Canada faces an acute shortage of doctors and medical equipment. But simply hiring more people or buying more machines won’t fix our healthcare backlog. In this episode of The Executive Summary, professor Opher Baron explains how — from an operations management perspective — we got into this mess, and why smarter planning and better use of data are just as essential as addressing our shortages if we really want to dig out of Canada’s healthcare deficit.

Show notes:

[0:00] Canadians are in a healthcare crisis.

[0:12] Meet Opher Baron, a professor of operations management at the Rotman School, and an expert in hospital queues. He doesn’t believe more doctors and medical equipment will get us out of our healthcare crisis.

[1:34] A recognition that our healthcare system – and its problems – is nuanced and complex, and this episode is just 15 minutes.

[2:07] Canada has a supply shortage: too few doctors and too little equipment to meet the population demand.

[2:42] This shortage is felt across all sectors of healthcare, but acutely in family care and emergency care.

[3:12] The provincial governments are taking steps to remediate the problems, but it won’t happen quickly.

[4:20] So how did we get here? In short: Poor planning.

[5:31] Hospitals are chaotic, and that makes it difficult to plan.

[7:21] Let’s look at how one issue – continuity of care, coupled with physician incentives – can affect how quickly patients move through an emergency room. Simply, doctors are more likely to take patients at the beginning of their shift than at the end of it.

[9:57] How do you address these types of issues? First, you need to be measuring the right key performance indicators…which we’re not. And you can’t fix a problem, if you can’t identify the problem.

[11:49] Let’s start by recognizing that healthcare professionals aren’t operations management experts.

[12:33] Opher has worked with several hospitals to test new operational efficiencies, including Erie Shores.

[13:58] With the advent of AI, there’s also a lot of opportunity in what Opher calls “digital twin” environments, which will allow hospital administrators to test changes virtually before implementing them in real life.

[15:13] We can’t just throw money at the problem and expect we’ll fix our healthcare system. “I hope that once people understand better what is the important data for them and what they can do with the right data…we can improve the efficiency of our systems, and given the current resources, investing a little bit more kind of in the right places.”

Be sure to check out the Executive Summary back catalogue. We tackle everything from whether we can fix our broken online review system to how extreme heat negatively impacts companies' bottom lines.

For decades, Canada’s economic fortunes have been tied to its southern neighbour — but what happens when that relationship falters? As a new wave of tariffs rattles global markets, professor Dimitry Anastakis joins The Executive Summary to trace Canada’s long history of trade wars with the U.S., the hard lessons they’ve taught us, and why this time, the old playbook may no longer work.

Show Notes

[0:00] Meet Dimitry Anastakis - a University of Toronto professor and expert on Canadian business and economic history, who says Donald Trump’s views on tariffs were really cemented in the ‘80s, putting him at odds with the Republican Party at the time.

[1:03] Canada’s economy is enmeshed with that of the U.S., which doesn’t bode well for us as we face a new trade war.

[2:07] A quick recap of the 2025 trade war between Canada and the U.S. to date.

[3:43] Lessons from the past — we’ve been in this type of situation with the U.S. before.

[3:59] We’ve faced familiar trade disputes in the 1890s, 1920s to ‘30s and the ‘70s to 80s.

[5:57] Reagan-era trade disputes — The trade war of the ‘80s was different from the earlier spats – with the U.S. using it as a tool to convince Canada to join the North American Free Trade Agreement.

[7:10] Canada’s historical options in trade disputes — historically, trade wars are an opportunity for Canadians to reflect on their best path forward. And we usually face three choices.

[8:01] Why have we eschewed the “third option” of diversifying our trading partners and instead increasingly turned into partnerships with the U.S.?

[9:01] And how has closer ties to the U.S. helped us through post-trade war recessions?

[10:18] Why this trade war is different.

[10:38] How are tariffs actually supposed to work, and why is that incongruent with how Donald Trump is wielding them?

[11:22] What role do previous trade agreements play if a key player just decides to ignore them entirely?

[12:09] Canadians are feeling betrayed.

[12:37] And if these tariffs remain in place long term, it does not bode well for the Canadian economy.

[13:40] Resilience in the face of disruption — perhaps now is a time for us to reflect and move towards a new economic path, less dependent on the U.S.

[15:29] “We do need to expect that there's going to be a rough ride. But most importantly, we need to rise to the challenge. We need entrepreneurs and governments and firms to start thinking about how Canadians can exploit the advantages that they have in a new kind of economy in the 21st century. Canadians should recognize that this provides an opportunity for us to start building on our strengths. And, you know, the great thing is that history shows us that the Canadian people have been pretty resilient in these situations.”

Be sure to check out the Executive Summary back catalogue. We tackle everything from why it’s time to explore a four-day work week to where you can actually get the best innovation.

Trust in institutions and leaders is on the decline. That's bad news for organizations navigating difficult times. How can companies build trust, and can you repair it once it's been broken? Professor Bill McEvily joins the season premiere of the Executive Summary podcast to explores those questions and more.

Show notes:

[0:00] Declining trust in institutions, businesses, and CEOs – Why public trust is at an all-time low.

