Does 'What We Do' Make Us 'Who We Are'? Organizational Design and Identity Change at the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Ranjay  Gulati; Ryan  Raffaelli; Jan   Rivkin

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2016

Does 'What We Do' Make Us 'Who We Are'? Organizational Design and Identity Change at the Federal Bureau of Investigation

by Ranjay Gulati, Ryan Raffaelli and Jan Rivkin

Abstract

A good match between an organization's design ("what we do") and its identity ("who we are") is often seen as a key to strong performance. But maintaining a tight fit between design and identity is difficult when a profound external shock forces an organization to change both. How do design and identity change together? Prior research says little on this question because it has tended to study design change and identity change separately. This paper links the two by examining how the United States' Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) transformed itself after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Drawing on 138 interviews within the FBI and archival analysis of Congressional testimonies from 2001 to 2013, we trace how top management shifted the design and identity of the FBI from those of a law enforcement agency to those of a national security organization. Our examination reveals multiple ways in which design change and identity change interacted. We find instances in which urgent focus on design change consumed top management attention and crowded out identity change; in which experimentation in design made it premature to develop a new identity; and in which identity changed in order to support the design that emerged from experimentation. Interpretation of such observations leads us to new propositions about the interplay of design and identity in times of radical change. Overall, the propositions suggest that after a dramatic shock, efforts to ascertain and implement changes in "what we do" will often delay efforts to change "who we are."

Keywords: Mission and Purpose; Organizational Design; Transformation; Government and Politics;

Language: English

Format: Print

45 pages

Read Now

Citation:

Gulati, Ranjay, Ryan Raffaelli, and Jan Rivkin. "Does 'What We Do' Make Us 'Who We Are'? Organizational Design and Identity Change at the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 16-084, January 2016.

Case | HBS Case Collection | September 2019

Teaming Up To Win The Rail Deal At GE (A)

Amy Edmondson, Ranjay Gulati and Rachna Tahilyani

In 2012, Nalin Jain, then head of GE aviation for South Asia, was given the added responsibility for GE’s transportation business in India, including bidding for a $2.5 billion contract to manufacture, service and maintain 1,000 diesel locomotives for state owned Indian Railways (IR). The deal, which would have been “the largest deal on the planet” for the transportation business, had been under discussion for six years, and many within GE had given up hope that it would materialize, but Jain persisted. In February 2015, when IR requested companies to submit a financial bid in six months, Jain quickly built an autonomous team, sequestered from the rest of GE, with people from multiple businesses and functions. His team overcame internal resistance from people at headquarters and stiff competition to help GE win the deal by a narrow margin. Jain was then tasked with executing the deal. As many of his earlier team members had moved on, Jain hired new people and built a new diverse yet integrated team for execution, with members able to put aside their many differences, look beyond their functional silos, and focus on the project deliverables. However, 2017 brought a series of challenges. GE changed India’s organization structure, making India business leaders report only to their respective global business leaders instead of reporting to both their business leaders and the India country leader. Jain’s mandate was expanded to include the entire international operations of GE’s transportation business. And, sub-optimal company performance forced GE to announce cost cuts of $2 billion. In the face of this turmoil, Jain wonders, “Have I created an agile team that can succeed in GE’s matrix environment and deal with the internal challenges? Do the team members have the maturity and motivation required for the project to succeed?”

Keywords: Recruitment; Selection and Staffing; Human Capital; Leadership Style; Leading Change; Organizational Design; Organizational Structure; Industrial Products Industry; Manufacturing Industry; Rail Industry; Transportation Industry; United States; India;

Citation:

Edmondson, Amy, Ranjay Gulati, and Rachna Tahilyani. "Teaming Up To Win The Rail Deal At GE (A)." Harvard Business School Case 420-058, September 2019. View Details

Cite View Details Educators

In 1983, 14 years after the introduction of the battery-powered quartz watch, mechanical watches and the Swiss watchmakers who built them were predicted to be obsolete (Landes, 1983). Unexpectedly, however, by 2008 the Swiss mechanical watchmaking industry had rematerialized to become the world’s leading exporter (in monetary value) of watches. This study reveals the process and mechanisms associated with technology reemergence, i.e., the resurgence of substantive and sustained demand for an old (legacy) technology following the introduction of a new dominant design. Drawing on the case of mechanical watchmaking, it reveals how technology reemergence is a decidedly cognitive process, unfolding in two phases: a first phase marked by a redefinition of the meanings and values associated with the legacy technology and facilitated by mechanisms of value recombining, temporal distancing, identity marking, and conceptual bridging and a second phase marked by a redefinition of market boundaries and facilitated by mechanisms of competitive set reclaiming and enthusiast consumer mobilizing. For mechanical watchmakers, the process culminated in competitive and consumer differentiation that ushered in innovation reinvestment and a period of substantive and sustained demand growth for mechanical watches. This paper contributes to research on technology cycles, cognition, and incumbent responses to discontinuous change.

Faculty & Research

Does 'What We Do' Make Us 'Who We Are'? Organizational Design and Identity Change at the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors