First Friday Book Synopsis

"…like CliffNotes on steroids…"

Confronting the Pain of Innovation

Here is an article written by Michael Schrage and published in Harvard Business Review. To read the complete article, check out all the other resources, sign in or sign up for HBR email alerts, and obtain discount information, please click here.

*     *     *

Working “out of your comfort zone” is the euphemism; the organizational reality is “working through pain.” Innovation hurts.

Every organization I’ve observed that’s serious about being innovative is filled with people in genuine pain — not just stress or anxiety or deadline pressure, and certainly not discomfort. Pain. This can be the physical strain of consecutive all-nighters to test every meaningful configuration of a website before it goes live, to the emotional pain of subordinating your vision of the innovation to the vicissitudes of customer taste. Ideally, innovators go through pain so their customers and clients won’t have to

The International Association for the Study of Pain Management defines pain as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience…” That fairly captures a dominant innovation sensation at world-class innovators. The innovation cultures of Google, Samsung or Steve Jobs’ Apple or Andy Grove’s Intel, for example, make painfully clear that successful innovators have high thresholds for pain. Unpleasant sensory and emotional experiences abound. Yes, there’s also fun and exhilaration. But innovation leadership is less about clichés celebrating creativity, compelling visions or getting the best out of people than successfully helping innovators beat what hurts. Overcoming resistance is not the same as pushing through pain.

That shouldn’t surprise. Confronting pain is integral to most other elite endeavors. World-class athletes and dancers explicitly train for pain even beyond the point of injury. Special Forces operators such as the Navy SEALs are expected to “Embrace the Suck.” Arguably one of the great flaws of formal business and technical education is that inculcating disciplined self-awareness around pain management is neither part of the culture nor the curriculum. But elite innovators, not unlike their athletic counterparts, understand and accept that they will likely hurt themselves and/or their colleagues on the path to innovation excellence. As Joseph Schumpeter of “creative destruction” fame notably observed, “successful innovation requires an act of will, not of intellect.

*     *      *

To read the complete article, please click here.

Michael Schrage, a research fellow at MIT Sloan School’s Center for Digital Business, is the author of Serious Play and the forthcoming HBR Single Who Do You Want Your Customers to Become? To check out his other blog posts, please click here.


Monday, July 23, 2012 Posted by | Bob's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Top Six Innovation Ideas of 2011

Michael Schrage

Here is an excerpt from an article written by Michael Schrage for the Harvard Business Review blog. To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Review’s Daily Alerts, please click here.

*     *     *

That’s right. 2011. These six ideas emerged in 2010 as powerful “innovation invitations” and seem sure to intensify in power and influence. They’ll increasingly be a source of, and resource for, innovation differentiation in 2011, if not for your organization, then for the firm you most dread competing against.

[Here are the first three. To read the complete article, please click here.]

1. Contestification

Whether Google Demo Slam or Sprint’s App Competition, digital media has become an innovation battleground for customers, clients, prospective partners, and young talent. Frito-Lay has already made competition the cornerstone of its Super Bowl advertising, and Toyota, desperate to remind people what a wonderful corporate citizen it can be, invites aspiring innovators to suggest how the firm’s technology can be used for good in unexpected ways.

Crowdsourced contestification is becoming institutionalized as a way firms can grow their own innovation nations. If you’re not running an innovative innovation contest to invite participation and build brand, then you’re reacting to your competitor’s competition. Will your contest be competitive with their contest? Who’s running it? Who’s judging it? Who’s winning it?

2. Keep Touching Me and I’ll Screen!

Anyone who has an iPhone, iPad, or Kindle knows that media are no longer created merely to be viewed — content is designed to be touched, tapped, stroked, fingered, fondled, and pinched. Interfaces have gone tactile and haptic. The keyboard isn’t dead or dying, but it’s lost pride of place in defining onscreen interaction. Where professionals once wrote memos to be read, 2011 begins an era in which documents are written with touch both in mind and on fingertips. Designing documents to be a sensual physical experience and not just a visually cognitive one demands different aesthetics and sensibilities. This nascent transition will be as profoundly important for future interpersonal communications — and branding — as the transition from radio to television. Having the right touch to get the right touch will become a desirable communications competence.

