Amazon's Kindle e-book may turn out to be a textbook. A textbook example, that is, of how the strengths of closed platforms can quickly turn into a weakness.

From a product perspective, Kindle addresses every key weakness of its predecessors: Its screen is readable, its networking promises to be fluid and persistent, it has a keyboard so readers aren't merely readers, and it comes with a large supply of relatively low cost, popular books.

But Kindle operates in a closed universe, and that’s why it probably won’t succeed in the long term as currently constructed. It's easy to see why Amazon went with the “closed” strategy: Amazon makes money controlling the transactions and the content. That's why iPod requires you to use iTunes and that's worked out pretty well for Apple. For similar reasons, Facebook doesn't let users extract to other social networks all the information they've invested in the site.

Going with a closed strategy is often only a short-term solution. The demand for content can create pressures that force a company to open its devices or face competition from new products or platforms that trumpet their openness. For example, the success of Facebook and MySpace are responsible for the demand that Google's OpenSocial initiative addresses. Facebook this summer anticipated the demand for open social networking platforms by enabling third parties to build applications that run on it. Salesforce.com is also headed down the path to openness with its application exchange. Firefox has gained market share against Microsoft's browser in no small part because it's open to plug-ins.

In almost every case, markets tend toward openness. Being closed works sometimes, but because it's almost always done for the benefit of the company and against the interest of users, openness is almost always the right long-term strategy. Is your company or product in the crosshairs of an open movement? Here are four indicators that suggest an “open” strategy is right for you:

The benefit your product brings customers is broad and of cultural significance. We're fine using closed software for figuring out our hat size, but music, books, and friendships have such reach across every aspect of our lives that we will want to tear down the walls of any product that tries to confine us.

The quality of what your product delivers is subjective. The quality of the readings provided by a medical device that measures blood sugar is not subjective, but the quality of a music video is. The more subjective the quality, the greater the imperative that users be able to decide for themselves what they want from your product.

The benefit your product brings naturally wants to be a commodity. If the price of what your product delivers is high only because you have a lock on the market, your lock is unlikely to hold. The New York Times certainly has a lock on the output of NY Times columnists, yet it recently ended the Times Select program, enabling people once again to read those columnists without a paid subscription. While NY Times columnists are not exactly a commodity “product,” in an age of abundance insight is nevertheless in over-supply.

Your product could be construed as a platform. Does it provide a broad (as opposed to narrow) service? Does it benefit by enabling a wide variety of functions? If so, as your product succeeds, users benefit if more and more functionality is poured into it ... more functionality than could be supplied by your company alone.

What about you? Do you think Kindle will be able to maintain itself as a relatively closed system? How about iTunes? Where do you see openness encroaching next?

David Weinberger is the author of Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.

This article also appears in the November, 2007, issue of Harvard Business Review with the title "Munchausen at Work."

One particularly disturbing psychological disorder is Munchausen by proxy, in which a caregiver exaggerates, fabricates, or induces illness in another person in order to get praise for then helping the victim. A similar pathology occurs in workplaces when employees create fictitious organizational problems, only to solve them. This behavior, which I call Munchausen at work (MAW), wastes managerial time and resources and can threaten morale and productivity. I set about defining its characteristics after being struck by accounts of MAW behavior among team members in the course of three years studying factors affecting team performance in more than 30 companies across industries. Although MAW is infrequent, most experienced managers have encountered it, and they acknowledge that it can be highly disruptive.

Consider this case from a Fortune 100 professional services firm that I studied. "Philip" had a reputation for his ability to get people to work together. He would proudly share tales of how, under his guidance, people in vigorous conflict had rebuilt productive working relationships. Upper management often praised him for this ability, and he was one of the first people put on any key client's team. But over time it emerged that the conflicts Philip so adeptly defused were of his own creation.

