Levine’s research and teaching have been features in print, radio and television in North and South America, Europe and Asia.
In the workplace, sharing knowledge doesn’t always benefit the bottom line. Conventional wisdom among managers holds that employees helping each other can only be good for a company. Accordingly, firms spend money, time and effort to promote what’s known as “knowledge transfer.” Policies range from the popular (lavish company retreats) to the maligned (switching desks every six months so that everyone has a chance to sit near everyone else). Recently, firms have even begun creating their own in-house social networks. But according to new research from the MIT Sloan School of Management, sharing is not necessarily good for the bottom line.
Wikipedia et ses pairs, ou l’avènement d’un nouveau mode de production
Wikipedia just turned 10. The largest reference work ever produced, the Web site makes vast amounts of knowledge available to everyone that was once available to just a few scholars in major university libraries. But some thinkers say the volunteer-written encyclopedia is itself a sign of something still more important: the rise of social production. What can explain it? How will it develop? Can it expand beyond the internet?
Also available in French
Watch excerpt of the hour-long show broadcasted on Turkey’s TRT1
Levine speaks of the risks of inflated housing prices in China, Hong Kong and other countries in a Radio China International interview
In a recent study, Levine has found that often what gives firms competitive advantage isn’t just their repository of knowledge, but their use of “performative ties” — those impromptu communications made by colleagues who are strangers in which critical knowledge is transferred with no expectation of a quid pro quo. Levine and others explain how performative ties function in daily practice and — more importantly — how managers can go about encouraging them.
- Available in Spanish, Portuguese , Simplified and Traditional Chinese
- Reprinted in Wharton on Learning Leadership
- Cited in The Economic Times, India
- Cited in Affärsvärlden, Sweden
“The fascinating thing that many [Napster analysts] have missed is that the company was based not on trading but sharing.”
While media industry pundits argued that “Napster will…set the trends for the way music content is distributed, sold and marketed over interactive channels”, Levine said:”Napster was not born as a business idea, Napster was born as part of this movement toward sharing…How they are going to make money off that nobody knows… I don’t see how they are going to charge money and keep their users.” Eventually, the attempt to commercialize Napster ended in an estimated $85 million loss. The brand name was salvaged and sold for $5 million to create a commercial service.
Chosen from more than 1,450 letters on the 2000 election debacle, this published letter to the editor criticized the actions of both parties and predicted the bitter political bickering that followed.
In the summer of 2000, Levine predicted that the legal fight to shut down Napster, the popular file sharing software, will have a negligible effect on the growing movement of music sharing on-line. Further, he predicted that the trend will expand to include digitized full length movies.