3. WWWabs

If you explore their websites, you’ll find American Express, Google, Intuit and scores of others have “labs” — not-quite-ready-for-prime-time alpha and beta versions of apps to explore and test. These innovation playgrounds vary wildly in quality, creativity and breadth. A few of these test-tube innovation babies are quirkily weird; others have the glimmer of interactive genius. These WWWabs will undoubtedly be reshaped by the seemingly irresistible rise of Facebook as an advertising and promotional vehicle.

Indeed, Facebook’s role as a third-party innovation platform is still a work in process. However, the economics of experimentation for both customer-facing and internal WWWabs is undeniably favorable. It’s easy to marry a WWWabsite with a contest, for example. More important, WWWabs symbolize the substantial shift in one of the dying innovation anachronisms of the post-industrial era. That is, the importance of “research & development” to business innovation. WWWaboratories are about the real future of virtual value creation. Instead of R&D, what matters is E&S — Experiment & Scale. WWWabs go mainstream worldwide next year.

This is my call for the top six ideas to watch next year. Which two of these six themes will matter most next year? What would make it on to your list of top ideas in 2011?

*     *     *

Michael Schrage, a research fellow at MIT Sloan School’s Center for Digital Business, is the author of Serious Play and the forthcoming Getting Beyond Ideas.

Thursday, December 30, 2010 Posted by | Bob's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Michael Schrage suggests “A Simpler Way to Make It Simple”

Michael Schrage

Here is an excerpt from an article written by Michael Schrage for the Harvard Business Review blog. To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Review’s Daily Alerts, please click here.

*     *     *

Before rolling out an enterprise innovation, Tesco (the UK’s supremely innovative supermarketer) insists that it must meet three conditions. [Click here.]

The first is that innovation must in some way be better for customers; second is that it should ultimately prove cheaper for Tesco; and, finally, the innovation must make things simpler for staff.

While doing work with the company a decade ago, I quickly found Tesco’s innovators had little trouble arguing their proposals would be better for customers and successfully take costs out of the firm. That was the easy part. What killed roughly half of Tesco’s innovation ideas was the stubborn challenge of simpler for staff. Innovation champions are great at selling visionary benefits and kneading numbers just so. But supermarket employees are skeptical that innovation will actually make their everyday working lives simpler. They don’t take simple for granted. They want demonstrable proof. So does Tesco. Simple is hard. Show me — don’t tell me —.

It’s simple.

The most important thing I learned wasn’t how the supermarket giant made innovations simpler to understand and use. Tesco’s secret sauce for innovation simplification was, appropriately, astonishingly simple: the company made people — and held people — accountable for simplicity.

This may seem astonishingly obvious. It’s not. I’ve gone into scores of organizations, conferences and exec ed programs and asked senior-level line managers and executives alike a very simple question: How many of you have a “VP of simpler-for-staff” or someone who “owns” innovation simplification within the enterprise?

Usually, there’s murmuring and nervous laughter. Occasionally, a hand goes up. Most of the time, that person says that “training” is responsible for making sure people find the innovation simpler and easier to use. That answer reveals one of the pernicious pathologies afflicting so many organizations. Precisely because people know there’s an organizational training department, they don’t take extra efforts to take out the complications and complexities of their innovation. In the same way Hollywood productions say “We’ll fix it in post (production)” [click here] to compensate for a bad shot or bad acting, internal innovators and change champions shrug and say, “They’ll fix it in training and orientation.” Training’s very existence is used as an excuse not to further simplify. What’s more, the training department is happy to go along with the clunky complexity because that makes them more important.

Training can argue, correctly, that nobody could effectively use the innovation if they hadn’t been fully trained. Instead of addressing the simplicity/complexity challenge, training effectively perpetuates it. Talk about perverse incentives. [Click here.]

*     *     *

Simplicity is best facilitated by accountability. Improved simplicity is a byproduct of improved accountability. Don’t allow a disconnect. The real reason organizations see so many complicated and kludgy process innovations [click here] is not because their people are stupid or lazy — or even because these improvements are inherently difficult — it’s the absence of clarity around accountability. For any given innovation initiative, if it’s not clear who “owns” simplicity, you can be confident no one does.

