More from these Authors

• Article | Journal of Law, Economics & Organization | March 2020

  Do Managers Matter? A Natural Experiment from 42 R&D Labs in India

  Prithwiraj Choudhury, Tarun Khanna and Christos A. Makridis

  We exploit plausibly exogenous variation in the staggered entry of new managers into India’s 42 public R&D labs between 1994 and 2006 to study how alignment between the CEO and middle-level managers affect research productivity. We show that the introduction of new lab managers aligned with the national R&D reforms raised patenting and multinational licensing revenues by 58% and 75%, respectively, and scientist research productivity, including a 16%, 10%, 11%, and 22% increase in h-indices, number of coauthors, publications, and citations per scientist, respectively. Using natural language processing (NLP) techniques on the set of research abstracts produced among these scientists, we also find that overall mood and sentiment increased by 8.5% following the first managerial change.

  Keywords: incentives; innovation; productivity; Management; Alignment; Research and Development; Innovation and Invention; Performance Productivity; India;

  Citation:

  Choudhury, Prithwiraj, Tarun Khanna, and Christos A. Makridis. "Do Managers Matter? A Natural Experiment from 42 R&D Labs in India." Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 36, no. 1 (March 2020): 47–83.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Read Now

  Related

• Teaching Plan | HBS Case Collection | February 2020

  Health Leads: Reaching for Impact

  V. Kasturi Rangan, Sarah Appleby and Julia Kelley

  Citation:

  Rangan, V. Kasturi, Sarah Appleby, and Julia Kelley. "Health Leads: Reaching for Impact." Harvard Business School Teaching Plan 520-005, February 2020.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsPurchase

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | October 2014 (Revised January 2020)

  Gilead: Hepatitis C Access Strategy (A)

  V. Kasturi Rangan, Vikram Rangan and David E. Bloom

  Gilead had come up with an innovative drug for Hepatitis C, which affected 180 million people worldwide. The drug was priced at $1,000 a pill for the US market. Gilead had to decide how to price and market the pill in developing countries that bore the brunt of the disease. The company had earned accolades for its work in HIV/AIDS, where its innovative medicines now accounted for 60% of all patients on Anti-Retroviral (ARV) medicines. Much of this was accomplished through generic licensing, which brought a $10,000/year treatment regimen down to $100! Should the company replicate that strategy for Hepatitis C? If so, how would its US Healthcare customers, who were paying $84,000 per patient, react? On the other hand, Gilead had to balance the interests of its shareholders, who paid $11 billion for an acquisition that led to the new Hepatitis C drug.

  Keywords: healthcare; Pharmaceuticals; pricing; Access to care; Emerging Markets; Health Care and Treatment; Price; Strategy; Ethics; Health Industry; Pharmaceutical Industry;

  Citation:

  Rangan, V. Kasturi, Vikram Rangan, and David E. Bloom. "Gilead: Hepatitis C Access Strategy (A)." Harvard Business School Case 515-025, October 2014. (Revised January 2020.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related