« "HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?" | Sacred Cow Dung Home | Spiderware.com: LinkedIn: Connections Envy »
May 19, 2005
CONFESSION: I am an "SPP" LinkedIn User ...
[original posted in MLPF thread — cgm]
Yahoo! Groups : MyLinkedinPowerForum Messages : Message 2798 of 2871
In follow-up to my previous post, I thought it might make some sense for me to share (or "come clean about") my personal "Best Practices" when using LinkedIn
(not that anyone should care about my approach but more as a frame of reference in thinking about how you are approaching your own personal networking strategy) ...
First, I like to optimize systems to my own needs - not AVERAGE needs -- my needs ... I may start with an AVERAGE or DEFAULT configuration, but once I learn how it works, I like to tweak systems I use ... This generally means optimizing each of the components separately, based on what they do best -- For example, rather than an integrated stereo with okay components, I'd rather put together a system where I control the quality or characteristics of each of the components separately to optimize what matters to me most (amplifier, speakers, etc.... for fidelity, bass, loudness, etc)
In my mind, I can control three basic components on LinkedIn (other than my own profile, of course)
1) Connections
2) Profile Recommendations
3) Request Recommendations
In my mind, Linkedin promotes an "integrated stereo" or "one-size fits-all" view -- in other words, LinkedIn recommends that your decision regarding #1 (CONNECTIONS) should be based, a priori, on your decisions regarding #2 (PROFILE RECs) and/or #3 (REQUEST RECs) -- this is certainly reasonable for AVERAGE stereo performance or beginner audiophiles (rock, classical, country, etc all using the same settings), but what if you decide to listen to just classical music? The reality is that you can uncouple these decisions to tweak your network for your personal needs (and those in your network)
So here is my "Stereo Set-up," tweaked for my needs --
1) CONNECTIONS
My Principle: << Everyone Deserves a Chance>>
As I've reiterated numerous times, I personally have no basis to judge the value of any potential connection "a priori" so I am a "LinkedIn SLUT" when it comes to accepting connections ...
Also, I'm not even convinced their profile is really relevant because connections -- in reality --- have three functions --
1) REACH
a PASSIVE process -- extending search engine reach so that you, and others in your network, can find or be found
2) SCREENING
a SIMPLE process -- filtering out BS requests and spam
3) GATEKEEPING
a PROACTIVE process -- a "proxy" function for the ultimate decisionmaker: the target recipient of a request
if you think about it --
#1 (REACH)
Reach is automatic and requires no intervention other than the original opt-in to connect
#2 (SCREENING)
A total stranger can manage #2 -- How much do you really have to "Trust" someone to determine that a request is completely irrelevant BS or total spam? Not much ... and if someone repeatedly fails to screen, you have recourse -- cut them off -- done!
The real value of SCREENING is actually the DETERRENCE effect it has on the ORIGINATION of BS and spam --
Most LinkedIn requests get forwarded (90% plus, last I heard) -- so it sometimes feels like you aren't performing your screening function well if you aren't rejecting more requests -- but this is not true -- resist the urge to reject more ...
Remember: if the "one-to-one disclosed accountability" of the Linkedin referral chain were not in place -- LinkedIn would quickly degenerate into a major spam machine and would be rendered useless ...
so even this function could be made "automatically" by some or even all connections (ie totally NON-SELECTIVE) and still LinkedIn would work well (just as long as "connections" retain the POTENTIAL to perform filtering -- even if no one is actually doing any filtering -- because of the strong deterrent effect of the "LinkedIn human spam filter")
#3 (GATEKEEPING)
It is only in function #3 where it could be argued that "trust" or "intimate knowledge" MIGHT make a difference ...
but in reality it rarely does ... And, in my mind, it is actually a STRONG NEGATIVE because the underlying <GATEKEEPING> supposition is entirely FALSE:
<<YOUR CONTACTS KNOW BETTER THAN YOU WHAT IS OF VALUE TO YOU>>
This is just categorically FALSE -- and I'm not sure we even grant our spouses that kind of authority ... (and what about the value of serendipity???? ... an entirely different discussion, of course ...)
In reality, as long has the "one-to-one accountability chain" is in place (#2) ... you are generally left with the following situation:
<<a real person who is a registered member of LinkedIn and has his or her profile fully-disclosed for all Linkedin members to read and who is currently looking for someone or something, has found your public profile during a search, and, based on that profile, has determined that they have something potentially relevant to discuss with you>>
Now why on earth would I trust anyone to decide whether or not that situation is relevant to me??????
Obviously, the only reason to have a gatekeeper is not "relevance of requests" but "VOLUME of requests" --
Busy executives have lots of gatekeepers and, certainly, celebrities need gatekeepers, but, unless you are overwhelmed with requests currently (a blessing for most), gatekeepers actually add NEGATIVE VALUE -- a trade-off overwhelmed people are willing to make but not something that makes sense for most of us ... most people, rightfully, reserve RELEVANCY decisions for themselves -- provided they aren't overwhelmed ... and, for most people, the passive deterrence effect of #2 is enough to keep the volumes of requests manageable ...
So, as far as "number of connections" -- I am completely open and will generally connect to almost anyone (ie I am a CONNECTION SLUT) and assume they are valuable until proven otherwise ... time will tell who has value and what that value really is ...