From bits of information gathered from many teams, management discovered that in the early stages of a project, before the team had had a chance to establish healthy relationships, Philip would target individuals in whom to plant the seeds of conflict. In one case he worked subtly to convince "Mary" that "Tom" did not want to work with her, and shortly thereafter convinced Tom that Mary was reluctant to be his teammate. In no time a dysfunctional relationship between the two became obvious to all. Philip then expertly resolved the conflict, using his insider knowledge of its causes. Management's suspicions about Philip's behavior were confirmed when early team dynamics improved after Philip had been removed from team roles.

Munchausen at work runs the spectrum from highly destructive tactics like Philip's to nuisance behaviors that quietly corrode organizational effectiveness. It may involve simply embellishing a real problem or making it appear that one looms on the horizon. Just as solving a problem of one's own creation can generate rewards, so can bringing an inflated or predicted "crisis" to the attention of others.

Some MAW perpetrators – I call this type the "reluctant hero" – withhold valued but discretionary contributions at work in order to generate problems that will lead others to implore them to return to duty. For example, an employee may create some dependency within the organization by volunteering to mentor new hires and then threaten to give up the role, citing competing obligations. The perpetrator doesn't necessarily want to withdraw but does want to win attention for remaining. Of course employees often have legitimate reasons for shedding discretionary duties. But MAW perpetrators engage in a regular, destabilizing pattern of commitment and withdrawal.

Another type, the "do-looper" (named after computer routines that run repeatedly if conditions are right), constantly lights small fires and then puts them out. Most do-looping involves first creating and then remedying shortages of supplies, information, or other resources. One do-looper I encountered was brilliant at fixing travel-agency mistakes for his boss, and was often praised for his efforts. It was eventually discovered that the mistakes he "fixed" had never actually occurred.

Many managers I've spoken with nod knowingly when I describe MAW. However, diagnosis is difficult. A manager who suspects an employee of Munchausen at work should ask these questions:

• Is the employee disproportionately involved in identifying and fighting fires?

• Is the employee unusually resistant to offers of help in addressing problems he or she has identified?

• Does the employee deflect management's efforts to understand a problem's underlying cause?

• Are the facts and coworkers' accounts at odds with the employee's claims about a problem's existence or severity?

• Are problems with a project, a customer, or a process, or between colleagues, frequently resolved in the employee's absence?

"Yes" answers to these questions don't conclusively confirm MAW, of course. But they signal that managers may want to be on the alert for repeated episodes and to validate their suspicions with multiple observers. If Munchausen at work seems likely, the best remedies are to reduce the attention and other rewards that are tied to solutions and, more broadly, to limit perpetrators' opportunities for creating specific problems.

See the complete contents of this month's Harvard Business Review.

MORE ON DEALING WITH DIFFICULT EMPLOYEES:
Toxic Emotions at Work and What You Can Do About Them (Paperback)
Dealing with Difficult People: The Results-Driven Manager Series (Paperback)
Leading People: Pocket Mentor Series (Paperback)

Dave Balter is the founder and CEO of BzzAgent

Bill Taylor ends his recent post about BzzAgent’s transparent mindset with an intriguing question: “Are you ready to share your challenges and setbacks with the outside world?”

In this era of post-Enron skepticism, consumer distrust is at an all time high. Corporate missteps have created a “guilty until proven innocent” customer mentality. Someone receives a higher-than-expected phone bill and immediately thinks, “The carrier is trying to rip me off!” Toys are coated in lead paint, and parents assume the manufacturer was trying to cut costs. Companies are beginning to recognize that transparency is the counterweight to public skepticism.

There’s a perception of risk that comes along with radical transparency. It’s the “what if” dilemma. Just before tearing open the corporate veil, most companies blush. Then blink. They think: What if we screw up? What if profits shrink? What if we have layoffs?

But what they should be asking is, “What if we never regain the public’s trust?”