Accountability means that someone has sat down with the process owner or appropriate business team leaders and asked, “What does ‘simple for staff’ mean and how do we measure it?”

Pick whatever measures of effectiveness you like — time, number of steps, rework, etc. — but doesn’t “simpler for staff” deserve respect comparable to “better for customers” and “cheaper for the firm”? After all, those get measured.

With its three simple innovation heuristics, Tesco ostensibly forbids the shortcuts and cheats that allow perfectly good proposals to get “improved” into a morass of complex features and functionality. The essential simplicity is hiding there somewhere, but it will take hours of your employee’s times to find it. That’s not good management. That’s bad design.

So let’s put it this way: If you’re not making things simpler for staff, the odds are you’re making things more difficult for staff. That’s a bad place to be.

Who should be held accountable for that?

*     *     *

Michael Schrage, a research fellow at MIT Sloan School’s Center for Digital Business, is the author of Serious Play and the forthcoming Getting Beyond Ideas.

Sunday, September 5, 2010 Posted by | Bob's blog entries | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Michael Schrage on the “hireless economy”

Michael Schrage

Here is an excerpt from an article written by Michael Schrage for the Harvard Business Review blog. To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Review’s Daily Alerts, please click here.

*     *     *

U?   L?   V?

Pick any recovery-shaped letter you like. Economic policymakers would still be wondering: Where did the jobs go [click here]?

Alas, that’s exactly the wrong question. The better question: Where did the employers go?

America doesn’t have a jobless recovery; it has a hireless recovery. Don’t confuse them. After all, you first have to get hired to have a job. Organizations may be desperate to grow, but they overwhelmingly lack the desire to hire. Fewer people are working longer, harder and (presumably) smarter hours. So many firms have proven so productive even after several rounds of layoffs, that serious economists wonder if, in fact, large slices of the workforce actually offer ZMP — Zero Marginal Productivity [click here] — to their enterprise. In other words, the Great Recession reveals many employees not just to be worth less but economically worthless. Ouch.

Keynesian fundamentalists aside, the nascent mainstream perspective suggests hiring has been hamstrung by two dominant forces: the likelihood of relatively slow economic growth — why expand your workforce beyond the barest minimum? — and the certainty of greater uncertainty around future employment costs. American organizations literally can’t yet calculate either the top- or bottom-line impacts of health care reform. Financial legislation similarly injects greater uncertainty and angst into credit access. Swirls of proposed and promised regulatory initiatives around energy, sustainability and diversity further complicate and confuse hiring economics. These economic uncertainties are not the sort that boosts investor confidence. Uncertainty effectively becomes a tax on hiring. The greater the uncertainties, the larger the tax. Why should anyone be surprised that raising “hiring taxes” reduces hires [click here]? A serious public policy would seek to reduce costs, risks and regulatory burdens of hiring people. Slower growth/higher tax environments stimulate survival instincts in established firms.

As with any large tax increase, the costs of uncertainty have businesses looking for loopholes and scrambling for safe havens. They don’t want to overpay. In lieu of minimizing taxes, firms are choosing to minimize hires. Executives and entrepreneurs aren’t asking “Who should we hire?” They’re asking, “Why should we hire?” World-class firms are still looking for world-class people. But when world-class people aren’t what’s needed, world-class firms will consider world-class alternatives. Most people looking for a job today aren’t competing against each other. They’re competing against alternative ways to getting that job done.

For most organizations, people are a means and medium to an end. They’re not hiring employees, they’re hiring value creation. If they can get that value — or most of it — from contingency workers, outsourcing, automation, innovative processes or capital investment, why wouldn’t they? If tweaking a process or program empowers three people to do the work of five, then tweakonomics is the way to go. The profound difference between today and 2005 is that good hires looked like better investments than great tweaks back then. In 2010, good tweaks look like better bets than even great hires.

*     *     *

To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Review’s Daily Alerts, please click here.

Michael Schrage, a research fellow at MIT Sloan School’s Center for Digital Business, is the author of Serious Play and the forthcoming Getting Beyond Ideas.