[0:33] Meet Bill McEvily – University of Toronto professor and expert in organizational trust and leadership.

[1:42] Defining trust – What trust really means in the workplace and beyond.

[2:46] The three dimensions of trust – Understanding reliability, competence and integrity in people and organizations.

[4:02] The role of trust in the workplace – How trust drives productivity, collaboration and resilience during chaotic times.

[5:46] What breaks trust – Common behaviours, decisions and policies that erode trust in organizations.

[6:15] Examples of companies breaking trust – Real-world corporate missteps and lessons learned.

[7:39] Consequences of broken trust – Impact on employees, customers and overall organizational performance.

[8:24] Repairing trust – Why there is no magic formula, but consistently delivering on promises works.

[9:15] The importance of communication – How transparent, honest communication strengthens trust.

[11:21] Building trust remotely – Introducing Bill’s concept of “prismatic trust” for teams and stakeholders you don’t interact with directly.

[12:26] Lessons from EZ Trade – How companies can implement systems to build trust with people you’ve never met.

[13:14] Signals of trustworthiness – How organizations communicate who and what can be trusted.

[14:18] “It's important for people to understand that there are mechanisms for ascertaining trust, even when we don't have the ability to know people personally… Human beings are ingenious in figuring out how to trust strangers. But therein lies the paradox… it's just how human society functions.”

Season 4 launches September 9 — don’t miss it.

In today’s noisy world, finding clear, credible insight isn’t easy. That’s where the Rotman Executive Summary comes in. In less than 20 minutes, we bring you sharp, research-backed ideas from the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management — Canada’s leading business school.

This season, we’re tackling the questions leaders are asking right now:

• How can organizations rebuild trust when uncertainty is the only constant?
• What lessons from history can guide Canada’s economy today?
• Why more healthcare workers alone won’t fix our healthcare system — and what will.
• How to reignite creativity in your team, with evidence (not clichés).
• What can innovative companies learn from the #MeToo movement?
• What does the science say about persuasive writing?

Perfect for curious leaders, lifelong learners and anyone who wants to understand what’s really driving change in business and society. Listen between meetings, on your commute or over coffee — follow now so you never miss an episode.

Subscribe on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

What can your employees' LinkedIn and Glassdoor activity tell you about a company's prospects? More than you might think. From competition for top talent to out-of-sync business prospects, these platforms offer valuable insights — but are leaders paying attention? Assistant professor Nan Li joins Executive Summary to unpack what employees are really signaling and why companies must start listening.

Show notes

[0:00] Are you listening to what your employees are and aren’t telling you about your company’s prospects?

[0:29] Meet Nan Li, an assistant professor of accounting at the Rotman School of Management who studies human capital – that is employees – and its impact on company performance.

[1:46] Big changes are coming to the reporting standards world. Starting in 2027, companies in the U.S. will have to disclose how much of their expense line items (think R&D, administration, marketing) is spent on compensation.

[3:22] This news makes Nan and other researchers excited, since it’s a goldmine of insights.

[4:00] The changes are long overdue. While once a company’s output and profits were driven by things like machinery and widgets – so that was a primary focus on reports; as we shift into a knowledge economy, employees are becoming the biggest asset.

[5:11] What are peer firms, and why does it matter when it comes to talent pools?

[5:30] LinkedIn is changing how we define peer firms.

[7:13] Why is it important to know that, says, a car company isn’t just competing against other car manufacturers for talent?

[8:29] Glassdoor reviews, specifically “employee business outlook,” is predictive of firm performance. A bad employee outlook will likely mean a bad earnings report down the line.

[9:46] So why aren’t company leaders and financial analysts paying attention to social media as a source of information?

[11:36] Certain types of labour costs are directly tied to future sales growth. More money into R&D translates into greater profit down the line, while fixed costs like administration can make it easy to grow in good times, but dampen growth in hard times, Nan’s research finds.

[13:34] Employees certainly pay attention to company earning calls, and adjust their own outlook on a company accordingly. So perhaps it’s time employers start doing the same.

[15:11] “All the information there is public. So as a manager or analyst, you can just sign on to Glassdoor, write your own review about your company. And there are some academics and also practitioners already noticed or recognize that we are kind of falling behind.” That’s because employees aren’t just workers; they’re insiders. They are on the ground seeing how your company is really performing. So maybe it’s time leaders start treating employees not just as assets, but as one of their most valuable sources of insight.

The push to return to the office has sparked backlash — employees felt trusted to work remotely, so why take that control away? But what role does control play in mitigating or causing stress? And when is autonomy a bad thing? Professor Jia Lin Xie joined the Executive Summary to unpack how job demands, individual traits and culture shape our experience at work, and how to determine if complete control will be empowering or stress-inducing.

Show notes

[0:00] Meet professor Jia Lin Xie, an expert in job design, stress and employee well being. She’s in the middle of research exploring attitudes towards return to office.

[0:25] The pandemic gave employees control and autonomy over their work, and now many employees feel that control is being taken away by the RTO request. It turns out, once given, removing control can be detrimental. But should it always be given?