The blogosphere was harshly critical of AT&T’s Dish Network when it held a San Diego couple financially responsible for their $300 satellite receiver after the unit was destroyed [along with their entire home] in the recent southern California wildfires. This unthinkable [and short-lived] customer “service” decision not only made AT&T Dish Network look heartless, it made all companies a little less human, a little less trustworthy. While the company later backed off its demands, the damage had been done, and a PR-penned apology issued several days later satisfied no one.

Now imagine if AT&T had publicly articulated their automated billing process, accepted responsibility for the awkward situation, and explained that they were working to resolve it [not to mention canceling the bill for the customer in question, as well as any others in the same situation]. If a company recognizes their mistakes and is up front about them, most consumers are willing to show a more lenient sense of understanding.

While the case for transparency is pretty clear, the real question is: How open is open enough? Where the line gets drawn is a critical consideration. Committing to transparency shouldn’t be confused with sharing confidential information. Rather, it means providing some insight into your thinking and considerations, so that those around you can feel involved and empowered.

Recently, BzzAgent began reworking a major aspect of our business model – our rewards platform – and the outcome is likely to impact many of our 350,000 community members. Last night, we publicly shed some light on what we consider flaws in our process, by posting to our blog a hard-hitting complaint … along with our response. While we were very clear about where we believe we’ve failed [how we’ve treated the program over the last few years] and how we’re thinking about solving [starting with discussions with those impacted], we didn’t point fingers, name clients or cite vendors. Being transparent is about opening up the dialog, not airing dirty laundry. Additionally, it’s not about asking others to run your business, but letting them understand the decisions you’re making to help the business work for them.

Every business has setbacks and challenges. Managers make tough decisions and companies make mistakes. Being open about the realities of your business is rarely attacked. In that light, your greatest setback may be trying to hide from them.

MORE ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND TRUST:
Placing Trust at the Center of Your Internet Strategy (SMR Article)
The Buzz on Buzz (HBR Article)
How Do Customers Judge Quality in an E-Tailer? (SMR Article)
Beating the Market with Customer Satisfaction (HBR Article)

Dave Ulrich and Norm Smallwood are the authors of Leadership Brand: Developing Customer-Focused Leaders to Drive and Build Lasting Value

Ensuring that a leader demonstrates all 8 Habits or is Authentic or Exercises Judgment or has Emotional Intelligence or any other set of personal characteristics is half right. The other half is ensuring that these competencies really deliver results through the value they create for others. As we discussed in our last post, leaders should build on their strengths that strengthen others. Simply put, leaders must deliver results to stakeholders.

Who are these stakeholders and what do they want?

Employees want to work in a place where they can meet their personal needs and wants. Leaders who create job assignments, work environments, and visions help employees be both competent and committed to their work.

Customers want leaders to build compelling products and services so that they can trust and when they do, customers will give share of wallet.

Communities want leaders to build organizations that are socially responsible, through how they treat the environment and how they serve the larger community.

Investors want leaders to keep their promises, develop a compelling growth strategy, align core competencies to the strategy and then to ensure that people are committed to delivering on these premises. When they do, investors reward the organization with high levels of confidence in the future which translates into higher market value.

Regulators want leaders to govern themselves in accordance with high ethical principles and in a manner consistent with professional and legal standards.

So the next logical question is, how do leaders build the strengths to deliver value to others?
Effective leaders start by asking how they can add value to what each of these stakeholders needs. Once this is clear, leaders map these needs against their existing strengths, identifying shortcomings and making plans to develop personal competencies that deliver on stakeholders’ needs.

What about you? What stakeholders do you most need to serve?

MORE ON LEADERSHIP:
Leadership Brand: Developing Customer-Focused Leaders to Drive and Build Lasting Value (Hardcover)
The Lessons from Stakeholder Theory for U.S. Business Leaders (Business Horizons Article)
Building a Leadership Brand (HBR Article)
What It Takes to Be an Effective Leader (Collection)

Charlene Li is a Vice President and Principal Analyst at Forrester Research.