Saturday, July 24, 2010 Posted by | Bob's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Michael Schrage on how to “plagiarize your way to productivity and profit”

Michael Schrage

Here is an excerpt from an article written by Michael Schrage for the Harvard Business Review blog. To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Review’s Daily Alerts, please click here.

*     *     *
Was it Picasso or T.S. Eliot who declared, “Good artists borrow, great artists steal”? [click here]

Who cares? It’s a great quote and even better innovation heuristic [click here].

Productive plagiarism in the Internet era isn’t for the faint of heart. Technology’s accelerating power to textually, and contextually, track “who wrote what when” has digitally updated the aphorism to “Good artists borrow, great artists steal…and get caught.”

The New York Times recently posted a hilarious piece exploring the cat-and-mouse countermeasure competition between college students and faculty in calling out cheaters. The Facebook generation’s ability to sneakily transform any mobile device into a grade-enhancing weapon of class deception is truly remarkable. American undergraduates may not be able to parse sentences or calculate percents but let no one discount their proven talent at making iPods their partners in academic crime.

Watching embattled educational empires strike back, however, is enlightening. Frustrated faculty and tech-savvy teaching assistants can be as ruthlessly innovative as their incorrigible charges. Good for them. My favorite precision-guided weapon in their arsenal is iParadigm’s Turnitin plagiarism detection service. With over 13.5 billion web pages indexed, Turnitin has become the term- paper gold-standard for faculties fed up with students who believe cut-and-paste/drag-and-drop manipulation of Wikipedia and JSTOR articles constitutes real writing and research. Turnitin’s effectiveness has successfully made plagiarism so onerous, so challenging and so risky that — surprise! — “smart” cheaters now calculate they might as well do their own work. Talk about an educational revolution…

So much for Tom Lehrer’s paean to the powers of plagiarism [click here]. Indeed, Turnitin’s corporate parent takes Lehrer’s lyrical interpretation of “research” quite seriously. The Oakland, CA firm has expanded beyond the ivory towered groves of academe into businesses where the line between “boilerplate” and “borrowing” has grown vanishingly small. The firm’s offering, iThenticate, sniffs out content copying malfeasance in publishing, government, law firms, finance and other text-intensive industries. Apparently, it’s catching on. Call it IP for IP — Innovative Protection for Intellectual Property.

There’s another spin that can be put on the software and systems for plagiarism detection and intellectual property protection. Right now, the dominant effort is to deter, or catch, a thief. I think smart organizations — organizations that care about information sharing, knowledge management, and creative collaboration — should see all this as infrastructure for creating new cultures of attribution. These technologies should be more than high-tech tools to track cheaters; they should be mechanisms for showing how organizations share ideas.

*     *     *

To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Review’s Daily Alerts, please click here.

Michael Schrage, a research fellow at MIT Sloan School’s Center for Digital Business, is the author of Serious Play and the forthcoming Getting Beyond Ideas.

Friday, July 16, 2010 Posted by | Bob's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The 15 Minutes that Could Save Five Years

Michael Schrage

Here is an excerpt from article written by Michael Schrage for the Harvard Business Review blog. To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Review’s Daily Alerts, please click here.

* * *

If you’re over 60 years old and reading this post, it’s probably too late. Good for you if you’re under 30. You’ve got a better chance if you’re younger. 

Age discrimination? No. The end of retirement as we know it — an emerging unpleasant reality that will (re)shape the quality of life and standard of living for billions. Start dealing with it. Now. If you are a knowledge worker, cognitive capitalist, or a Reichian symbolic analyst [click here http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/reich.html%5D, you will not be retiring at 65. Period. Even if you are in a protected public union with cosseted pension funds, you are at extraordinary risk. Just ask the Greeks, the Californians, or the Japanese. This is a global phenomenon. Demographics and structural deficits don’t lie. Unless the global economy comes roaring back in ways that stimulate sustainable growth in OECD countries, even the most talented professionals had better expect to work for at least another five years.

