an entire closet in her house that was dedicated to just snacks. She made Khloud a functional snack that is fashionable. Djokovic was drawn to the popcorn category because while he prefers home-cooked meals with simple ingredients, the pro athlete travels a lot with a very hectic schedule. At Cob, were creating packaged foods with the same ingredients and recipes wed use in our own kitchens to allow people to eat well even when theyre away from their kitchens, he says. Celebrities have craved snacks as an investment opportunity because similar to the beauty category, they can sell high volumes and drive more steady, repeatable purchasing patterns than apparel or jewelry. Snacks can also geneate gross profit margins of 40% for manufacturers, according to Alex Kushnir, a real and consumer partner at consultancy Baringa, who notes, It happens to be one of the more profitable categories in food.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||