Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article deals first with the temporal patterns of everyday career activities - time in careers - and then with the life-long career line - careers in time. In the former, it introduces the concept of grandmother time and uses telecommuting as an example. In the latter, it builds on the concept of a life-stage responsive career and uses the academic career as an example. The article argues that the accepted notions of time in both daily activities and the life course need serious modification if people are to be productive in the public professional-occupational world as well as in the private world of family and community.

Purpose An interview of a senior scholar to get their perspectives on the field, it’s history and future. Design/methodology/approach A semi-structured in-depth interview was conducted. Findings It is one person’s person views, albeit, a person with very considerable success in the field of business studies. Research limitations/implications It is one person’s person views, albeit, a person with very considerable success in the field of business studies. Originality/value The interview reflects the changes in business schools over the interviewee’s decades of experience.

This article distinguishes between “strategic autonomy” (the freedom to set one's own research agenda) and “operational autonomy” (the freedom, once a problem has been set, to attack it by means determined by oneself, within given resource constraints). The article argues, and presents some preliminary corroborating data, that technical careers in the R&D lab should start lower on strategic than on operational autonomy, that operational autonomy should show initial fairly rapid increase, which should be followed by increases in strategic autonomy, and that thereafter a number of different career paths should be available for technical employees. Most labs, however, seem to espouse a philosophy of strategic autonomy combined with operational controls, which creates dilemmas and contradictions in the technical career, particularly at its start. It is proposed that these two aspects of autonomy can usefully be thought of as a two‐dimensional grid. Different positions on this grid seem to fit with different orientations and different tasks, and require different strategies for career management. The article ends with a discussion of these management implications.

How did MIT become MIT? The Massachusetts Institute of Technology marks the 150th anniversary of its founding in 2011. Over the years, MIT has lived by its motto, \"Mens et Manus\" (\"Mind and Hand\"), dedicating itself to the pursuit of knowledge and its application to real-world problems. MIT has produced leading scholars in fields ranging from aeronautics to economics, invented entire academic disciplines, and transformed ideas into market-ready devices. This book examines a series of turning points, crucial decisions that helped define MIT. Many of these issues have relevance today: the moral implications of defense contracts, the optimal balance between government funding and private investment, and the right combination of basic science, engineering, and humanistic scholarship in the curriculum. Chapters describe the educational vison and fund-raising acumen of founder William Barton Rogers (MIT was among the earliest recipients of land grant funding); MIT's relationship with Harvard--its rival, doppelgänger, and, for a brief moment, degree-conferring partner; the battle between pure science and industrial sponsorship in the early twentieth century; MIT's rapid expansion during World War II because of defense work and military training courses; the conflict between Cold War gadgetry and the humanities; protests over defense contracts at the height of the Vietnam War; the uproar in the local community over the perceived riskiness of recombinant DNA research; and the measures taken to reverse years of institutionalized discrimination against women scientists.

On Sunday, March 21, 1999, the front page of theBoston Globecarried an article with the following headline: “MIT Women Win a Fight against Bias. In a Rare Move, School Admits Discrimination.”¹ The newspaper story followed a frantic week of behind-the-scenes effort at MIT to get a report to faculty members before they read about it in the newspaper. The report, “A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT”—now everywhere referred to as “the MIT Report”—was emailed to the faculty on Friday, March 19, with the warning that theGlobewas coming out

The ability of people to deal constructively with the needs of work and of family depends on the kind of work they do; the organization that employs them; and the economic, social, and national context in which they live. This article compares the responses to this issue in the United States, Britain, and Sweden. In the United States, the effort has been to allow women to meet male work demands. In Britain, the emphasis has been on providing flexible arrangements for mothers who work. In neither case has there been any attempt to change the rules for career success or to deal with gender roles in the family. Sweden, however, has made the effort to try to equalize gender roles. This makes many aspects of life easier, but women still are seldom found in top positions. These differences in national context determine the kinds of responses that organizations can make to the family needs of their employees. Their implication for the United States response is discussed in the paper. © 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Patterned chaos is a relatively new system human resource professionals are using to handle the competing pressures of organizational demands and employee needs and concerns. As people and their needs differ, so should their work be organized in different ways. One aspect of chaos theory is called the butterfly effect, also known as sensitivity to initial conditions. To accommodate the different ways of living with work, organizations should take a more chaotic approach to their employees. Companies can meet the needs of the changing workforce without sacrificing the competitive needs of US industry by following the 3 principles of chaos, which are: 1. Reevaluate the organization's definitions of time and commitment. 2. Test the current assumptions of career continuity - continuity vs. discontinuity, uniformity vs. variety, and prespecification vs. self-design. 3. Change the boundaries of the organization, which involves a looser link between organization and employee and a closer link between public and private life.