2 - PROFILE RECOMMENDATIONS
However, just because I am a "CONNECTION SLUT", does not mean that I am non-selective when it comes to Profile Recommendations -- in fact, I am a RECOMMENDATION PRUDE ... both in sending and accepting recommendations
This goes both ways, while I encourage "connection inflation", "recommendation inflation" makes no sense at all to me and is usually counter-productive -- if only for it's dilutive effect ... and why would I recommend someone I don't know, have only meet once, have only talked on the phone with, only know online, etc.? Each case if different, but needs to be decided both by the writer and the acceptor ...
My Principle: <<Recommendations are the exception - not the rule>>
ie I feel no obligation to recommend anyone for anything ever -- I must feel moved to do so because of something special I have personally witnessed in someone's character -- that said, my lack of a recommendation is in no way reflective of my valuation of that person -- positive or negative
also, I feel I must be "uniquely qualified" to make a recommendation -- for example, my determination that Brad Pitt is handsome or talented is no different than anyone else's so I would not add my "recommendation" to his hat unless I had had a special experience with him that isn't "common knowledge" ...
To me, Recommendations are a product of a relationship (online, offline, or whatever) and not all relationships warrant a recommendation -- or a recommendation in every circumstance ...
and <<just because you received a recommendation doesn't mean you should post it on you profile>> ...
the decision to post is personal but I would recommend that each post should be unique or emphasize something different ... why do you need 20 identical recommendations? ... three which are different is much more important and much more powerful ...
3 - REQUEST RECOMMENDATIONS
Why can't we decide this on a case by case basis?
Why does every referral need to be accompanied by a personal recommendation?
And what the hell is this "reputation" thing anyway and why should anyone even care about it?
Sure, one of your connections might be an "complete asshole in disguise" -- but time and process will ferret those out on their own and some vague notion of a totally unmeasurable metric called "reputation" has nothing to do with it and just confuses everyone ...
There are lots of people I would never write a recommendation for in their profile BUT where I WOULD recommend their requests based on my personal knowledge of their "FIT to the request" ... but if I don't have that special knowledge, it doesn't mean the request is any less valid or that I should not be connected to them or that I should not be forwarding their requests --
my adding a recommendation on a request is just a bonus which can be offered on a case by case basis and depends much more on the specific request and the specific destination than any intimate knowledge of a connection's character ...
In Summary --
My Personal LinkedIn Settings Are "SPP"
1) CONNECTION = SLUT
2) PROFILE RECOMMENDATIONS = PRUDE
3) REQUEST RECOMMENDATIONS = PRUDE
So I am an "SPP" LinkedIn User -- and the guy I posted the other day who rejected me, but with very well-defined criteria, is probably a "PPP" ... but he could also be a "PSP" or even a "PSS" and still be just as effective for his personal needs ...
And, I think we can all agree that an "SSS" approach is counter-productive for both the user AND his network
(and that an SPP should never be confused with an SSS)
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it (at least for now -- or pending comments of my fellow MLPF members) ...
BTW,
Noticeably absent in my discussion is the issue of VALUE or QUANTITY of connections ---
This is because I believe this is a separate component that you uniquely control and is entirely independent of whether or not you are an SPP, PPP, PSS, etc ...
In other words, it isn't whether or not you are an SPP or PPP that determines your value or quality as a connection ...
My QUALITY Principle is
<<The only QUALITY you control is YOUR OWN>>
I separate out my own issues of "responsiveness" "helpfulness" etc and work on these for myself -- if I'm yelled at for a bad behavior (tardy forward, poor explanation, BS forward, etc.), it's my fault and I try to accept that responsibility, explain what happened, apologize, and try to modify future behavior ... And however I decide to behave, I never hold others to my own standards or value them for how much they give to me but rather how much I give to them (ie I, like most people on this forum, subscribe to the so-called "pay it forward" concept)
Sorry about the length of this post -- just got carried away
BTW, Here is the List of the Top LinkedIn SuperConnectors or SuperNodes
=====================
Related Posts
- Sacred Cow Dung: "Right-Sizing" Your Network -- Managing Your PANs, CANs, and FANs
- A Friend in Every City » Blog Archive » Networking why quality emerges from quantity
- Spiderware.com: LinkedIn: The Myth of Having Too Many Connections
- Connecting with Connectors
- Spiderware.com: LinkedIn: Connections Envy
- Bowling Alone, by Robert Putnam -- Social Capital: What is it?
- Sacred Cow Dung: CONFESSION: I am an SPP LinkedIn User ...
- Sacred Cow Dung: HOW LOW CAN YOU GO
- The Dark Side of the Network - Ecademy
- Yahoo! Groups : LinkedInnovators Messages : Message 151 of 631
- Sacred Cow Dung: The more Connections, the more Transactions - Ecademy
- Sacred Cow Dung: CHEATER'S GUIDE TO LINKEDIN v 0.1
- Sacred Cow Dung: Mark Granovetter Publications
- SiliconBeat: LinkedIn bows to reality -- shifts to promiscuous-celibate strategy
Posted by cmayaud at 02:46 PM | Permalink| Comments (1)
Del.icio.us Tagging |
Digg This
| Posted to Online Business Networking
Comments
Just another confession from a mega-connector or a link-collector as Konstantin from LinkedIn tags us mega-connector:
* I am a connection slut.
* I only endorse people I've really worked with (several months).
* I forward all requests.
Posted by: Eric Mariacher at January 19, 2006 09:48 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