(For a different take on social media and business, read Tom Davenport's Why Facebook and MySpace Won't Change the Workplace.)

As an analyst, I’m often asked by people why they should bother with services like LinkedIn, Facebook, and MySpace, both from a personal as well as corporate perspective.

Let’s start with a fundamental premise – that all business is social and personal. Business involves people and communications and we all prize “networking” skills and opportunities. Businesses don’t strike deals with each other – people do. And we build bonds by talking about everything from sports teams and the weather to our families and hobbies.

So we as business people already engage in social networking every day, primarily through phone calls, emails, meetings, and events. The same activities take place on social networking sites – people share the tidbits and moments that build relationships.

Yet, many people when they first go and experiment with a site like Facebook, don’t find it relevant to their professional lives. There are two reasons for this: 1) Your professional colleagues are likely not actively using Facebook; and 2) Most of the applications today aren’t designed for a business context.

Let’s take the first problem – you may not have many friends in these social networks. This was my problem – it was only this past spring that people I actually know started using Facebook. My friends are posting links, book reviews, the events they were going to, and suddenly, I now find myself at a near addiction with Facebook. I went to an event because five friends said they would be there. And when I saw them at the event, I congratulated them on closing a round of financing and asked about their recent vacation – all of which had been shared on Facebook. What’s the business value of staying on top of your network? As we know from experience, priceless.

Now for the second problem. Business applications on services like Facebook have yet to take off, which is why people like Tom Davenport have a hard time seeing the business value of social networking sites. I don’t blame him – after all, the most popular applications on Facebook today include such frivolous things like playing Scrabble and Vampires (where you “bite” your friends – don’t ask). That’s because these applications are being designed by 20-something developers for their 20-something friends.

But remember: The notion of creating social applications is only 6 months old – we are in the early days here. Business-oriented developers are just now waking up to the possibilities, and the audience that would use these tools are just discovering social networking. It’s going to take some time for these two sides to find each other and develop an ecosystem for business applications.

Here’s an example – LinkedIn described to me a new social application that would show events in your industry that are coming up – and who in your network is going to them. It will also show you people in that city that you could connect with. So if you know that colleagues, suppliers, partners, funders, customers, etc. are going to be gathering, you’re going to want to be there too.

There’s one final business value that companies are already seeing – and that’s reaching the people who are using social networking sites. Advertising on social networking sites won’t work well – but communicating with people, talking with the “fans” of your products on Facebook makes a lot of sense. Victoria’s Secret has badges that its enthusiasts can download on MySpace on put on their profiles for their friends to see. Ernst & Young (yes, an accounting firm!) answers questions from college students on Facebook – people they are trying hard to recruit.

So don’t write off social networking sites as merely social playgrounds for the young. Your customers, prospects, and employees are exploring and extending their relationships there. Some of you will be bolder in creating business value in these networks while others will wait for the pioneers to carve out the paths. But ignore these new communities only if you believe your customers are not there – and there are few instances where this will be the case.

Does your business embrace social networks? Or is it taking a hands-off approach?

MORE ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND BUSINESS
Tom Davenport: Why Facebook and MySpace Won't Change the Workplace
Facebook (Case)
Friendster (Case)
A Practical Guide to Social Networks (HBR Article)
The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations (Hardcover)

Chris Resto is the author of Recruit or Die: How Any Business Can Beat the Big Guys in the War for Young Talent

Today’s young talent have gotten a lot of press about being overly needy or having an air of entitlement. But in many cases the disconnects that arise between recent graduates and veteran management are simply because today’s youngest professionals are in the habit of asking “Why?”

Why should I work for you?

Why am I not being promoted faster?

Why can’t I lead a project already?

These are a few of the questions that are making recruiters and managers feel like they’re dealing with children. And relative to the larger corporate population, that’s not far from the truth. Generation “Why” is brand new to the world of work, and they come with a brand new set of experiences and expectations.

Ten, twenty, and thirty years ago, Gen X’ers and Boomers were just happy to have a job straight out of college. In those days, you did what you were told and it was up to you to figure out “why” for yourself.

Today’s young talent have grown used to having more information and a little more nurturing – from parents, from universities competing for their tuition dollars, and now from the best recruiting companies.

The most enlightened organizations don’t think this “neediness” is a bad thing at all. In fact, they see questions from young employees as signs that they care about contributing to the organization, and as opportunities to capitalize on the ambition, energy, and enthusiasm for which they hired young talent in the first place.

Here are three steps you must take to join the ranks of companies turning this need for reasons into results.

1. Adopt an educational mindset. Accept constant questions from young talent as a given and embrace your chance to shape their professional expectations and their perspectives on your company. Talent-driven firms like Goldman Sachs have even shown that “molding your own” can be a competitive advantage.

2. Anticipate and answer common questions during the recruiting and on-boarding process. You can save yourself a lot of management headaches by educating prospects before they are employees. Two must-answer questions: How will working for you advance my career? How will my role actually benefit the company’s overall mission?

3. Tackle the tough questions head-on. Too often companies lose great talent by shying away from confrontation. The firms brave enough to broach the biggest issues have an edge. When I worked for Gemini Consulting (now CapGemini) and started getting anxious for a promotion, a senior person took the time to explain why I was better off not being promoted prematurely. She explained everything that the next-level consultant needed to do well and why it takes time to develop some skills and attitudes. She even provided data points of people who were promoted prematurely and struggled, as well as folks who took a bit longer to acquire more experience and were flourishing in their new roles. I thank her to this day for taking the time to educate me and now I educate others.

Of course, the key to all of this is your people believing that questions from your young guns can be productive contributions rather than detracting annoyances. And I firmly believe that most questions from Generation Why are asked out of desire to do a better job.

So be thoughtful and patient with questions from your young employees. Their transformation from Gen Y to Gen "Why?" may be a good thing.

MORE ON MANAGING FOR PERFORMANCE:
Workforce Wisdom: Insights on Recruiting, Hiring, and Retaining Your Best People (Collection)
Retaining Your Best People: The Results-Driven Manager Series (Paperback)
Coaching People: Pocket Mentor Series (Paperback)

Dave Ulrich and Norm Smallwood are the authors of Leadership Brand: Developing Customer-Focused Leaders to Drive and Build Lasting Value

You can’t walk into a conference these days without bumping the door on a speaker who is trumpeting the value of building on your strengths. It’s easy to understand why this message resonates. From the time we start school, we are evaluated on our weaknesses. Most of us dread this. “Build on your strengths” sounds like one of those alternative schools where people painted or sang and danced all day instead of memorizing dates in history or taking pre-algebra. Who wouldn’t rather sing and dance?

But building only on your strengths is not enough if those strengths do not create value for those you lead. Leadership is about delivering value and value is ultimately defined by the receiver. Making sure your strengths build value for others means that you must focus on your team before yourself.

Effective individual contributors who want to become great supervisors or managers must stop doing what makes them successful and build new competencies if what made them successful isn’t what your constituency needs. It’s about identifying what it is that delivers value to those you lead and then assessing what you need to develop to meet those needs.

Some examples of possible constituencies: Those you serve inside the company, employees who report to you, peers you collaborate with, and executives who lead the company. Others who get value from your leadership include customers, investors, communities, and company partners. If you really want to lead, find out what these stakeholders need.

One way to do this is to ask each stakeholder what they want from you. It’s likely that each stakeholder has different perspectives about what you can do to create value for them. Listen to them, spend time with them, observe them, and understand them. When you know what they want, only then can you figure out what to do. You may find out that what you are good at isn’t enough. In these cases, you shouldn’t build on your strengths.

