Organizations—particularly human resources teams—tend to address bad behaviors very quietly while raising the visibility of good ones. Indeed, the more transparent workplaces have become, the harder HR has tried to keep employee transgressions private. But this research shows that making transgressions transparent, under the right conditions, may help rather than hurt an organization’s attempts to prevent those bad behaviors from reoccurring. Although making transgressions transparent—which can result in stigmatization or public shaming—is generally assumed to be purely punitive, in this study it fostered rehabilitation when employees developed a mutually acceptable narrative about their behavior and shared it with colleagues. For that narrative to endure, they needed to exercise self-control and avoid further transgressions, thus prompting rehabilitation.
Ethan S. Bernstein
Edward W. Conard Associate Professor of Business Administration
Edward W. Conard Associate Professor of Business Administration
Ethan Bernstein (@ethanbernstein) is an associate professor in the Organizational Behavior unit at Harvard Business School. He teaches the second-year MBA course Managing Human Capital, the HBS Live Online Classroom course Developing Yourself as a Leader, and various executive education programs. He previously taught the first-year MBA course Leadership and Organizational Behavior (LEAD), Innovation and Leadership Through the Fusion of Digital and Analog (an MBA immersive field course in Tokyo), and a PhD course on the craft of field research.
As workplaces evolve to meet rapidly changing needs, Professor Bernstein studies the impact of increased workplace transparency (who gets to observe whom--the observability of employee activities, routines, behaviors, and contributions) and increased workplace connectivity (who gets to communicate with whom--the patterns of human interaction that facilitate collaboration and information exchange) on employee behavior, organizational performance, and worker satisfaction. These two trends carry both benefits and hazards for organizations and their employees, with profound implications for how today’s managers need to lead, organize, design their organizations, and structure collaboration and work.
Previous research has shown that network centralization—the degree to which communication flows disproportionately through one or more members—interferes with collective problem-solving by obstructing the integration of ideas, information, and solutions. But this study finds that the mechanisms responsible for poor integration in relatively stable environments can actually facilitate adaptive problem-solving in shifting environments. When a communication network is more centralized, it can achieve the benefits of connectivity (e.g., promoting learning by generating an array of novel, better solutions) without incurring the costs (e.g., getting stuck on an existing, inferior solution due to conformity pressure). However, these advantages materialize only in networks with two-way flows of information, which are often impeded by hierarchical structures or digitally mediated communication—suggesting a need for new forms of organizing and a need for new approaches to structuring collaboration.
Organizational psychologists have long held that monitoring workers saps them of their autonomy and thereby reduces their effectiveness. Yet technology has intensified such surveillance in recent years: Managers now track everything from clinicians’ handwashing to truck drivers’ efficiency to customer service reps’ interactions, sometimes with no detriment to performance and with strong support, not protest, from employees. To better understand this upside, my coauthor and I studied a ubiquitous form of employee monitoring: police body-worn cameras. We find that the potential for positive impact hinges on who has access to the gathered data. Whereas prior research assumes that access resides almost exclusively with supervisors and other evaluators, technological advances have enabled employee access as well. When employee access is allowed, although the autonomy-reducing effect remains intact, the drain it would otherwise place on effectiveness is mitigated by alleviation of employees’ perceived social and ideological gap between themselves and their evaluators—what we refer to as polarization. That finding helps to explain why prior studies of BWCs failed to show a consistent impact on performance: the opposing effects of decreased autonomy (which puts a drag on performance) and decreased polarization (which boosts it) had not been disaggregated and had thus cancelled each other out, resulting either in non-significant results or, because the two effects were idiosyncratic in magnitude, in inconsistent results across contexts and studies.
We’re seeing renewed energy around smart buildings as organizations, their landlords, and developers consider what it will take to facilitate the return of more employees to physical workspaces post-pandemic. In particular, they are thinking about how emerging technologies, beyond garden-variety sensors and apps, can be used to track employees and keep them safe and productive. But what will come of all this energy? If we think big enough, smart buildings can play a key role in figuring out what work will (and should) look like in the coming months and years. They can be used to promote productive collaboration; improve virtual as well as physical work; gather rich data for coaching and development; and help us apply lessons we learn over time about effective work.
In early 2020, the world began what is undoubtedly the largest work-from-home experiment in history. Now, organizations continue to wrestle with whether and how to have workers return to their offices. Business leaders need to be able to answer a number of questions to make these decisions. Primary among them is “What impact has working from home had on productivity and creativity?”
To that end, my coauthors and I surveyed a diverse group of 680 U.S.-based white-collar employees every two weeks, starting mid-March 2020. (This article, one of the earliest published on this topic, previews results collected through May 2020, although we continued conducting the surveys for a full year.) We asked them about their job satisfaction, work engagement, perceptions of their own performance, conflicts with colleagues, stress levels, negative emotions, and current living situation, among other matters. The article summarizes our largely positive findings on the impact of remote work.
Winner of the annual MIT Sloan Management Review Richard Beckhard Memorial Prize, for the most outstanding MIT SMR article on planned change and organizational development. Chosen by MIT Sloan faculty judges Deborah Ancona, John Van Maanen, and Cyrus Gibson.
Leaders help establish a collaborative rhythm for employees—largely by planning work-group meetings, one-on-ones, end-of-shift handoffs, and so on. But collaboration has become much more complex and less controlled in recent years, given all the digital tools at employees’ disposal and the profusion of meetings that haven’t gone away. Orchestration has become quite a challenge.
In this article, my coauthors and I summarize our research on the value of intermittent collaboration for problem solving at work. While always-on connectivity helps people gather information and coordinate efforts, dedicated unplugged time is needed to support innovation and productivity. By having employees alternate between the two, organizations can reap the benefits and minimize the risks of increased connectivity.
But as the physical and technological structures for omnichannel collaboration proliferate, evidence suggests they are fostering behaviors at odds with designers’ expectations and business managers’ desires. In a number of workplaces my coauthor and I have studied, such structures have produced less—and less meaningful—interaction, not more.
This article explores those unintended consequences. It also describes experiments that organizations can conduct to learn how employees really interact so people can then be equipped with the spaces and technologies that best support their needs.
Holacracy and other forms of self-organization have received a lot of press. Proponents hail them as "flat" environments that foster flexibility, engagement, productivity, and efficiency. Critics say they're naive, unrealistic experiments. My coauthors and I argue, using evidence from several organizations that have adopted these forms, that neither view is quite right. Although the new forms (built upon on a half-century of research on and experience with self-managed teams) can help organizations become more adaptable and nimble, most companies shouldn't adopt the principles wholesale. A piecemeal approach usually makes more sense. Organizations can use elements of self-management in areas where the need for adaptability is high and traditional models where reliability is paramount.