Of course, with stimulating careers, good health, and longer life spans, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But it is surely not what most mid-career executives and professionals have planned. (Indeed, there’s no shortage of optimists who still expect to enjoy the fruits of early retirement.) Forget the “saving for retirement” shibboleths. Strategically addressing those 60+ months after age 65 may be the most significant long-range planning investment in your human capital portfolio. Charles Handy’s “portfolio careers” and “How Starbucks Saved My Life” scenarios notwithstanding, the simple reality is that retirement planning as we know it is obsolete.

Everyone reading this should take 15 hard minutes to ruthlessly reassess the reality of the “new” final years of their future career. The finish line has become elusive; the goal posts have been pushed back. Based on your current skill set and competences, what do you think your workday will look like when you’re 70? Are you comfortable with the probability that you will be managing employees younger than your grandchildren? Temperamentally, do you think you’ll add more value as a mentor, a partner, or part-timer? More important, what will your (much) younger boss think?

 Do you honestly believe that, when you have to work five more years than anticipated, you can get away with not being more facile, adept, and productive with emerging technologies? The inevitable aging of the (for now) wealthier Western economies guarantees a surge of innovative device interfaces more compatible with slower fingers and tired eyes. You will, of course, be taking web-enabled professional/technical development courses at 58 or 62 or you will be fired for cause. 

Whatever your 70-year-old workday scenarios may be, what new or novel skills or experiences do they demand? Do they demand more travel or less? More time immersed in digital environments or less? More interactions with people within a decade of your age or fewer? Are there personal or professional development initiatives you should be undertaking now precisely because those five years present opportunities that the earlier deadlines don’t? 



The most important slice of those 15-minutes-for-five-more-years should focus on role models. Who are the 70+ year olds whose presence, energy, and effectiveness might profitably serve as the benchmarks for your own? Who are the two 75-year-olds who you would professionally emulate? Write them down. I know my two and why I picked them. But why have you chosen yours? What do your choices say about the kind of person you want to be at the end of your professional life? 

To be sure, there’s no shortage of 70+ and even 80+ seniors — Warren Buffett, Sumner Redstone, Pablo Casals, Louise Nevelson, Agnes de Mille, Lee Kuan Yew — for whom advancing age has not been an obstacle to productivity and professionalism. But the braver and bolder way to interpret this challenge is the recognition that, just as you can’t run or swim as fast as your 25-year-old self, your 70-year-old self will have to manage and add professional value differently than you did at 40 or 50. 

You don’t have to know — you can’t possibly know — the answer to that right now.

But it’s not too early to ask those questions and select those role models. (You’ll be fascinated to see how those selections evolve as you age). The future of “five more” doesn’t quite make a mockery of the clichéd “Have you saved enough for retirement?” and “What will you do in retirement?” questions dominating most end-of-career discussions. Make no mistake: Calculating the value of career-enhancing investments at 53 when expecting to retire at 65 requires different NPV or DCF computations and professional assessment than when making such a bet knowing you will not be retiring before 70. That’s a greater than 40% gap; it can’t be ignored or finessed. The changing structural economics of retirement almost completely overturn conventional cost/benefit calibrations for human capital investment.

* * *

To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Review’s Daily Alerts, please click here.

Michael Schrage, a research fellow at MIT Sloan School’s Center for Digital Business, is the author of Serious Play and the forthcoming Getting Beyond Ideas.

Friday, July 2, 2010 Posted by | Bob's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Michael Schrage on “the failure of failure”

Here is an excerpt from article written by Michael Schrage for the Harvard Business blog. To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Daily Alerts, please visit dailyalert@email.harvardbusiness.org.

* * *

The Failure of Failure

Failure should hold a special appeal for innovators. There’s simply no avoiding it. A myriad of innovation clichés celebrate it. And, as Rita McGrath’s recent post acutely observes, failure can and should be a productive managerial resource.

But what kinds of failure? The underlying distinctions between failures typically overwhelm their similarities. The Edsel is not the Pinto is not the Apple Newton is not Microsoft Bob. Lehman’s failure isn’t Bear Stearns’ or AIG’s — even if their root causes are comparable. Failures have their own typologies and taxonomies. Moreover, they invite a certain “blind men and an elephant” organizational pathology: We failed because of poor marketing/bad timing/quality issues/the wrong managers/etc. Failure makes confusing “blame” with “accountability” almost irresistible. That can distort both “what” and “how” organizations actually learn from failure. That’s particularly true of larger or more embarrassing ones.