One turnaround specialist CEO we know asked analysts, investors, franchisors, customers and employees what they wanted from the company in the upcoming year. Analysts and investors said they wanted the CEO to build on his strengths by continuing to cut costs. Franchisors, customers and employees argued against cost reductions, saying the company needed to focus on service improvements in order to ensure customer loyalty. The CEO realized that the easy path for him would be to implement cost reductions--it was his strength and it would likely raise the stock price incrementally if he were to promise another round of cuts. However, he believed that the franchisors, customers and employees were right. But he didn’t have strength in this area, so he hired additional leaders into his management team that knew how to do customer service.

This was something that he had never done before. He had always flipped companies before they got to this next stage. He told us how hard it was to allow resources for things he always cut in his previous turnaround experiences. He worked against his strengths but did it to create value. As a result of his efforts, the stock rose dramatically and things continue to go well. By not building on his strengths, this leader created more value for everyone.

Have you found success working against your leadership strengths do you always go with what you’re good at?

MORE ON LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT:
Leadership Brand: Developing Customer-Focused Leaders to Drive and Build Lasting Value (Hardcover)
Building Your Leadership Bench (HBR Article Collection)
In Praise of the Incomplete Leader (HBR Article)

Leading change is never easy, but in some contexts it’s especially difficult. Ask Elaine Weinstein. A former HR executive at KeySpan, she encountered strong resistance to change when management at the unionized utility decided to implement some new HR and work-flow processes that would eliminate a great deal of redundancy. “Frontline employees really resisted this -- they were very married to the old processes, even though they were tedious and time-consuming,” she says.

But Weinstein persevered and eventually won buy-in from the front lines. What’s noteworthy is not simply that she was able to turn around a deeply dug-in workforce, but how she went about doing it. Among the techniques she used: role-play.

Weinstein, who’s currently EVP at the New York City-based consultancy Mullin & Associates/Lincolnshire International, talked about this experience -- and how to effectively use role-play to help overcome change resisters -- at a recent Conference Board event in New York City. Here are two pieces of her advice:

1. Have employees perform skits contrasting the old and the new

Change-initiative goals can seem like abstract “management speak” to the rank and file, without real meaning or value. To communicate the value of increased efficiency, Weinstein had select frontline employees who were already on board with the change put on a skit for their colleagues contrasting the old processes with the new.

The skit highlighted that using the new processes would make their work easier and leave them more time for more interesting tasks, she said.

As a bonus, this role-play exercise served as a quality check on the change initiative’s goals. “We learned that if you can’t demonstrate it, throw it out -- the language is meaningless.”

2. Use role-play to prepare “trust figures” to be change agents

Change efforts elicit fear. And when people are fearful, they are less likely to trust what they hear from on high and buy into the change. At KeySpan, Weinstein and her team enlisted “trust figures” to be change agents. These were well-liked, well-respected middle managers and individual performers who were strong communicators and had been with the organization for a while and knew its ins and outs.

To prepare them to persuade in the face of concerted resistance, Weinstein and her team had them role-play dialogues like this one:

Resister: Yeah, I hear what you say, but I’ve been around a long time -- this sounds like another “Flavor of the Month.”

Change Agent: Help me understand what happened before. [Gives Resister time to vent.] If I explain to you why this time will be different, will you hear me out? [Change Agent lists why she believes this initiative will be successful.]

Resister: You really drank the Kool-Aid!

Change Agent: [smiles] Have I ever said something untrue to you? Can you trust me a little bit here? [pause for response] How about we meet again in three weeks to share our experiences. You tell me what you’ve seen and heard that supports or doesn’t support what I’m telling you, and I’ll tell you more of what I’ve learned. OK?

The goal of this exercise was to help change agents leverage their status as trust figures to persuade change resisters to suspend disbelief and consider that the change might be positive: “Ideally, the change agent gets her colleagues to look at the changes around them with fresh eyes and see their value, in the process converting them into change champions.”