2014 INGRoup Outstanding Conference Paper
When it comes to solving problems, the connectedness enabled by transparent, open collaboration is a double-edged sword. Problem-solving involves both the search for information (facts, or puzzle pieces needed to solve a problem) and the search for solutions (figuring, or interpretations of those facts into theories and ultimately solutions). Connectivity among collaborators allows coordinated information gathering so that facts are found more efficiently. But it also allows coordinated interpretations of those facts into solutions (otherwise known as copying!), leading to a premature, suboptimal consensus. As my coauthor and I explain in much more detail in this paper, leading effective problem-solving teams thus requires flexibility in how collaboration is structured at different phases of the process.To get people to be more creative and productive, managers increase transparency with open workspaces and access to real-time data. But my research shows that less-transparent work environments can actually yield more-transparent employees who solve problems more effectively. Through close analysis of workers’ behaviors in various settings—including a mobile phone factory, a video game company, a trucking company, and a large retailer—I find that employees perform better when they can try out new ideas and approaches within certain zones of privacy. Organizations allow them to do that by drawing four types of boundaries: around teams of people (to create zones of attention), between feedback and evaluation (to cordon off zones of judgment from development), between decision rights and improvement rights (to carve out zones of slack), and for set periods of experimentation (to establish protected zones of time). By balancing transparency and privacy, organizations can encourage just the right amount of “productive deviance” to foster innovative behavior and boost performance.
2013 Winner of Academy of Management Awards for Outstanding Publication in Organizational Behavior and Best Published Paper in Organization and Management Theory
Using data from embedded participant-observers and a field experiment at the second largest mobile phone factory in the world, located in China, I theorize and test the implications of transparent organizational design on workers’ productivity and organizational performance. Drawing from theory and research on learning and control, I introduce the notion of a transparency paradox, whereby observing workers may counterintuitively impede their performance by inducing them to conceal their activities through codes and other costly means; conversely, creating zones of privacy may, under certain conditions, improve performance. Empirical evidence from the field shows that even a modest increase in group-level privacy sustainably and significantly improves line performance, while qualitative evidence suggests that privacy is important in supporting productive deviance, localized experimentation, distraction avoidance, and continuous improvement. I discuss implications of these results for theory on learning and control and suggest directions for future research.
Ethan Bernstein (@ethanbernstein) is an associate professor in the Organizational Behavior unit at Harvard Business School. He teaches the second-year MBA course Managing Human Capital, the HBS Live Online Classroom course Developing Yourself as a Leader, and various executive education programs. He previously taught the first-year MBA course Leadership and Organizational Behavior (LEAD), Innovation and Leadership Through the Fusion of Digital and Analog (an MBA immersive field course in Tokyo), and a PhD course on the craft of field research.
As workplaces evolve to meet rapidly changing needs, Professor Bernstein studies the impact of increased workplace transparency (who gets to observe whom--the observability of employee activities, routines, behaviors, and contributions) and increased workplace connectivity (who gets to communicate with whom--the patterns of human interaction that facilitate collaboration and information exchange) on employee behavior, organizational performance, and worker satisfaction. These two trends carry both benefits and hazards for organizations and their employees, with profound implications for how today’s managers need to lead, organize, design their organizations, and structure collaboration and work.
Professor Bernstein’s research has been published in journals such as Administrative Science Quarterly, Organization Science, Academy of Management Annals, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Harvard Business Review, Research in Organizational Change and Development, and People + Strategy, and it has been covered by The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, NPR, Inc., Forbes, Fast Company, Bloomberg Businessweek, Esquire, Nikkei Business, Nikkei Shimbun, Le Monde, Maeil Business (Korea), and TEDxBoston, among other outlets.
For his work on organizations and leadership, Professor Bernstein is a 2020 Richard Beckhard Memorial Prize winner and a 2014 HBR McKinsey Award finalist. His research has won INGRoup’s inaugural J. Richard Hackman Award for the Dissertation That Most Significantly Advances the Study of Groups, the Academy of Management’s 2013 Outstanding Publication Award in Organizational Behavior, the Academy of Management’s 2013 Best Published Paper Award in Organization and Management Theory, the Academy of Management's 2015 Outstanding Practitioner-Oriented Publication Award in Organizational Behavior, the Academy of Management's 2014 Best Dissertation-Based Paper Award in Organizational Behavior, the INGRoup 2014 Outstanding Paper award, the 2013 Fredric M. Jablin Doctoral Dissertation Award from the International Leadership Association, the HBS Wyss Award for Excellence in Research, and the Susan G. Cohen Doctoral Research Award.
Prior to joining the HBS faculty, Professor Bernstein spent a half-decade at The Boston Consulting Group in Toronto and Tokyo. Tapped by Elizabeth Warren in 2010 to join the implementation team at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he spent nearly two years in executive positions, including Chief Strategy Officer and Deputy Assistant Director of Mortgage Markets, at this newly established United States federal agency.
Professor Bernstein earned his doctorate in management at Harvard, where he also received a JD/MBA degree. While a doctoral student, he was a Kauffman Foundation Fellow in Law, Innovation, and Growth, and he remains a member of the New York and Massachusetts Bar Associations. He holds an AB in Economics from Amherst College, which included study at Doshisha University in Kyoto.
Professor Bernstein is an avid cyclist, skier, swimmer, reader, and “Wait Wait…Don't Tell Me!” listener. Originally from Los Angeles, he and his family now live in Newton, Massachusetts.
- Featured Work
-
Rehabilitation Through Transgression Transparency and Personal Narrative Control
Organizations—particularly human resources teams—tend to address bad behaviors very quietly while raising the visibility of good ones. Indeed, the more transparent workplaces have become, the harder HR has tried to keep employee transgressions private. But this research shows that making transgressions transparent, under the right conditions, may help rather than hurt an organization’s attempts to prevent those bad behaviors from reoccurring. Although making transgressions transparent—which can result in stigmatization or public shaming—is generally assumed to be purely punitive, in this study it fostered rehabilitation when employees developed a mutually acceptable narrative about their behavior and shared it with colleagues. For that narrative to endure, they needed to exercise self-control and avoid further transgressions, thus prompting rehabilitation.
Certain kinds of centralization can help organizations solve problems in dynamic settingsPrevious research has shown that network centralization—the degree to which communication flows disproportionately through one or more members—interferes with collective problem-solving by obstructing the integration of ideas, information, and solutions. But this study finds that the mechanisms responsible for poor integration in relatively stable environments can actually facilitate adaptive problem-solving in shifting environments. When a communication network is more centralized, it can achieve the benefits of connectivity (e.g., promoting learning by generating an array of novel, better solutions) without incurring the costs (e.g., getting stuck on an existing, inferior solution due to conformity pressure). However, these advantages materialize only in networks with two-way flows of information, which are often impeded by hierarchical structures or digitally mediated communication—suggesting a need for new forms of organizing and a need for new approaches to structuring collaboration.
Police Body Cameras Not Only Constrain but Also DepolarizeOrganizational psychologists have long held that monitoring workers saps them of their autonomy and thereby reduces their effectiveness. Yet technology has intensified such surveillance in recent years: Managers now track everything from clinicians’ handwashing to truck drivers’ efficiency to customer service reps’ interactions, sometimes with no detriment to performance and with strong support, not protest, from employees. To better understand this upside, my coauthor and I studied a ubiquitous form of employee monitoring: police body-worn cameras. We find that the potential for positive impact hinges on who has access to the gathered data. Whereas prior research assumes that access resides almost exclusively with supervisors and other evaluators, technological advances have enabled employee access as well. When employee access is allowed, although the autonomy-reducing effect remains intact, the drain it would otherwise place on effectiveness is mitigated by alleviation of employees’ perceived social and ideological gap between themselves and their evaluators—what we refer to as polarization. That finding helps to explain why prior studies of BWCs failed to show a consistent impact on performance: the opposing effects of decreased autonomy (which puts a drag on performance) and decreased polarization (which boosts it) had not been disaggregated and had thus cancelled each other out, resulting either in non-significant results or, because the two effects were idiosyncratic in magnitude, in inconsistent results across contexts and studies.
Intelligent environments can make the workplace safer and improve collaboration.We’re seeing renewed energy around smart buildings as organizations, their landlords, and developers consider what it will take to facilitate the return of more employees to physical workspaces post-pandemic. In particular, they are thinking about how emerging technologies, beyond garden-variety sensors and apps, can be used to track employees and keep them safe and productive. But what will come of all this energy? If we think big enough, smart buildings can play a key role in figuring out what work will (and should) look like in the coming months and years. They can be used to promote productive collaboration; improve virtual as well as physical work; gather rich data for coaching and development; and help us apply lessons we learn over time about effective work.
Early research on how people are—and aren’t—adapting and how leaders can help.In early 2020, the world began what is undoubtedly the largest work-from-home experiment in history. Now, organizations continue to wrestle with whether and how to have workers return to their offices. Business leaders need to be able to answer a number of questions to make these decisions. Primary among them is “What impact has working from home had on productivity and creativity?”
To that end, my coauthors and I surveyed a diverse group of 680 U.S.-based white-collar employees every two weeks, starting mid-March 2020. (This article, one of the earliest published on this topic, previews results collected through May 2020, although we continued conducting the surveys for a full year.) We asked them about their job satisfaction, work engagement, perceptions of their own performance, conflicts with colleagues, stress levels, negative emotions, and current living situation, among other matters. The article summarizes our largely positive findings on the impact of remote work.
Alternating between always-on connectivity and heads-down focus is essential for problem-solving.Winner of the annual MIT Sloan Management Review Richard Beckhard Memorial Prize, for the most outstanding MIT SMR article on planned change and organizational development. Chosen by MIT Sloan faculty judges Deborah Ancona, John Van Maanen, and Cyrus Gibson.
Leaders help establish a collaborative rhythm for employees—largely by planning work-group meetings, one-on-ones, end-of-shift handoffs, and so on. But collaboration has become much more complex and less controlled in recent years, given all the digital tools at employees’ disposal and the profusion of meetings that haven’t gone away. Orchestration has become quite a challenge.In this article, my coauthors and I summarize our research on the value of intermittent collaboration for problem solving at work. While always-on connectivity helps people gather information and coordinate efforts, dedicated unplugged time is needed to support innovation and productivity. By having employees alternate between the two, organizations can reap the benefits and minimize the risks of increased connectivity.
There are reasons why they don't produce the desired interactions.It’s never been easier for workers to collaborate—or so it seems. Open, flexible, activity-based spaces are displacing cubicles, making people more visible. Messaging is displacing phone calls, making people more accessible. Enterprise social media tools are displacing watercooler conversations, making people more connected. Virtual-meeting software is displacing in-person meetings, making people ever-present. The architecture of collaboration has not changed so quickly since technological advances in lighting and ventilation made tall office buildings feasible, and one could argue that it has never before been so efficient and transparent. Designing workplaces for interaction between two or more individuals—or collaboration, from the Latin collaborare, meaning to work together—has never seemed so seamless.
But as the physical and technological structures for omnichannel collaboration proliferate, evidence suggests they are fostering behaviors at odds with designers’ expectations and business managers’ desires. In a number of workplaces my coauthor and I have studied, such structures have produced less—and less meaningful—interaction, not more.
This article explores those unintended consequences. It also describes experiments that organizations can conduct to learn how employees really interact so people can then be equipped with the spaces and technologies that best support their needs.The overwrought claims—and actual promise—of the next generation of self-managed teams.Holacracy and other forms of self-organization have received a lot of press. Proponents hail them as "flat" environments that foster flexibility, engagement, productivity, and efficiency. Critics say they're naive, unrealistic experiments. My coauthors and I argue, using evidence from several organizations that have adopted these forms, that neither view is quite right. Although the new forms (built upon on a half-century of research on and experience with self-managed teams) can help organizations become more adaptable and nimble, most companies shouldn't adopt the principles wholesale. A piecemeal approach usually makes more sense. Organizations can use elements of self-management in areas where the need for adaptability is high and traditional models where reliability is paramount.
An experimental investigation of network structure and performance in information and solution spaces.2014 INGRoup Outstanding Conference Paper
When it comes to solving problems, the connectedness enabled by transparent, open collaboration is a double-edged sword. Problem-solving involves both the search for information (facts, or puzzle pieces needed to solve a problem) and the search for solutions (figuring, or interpretations of those facts into theories and ultimately solutions). Connectivity among collaborators allows coordinated information gathering so that facts are found more efficiently. But it also allows coordinated interpretations of those facts into solutions (otherwise known as copying!), leading to a premature, suboptimal consensus. As my coauthor and I explain in much more detail in this paper, leading effective problem-solving teams thus requires flexibility in how collaboration is structured at different phases of the process.2014 HBR McKinsey Award FinalistTo get people to be more creative and productive, managers increase transparency with open workspaces and access to real-time data. But my research shows that less-transparent work environments can actually yield more-transparent employees who solve problems more effectively. Through close analysis of workers’ behaviors in various settings—including a mobile phone factory, a video game company, a trucking company, and a large retailer—I find that employees perform better when they can try out new ideas and approaches within certain zones of privacy. Organizations allow them to do that by drawing four types of boundaries: around teams of people (to create zones of attention), between feedback and evaluation (to cordon off zones of judgment from development), between decision rights and improvement rights (to carve out zones of slack), and for set periods of experimentation (to establish protected zones of time). By balancing transparency and privacy, organizations can encourage just the right amount of “productive deviance” to foster innovative behavior and boost performance.