[1:26] We’re working in a “boundaryless” world, where technology enables us to be always connected.

[1:56] Research shows boundarylessness can boost job satisfaction, but it also contributes to emotional exhaustion and stress.

[3:35] Those who struggle with boundarylessness might blame their person-environment (P-E) fit.

[4:23] What happens when you have a “good” versus “bad” P-E fit? (Hint: it’s burnout!)

[4:48] Job demands — whether physical, cognitive, or emotional — can make or break your workplace experience.

[6:24] How does having control offset the risks of stressful job demands?

[8:35] Jia Lin questioned the widely held theory that control is always a buffer to job demand stress.

[10:08] Control isn’t always a good thing; things that affect your control include your abilities to do a task…

[11:41] …your attribution style…

[11:59] … and even your cultural background can impact its effectiveness at buffering stress. Take the difference between American and Hong Kong bank tellers.

[14:20] So if you’re struggling with control and autonomy, and think it’s causing you stress, you have to reflect on why that is.

[16:11] So, how can you tell if having more control at work will help or hurt you? Jia Lin has some questions you can ask yourself.

[18:26] The takeaway? Control isn’t one-size-fits-all. It’s about self-awareness, personal preferences, and the right support system.

We’ve been thinking about traffic all wrong. Sitting in congestion costs local economies billions in lost productivity, and governments invest heavily in easing the gridlock. But what if we’re solving the wrong problem? Associate Professor Victor Couture joins The Executive Summary to challenge conventional wisdom on city transportation networks — and explain why accessibility and density might be worth the slowdown.

Show notes

[0:00] Not only does sitting in traffic suck, it has an economic impact, which cities and governments try to blunt through traffic mitigation strategies.

[1:38] Meet Victor Couture, an expert on urban issues such as housing, gentrification and transportation.

[3:04] In 2023, Victor and colleagues released a paper benchmarking the fastest and slowest cities in the world.

[4:20] What makes a city fast versus slow?

[6:41] Flint, Michigan, in the U.S. earns the distinction as the world’s fastest city, but it’s not a blueprint for other cities to model.

[7:22] When it comes to moving people around a city, what is the ultimate goal of a city, and why isn’t it speed?

[8:38] What is the transportation network?

[9:07] What is accessibility in terms of transportation networks?

[10:46] When is speed via cars a good option?

[11:26] How does density affect productivity?

[11:40] Reducing congestion isn’t going to magically make a city more economically vibrant or affordable.

[12:12] Toronto is a case study for the density versus traffic speed debate. Victor’s research shows that the city is, on average, getting slower despite traffic mitigation strategies.

[13:32] So what about that tunnel under highway 401?

[14:41] Should the city rip out newly installed bike lanes?

[15:44] So what is the purpose of a trip?

[16:19] “For 1,000s of years, cities have been about bringing people into closer proximity. They've been about facilitating the flows of goods, the flows of people, the flows of ideas and the purpose of urban policy makers should be to facilitate those flows and create infrastructure and create institutions that let people realize those benefits of cities, that let people meet easily. That's the goal of a transportation network.”

"If AI didn’t offer such massive opportunities... we’d likely regulate it out of existence." On the latest episode of the Executive Summary, professor Dan Trefler explores the double-edged sword of artificial intelligence: Are the risks worth the rewards? Is bureaucratic red tape the solution — or just another hurdle? And how can the average citizen help fight the "great regulatory" battle?

Show notes:

[0:00] In 2023, tech leaders and academics signed a letter agreeing to hold off on future AI development until government regulation caught up…spoiler alert: it didn’t.

[0:48] Five years ago, it would have been impossible to imagine where AI development was going to be today…what will we see in the next five years?

[1:36] Meet Dan Trefler, a professor of economics and policy at the Rotman School of Management.

[2:29] Regulating “Artificial Intelligence” is impossible.

[3:50] What’s the 2025 state of affairs when it comes to regulating uses of AI?

[4:29] Dan sees one region of the world regulating the tech use about as well as they can.

[7:12] What is the competition problem?

[7:48] What is the coordination problem?

[8:29] What happens when we have competition and coordination working together seamlessly?

[9:46] So why can’t AI regulations follow the same successful model as car regulations?

[10:19] What’s the interpretability problem?

[11:18] California’s failed attempt at regulating AI companies is the perfect microcosm of the challenges we face.

[12:45] Where is the last place governments should regulate?

[13:49] To get a handle on things now, Dan wants us to focus on (1) extreme risks;

[14:28] (2) learning from other successful regulatory bodies like the FDA;

[14:49] and (3) exploring regulatory incentives that encourage positive uses of the technology.

[15:33] And citizens can help wage the great AI regulatory battle with their own personal choices.

[16:03] “I'm asking people to be much more forward looking than we normally tend to be. I want them to start anticipating risks which don't exist yet, because when they do come, as we've seen with past changes in AI, they will come in such a flurry that we won't be able to shovel our way out of our own homes. So let's start thinking hard about regulating things on a precautionary principle, not because they've happened, but because they might happen.”