More from these Authors

• Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2012

  An Outside-Inside Evolution in Gender and Professional Work

  Lakshmi Ramarajan, Kathleen McGinn and Deborah Kolb

  We study the process by which a professional service firm reshaped its activities and beliefs over nearly two decades as it adapted to shifts in the social discourse regarding gender and work. Analyzing archival data from the firm over eighteen years and representations of gender and work from the business press over the corresponding two decades, we find that the firm internalized the broader social discourse through iterated cycles of analysis and action, punctuated by evolving beliefs about gender and work. Outside experts and shifting social understandings played pivotal roles in changing beliefs and activities inside the firm. We conclude with an internalization model depicting organizational adaptation to evolving social institutions.

  Keywords: gender; professional service firms; social institutions; organizational learning;

  Citation:

  Ramarajan, Lakshmi, Kathleen McGinn, and Deborah Kolb. "An Outside-Inside Evolution in Gender and Professional Work." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 13–051, November 2012.

  CiteView DetailsSSRNRead Now

  Related

• 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

• Case | HBS Case Collection | 2012 (Revised from original 2010 version)

  Public Architecture

  Lakshmi Ramarajan, Christopher Marquis and Bobbi Thomason

  Public Architecture is a non-profit architecture company dedicated to creating social and professional change through design for the public good. Public has focused on three strategies to create change: 1) promoting the design community's commitment to pro bono work, 2) inspiring action through creating design with a social mission, and 3) disseminating knowledge created by socially relevant design throughout the profession. As a central actor and change agent in the profession, Public Architecture created The 1% Program, a national network of architecture and design firms that have publicly pledged to donate 1% of their billable hours to the public good. However, the organization has been struggling to keep both The 1% Program and its own design initiatives integrated and reinforcing each other in creating social and professional change. Should Public split into two organizations? Would keeping the diverse elements within Public Architecture together force the entire organization to the least common denominator or would it provide them with a flexible platform for creating social change? These questions have important implications for Public's growth strategy, their funding, and resource allocation decisions.

  Keywords: Design; Innovation and Management; Growth and Development Strategy; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact; Organizational Culture; Organizational Structure; Nonprofit Organizations; Business Strategy; Integration;

  Citation:

  Ramarajan, Lakshmi, Christopher Marquis, and Bobbi Thomason. "Public Architecture." Harvard Business School Case 411-030, September 2012. (Revised from original July 2010 version.)

  CiteView DetailsPurchase

  Related