A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control2013 Winner of Academy of Management Awards for Outstanding Publication in Organizational Behavior and Best Published Paper in Organization and Management Theory
Using data from embedded participant-observers and a field experiment at the second largest mobile phone factory in the world, located in China, I theorize and test the implications of transparent organizational design on workers’ productivity and organizational performance. Drawing from theory and research on learning and control, I introduce the notion of a transparency paradox, whereby observing workers may counterintuitively impede their performance by inducing them to conceal their activities through codes and other costly means; conversely, creating zones of privacy may, under certain conditions, improve performance. Empirical evidence from the field shows that even a modest increase in group-level privacy sustainably and significantly improves line performance, while qualitative evidence suggests that privacy is important in supporting productive deviance, localized experimentation, distraction avoidance, and continuous improvement. I discuss implications of these results for theory on learning and control and suggest directions for future research.
- Journal Articles
-
- Bernstein, Ethan S., Jesse C. Shore, and Alice J. Jang. "Network Centralization and Collective Adaptability to a Shifting Environment." Organization Science 34, no. 6 (November–December 2023): 2064–2096. View Details
- Patil, Shefali V., and Ethan Bernstein. "Uncovering the Mitigating Psychological Response to Monitoring Technologies: Police Body Cameras Not Only Constrain but Also Depolarize." Organization Science 33, no. 2 (March–April 2022): 541–570. (*The authors contributed equally to this manuscript.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Hayley Blunden, Andrew Brodsky, Wonbin Sohn, and Ben Waber. "The Implications of Working Without an Office." Special Issue on The New Reality of WFH. Harvard Business Review: The Big Idea (July 2020). View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Ben Waber. "The Truth About Open Offices: There Are Reasons Why They Don't Produce the Desired Interactions." Harvard Business Review 97, no. 6 (November–December 2019): 82–91. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan S., Jesse Shore, and David Lazer. "Improving the Rhythm of Your Collaboration." MIT Sloan Management Review 61, no. 1 (Fall 2019). View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Jesse Shore, and David Lazer. "How Intermittent Breaks in Interaction Improve Collective Intelligence." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 35 (August 28, 2018). View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Stephen Turban. "The Impact of the 'Open' Workspace on Human Collaboration." Art. 239. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences 373, no. 1753 (August 19, 2018). View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "Making Transparency Transparent: The Evolution of Observation in Management Theory." Academy of Management Annals 11, no. 1 (2017): 217–266. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, John Bunch, Niko Canner, and Michael Lee. "Beyond the Holacracy Hype: The Overwrought Claims—and Actual Promise—of the Next Generation of Self-Managed Teams." Harvard Business Review 94, nos. 7-8 (July–August 2016): 38–49. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Ryan W. Buell. "Can You Cut 'Turn Times' Without Adding Staff?" R1604K. Harvard Business Review 94, no. 4 (April 2016): 113–117. View Details
- Shore, Jesse, Ethan Bernstein, and David Lazer. "Facts and Figuring: An Experimental Investigation of Network Structure and Performance in Information and Solution Spaces." Organization Science 26, no. 5 (September–October 2015): 1432–1446. (Won 2014 INGRoup Outstanding Paper Award.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "The Transparency Trap." Harvard Business Review 92, no. 10 (October 2014): 58–66. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan S. "The Transparency Paradox: A Role for Privacy in Organizational Learning and Operational Control." Administrative Science Quarterly 57, no. 2 (June 2012): 181–216. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "Why We Hide Some of Our Best Work." Harvard Business Review Blogs (September 24, 2014). View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Saravanan Kesavan, and Bradley Staats. "How to Manage Scheduling Software Fairly." Harvard Business Review Blogs (September 2, 2014). (A version of this article appeared in the December 2014 issue of Harvard Business Review under the title "Taming Scheduling Software.") View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "How Being Filmed Changes Employee Behavior." Harvard Business Review Blogs (September 12, 2014). View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan S., and Frank J. Barrett. "Strategic Change and the Jazz Mindset: Exploring Practices That Enhance Dynamic Capabilities for Organizational Improvisation." Research in Organizational Change and Development 19 (2011): 55–90. View Details
- Kennedy, Leonard J., Patricia A. McCoy, and Ethan S. Bernstein. "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Financial Regulation for the Twenty-First Century." Cornell Law Review 97, no. 5 (July 2012): 1141–1176. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan S. "All's Fair in Love, War, & Bankruptcy: Corporate Governance Implications of CEO Turnover in Financial Distress." Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance 11, no. 2 (spring 2006): 299–325. View Details
- Hara, George, David James Brunner, Ethan S. Bernstein, and Asumi Nonomiya. "公益資本主義の確立に向けて公式・非公式の「制度」を再設計する." Shūkan Daiyamondo [Diamond Weekly] 97, no. 41 (October 17, 2009). View Details
- Hara, George, David James Brunner, Ethan S. Bernstein, and Asumi Nonomiya. "公益資本主義の確立に向けて 株主至上主義・市場万能主義の限界." Shūkan Daiyamondo [Diamond Weekly] 97, no. 40 (October 10, 2009): 164–171. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan S. "All's Fair in Love, War & Bankruptcy?: Corporate Governance Implications of CEO Turnover in Financial Distress." Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance 11, no. 2 (spring 2006): 228–325. View Details
- Book Chapters
-
- Kanter, Rosabeth M., Matthew Bird, Ethan Bernstein, and Ryan Raffaelli. "How Leaders Use Values-based Guidance Systems to Create Dynamic Capabilities." Chap. 2 in The Oxford Handbook of Dynamic Capabilities, edited by David J. Teece and Sohvi Leih. Oxford University Press, 2015. Electronic. View Details
- Lazer, David, and Ethan Bernstein. "Problem Solving and Search in Networks." Chap. 17 in Cognitive Search: Evolution, Algorithms, and the Brain, edited by Peter M. Todd, Thomas T. Hills, and Trevor W. Robbins, 269–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012. View Details
- Cases and Teaching Materials
-
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Cara Mazzucco. "Sensing (and Monetizing) Happiness at Hitachi." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 424-052, March 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "Safecast: Bootstrapping Human Capital to Big Data." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 424-050, March 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "Engaging the Nationwide Workforce: What Nationwide Did and Its Impact." Harvard Business School Multimedia/Video Supplement 424-706, March 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "Module Note on the Structuring of Collaborative Work." Harvard Business School Module Note 424-054, March 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "P-Will at DISCO." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 424-051, February 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Jeff Steiner. "Engaging the Nationwide Workforce." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 424-033, March 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Cara Mazzucco. "RBC: Transforming Transformation (A) and (B)." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 424-053, February 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Cara Mazzucco. "Winning Business at Russell Reynolds." Harvard Business School Multimedia/Video Supplement 424-704, January 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "JTC: Stronger Together with Shared Ownership: What JTC Did and Its Impact." Harvard Business School Multimedia/Video Supplement 424-707, February 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Cara Mazzucco. "JTC: Stronger Together with Shared Ownership." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 424-034, February 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Cara Mazzucco. "Winning Business at Russell Reynolds." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 424-049, January 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Tatiana Sandino. "Buurtzorg." Harvard Business School Multimedia/Video Supplement 424-705, January 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "GROW: Using Artificial Intelligence to Screen Human Intelligence." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 424-048, February 2024. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Tatiana Sandino. "Buurtzorg." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 124-059, December 2023. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "Candor at Clever." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 424-024, December 2023. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Tatiana Sandino, Joost Minnaar, and Annelena Lobb. "Buurtzorg." Harvard Business School Case 122-101, June 2022. (Revised January 2023.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Cara Mazzucco. "Winning Business at Russell Reynolds (C)." Harvard Business School Spreadsheet Supplement 422-703, February 2022. (Revised January 2024.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Cara Mazzucco. "Winning Business at Russell Reynolds (B)." Harvard Business School Supplement 422-046, March 2022. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Cara Mazzucco. "Winning Business at Russell Reynolds (A)." Harvard Business School Case 422-045, March 2022. (Revised May 2022.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Francesca Gino, and Aldo Sesia. "RBC: Transforming Transformation (B)." Harvard Business School Supplement 920-045, June 2020. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Francesca Gino, and Aldo Sesia. "RBC: Transforming Transformation (A)." Harvard Business School Case 920-008, June 2020. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "Coaching Makena Lane." Harvard Business School Multimedia/Video Supplement 420-718, February 2020. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan S., Jessica Gover, and Sarah Mehta. "Engaging the Nationwide Workforce." Harvard Business School Case 420-036, October 2019. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Daniela Beyersdorfer. "JTC: Stronger Together with Shared Ownership." Harvard Business School Case 420-008, September 2019. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Nick Rekenthaler. "Note on Shared Ownership." Harvard Business School Background Note 420-030, August 2019. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Amy Ross. "Note on Structured Interviewing." Harvard Business School Background Note 420-032, August 2019. (Revised March 2020.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Om Lala. "Coaching Makena Lane." Harvard Business School Case 418-031, October 2017. (Revised October 2020.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "Coaching Makena Lane." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 419-082, May 2019. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Kirstin Lynde. "Developing Yourself as a Leader: A Framework for Millennial High Potentials & Emerging Leaders: How to PACE Your Self-Development." Harvard Business School Background Note 419-045, May 2019. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Om Lala. "Candor at Clever." Harvard Business School Case 418-087, June 2018. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Naoko Jinjo, and Yuna Sakuma. "P-Will at DISCO." Harvard Business School Case 419-035, October 2018. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Stephanie Marton. "Safecast: Bootstrapping Human Capital to Big Data." Harvard Business School Case 419-033, October 2018. (Revised August 2023.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Carin-Isabel Knoop. "Note on Managing Workforce Reductions." Harvard Business School Background Note 419-039, October 2018. (Revised March 2019.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Michael Norris. "A Note on Compensation." Harvard Business School Technical Note 419-020, August 2018. (Revised August 2019.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "Note on Hackathons." Harvard Business School Background Note 419-021, August 2018. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Stephanie Marton. "Sensing (and Monetizing) Happiness at Hitachi." Harvard Business School Case 418-019, September 2017. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Paul McKinnon, and Paul Yarabe. "GROW: Using Artificial Intelligence to Screen Human Intelligence." Harvard Business School Case 418-020, August 2017. (Revised July 2019.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Saravanan Kesavan, Bradley Staats, Luke Hassall, and Kathy Qu. "Belk: Toward Exceptional Scheduling." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 417-059, March 2017. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Francesca Gino, and Bradley Staats. "Opening the Valve: From Software to Hardware." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 417-060, February 2017. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Ryan W. Buell. "Trouble at Tessei." Harvard Business School Multimedia/Video Supplement 616-706, March 2016. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Ryan W. Buell. "Trouble at Tessei." Harvard Business School Case 615-044, January 2015. (Revised October 2015.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Ryan Buell. "Trouble at Tessei." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 616-031, October 2015. (Revised February 2020.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, and Nitin Nohria. "Note on Organizational Structure." Harvard Business School Background Note 491-083, February 1991. (Revised May 2016.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Francesca Gino, and Bradley Staats. "Opening the Valve: From Software to Hardware (A)." Harvard Business School Case 415-015, August 2014. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Francesca Gino, and Bradley Staats. "Opening the Valve: From Software to Hardware (B)." Harvard Business School Supplement 415-016, August 2014. (Revised August 2015.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Ryan Raffaelli, and Joshua Margolis. "Leader-as-Architect: Alignment." Harvard Business School Background Note 415-039, October 2014. View Details
- Shih, Willy, Ethan Bernstein, and Nina Bilimoria. "Jieliang Phone Home! (A)." Harvard Business School Case 609-080, February 2009. (Revised July 2012.) View Details
- Shih, Willy, Ethan Bernstein, and Nina Bilimoria. "Jieliang Phone Home! (B)." Harvard Business School Supplement 609-081, February 2009. (Revised August 2021.) View Details
- Shih, Willy, Ethan Bernstein, and Nina Bilimoria. "Jieliang Phone Home! (C)." Harvard Business School Supplement 609-082, February 2009. (Revised July 2012.) View Details
- Shih, Willy C., Ethan S. Bernstein, and Nina Yaz Bilimoria. "Jieliang Phone Home! (Video)." Harvard Business School Multimedia/Video Supplement 609-704, April 2009. View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan, Saravanan Kesavan, Bradley Staats, and Luke Hassall. "Belk: Towards Exceptional Scheduling." Harvard Business School Case 415-023, September 2014. (Revised February 2017.) View Details
- Bernstein, Ethan. "Leadership and Teaming." Harvard Business School Background Note 414-033, September 2013. (Revised August 2015.) View Details
- Bohmer, Richard, Ethan Bernstein, Margarita Krivitski, and Srinidhi Reddy. "The Case of the Unidentified Healthcare Companies2010." Harvard Business School Case 611-043, January 2011. (Revised January 2012.) View Details
- Bohmer, Richard M.J., Ethan S. Bernstein, Margarita Krivitski, and Srinidhi Reddy. "The Case of the Unidentified Healthcare Companies2010 (CW)." Harvard Business School Spreadsheet Supplement 611-701, January 2011. (Revised January 2012.) View Details
- Bohmer, Richard M.J., and Ethan S. Bernstein. "The Case of the Unidentified Healthcare Companies2010 (TN)." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 611-044, January 2011. (Revised January 2012.) View Details
