More from the Author

• Case | HBS Case Collection | 2012 (Revised from original 2011 version)

  Ganging Up on Cancer: Integrative Research Centers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (A)

  Heidi K. Gardner, Edo Bedzra and Shereef M. Elnahal

  Dr. Barrett Rollins, Chief Scientific Officer of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, attempts to engender cross-scientist collaboration by applying project management principles to medical research. The resulting innovation, Integrative Research Centers, are novel in this field and present a substantial challenge to the Institute's culture, which had previously allowed faculty scientists complete autonomy over their research. Center leaders are required to develop a business plan, adhere to agreed-upon performance metrics, and undergo regular progress reviews conducted by a peer-led oversight committee. The Center for Nanotechnology in Cancer, a new but crucial center in the program, has failed to meet almost all of its objectives in the first year. Furthermore, a heated dispute between two faculty members in the center has complicated matters significantly. Rollins is flummoxed by these problems because he thought he had provided resources and clear objectives to all of the centers. He must urgently diagnose the main reason(s) for the center's shortcomings and develop a plan of action so that this center's problems do not undermine the whole initiative toward greater scientific collaboration.

  Keywords: Problems and Challenges; Organizational Change and Adaptation; Change Management; Motivation and Incentives; Employees; Performance Evaluation; Leadership Style; Leadership; Collaborative Innovation and Invention; Innovation and Management;

  Citation:

  Gardner, Heidi K., Edo Bedzra, and Shereef M. Elnahal. "Ganging Up on Cancer: Integrative Research Centers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (A)." Harvard Business School Case 412-029, October 2012. (Revised from original September 2011 version.)

  CiteView DetailsPurchase

  Related

• Article | JMR, Journal of Marketing Research | April 2012

  The Impact of Relative Standards on the Propensity to Disclose

  Alessandro Acquisti, Leslie John and George Loewenstein

  Two sets of studies illustrate the comparative nature of disclosure behavior. The first set investigates how divulgence is affected by signals about others' readiness to divulge. Study 1A shows a "herding" effect, such that survey respondents are more willing to divulge sensitive information when told that previous respondents have made sensitive disclosures. We provide evidence of the process underlying this effect and rule out alternative explanations by showing that information on others' propensity to disclose affects respondents' discomfort associated with divulgence (Study 1B) and not their interpretation of the questions (Study 1C). The second set of studies suggests that divulgence is anchored by the initial questions in a survey; people are particularly likely to divulge when questions are presented in decreasing order of intrusiveness. Study 2B suggests that the effect arises by affecting people's judgments of the intrusiveness of the inquiries; Study 2C goes further by showing that the effect is altered when privacy concerns are primed at the outset of the study. This research helps understand how consumers' propensity to disclose is affected by continual streams of requests for personal information and by the equally unavoidable barrage of personal information about others.

  Keywords: Judgments; Surveys; Consumer Behavior; Standards; Corporate Disclosure; Management Practices and Processes;

  Citation:

  Acquisti, Alessandro, Leslie John, and George Loewenstein. "The Impact of Relative Standards on the Propensity to Disclose." JMR, Journal of Marketing Research (April 2012).

  CiteView DetailsFind at HarvardRead Now

  Related

• Article | Organization Studies | March 2012

  Racial Diversity, Racial Asymmetries, and Team Learning Environment: Effects on Performance

  Robin J. Ely, Irene Padavic and David A. Thomas

  This paper argues that learning in cross-race interactions is critical for work teams to realize performance benefits from racial diversity but that diversity is a liability when society's negative stereotypes about racial minorities' competence inhibit such interactions. We analyze two years of data from 496 retail bank branches to investigate racial asymmetries in the dynamics of team learning and their impact on the link between diversity and bottom-line performance. As expected, minorities' negative assessments of their team's learning environment precipitate a negative relationship between diversity and performance, irrespective of white teammates' assessments; only when both groups view the team's learning environment as supportive-implying that the team has successfully countered the negative effects of societal stereotypes on cross-race learning-is the relationship positive. We conclude that acknowledging the impact of societal asymmetries between racial groups, especially in regard to learning, can reorient research about the link between identity-group-based diversity and performance.

  Keywords: Diversity Characteristics; Groups and Teams; Learning; Performance;

  Citation:

  Ely, Robin J., Irene Padavic, and David A. Thomas. "Racial Diversity, Racial Asymmetries, and Team Learning Environment: Effects on Performance." Organization Studies 33, no. 3 (March 2012): 341–362.

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related