¾ÅÐãÖ±²¥

As a Harvard undergraduate in a campus breakdancing crew, Curtis Chan got a close-up view of culture in motion — shared norms, behaviours and understandings. That lens now guides his research into how people build meaning, autonomy and inclusion at work, as well as how leaders can adopt new practices and technologies without undermining expertise.

Today, he’s bringing that perspective to the ¾ÅÐãÖ±²¥ School of Business’s Strategy, Entrepreneurship and Management (SEM) department as an associate professor. With a PhD in organizational behaviour from Harvard Business School and a master’s in sociology, he previously served as an assistant professor at Boston College.

In this Q&A, Chan details his research and teaching approach and offers insights for employers — from airport screening organizations to gig platform companies — with a clear message: design for autonomy and cultivate real belonging.

How did you become interested in being a business school professor? What led you to specialize in the study of behaviour in the workplace?

Believe it or not, it all began when — as an undergraduate student at Harvard planning to become a physician — I joined an unexpected extracurricular: a breakdancing crew. At first it was just for fun, but I quickly became fascinated by the culture that surrounded the street dance community: the unspoken rules of interaction, the norms of conversation, and the shared sense of meaning, identity, and belonging. That pull toward understanding people and culture led me away from medicine and into social science. I even wrote my honors thesis on street dance communities in Boston, exploring how dancers sought to find meaning and respect, all while they navigated tensions over creative control in a rapidly commercializing world as well as  contentious gender dynamics in a masculinized space. That experience opened my eyes to how much people’s lives are shaped by the meaning they create together.

After a few years in management consulting, that lesson came back to me: workplaces, like dance crews, are shaped by both culture and contention, with moments of sharing as well as struggle over identity, community, autonomy and inclusion. I realized I wanted to research those questions more deeply, and that becoming a business school professor would let me do just that — while also sharing those insights with students. I still think it’s amazing that I get to do this work every day.

You’ve just moved from Boston to the SEM department at the ¾ÅÐãÖ±²¥ School of Business. How has your journey shaped the research and teaching approach you’re bringing to Edmonton?

My journey has always been about connecting big ideas with lived experiences. In Boston, I built a research program that examines how workers experience control and belonging at work, and I enjoyed teaching students there who were eager to link theory to their own lives. 

Moving to Edmonton and the ¾ÅÐãÖ±²¥, I’m excited to continue that work with fresh energy, in a new environment, and with even broader scope. The Strategy, Entrepreneurship, and Management (SEM) department is a vibrant, collegial community of scholars doing world-class research, and I’m thrilled to be part of it. I’m also very excited about the students here: I expect they’ll bring a wide range of experiences and perspectives, and I can’t wait to learn from them as much as I teach. My approach is to do research that is rigorous but also deeply human: grounded in real-life stories, attentive to practice, and centered on helping students improve their work lives. Being able to do that in a school with such strong energy, talent and curiosity is an opportunity I feel grateful for.

Your work spans occupations from airport screeners to Instacart gig-workers. What two take-aways from your work on control and diversity should employers — here in ¾ÅÐãÖ±²¥ or anywhere — apply now?

First, respect workers’ autonomy. My research shows that unbalanced control measures (like , poorly motivated changes, or ) often backfire. They erode morale, spark resistance and even drive people to quit. Organizations do better when they design control systems that leave room for expert judgment — — and when leaders back up style with real substance.

Second, foster true belonging. Diversity (whether in perspectives, approaches, or identities) on its own isn’t enough. Workers need to feel that their contributions are genuinely recognized and rewarded. For example, in satisfaction and advancement. Employers can avoid such pitfalls by distributing tasks fairly, offering opportunities equally and cultivating cultures where differences are valued and managed thoughtfully. 

What does your research suggest about how organizations should approach technology adoption — whether digital tools or AI — without undermining workers’ autonomy?

My research shows that technology adoption is rarely successful when it’s treated as a top-down mandate. In a , my co-author and I found that managers succeeded not by enforcing uniform compliance, but by allowing professionals to engage with technology in different ways. Some teachers became early adopters and champions, while others remained more cautious. But both groups coexisted productively and specialized in ways that covered the organization’s collective needs. This segmentation created a middle ground that balanced professional autonomy with organizational goals.

The lesson for AI is clear: adoption strategies shouldn’t assume everyone will, or should, engage with technology in the same way. Platforms and policies that respect differences within the workforce, while aligning them toward shared goals, will be more sustainable and effective than one-size-fits-all approaches.

Your research relies on rich, qualitative fieldwork. How do you bring those insights into the classroom in a way that helps students apply them as actionable business insights?

Stories are a powerful way to bring work and organizations to life, but the real learning comes from moving beyond the story to the lesson. In class, I share stories and then guide students to ask: “What’s happening here? Why is it happening this way? Why does it matter? How might the dynamics play out similarly or differently in another organization or industry?” By analyzing stories through theoretical concepts, students learn to extract patterns and principles rather than stopping at anecdotes.

I also encourage them to connect these insights back to their own experiences, whether in jobs, internships, or student organizations. The result is that students practice turning qualitative detail into practical takeaways, sharpening their ability to diagnose problems and spark creativity in imagining solutions in their future workplaces.

What’s next for your research on occupations and control? Are there new industries, technologies or contexts you’re eager to explore?

Broadly, my research seeks to understand how people carve out meaning, dignity and community in the face of shifting expectations about what work should be. What’s next is both continuing and expanding that agenda. I’ll keep examining how internal workplace dynamics and external forces — technological advances, political climates, industry shifts and broader societal expectations — reshape the experience of work. A recent project, for example, is on how police officers respond when their organization faces claims of bias or exclusion, showing that their interpretations of their role shape their own sense of control and belonging, as well as how they interact with others outside their organizations.

At the same time, I’m eager to explore new directions by studying different industries, settings and populations. I’m curious, for instance, about how workers in newer or less formalized occupations (like gig workers, creative freelancers, or even returning to my roots of professional breakdancers) navigate control, community and belonging without the supports of established professions. By extending my research into these emerging contexts, I hope to discover new ideas that enrich how we think about work more broadly.