- Shih, Willy, and Ethan Bernstein. "Assembling Smartphones: Takt Time ≠ Cycle Time?" Harvard Business School Case 611-012, September 2010. (Revised December 2012.) View Details
- Shih, Willy C., Ethan S. Bernstein, Maly Hout Bernstein, Jyun-Cheng Wang, and Yi-Ling Wei. "A Giant Among Women." Harvard Business School Case 610-096, April 2010. View Details
- Kanter, Rosabeth M., and Ethan S Bernstein. "Omron: Sensing Society." Harvard Business School Case 309-066, November 2008. (Revised February 2009.) View Details
- Fubini, David, Ethan Bernstein, Mark Saadine, Sarah McAra, and James Barnett. "Winning (and Losing) the Olympics: Boston 2024 (B)." Harvard Business School Supplement 418-029, November 2017. View Details
- Fubini, David, Ethan Bernstein, Mark Saadine, Sarah McAra, and James Barnett. "Winning (and Losing) the Olympics: Boston 2024 (A)." Harvard Business School Case 418-024, November 2017. (Revised June 2019.) View Details
- Magazine Articles
-
- Hara, George, David James Brunner, Ethan S. Bernstein, and Asumi Nonomiya. "公益資本主義の確立に向けて 株主至上主義・市場万能主義の限界." Shūkan Daiyamondo [Diamond Weekly] 97, no. 40 (October 10, 2009): 164–171. View Details
- Hara, George, David James Brunner, Ethan S. Bernstein, and Asumi Nonomiya. "公益資本主義の確立に向けて公式・非公式の「制度」を再設計する." Shūkan Daiyamondo [Diamond Weekly] 97, no. 41 (October 17, 2009). View Details
- "Interview with Prof. Ethan Bernstein." Nikkei bijinesu [Nikkei Business] (November 21, 2014). View Details
- Research Summary
-
My research focuses on two interrelated organizational trends that have become salient in the 21st century: workplace transparency (who gets to observe whom) and workplace connectivity (who gets to communicate with whom). Open offices and factories have made what was unobservable observed; advanced surveillance and tracking have made what was private public; ubiquitous communication technologies have made what was isolated connected; a surge in people-related data and analytics tools has made what was unknowable known. In particular, this evolution of the workplace has ushered in: (1) increased transparency—via greater physical or digital observability of employee activities, routines, behaviors, output, and/or performance—allowing managers to find new ways of ensuring that work gets done; and (2) increased connectivity—via intraorganizational network tools that structurally rewire and boost patterns of human interaction to facilitate collaboration and information exchange—giving rise to novel work structures and organizational forms. These two trends carry both benefits and hazards for organizations and their employees, with profound implications for scholars, educators, and managers.
Through my research, I investigate the impact of these two trends on employee behavior, organizational performance, and worker satisfaction. Specifically, I explore the dynamic interplay between the interests of the observers and the observed—often (but not always) managers and employees, respectively—to better understand how leaders can avoid unintended consequences of managerial practices that are intuitively appealing but result in too much or too little workplace transparency and connectivity. This is especially important as employees who once felt they had too little visibility and connection are now becoming more concerned about privacy and communication overload. My work also explores how organizations can unlock hidden benefits of seemingly counterintuitive practices around transparency and connectivity—counterintuitive because their outcomes are unexpectedly better than theory would predict. For example, my studies show that more-transparent workplaces can result in less-transparent employee behavior (the transparency paradox); that less privacy around employee transgressions can yield more rehabilitation; that moves to more-open workspaces can yield less face-to-face interaction; that less connected organizations can solve complex problems more ably and adaptably; and so on.Keywords: Privacy; Transparency; Productivity; Field Experiments; Communication; Design; Human Resources; Leadership; Management; Organizational Design; Organizational Structure; Performance; Groups and Teams; Networks; Behavior; Social and Collaborative Networks; Satisfaction; North America; Europe; Asia; China; Japan; Latin AmericaWorkplace transparency provides a foundation for learning and control, and therefore for satisfaction and productivity. Yet my research shows that an obsession with transparency-enhancing tools and structures can backfire, producing the unintended consequences of too much digital and physical visibility at work.
When transparency serves organizations effectively, why does it work so well? And when it doesn’t, why does it disappoint? Using multiple methods to address those two questions, my research is centered on the idea that transparency not only reveals but also changes employee behavior, like a bright light that helps you study a painting but can also alter or fade the colors. Just as museums must balance the need to view artwork with the need to protect it, so must organizations balance the need to observe employees with the need to provide privacy.Organizations that privilege the observers over the observed find themselves susceptible to what I have called a transparency paradox or transparency trap: environments that leave employees feeling overly exposed may lead people to actively conceal what they are doing—even when making improvements—thus reducing productivity and, paradoxically, transparency.
However, organizations may create other problems for themselves by shying away from useful forms of transparency because of assumptions about stigmatization, for example, or public shaming. My research shows how making employee transgressions transparent—a modern-day version of having people wear scarlet letters—can, through a mechanism called personal narrative control, increase the odds of rehabilitation and prevent bad behavior from reoccurring.
This work is ongoing, as I continue to conduct research to make transparency transparent.A common theme that integrates my research and course development is how increasingly transparent workplaces can improve productivity and performance by putting up certain boundaries to observation. While the research above empirically and theoretically explores the unintended consequences of having too much transparency at work, the work below suggests what is to be done about those problems. Specifically, it identifies ways in which managers and employees (the observers and the observed) can create zones of privacy to strike a balance between the often-competing needs for transparency and privacy.
These “zones” can be defined by physical boundaries, and so some of my research focuses on office spaces themselves. My work on open environments—The Impact of the “Open” Workspace on Human Collaboration and The Truth About Open Offices—demonstrates how such spaces can counterintuitively undermine the collaboration they are meant to promote and can thus constrain problem solving. Indeed, my research on remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic shows how productive and creative people can be when given sufficient physical privacy.
These “zones” can also be digital. In other research, I focus on how organizations manage access to employee data. For example, a study of police body-worn cameras shows that employee monitoring—which is known to reduce feelings of autonomy and therefore motivation and productivity—can also reduce polarization and therefore improve motivation and productivity when employees (not just managers) get to see and use the data to make decisions at work.
In all of this, the role and work of a manager continues to evolve, thanks in no small part to emerging workplace technologies. As organizations keep redrawing or removing boundaries between employees and information—sometimes doing away with managers’ traditional gatekeeping function—the results do not cease to surprise. For example, a recent study shows that employees who have direct access to their daily performance data—data that were previously available only through their managers—are inclined to “conform, not excel,” although performance outcomes differ depending on the employee’s personality and the quality of the relationship with the manager.