What kinds of failure make the best or most useful resources for your organization? Which failures matter most for the future?

These questions were brilliantly illuminated in a brief interview with Anuj Bansal, a structural engineer who was part of a team examining the horrendous damage caused by the enormous Chilean earthquake in February. Arguably the 7th strongest earthquake ever recorded — hundreds of times more powerful than the earthquake that ravaged Haiti — the event’s intensity allowed researchers to see which seismic engineering techniques performed well and which ones utterly failed. The team posted photos and their analyses of the damages on their firm’s blog.

The essential insight is that partial failures are far more valuable than total breakdowns. Disasters are less revealing and less useful than underperformers:

“Collapsed buildings are less valuable because the evidence of how they started to unzip is hidden beneath many layers of debris,” Bansal notes. “Buildings that are partially damaged are extremely valuable from a structural engineering perspective. Closer observation of failed elements reveals the mode of failure.”

* * *

To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Daily Alerts, please visit dailyalert@email.harvardbusiness.org.

* * *

Michael Schrage, a research fellow at MIT Sloan School’s Center for Digital Business, is the author of Serious Play and the forthcoming Getting Beyond Ideas.

Monday, April 5, 2010 Posted by | Bob's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Michael Schrage on “honesty” in the workplace

Michael Schrage

Here is an excerpt from an article written by Michael Schrage for the Harvard Business blog. To read the complete article, check out other articles and resources, and/or sign up for a free subscription to Harvard Business Daily Alerts, please visit dailyalert@email.harvardbusiness.org.

* * *

Should Honesty Be the Policy in Your Office?

Would I lie to you?

Probably not, but forgive me for preserving the option. Would you conceal a damaging truth from your boss? I wouldn’t presume to guess. But one person’s “discretion” is another person’s “dishonest.” It’s getting harder to determine where one ends and the other begins.

That’s why the virtues of transparency have been wildly oversold by digital utopians. The (social) networks to organizational hell are wired with good intentions. The let’s-hold-hands-and-sing-Kumbaya arguments that “the more information we share the better off we are” are demonstrably rubbish. All too often, far greater transparency guarantees far greater conflicts. In fact, legitimate tensions between professional privacy and personal visibility are unavoidable.

Confusing transparency with integrity and honesty is a recipe for disaster.

Everyone reading this post knows at least one unhappy story of a perfectly decent job candidate who got dinged because either HR or the interviewing manager saw something on that applicant’s Facebook page — or the page of a Facebook friend — that undermined their professional desirability. Maybe a politically incorrect comment, boozy photo, or unflattering blog materialized via Google or Bing. Unfair? Unreasonable? Perhaps. But it’s today’s reality and tomorrow’s norm. I find it sadly amusing how many college graduates honestly think prospective employers shouldn’t be allowed to Google them or judge their Facebook profile. But wouldn’t it be misleading, dishonest, and unethical to digitally conceal one’s self from employment due diligence?

Just as BlackBerries and always-on mobile phones have obliterated the line between personal and professional accessibility, social media have introduced an inherent “creep factor” — in both meanings of that phrase — for colleagues, coworkers, and superiors. What do you do when your boss’ boss asks to be your Facebook friend? Do you accept invitations from some subordinates and not others? A recent survey indicates that, currently, a significant percentage of people would not want their boss asking to be a friend. What about a client? How about a promising lead? Indeed, would you want your boss to know that you’ve taken the initiative to become Facebook friends with a hot prospect? Or should you stick to LinkedIn? How would you feel if your boss “friended” your best customer without alerting you — just as you declined friending them to avoid blurring personal and professional boundaries? Is the absence of disclosure a hypocritical double standard, dishonest, or simply none of your business?

Michael Schrage, a research fellow at MIT Sloan School’s Center for Digital Business, is the author of Serious Play and the forthcoming Getting Beyond Ideas.

Saturday, March 20, 2010 Posted by | Bob's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 383 other followers

%d bloggers like this: