Reference no: EM131721592
Adrian Ivinson is the director of Harvard Center for Neurodegeneration and Repair (HCNR), a not-for-profit research center at the Harvard Medical School (HMS). The center was started in late 2000 with a gift of $37.5 million from an anonymous donor. Its mandate was to conduct research that could lead to actual treatments for neurodegenerative disease (i.e., ALS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, MS, and Huntington's) and do so by encouraging collaboration among researchers in the HMS community. When Ivinson takes the helm in 2001, he finds a dysfunctional center with little organization or structure. In addition, he has little formal authority to make changes and he must navigate the complex culture of the HMS neurological research community as well as the HMS academic culture. Demonstrates Ivinson's efforts to develop HCNR as a catalyst for aligning scientific researchers in the HMS community by creating incentives for innovation and collaboration. Also, profiles the issues he faces as general manager at various stages of the organization's development--and how his style, priorities, and approach must change as the needs of the organization change. Provides an opportunity for action planning to address the major issues facing the HCNR at the end of 2005. Focuses on organizational culture, alignment, leadership style/fit, and change management.
Learning objective:
To analyze alignment issues, evaluate the protagonist's leadership of a dysfunctional organization in which he has no formal authority or power, and develop a plan of action for 2006 and beyond.
The case report should be no longer than one page single spaced (12 text size). You should start with a very brief summary of the case (one short paragraph, 2to4 sentences). You should then discuss what the key question(s) in the case is (are), who the key decision maker is, (some cases might not have one defined decision maker), what criteria should be used to make decisions, what the different alternatives are, what decision would you make, and why. At the end, provide 2-3 key lessons or takeaways from the case.