The Driving Force Behind Harvard Business School

Nitin Nohria argues the four basic drives innate in human nature--to acquire, bond, learn and defend--must be balanced within any organizational structure. Nohria is putting this theory into practice as dean of Harvard Business School.

What's the Big Idea?


Harvard Business School dean Nitin Nohria has written or co-written dozens of books and articles that delve into the heart of what motivates human behavior in the business context. A particularly noteworthy example is Driven (2001), in which Nohria argues that every person, from the CEO of a company to the most junior employee, brings an innate "set of mental equipment to work each and every day." These four drives are as follows:

  • The drive to acquire objects and experiences that improve our status relative to others
  • The drive to bond with others in long-term relationships of mutually caring commitment
  • The drive to learn and make sense of the world and ourselves
  • The drive to defend ourselves, our loved ones, our beliefs, and resources from harm
  • The key to harnessing these forces in the workplace is to design jobs that create a successful balance between all, or most, of these drives. For instance, if employees have interlocking tasks, Nohria argues, "their bonds of trust will facilitate their joint task performance."

    To further illustrate this point, Nohria examines in detail the U.S. auto industry's toxic relationship with labor, which was exposed by competition from Japanese companies that were ultimately more successful at balancing the drives of their workforce, and therefore gained a competitive advantage. In other words, while the American approach appealed "almost exclusively to the acquiring drive of its constituent groups, the Japanese methods went far beyond by appealing to all four drives." 

    What's the Significance?

    Having theorized about these concepts, Nohria has been tasked with implementing them at Harvard Business School since he became dean in July, 2010. Big Think asked Nohria how he has been able to put his own theories of power and leadership to work. Watch here:


    'Upstreamism': Your zip code affects your health as much as genetics

    Upstreamism advocate Rishi Manchanda calls us to understand health not as a "personal responsibility" but a "common good."

    Sponsored by Northwell Health
    • Upstreamism tasks health care professionals to combat unhealthy social and cultural influences that exist outside — or upstream — of medical facilities.
    • Patients from low-income neighborhoods are most at risk of negative health impacts.
    • Thankfully, health care professionals are not alone. Upstreamism is increasingly part of our cultural consciousness.
    Keep reading Show less

    Yale scientists restore brain function to 32 clinically dead pigs

    Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.

    Still from John Stephenson's 1999 rendition of Animal Farm.
    Surprising Science
    • Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
    • They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
    • The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.

    The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?

    But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.

    What's dead may never die, it seems

    The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. Think a dialysis machine for the mind. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.

    BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.

    The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.

    As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.

    The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.

    "This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.

    An ethical gray matter

    Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.

    The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.

    Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.

    Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?

    "This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."

    One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.

    The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.

    "There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.

    It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.

    Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?

    The dilemma is unprecedented.

    Setting new boundaries

    Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."

    She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.

    Dubai to build the world’s largest concentrated solar power plant

    Can you make solar power work when the sun goes down? You can, and Dubai is about to run a city that way.

    Photo credit: MARWAN NAAMANI / AFP / Getty Images
    Technology & Innovation
    • A new concentrated solar plant is under construction in Dubai.
    • When it opens next year, it will be the largest plant of its kind on Earth.
    • Concentrated solar power solves the problem of how to store electricity in ways that solar pannels cannot.
    Keep reading Show less

    19th-century medicine: Milk was used as a blood substitute for transfusions

    Believe it or not, for a few decades, giving people "milk transfusions" was all the rage.

    Photo credit: Robert Bye on Unsplash
    Surprising Science
    • Prior to the discovery of blood types in 1901, giving people blood transfusions was a risky procedure.
    • In order to get around the need to transfuse others with blood, some doctors resorted to using a blood substitute: Milk.
    • It went pretty much how you would expect it to.
    Keep reading Show less