While investigating how workplace transparency and privacy shape organizational behavior and performance, I wondered about the related effects of workplace connectivity. As new digital tools and organizational forms make it far easier for employees to communicate and interact (and harder for them to avoid doing so), how are patterns of collaboration changing? And what is the impact on complex problem-solving, routines, and performance outcomes? With individuals using technology to span physical, structural, temporal, and other boundaries in organizations, those traditional elements of organizational design are becoming less likely to constrain decisions about who collaborates with whom. As a result, people often experience work relationships as unbounded. How does that, I began to ask, affect learning, control, satisfaction, and productivity?
So I started to build—as a corollary to my transparency work—a body of work to understand the practices and circumstances that make connectivity beneficial or detrimental, while both drawing on and contributing to the literature on social networks and intraorganizational collaboration. As with transparency, I considered whether the value of workplace connectivity should be less defined in good/bad terms and more along a context-driven spectrum (e.g., How much connectivity would be productive given the contingencies at play?). That, in turn, led me to think about what sorts of fluid collaborative structures (which facilitate connectivity in some parts of organizations while limiting it in others) could produce strong performance—and what conditions might allow that to happen. I took a fresh look at theories of how different structures for employee interaction (like the degree of clustering, centralization, or intermittency) affect organizational performance. What structuring mechanisms, I asked, might managers use to dynamically adjust connectivity—in place of more static, traditional approaches to organizational design—to achieve desired outcomes?
To solve complex problems, organizations must both collect facts and use them to solve problems. In one study, my coauthors and I show that increased connectivity—measured as network clustering, or the degree to which people overlap in their connections—has opposite effects on “facts” (looking for information) and “figuring” (looking for solutions). The search for facts becomes more efficient, because information travels fast in a clustered network, creating less redundancy. But the figuring often suffers, because theories and interpretations circulate quickly, too, reducing the diversity of alternatives. Hyperconnectivity can be bad, then, for generating solutions—and boundaries blocking that connectivity can actually be productive.
Solving complex problems also requires the ability to adapt to a shifting environment: as the problem changes, so, typically, does the best solution. It is widely assumed that decentralized organizational structures (with people connecting more through individual and small-group interactions on the front lines than through a “core” system or process) are more adaptive than centralized ones, but that is often not the case. My research shows that centralized communication networks can, when information flows in both directions, achieve the benefits of connectivity (promoting learning and knowledge sharing, for instance) without incurring the costs (such as succumbing to groupthink). But hierarchical structures aren’t necessarily the answer, either, because they often constrain information flow. So adaptability isn’t a matter of having a flatter or less-flat organization, but rather a more nuanced question of “leveling the flatter playing field” in particular ways.
Adaptive organizations experiment with different network structures when solving problems, with the understanding that networks play different roles for different individuals and groups. When individuals use them to search for solutions they could not find on their own, they can tap weak, diverse ties to generate more options and strong ties to understand particular options more deeply (which they may need to do when dealing with thornier challenges). At the collective level, as one would expect, things get more complicated. Although groups coordinate both within and beyond their membership to search for, evaluate, and converge on solutions, in complex problem-solving they benefit most (given their tendencies toward internal bias) from a network structure that maximizes external input and slows down consensus.
Such structural flexing to meet collaborative challenges is akin to some of the practices of great improvisation. It requires managers to have a “jazz mindset,” which allows room for spontaneous, organic interaction. As they improvise, looking for just the right amount of connectivity for each setting and situation, managers inevitably discover the tradeoffs associated with having too much or too little and must try to break those tradeoffs or at least work around them. My research suggests intermittency can help: rather than constructing fixed organizational structures and making minor adjustments every several years, managers can intermittently foster connectivity and provide quiet “focus” time for employees to meet needs as they arise day to day.
Together, my findings suggest that the future of management will involve utilizing both traditional and new ways of organizing work, along with emerging tools and technologies, to effectively focus and refocus the collective attention of employees. - Teaching
-
The aMaze app is designed to enable automated facilitation of the "Management Maze" or "Electric Maze" exercise by Amy Edmondson and Hanna Rodriguez-Farrar (see https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/604046-PDF-ENG for details on the exercise).
For any additional support on the app, please contact Ethan Bernstein via the contact information above or at ebernstein@hbs.edu.This course is an online leadership development program for the next generation of leaders (high-potential emerging leaders with rougly 7-15 years of work experience). Over 12 dynamic, high-impact weeks, a cohort of emerging leaders from around the globe engages in a one-of-a-kind leadership development experience combining the time-tested power of the Harvard Business School classroom experience and the personalized attention of one-on-one leadership development coaching – all delivered virtually via the Harvard Business School Live Online Classroom.The Managing Human Capital course has been specifically designed to teach practical skills for the future general manager (not just the human resource practitioner) who seeks to manage both other people and her or his own career with optimal effectiveness. We will explore, at a more advanced level than was possible in LEAD, those people-related issues and challenges that any good general manager should understand to be effective.
The term human capital implies that people have the capacity to drive organizational performance. The basic premise of this course is that how one manages others can be the source of sustainable competitive advantage for organizations and for individual leaders within them. Any and all students who believe they will need to effectively manage other people to produce superior business results (revenues, profits, growth) while also creating a unique place to work (such that superior business results are sustainable) should take this course.
Educational ObjectivesThe objective of Managing Human Capital can be captured in a simple question: How can I create places where talented people will gather, produce, develop, and thrive?
While the question is simple in concept, it is remarkably difficult to execute. Future graduates of HBS, like the population at large, will have more and more choices about how to work and how to manage work, especially given advances in “big data,” AI, and other workplace technologies. They, and their companies--from the great global enterprises of the 21st century to the smallest entrepreneurial venture--will struggle with common questions and concerns about the people who work in their organizations, such as:
- Module 1 (Hiring): What kind of people do I need, and how do I hire them?
- Module 2 (Socialization): How do I effectively on-board them, setting them up for success?
- Module 3 (Performance Management): How do I keep them fully engaged and productive?
- Module 4 (Compensation and Rewards): How do I make sure they are properly incented to do what the organization needs them to do?
- Module 5 (Coaching Effective Managers and Talent Development): How do I develop them over time, so they are prepared to take on bigger roles down the road? How do I let go of those who are not contributing?
- Module 6 (Structure): How do I architect my group, team, division, or organization to make the management of human capital easier, not harder?
- Module 7 (Reimagining the Management of Human Capital): How do I use “Future of Work” trends to my benefit and to my organization's advantage? How can I be ready for the way human capital will be managed when I come back for my 10th or 20th MBA reunion--and what experiments should I conduct in my teams and organizations in the interim to stay on the leading edge (without accidentally reinventing the wheel and rediscovering things we already knew)?
In each module, we will intentionally discuss cases that frame both traditional and bleeding-edge “Future of Work” approaches to each human capital challenge. The ‘answer’ will often lie somewhere in-between the extremes, but will-with regularity-come back to a set of guiding criteria that connect how human capital is managed with the goal of organizational performance.
In each module, and indeed within almost every session, we will explore these topics through three lenses: managing others, being managed by others, and managing our own human capital.
Professor Bernstein taught Leadership and Organizational Behavior (LEAD) from 2013-2016 (7 sections). This course focuses on how managers become effective leaders by addressing the human side of enterprise.
The course is divided into five modules:
Leading Teams: In a world where most problems faced by organizations are too complex for a single individual to tackle alone, leadership frequently involves forming, mandating, and managing teams. And yet teams are fickle. Even as teams become more and more common at all levels of organizations, a shocking number of them fail to live up to their potential or even deliver at all. Small differences in the leadership of teams can have large consequences for the success of their efforts. In six class sessions, we build an understanding of how leadership of team identity/design and team processes can significantly improve team effectiveness and the chances of becoming a high-performing team.Enhancing Interpersonal Effectiveness: Those in charge have always depended on others to get work done. This means building a network of effective work relationships. The segment begins by identifying the critical ingredients for building effective relationships with superiors, colleagues, and subordinates. We will look at various interpersonal relationships from different perspectives, including hierarchical, demographic, and cultural aspects, exploring the nuances of working with those from varied demographic backgrounds and the advantages and disadvantages of different communication and influence strategies. The aim of this segment is to enable managers to successfully build effective work relationships as they apply to managing in all directions.
Leading, Designing, and Aligning Organizations: This module explores in depth what it takes to be an effective leader. This segment will also examine what it takes to achieve “congruence” among an organization's elements: its strategy, critical tasks, formal organization, people, and culture. We will study a number of leaders “in action” to gain insight into the critical functions and personal qualities that contribute to effective leadership. To be effective, the critical elements of an organization need to be in alignment.
Leading Change: Leaders’ attempts to renew or change their organizations often fail. In this segment of the course we will compare and contrast efforts to transform organizations in order to identify critical stages and activities in the change process. We will identify different approaches for developing and communicating a vision for an organization and for motivating people to fulfill that vision. We address the following questions: What are the primary sources of resistance to change? What are the most appropriate ways for overcoming them? What change strategies “work” and under what conditions?
Developing Your Path: In this final module, we will focus on several strategic issues involved in building a dynamic career, paying particular attention to early- and mid-career choices and dilemmas. We will consider the following topics: How do individuals learn to lead? What critical experiences and relationships are needed?
The LEAD course has the following six goals:- The course offers a realistic preview of what it means to manage
- The course helps students begin to transform professional identity from individual contributor to manager
- The course helps students confront both the task learning and personal learning involved in becoming a manager
- The course addresses the process of developing effective relationships with a diverse collection of individuals and groups
- The course helps students develop an understanding of what it takes to be an effective leader
- The course helps students learn how to be proactive and entrepreneurial in developing your leadership talents over the course of your career
Professor Bernstein took particular joy in teaching LEAD as he was a student in the LEAD course in the fall of 2000 (Section D).Professor Bernstein currently teaches a second-year MBA course in Managing Human Capital (MHC). He is also the faculty chair for the Harvard Business School Online Developing Yourself as a Leader course and teaches in a variety of executive education programs.
In the past, Professor Bernstein has taught the first-year MBA course in Leadership and Organizational Behavior (LEAD), the Japan Immersive Field Course (IFC) on Innovation through the Fusion of Digital and Analog, and a PhD seminar in the Craft of Qualitative Research.
Ethan Bernstein is also the creator of the aMaze app, which is designed to enable automated facilitation of the "Management Maze" or "Electric Maze" exercise by Amy Edmondson and Hanna Rodriguez-Farrar (see https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/604046-PDF-ENG for details on the exercise). For any additional support on the app, please contact Ethan Bernstein via the contact information above or at ebernstein@hbs.edu.Keywords: Leadership; Leadership Development; Leadership Style; Innovation Leadership; Management Practices and Processes; Management Succession; Management Style; Management Systems; Management Teams; Managerial Roles; Organizations; Organizational Culture; Organizational Design; Organizational Structure; Mission and Purpose; Organizational Change and Adaptation; Performance; Information Technology; Strategy; Human Resources; Compensation and Benefits; Employees; Recruitment; Resignation and Termination; Retention; Selection and Staffing - Awards & Honors
-
Recipient of the 2022 Outstanding Reviewer Award from Organization Science.Winner of the 2020 Richard Beckhard Memorial Prize for the most outstanding MIT Sloan Management Review article on planned change and organizational development for ““Improving the Rhythm of Your Collaboration” (Fall 2019) with Jesse Shore and David Lazer.Winner of the 2015 Outstanding Practitioner-Oriented Publication in Organizational Behavior Award from the Organizational Behavior Division of the Academy of Management for “The Transparency Trap” (Harvard Business Review, 2014).Finalist for the 2014 McKinsey Award for the best article in Harvard Business Review for "The Transparency Trap" (October 2014).Winner of the 2014 J. Richard Hackman Dissertation Award from INGRoup, the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research. This is the inaugural year of this award being given in Richard Hackman’s name.Winner of the 2013 Outstanding Publication in Organizational Behavior Award from the Academy of Management’s Organizational Behavior Division for "The Transparency Paradox: A Role for Privacy in Organizational Learning and Operational Control" (Administrative Science Quarterly, 2012).Winner of the 2013 Best Published Paper Award from the Academy of Management Organization and Management Theory Division for "The Transparency Paradox: A Role for Privacy in Organizational Learning and Operational Control" (Administrative Science Quarterly, 2012).Winner of the 2014 Best Dissertation-based Paper Award from the Academy of Management’s Organizational Behavior Division for "Seeing Too Much: Too Much in Sight, Too Little Insight? An Attention-Driven View of Productivity" (Academy of Management Conference Proceedings, 2014).Winner of the 2014 INGRoup Outstanding Conference Paper Award from the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research for "Facts and Figuring: An Experimental Investigation of Network Structure and Performance in Information and Solution Spaces" (Organization Science, 2015) with Jesse Shore and David Lazer.Winner of the 2013 Fredric M. Jablin Doctoral Dissertation Award, awarded by the International Leadership Association and the Jepson School for Leadership Studies for demonstrating substantial insights and implications for the study of leadership through Professor Bernstein's dissertation, “Does Privacy Make Groups Productive.”Won the 2012 Wyss Award for Excellence in Doctoral Research.Won the 2010 Susan G. Cohen Doctoral Research Award in Organization Design, Effectiveness, and Change from the CEO (Center for Effective Organizations at the USC Marshall School of Business) and the Academy of Management's Organization Development and Change Division for his work, "Innovation Boundaries: Deconstructing Autonomy."Selected as one of the inaugural Kauffman Foundation Fellows in Law, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship (later known as the Kauffman Foundation Fellow in Law, Innovation, and Growth) for 2008-2010.
- Additional Information
- Areas of Interest
- In The News