Publications

The Winchester Factory project in New Haven involves the redevelopment of the last abandoned Winchester Repeating Arms factory by Twining Properties in collaboration with the Science Park Development Corporation (SPDC). The project's objective is to transform the derelict factory complex into a vibrant, mixed-use community that includes shops, dining, entertainment, and arts spaces. Twining Properties hopes to create a lodestone for graduate students at Yale University and young professionals, incorporating micro-apartments to maintain affordability while offering premium shared amenities. The master plan envisages a dynamic urban space integrating residential, commercial, cultural, and educational elements to foster a cohesive community.

Twining Properties usually focuses on complex urban mixed-use developments. The firm integrates critical aspects such as capital, design, construction, environment, marketing, and public objectives into a unified approach to deliver results. Twining Properties aims to apply a marketplace concept to the Winchester project, similar to its successful developments in other urban settings that have fostered lively street level presences and community-centric spaces.

The primary dilemma Twining Properties faces with the Winchester Factory project revolves around the substantial challenges of revitalizing historic industrial structures. These include adhering to historic preservation requirements, doing extensive environmental remediation of contaminants like lead and asbestos, and engaging with the local community to demonstrate the project's benefits. Moreover, the developers must ascertain whether innovative design and amenities can attract a diverse tenant base and ensure the project's economic and social viability.

Aadhaar, India’s system for giving every resident a unique twelve-digit identification number, represented an astounding achievement. In 2010, Indian officials began registration by collecting biometric data (photographs, fingerprints, and iris scans). By 2017 over 1.1 billion people were registered.

Prior to Aadhaar, Indians had no nationally accepted way to prove identity. Especially for those at the bottom of the economic pyramid, difficulties in establishing identity presented a profound obstacle to participation in government programs such as subsidized food rations and cooking gas and engaging private services such as bank accounts and mobile telephones. For the government, the inability to determine unique identities resulted in corruption at massive scale. Program rolls were stuffed with ghost accounts. People who qualified for programs often had to bribe middlemen to get subsidies due to them.

To stanch this corruption and create a national identity system, the government turned in 2010 to Nandan Nilekani to head a newly created cabinet-level position. Nilekani had been co-founder and CEO of Infosys, India’s largest computer services company, and he brought private sector sensibilities to his government position. He proposed a cloud-based, biometric system that could be scaled up quickly. He also envisioned a wide range of future applications.

By 2017, over 95% of India's population had Aadhaar numbers. Officials estimated that social welfare programs were saving billions of dollars. Banks and mobile phone companies were streamlining account set-up and expanding to new customers. Entrepreneurs and established businesses sought new uses for Aadhaar. However, as Aadhaar expanded, there were concerns. Privacy advocates objected to Aadhaar’s sweeping role in society and filed a series of court cases about collecting and storing sensitive data. India had few laws concerning data privacy, and many were looking for possible models. Government efforts to link Aadhaar to taxpayer identification and bank account numbers were receiving stiff resistance. Observers wondered how these challenges would shape the way that Aadhaar would be used by both the private and governmental sector.

Developed in partnership with Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.

Organizational life is rife with conflict between groups that pursue different goals, particularly when groups have strong commitments to professional identities developed outside the organization. I use data from a 30-month comparative ethnographic field study of four U.S. Army combat brigades to examine conflict between commanders who had a goal of fielding a mission-ready force and mental health providers who had a goal of providing rehabilitative mental health care to soldiers. All commanders and providers faced goal and identity conflict and had access to similar integrative mechanisms. Yet only those associated with two brigades addressed these conflicts in ways that accomplished the army’s superordinate goal of having both mission-ready and mentally healthy soldiers. Both successful brigades used what I call “anchored personalization” practices, which included developing personalized relations across groups, anchoring members in their home group identity, and co-constructing integrative solutions to conflict. These practices were supported by an organizational structure in which professionals were assigned to work with specific members of the other group, while remaining embedded within their home group. In contrast, an organizational structure promoting only anchoring in one’s home group identity led to failure when each group pursued its own goals at the expense of the other group’s goals. A structure promoting only personalization across groups without anchoring in one’s home group identity led to failure from cooptation by the dominant group. This study contributes to our understanding of how groups with strong professional identities can work together in service of their organization’s superordinate goals when traditional mechanisms fail.

The Connecticut Green Bank, established as the first green bank in the U.S., garnered acclaim for its innovative approach to financing clean energy. Despite its successes, including mobilizing $910 million in private investments and reducing CO2 emissions by 2.6 million tons, the organization faced significant challenges in 2017. The major hurdles stemmed from the Connecticut legislature's decision to divert $16.3 million annually from the Green Bank's budget, impacting its projects and partnerships. This funding cut created immediate operational difficulties, notably freezing a $10 million project due to the uncertainty it introduced among private partners.

Connecticut's broader fiscal crisis compounded these issues, with a notable $3.5 billion state deficit largely attributable to unfunded pensions and a shrinking tax base. In response, the Green Bank's leadership grappled with securing sustainable funding sources to lessen dependence on public funds, which amounted to nearly 90% of its operating budget at that time. The dilemmas involved balancing the bank's mission to drive private investment in clean energy, create jobs, and mitigate climate change while navigating altered funding structures. Additionally, considerations around maintaining the bank’s inclusive prosperity goals, demonstrating the efficacy of clean energy finance, and addressing energy poverty amidst financial restructuring were critical. The need to reassess product interest rates, the retention of financially unviable projects for their social impact, and redefining success metrics to align with a new operational reality presented ongoing strategic challenges for the management team.